It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Very little of the public gets their information directly from scientists or the publications they write. Instead, most of us rely on accounts in the media, which means reporters play a key role in highlighting and filtering science for the public. And—through embargoed material, press releases, and personal appeals—journals and institutions vie for press attention as a route to capturing the public's imagination.
But these problems were only the beginning. As more critical reports began to appear and scientist/bloggers looked at the results, huge issues were made clear. The authors used a strain of rats that is prone to tumors late in life. Every single experimental condition was compared to a single control group of only 10 rats, and some of the experimental groups were actually healthier than the controls. The authors didn't use a standard statistical analysis to determine whether any of the experimental groups had significantly different health problems. And so on.
The experts who weighed in were dismissive. One called the work "a statistical fishing trip" while another said the lack of proper controls meant "these results are of no value." One report quoted a scientist at UC Davis as saying, "There is very little scientific credibility to this paper. The flaws in the test are just incredible to me."
Originally posted by sgspecial19
The majority of human beings were born into this reality without the need for bio-genetic engineering; how does it serve human beings to consume genetically modified food? Nature > Science
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by sgspecial19
The majority of human beings were born into this reality without the need for bio-genetic engineering; how does it serve human beings to consume genetically modified food? Nature > Science
Nature nearly wiped us out a few times as well. I don't think the argument is nature vs. science so much as, what science is beneficial and what isn't?
Originally posted by sgspecial19
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by sgspecial19
The majority of human beings were born into this reality without the need for bio-genetic engineering; how does it serve human beings to consume genetically modified food? Nature > Science
Nature nearly wiped us out a few times as well. I don't think the argument is nature vs. science so much as, what science is beneficial and what isn't?
I'll choose fruits and vegetables over ANYTHING mankind biochemically produces. The complexity in nature's foods surpass our biotechnology; even the fruits and vegetables go back eons and eons, so I truly believe nature knows what is best for our bodies...Regardless of indiscriminate weather conditions affecting human vitality.
The kernels within the pits of some stone fruits contain a natural toxin called cyanogenic glycoside. These fruits include apricots, cherries, peaches, pears, plums and prunes. The flesh of the fruit itself is not toxic. Normally, the presence of cyanogenic glycoside alone is not dangerous. However, when kernels are chewed cyanogenic glycoside can transform into hydrogen cyanide - which is poisonous to humans. The lethal dose of cyanide ranges from 0.5 to 3.0 mg per kilogram of body weight. This is why it is not recommended to eat the kernels inside the pits of stone fruits.
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
The soap opera is only going to get worse unless we get some studies done to reinforce the French findings because every time proof of GMO being bad is released it is always "debunked" by their interest holders who have every reason to lie and even object to further study.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
The soap opera is only going to get worse unless we get some studies done to reinforce the French findings because every time proof of GMO being bad is released it is always "debunked" by their interest holders who have every reason to lie and even object to further study.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Slickinfinity
reply to post by boncho
A naturally occuring substance even as toxic as cyanide is nowhere near as dangerous or unpredictable as something not created by nature and infused with a deadly chemical like roundup. I also believe they have no idea how bad nature is going to react to these unnatural additives and we could face some environmental disasters because morons thought it was a good idea to infuse poisons to our food supply.
Nature has a funny way or keeping cheques and balances and I have a bad feeling about how gmo's are going to devastate our future.