No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.
Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
There have been many studies and systematic reviews comparing organic and conventionally grown crops. They found essentially no difference in nutritional quality or health outcomes.
It is true that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues, but this is partly an artifact of measuring pesticides used by conventional farming. Organic farmers also use pesticides – they use “natural” pesticides that are presumed safe, without real evidence. There is also no evidence that the small residues on conventional produce have any negative health effects.
The fallacy here is the same as in some other areas, like alternative medicine – things that are “natural” are presumed safe and superior, and therefore don’t have to be studied. This is nothing more than the naturalistic fallacy. Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides, and in general are less effective and so have to be used more often, which can be worse for the environment.
My personal biggest problem with the organic label is the false dichotomy it creates. Organic has become a brand, a lifestyle, an attitude. It is a narrative, and the narrative comes first. In fact, one study found that people believed identical coffee tasted better if they were told it was ecofriendly, and were also willing to pay more for it.
Rather, it would be better to evaluate each farming practice on the evidence and the outcomes it produces, regardless of whether or not it fits a naturalistic narrative. Some practices considered “organic” are really just good sustainable practices, such as avoiding monoculture, crop rotation, and using cover crops. The evidence suggests these are good practices, whether or not they are part of achieving an “organic” label or not.
The organic marketing, however, has worked. They have successfully created fears in the public about “toxins” and unnatural mutants in their food, and offer the organic label as an assurance of wholesomeness, despite an utter lack of evidence to support such claims. The USDA was warned this would happen, they knew it would happen, and they facilitated this deception with their official seal of approval.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
good stuff troutman, i totally agree with most of that organics paper - local tradition beats organics.
10 years ago i did a dissertation on the organic industry and i seem to remember that only organic full fat milk has been proven to be better nutritionally.
^ It is has created the opposite effect on me. Seeing Organic on the label pushes me away as I think i will be paying more for a similar or inferior product.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
^ It is has created the opposite effect on me. Seeing Organic on the label pushes me away as I think i will be paying more for a similar or inferior product.
And I hate supporting the use of extra land we don't have to produce the same amount of food. Not sure why that bothers me so much
I don't know about the organic versus non organic arguments but our waterways and oceans are being killed by fertilizers.
Quote:
The world’s first identified ocean “dead zone”—a watery region where a combo of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer runoff creates monstrous algae blooms that kill off everything in the water—was discovered more than 40 years ago at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico. Today, more than 400 dead zones are growing around the globe; the number has doubled every decade.
Quote:
No fish can live in the dead zones where fertilizer-polluted rivers dump into the sea. (Photo: Ho New/Reuters) With that death-zone expansion in mind, new research conducted by the Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Queensland, Australia, has scientists extremely worried that the sea may face a mass extinction by the end of the century.
The water in brooks, streams and creeks from Michigan to Puerto Rico carries a heavy load of pollutants, particularly nitrates from fertilizers. These nitrogen and oxygen molecules that crops need to grow eventually make their way into rivers, lakes and oceans, fertilizing blooms of algae that deplete oxygen and leave vast "dead zones" in their wake. There, no fish or typical sea life can survive. And scientists warn that a federal mandate to produce more biofuel may make the situation even worse.
Glad to see this thread, I was going to start one with the bigfoot sightings
Les Stroud, an authentic Bear Grylls, and star of the Survivorman series, is pursuing the Sasquatch. He's putting his reputation on the line to prove to everyone these things exist. The 2 part season finale of Survivor man features his pursuit of the Sasquatch
During the making of Survivorman Alaska in 2009, SURVIVORMAN LES STROUD experienced his first possible Bigfoot encounter.
“The strangest thing happened…I was making my grass matt and all of a sudden a deep and very loud grunting noise about fifty yards away brought me to my feet and put the hairs up on the back of my neck. It repeated five times and I have to say it sounded…just like a large gorilla…”
Les acknowledged the experience, but didn’t speak publicly about it until February 2011. In an interview with 93.3 KZOZ, hosts Jeff and Jeremy In The Morning asked if Les had ever had a Bigfoot encounter. Les unexpectedly opened up about his Alaskan encounter. “It sounded like a big ape, that’s all I can tell ya’. The interview has been viewed over 250,000 times since.
This interview sparked thousands of Les Stroud fans from around the world to weigh in on the Bigfoot debate. Fans described their own Sasquatch encounters via email, letters and social media and demanded Les secure proof.
Overwhelmed by the response, Les has decided to uncover the truth. Joined by Bigfoot expert TODD STANDING, Les travels to two remote Bigfoot hot spots to debunk the myths that surround Bigfoot phenomena. TODD STANDING literally made international headlines with his incredible video footage and physical evidence of Bigfoot. Dozens of major networks and production companies have attempted to negotiate agreements with him. From the beginning, he has maintained his work is repeatable with the statement, “Don’t take my word for it, come with me and I will show you first-hand the reality of this species.”
The following were featured on Survivorman from Stroud's guide, Todd Standing
Ultimately, the biggest problem with the argument for the existence of Bigfoot is that no bones or bodies have been discovered. This is really the 800-pound Bigfoot on the researchers’ backs, and no matter how they explain away the lack of other types of evidence, the simple fact remains that, unlike nearly every other serious “scientific” pursuit, they can't point to a live or dead sample of what they're studying. If the Bigfoot creatures across the United States are really out there, then each passing day should be one day closer to their discovery. The story we're being asked to believe is that thousands of giant, hairy, mysterious creatures are constantly eluding capture and discovery and have for a century or more. At some point, a Bigfoot’s luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a freeway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker. Each passing week and month and year and decade that go by without definite proof of the existence of Bigfoot make its existence less and less likely.
On the other hand, if Bigfoot is instead a self-perpetuating phenomenon with no genuine creature at its core, the stories, sightings, and legends will likely continue unabated for centuries.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
LOL I remember moving to Calgary in 1981 and my cousin telling about "bigfoot" and how real they were...I called bullshat then and will continue to do so hopefully for another 33 years.
Bigfoot,fire breathing dragons and miracles all belong in the same pile.
I don't know about the organic versus non organic arguments but our waterways and oceans are being killed by fertilizers.
Didn't want to start a new thread, and my inquiry isn't entirely off topic in here.
First of all, a friendly comment on the quoted text above... I used to go out to the coast every year when I was a kid, and the best part was being able to walk the ocean, check out tidepools, and just be stunned by the amount of life that I could find. Went out there again last year for the first time in about 15 years, and saw one starfish and a couple of sea anemone, the entire trip. And I was trying.
Now, my question. I just pulled up to the house, and there was a city truck rolling down the sidewalk spraying 'something' on everybody's lawn. Is this a regular thing that I'm just unaware of? I've been diligently pulling weeds by hand the last two years so that family and their dogs could play on the lawn without worrying about pesticides.
How much did that cost the city, for something unasked for?
If anyone knows, that's great, and then more Sasquatch.
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
^^^spraying to get rid of Edmontonions...they are a pest that can infiltrate your home and if successful they can make you feel like puking all the time.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
