Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JPhish

---

Yeh. J.C. Bose. Being from that part of the world myself, I had to read one of his essays in school when I was fourteen.

In literature class.

The idea that plants can feel emotions is yet another warm-fuzzy myth without any hint of scientific support. More here.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Amaterasu

---

This is your idea of scientifically tenable evidence? A heap of god-bothering tosh that has to be undercut with a statutory disclaimer in order to avoid being deservedly sued by the family of some poor pillock who actually followed the diet and ended up in hospital, or croaked? Gosh, that's really convincing.

I am curious... What do YOU attribute the cancer epidemic to?

What epidemic?

(Scroll down to the graph, please,)

Live and learn, eh?

The fact that plants have a nervous system and react to outside stimulus is documented in The Secret Life of Plants with experimentational validation and bibliography.

Again, you're grabbing onto the authority argument, because you left brain slaves need someone to tell you what to think.

Living in a world where there is always two sides to every story and people have to take an individual stand, apparently is too much for you.

There are scientific studies either way for almost everything.

Have you even had a pot plant?

* * *

The GMO crops are not as good as advertized.

Of course they are going to cover their tail ends with disclaimers. That is the publisher's requirement. It's SOP.

There were no graphs (except one I clicked around for that had SAMPLE plastered across it...and that one was for the years 2000 to 2004, a very poor sampling. Do they have one for 1950-2008?)

Chemo came in at about (1975)

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Zepherian

---

1) I asked you to show me evidence that organic farming produces yields equal to non-organic farming. I am uninterested in propaganda concerning the finer feelings of broccoli.

(...)

2) Yet here I am, taking on the lot of you single-handed, arguing patiently for commonsense and rationality in the eye of a hurricane of misinformation and superstition, carefully supporting my statements with reliable, trustworthy data and enduring your gratuitous insults without retaliating. Is that not taking a stand?

(...)

3)

There are scientific studies either way for almost everything.

No, there are not. If you think there are, you understand nothing of science. But then, so few people do...


(...)

4) A few. Not to mention a large tropical garden that required a pretty backbreaking Sunday to maintain - I'm glad I don't have it any more. And - oh yes - when my country was run by Socialists and I was about eleven, we had to dig up our school playing-fields and 'grow more food for the nation'. Early morning, before classes commenced. The hard way, with mattocks and hoes. Traditional farming, you know. The old-fashioned, organic sort.

Edit Note: numbering by Zepherian

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by crimvelvet

---

If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
The source website looks like bunk to me, first of all.

Second, commons sense tells us that this story has to be false. 'Organic' food, is food grown without pesticides and without chemical fertilizers. It is the food that our Grand Parents and Great Grandparents ate, and their generations and older, rarely died of Cancer. Interestingly, the Cancer rates have grown at nearly the same rates that society has increased the use of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides (which themselves are often know Carcinogens). Don't be naive, or bigoted towards Organic foods, it leads you down a path of ignorance.

Politically, 'Organic' foods tend to be much more locally sourced than their mainstream chemically grown counterparts, which has a secondary effect preventing Chinese export of food products. That is, unless the Chinese want USDA investigators 'living' in their food processing plants. In order for the Chinese to sell 'Organic' foods in the United States, they would have to pass USDA certification, or implement their own program modeled after the USDA one, but possibly exceeding it. Even then, the USDA would need to 'certify' their certification.

Most of all, I think this 'article' is designed to pacify a future populace of their education about nutrition. I think that without the use of Petro-Chemically engineered foods, that the Population of China would grow very hungry. I think that this article, and its placement here at ATS are here to obfuscate the truth, and give credence to propaganda. If the people of China understood the truth about the foods that they are given, they would revolt for those reasons alone.

Deny Ignorance
DocMoreau

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Amaterasu

---

Of course they are going to cover their tail ends with disclaimers. That is the publisher's requirement. It's SOP.

Not for scientifically authenticated, peer-reviewed work. Look, your book is bogus. You have admitted that it pushes a religious angle, which utterly invalidates it as a scientific document. I have established that its author is a quack with a meaningless Ph.D from a massage school. His publishers insist, quite rightly, on putting a disclaimer, not just on his book, but on the web site. Yet here you are, still defending the indefensible. I raise my hat to your tenacity and your steadfast refusal to look reality in the face.

There were no graphs (except one I clicked around for that had SAMPLE plastered across it...and that one was for the years 2000 to 2004, a very poor sampling. Do they have one for 1950-2008?)

Couldn't work the taps, eh? Okay, I'll do it for you:


US Cancer Incidence and Mortality, 1975-2005

Trends in US Cancer Incidence and Mortality, 1975-2005

source

2005 appears to be the last year for which statistics have been compiled so far.

As you can see, cancer incidence has been falling, not rising, for the last fifteen years or more, and cancer mortality has declined since 1975.

Some epidemic.

[1, 2, 3, 4]



1. No, you haven't answered it already. You just made some unsubstantiated claims. Now you're making another one. Show me the data that prove it. Provide some evidence. If you can't do that, well, it's all just hot air, isn't it?
   
   
2. Putting myself on a pedestal? On this entire thread so far I've seen only one post in support of my position; all I've had from the other posters is disagreement. And I certainly don't mind this; I'm merely stating that the 'single-handedly taking on the lot of you' is literally true - if you don't count that one post. Or is it that you regard the adjectives 'patiently' and 'carefully' as unbearably egotistical?
   
   
3. I see you require an explanation. Here goes. Scientific studies seek to establish facts, not theories. Nature is, on the whole and on the human scale, consistent. The facts do not change no matter who studies them. What varies is the interpretation. Now do you get it?
   
   
4. So I'm a liar, then, as well as a fool and a slave. You take a great deal upon yourself when you make such sweeping judgements about a person's character based on a few posts in an online forum thread. What do you imagine that and your indecent haste to the pillory say about your character?
   

Asking someone to prove a negative is the most dishonest of debate techniques, as it is not philosophically possible.

So you will not read it.

I'm looking for data reflecting what it looked like in 1950. NOT 25 years later, already into the depletion and toxic dumping of and into our soils and water.