segnosaur

Yet. Unless radiation exposure is severe, the effects can take years or decades to show up. Nobody will ever know how many people die from Fukushima. Scientists have considerable experience dealing with factors like radiation. There will be some cancer-related fatalities in the future. That is not denied. However, even with those fatalities, the overall death rate from nuclear power will still be less than that of solar or wind. Citation please. From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/2/ •Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) •Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) •Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity) •Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) There is also this reference: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html That's patent nonsense. There are so many GMO's out there already, it would be impossible for any government to ban them and certainly not Canada. The Green Party is just trying to put some basic controls in place The green party has in its platform: - A call for the outright banning of genetic modification for some crops like wheat. (Even if genetically modified wheat is best from a science perspective, it cant be done in Canada.) - A requirement for labeling GMO foods, which will result in such an overhead that producers will probably be unwilling to use GMO crops in their products - A restriction on GMO patents, which will mean that companies like Monsanto will have no incentive to produce new varieties here in Canada. .. When your doctor prescribes medication, she doesn't know what it will do to you. Maybe it will have the intended benefit. Maybe it will do nothing. It is true that some medicines may be ineffective in some people. But, pharmiceutical products are tested to make sure that they have a positive effect in the majority of people.Testing is not always perfect, but generally it gets the job done. On the other hand, "alterntative" medicines (the ones that were championed by the green party in the past) have absolutely no proof (in a scientific sense) that they are effective for anyone, any more than a placebo or random chance. "Alternative medicine" is a rougly $33 billion industry in the U.S. alone. In Canada its another $5 billion. Globally, spending on alternative medicine rivals that of the biggest drug companies. If companies wanted to test their wares, they have more than enough money to. https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/costs http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/complementary-alternative-medicine-in-canada-2007.pdf The fact is, alternative medicines have been tested. And they have been found not to work. Yet the Green party wants us to use them. People turn to alternative therapies because the practicioners are good salesmen, and people's knowledge of science is limited.. If a person is sick, science might cure them, but doctors don't always "hold their hands"... so people find comfort in dealing with some snake-oil salesman. If a person can't be cured, well, that's all the better for the snake-oil salesman, who can offer false hope. The fact that its popular doesn't necessarily make things right. Some people want the green party to be seen as the party of "science". Science has nothing to do with what's popular, and in fact may contradict commonly held beliefs. So, you're not sure what their platform is but you're convinced it's wrong? Hey, if you have evidence to suggest they've changed their platform, by all means provide it. If you can find a video clip of May saying "chiropractors are scam artists. And so are accupuncturists", by all means let me know. It will definitely change the way I view the party. May even make me consider supporting them. I am basing my analysis on 2 factors: - Their current platform dues say they want to fund "alternative therapies". They do not go into detail about what those thearapies are, but the use of the word 'alteternative' is a red flag - Yes, the platform where they talked about accupuncture and chiropractors was from several years ago. But, party turnover is not that fast. Most people who were responsible for including those things in the platform last election are still around. If that's the case, they're not doing their jobs very well. In Western Europe, only a tiny fraction of the people drink fluoridated water. In Canada, fluoridation is prevalent in Ontario and Alberta but almost non-existent in BC and Quebec. The fact that its not done in many parts of the world has nothing to do with the science... it has to do with politics. Oh, and Europe? Many countries there don't add fluoride to water, but they add it to salt instead. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156167 It is easy to demonstrate. From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/ Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). That's a philosphical question rather than a scientific one.As is the question about whether its worth it. Which is irrelevant since the amount of fluoride added to water is controlled to be around ~1 ppm . No "High doses". (And if someone does get a high dose, it has nothing to do with drinking water. They got it from somewhere else.) They've been adding fluoride to watter for decades. (Plus, many areas have naturally occuring fluroide.If there was a risk, we would have found evidence for it by now. . Irrelevant. The amount added to drinking water is so small, you'd probably have to injest multiple gallons of water per day to get a dangerous dose. . Ingesting it is perfectly safe. And it does affect the teeth when done.. .Except of course not everyone engages in good dental practices. Yeah, it would actually be better of everyone brushed their teeth 3 times a day. Flossed regularly. Visited the dentist. Avoided sugary foods. But not everyone does. Some can't afford to do all that. Others (e.g. kids) may not have the capacity to think of their future to see the benefits of proper dental care. And if a lot of people believed in a flat earth, they might demand representation in parliament too. But if that party said "We are all about science" then I would rightly view them as idiots.

According to Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug, organic farming practices, if used exclusively, would allow ~4 billion people to be fed. There are now ~7 billion people on earth. That means rougly 3 billion people would starve. Now, in reality that wouldn't happen under a Green party government... after all, they'd only control a small fraction of the world's food supply. Still, it seems strange to champion a method of farming that would lead to widespread starvation.

Well, thanks for the nuclear industry propaganda for today! Since when did facts become propaganda? I think the key word here is potential. Nuclear engineers and scientists tend to be smart, and have a general idea of what they're doing. They know what the potential dangers are, and they know how to build safeguards to limit the danger. And since nuclear plants are highly centralized, their construction/operation can be closely monitored. They've been running nuclear plants for decades in the western world. The relative lack of deaths should be a good indication that the "potential" for risk is not being met. They have to lobby governments because many people don't necessarily have the scientific or skeptical background they need to adequately assess nuclear power (or any other type for that matter). Nobody said it was. It will take decades to clean up the site. (Heck, even decommissioning a reactor that wasn't hit by such a disaster is a lengthy process. But then, decommissioning/replacing solar panels at the end of their life time would also require money and time. No, its not. Not by any reasonable measure... Chernobyl dwarfed Fukushima in pretty much every way... number killed, number evacuated, radiation released, expected long-term health consequences. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X If you are voting green for strategic reasons, fine... heck, there may be other reasons to vote for them too. Just don't do so because they have falsely tried to represent themselves as "the science party". They may be well-meaning. They may think they are doing the right thing. (And they should get credit for recognizing global warming as an issue.) But many parts of their platform are strongly anti-science.

This is not in their current platform. There is a vague statement about funding 'alternative' therapies that are less expensive or invasive but nothing more than that. You're right... their current platform doesn't go into details. But the 2011 election was only 4 years ago... I doubt the party has had a significant turnover of membership in that time. That seems like a very bizarre error... Haven't seen any any indication how it could have happened, plus it was apparently on their web site for years before it was fixed. (http://o.canada.com/news/elizabeth-may-homeopathy) But ok, lets say we give them the benefit of the doubt and they didn't want to included Homeopathy. There is still the issue of chiropractors, naturopaths, chiropractors and accupuncturists, all of which involve a high degree of nonsense. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html While there may be value in those particular health services, the fact that the Green Party has supported so much nonsense makes me wonder if they might support the stuff because they actually researched it, or whether they just get lucky like a blind squirel finding an acorn.

Fukushima was hit by earthquakes and tsunami. And you know what? There have been no deaths due to radiation exposure. None. Not one. If you look at all aspects of energy production (mining materials, industrial and installation accidents) in the western world, nuclear power has fewer deaths (per kilowatt generated) than solar or wind. And the greens don't want us using it. Other people have pointed out problems with your argument. Basically, you might assume they accept GMOs, but they've got so many restrictions in their platform that functionally it will result in a ban. There is no such thing as "alternative medicine". There is medicine that works, and not-medicine. Not sure what their platform is this time, but in the previous election they had as part of their platform: Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians (from: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/04/voting-green-read-this/_ Homeopathy is a scam, with no valid science behind it. Naturopaths, accupuncture and chiropractors are not much better. And the greens supported it. (Although to be honest, the article also points out the conservatives had support for some of the same nonsense) I think you've been reading the wrong sources. Pretty much every western health organization has supported Fluoridation of water supplies. Oh, and one other thing... the green party has this on their web site: Promote environmentally sustainable, organic farming practices that protect the health of the land, farmers, and consumers; Organic farming practices are not necessarily "protecting the land"... in fact, because of lower crop yields and less effectiveness of the pest control techniques they use, its actually harder on the environment. As for consumers... did you know you are roughly 4 times as likely to come down with food poisoning from organically grown food as from non-organic food?

I think the other poster was wondering why did you make the comment? Are you suggesting that the Reputation Institute is somehow biased, or incapable of performing such an analysis? I had never heard of them before. However, I did a little googling; the founders do seem to have at least some academic background, and the organization SEEMS legit. (And if its biased, its a rather weird bias... its home country is the U.S., and they have european influence.)

Which is true of pretty much every government. The Liberals certainly weren't trumpeting Adscam to the hills before it was found out. And they certainly attempted to minimize the HRDC scandal. Its the nature of the business. Governments are failible. The idea of having a perfectly incorruptible government may sound wonderful, but its a fool's errand. The best we can do is minimize the corruption, and have them bring in policies we like. If your plan is to always toss out governments because of scandals, and scandals are inevitable, you may unfairily punish a government who HAS done good work to clean up things, even if they haven't managed perfection.

I think the 2 of you are missing the point... I don't think anyone is claiming that the conservatives have been squeaky clean. I think the issue is whether they have been more or less corrupt than the proceeding government. Yes, the government has the problem with the Duffy scandal... But to some of us, that pales in comparison to AdScam (in terms of number of people involved, money involved, and the goal of the scam.) Yes, the government has done things like prorogued parliament and used omnibus bills. But to some of us this pails in comparison to calling elections early to benefit from a divided opposition. (And, it should also be noted, the Liberals Prorogued parliament when they were in power too.) Yes, they were accused of not disclosing 40 year costs of the F35, but that pales in comparison to the HRDC scandal. For pretty much any 'scandal' you can list, someone could list a scandal under the previous Liberal party which was just as bad if not worse. Keep in mind that this "non-partisan" organization has: One member (Lambert) with ties to unions, plus contributes to left-wing sites like Rabble.ca One member (Kerr) who is a member of Greenpeace Not exactly a sign of a "non-partisan" organization.

Technically the scandal did not have the goal of "keeping Quebec in Canada"; it had the goal of diverting funds into Liberal bank accounts. It was the sponsership program that had the goal of "keeping Quebec in Canada", something that could (in theory) be done without the "scandal" part. Hellen Keller could probably see that it would not have worked. Sponsoring "aren't we great?" messages seems to me to be quite a cheap ploy. Before you go praising the Liberals, keep in mind that there was also a commons committee looking into the sponsorship scandal. This committee's work was cut short by the government. Chretien and the Liberals were just as guilty of trying to portray the "clean" guys after the Mulroney government.

I'm all for nuclear. Think it would be a great way to reduce greenhouse gases. But, its politically unpopular. One of the little ironies... the party that would probably best protect the environment (the NDP) is against one technology that would have the best environmental contribution.

Except that depending on the methodolgy used, the requirements for an algae system might end up overcoming the lower efficiencies. So, you want to build a solar array... you set up a square mile of solar panels. Each of these has to be manufactured, installed, cleaned, and (in a few decades) replaced, with the old ones disposed of. To generate the same amount of energy through biofuels, you will need more area. Yeah, might even take 100x the area. But that area might (depending on the technology) be very low maintenance. A stagnent lake. No "maintenance" other than pumps/skimmers to remove the algae for processing. Oh, and by the way, there are issues you might want to consider regarding your 100x efficency difference... - If battery or hydro storage is used, that will greatly reduce the efficiency - If you're dealing with land usage, any lake area used for hydro storage should be counted against the overall effiency Granted those won't make biofuels more attractive, but it will narrow the gap a bit.

Never claimed that biofuels were more energy efficient than solar panels. Their advantages lie elsewhere.... - Easier storage. Yes, people have talked about better batteries, or oil using large bodies of water to "store" energy from solar or wind... but, those solutions have problems of their own. (Building batteries requires mining some pretty specialized chemicals. Using water as a storage medium will probably have a significant impact on local ecosystem, assuming it can easily be done.) - Easier transportation. You can move a truck full of gas without an electrical grid - No need to replace our transportation infrastructure - Dual use of products for industrial purposes.

We've got a mobile population. I'm not a boomer nor are my siblings. All of them have cars and it would not be practical (based on their life style) to go without. And simply living in an urban center doesn't mean you won't want the freedom of having a vehicle. We keep throwing up low-density housing suburbs, which make the use of public transportation measures (including on demand cars) impractical. First of all, you have ignored the fact that I pointed out that you don't necessarily need land to grow biofuels (depending on the technology used). Building something on the ocean would work too. Secondly, lets say we can't use water areas for some reason. In another post, I quoted a reference that said they can produce enough energy for transportation in an area the size of the Texas Panhandle. That's roughly 26,000 miles sq. The Mohave desert has an area of 48,000 miles sq. So in theory you'd only need roughly have the size of the desert in the south west. (Granted you couldn't use ALL that area, since there are cities/towns in the area, I just wanted to show the size of the land mass we're dealing with.) Plus, there is the possibility that foreign countries with more unusable land (e.g. australia, the Sahara) would find it lucrative to set up an algae-based biofuels industry for export. Once again... if we manage to overcome the problems and get a viable biofuels industry, that energy will be from a "free permanent" source. Ultimately the energy will come from the sun. Instead of light hitting a solar panel, it hits a tank with algae. But its still free energy from the sun.

Water may not be an issue.... A closed system would reduce the amount of water required. And, some research has shown that salt water can also be used. Phosphorus is a little trickier, but its not insurmountable. Waste water could be used. There is also phosphorus that is dissolved in seawater (which fits in with recent research on the use of salt water for algae growth). And depending on the process, phosphorus is left behind and can be recycled. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2012/11/new-study-shows-saltwater-algae-viable-biofuels http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/22/algae-to-crude-oil-less-than-hour/ Keep in mind that your article didn't say "all" algae-based fuels tend to harden. It said many did. But, I assume that we'd be smart enough to pick a form of fuel that doesn't have that issue. Some of the processes actually result in either alcohol or crude oil produced. And those will be no more trouble at cool temperatures than fossil fuels are today. The problem is, at this point, there are many ideas about the 'best' way to do biofuel... closed system vs. open pond, GM organisms that produce oil directly or fermenting algae to produce alcohol, use waste water, sea water or fresh water, use sunlight to grow the algae or use sugar in their environment. I really don't know which the best method is, but they've mad a lot of progress. I don't think any of the issues is insurmountable.

From: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/414492/a-biofuel-process-to-replace-all-fossil-fuels/ ...the new process, because of its high yields, could supply all of the country’s transportation fuel from an area the size of the Texas panhandle. Admittedly, some of the information is coming from a biotech company. But, it was published in a publication related to MIT (who should know a bit about science.) Fusion is a great source... but, its probably a lot longer away than the use of biofuels. Plus, it gives us the same problem we've had before... transportation.

You are assuming that people will be wiling to give up their personal vehicles. Personally, I believe that due to our low population density and entrenched car culture, the use of trains/hyperloops as the main means of transportation probably won't become a reality. (At least not soon enough to handle problems of global warming and oil reserve depletion.) Umm... who said we have to "waste valuable land"? When I suggested biofuels, I specifically mentioned things like genetically modified organisms and oil-from-algae projects, or the use of waste agricultural material.. (NOT growing crops for biofuel.) If we use an energy-from-algae source we don't have to use valuable land. We can set up a closed system in the middle of the most useless desert. Or use bodies of water that would otherwise have no use. And ultimately we will be getting that energy from the sun as well. And while it might take an extra step to extract the useful hydrocarbons, you end up with a fuel source which can easily be stored and transported, and can be used for industrial uses (something that isn't true for wind/solar). http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/8/765.full

It may be 'cool', but I question its usefulness. Things like charging lanes may be practical in cities. However, most commuters in those cities are probably close to home (or the office) and so already have access to a place to charge their cars. The problem with electric cars is their ability to drive long distances. Those "charging lanes" would have to be built along miles of highways out in the middle of nowhere to make them useful. Not necessarily... In my opinion the best solution to global warming and/or running out of oil are biofuels. There are several projects under way; some use genetically modified organisms to create oil directly, others ferment algae. (Unfortunately there are many that use things like corn, which is a foolish way to go about things. Hopefully that will be stopped.) The advantages? - It will be carbon neutral. Yeah, we'll still be 'burning' fuel, but that fuel will have been created by living organisms taking carbon from the atmosphere (rather than long dead organisms locked in oil underground) - It will allow us to keep our current infrastructure (e.g. gas stations, current vehicle fleets) with all its advantages (fast fill-up times, easy storage of fuel) - It is a lot more flexible... not only can biofuels power vehicles directly, they can be used to generate electricity, or for industrial processes (e.g. fertilizer production, plastics, etc.)

Votes. Any other reason? The NDP does seem to have a double standard... they have made demands to improve bilingual standards in the country (e.g. demanding all supreme court justices be bilingual) but wants to strengthen Quebec's bill 101. From: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/graeme-hamilton-ndp-look-like-bloc-heads-in-quebec ...the NDP is promising to extend the French-first principles of Bill 101 to such federally regulated industries as banking, transport and telecommunications. True, they haven't said that federal government services in Quebec would be unilingual-French, but the idea of supporting the oppression of english language rights in Quebec does seem to be a bit.... questionable.

You see, here's the problem... when someone brings up supposed problems with the influenza vaccines, generally those issues are the result of misunderstanding something. So, information is presented. Unfortunately it seems to be the same people repeating the same kind of bunk over and over again, unable to comprehend basic math or science. Its really hard to respect the opinions of people who are that adverse to critical thinking, or actually understanding the science they are commenting on.

Perhaps if it sounds like your point is being ridiculed, its because your point deserves to be ridiculed and mocked. If you don't want to be ridiculed, then perhaps you should, you know, educate yourself. Learn some science and critical thinking. And if there's something that you don't know, ask someone who's more knowledgable (which, at this point, would probably be a heck of a lot of people in the scientific community.)

How would you prefer we label them? People who don't understand science? People who don't understand math? People who lack reading comprehension? People with anti-social attitudes? That tends to be what I see whenever someone starts spouting the type of nonsense whenever anyone complains about the influenza vaccine.

Go back and read what I wrote. I never said that the risk of getting the flu was 5 times bigger than getting narcolepsy. I said that the risk of getting hospitalized with the flu was roughly 5 times bigger than getting narcolepsy. I'm not talking about simply getting a fever, or having to call into work sick.... I'm talking about being so ill that the doctors decide to check you into the hospital to prevent serious complications... like death. In other words, your chance of being near death due to the flu is roughly 5 times bigger than the risk of narcolepsy. In fact, your risk of getting the flu is actually roughly 2000 times bigger than the risk of catching narcolepsy. And of course that's actually assuming the vaccine actually does have a causation effect on narcolepsy. I've already provided evidence suggesting that that link might not actually exist. Lets see how many ways that particular statement has failed, shall we? First of all, despite idiots trying to paint the influenza vaccine as some sort of bogey man, serious side effects are very rare. Secondly, you don't just vaccinate to prevent death among the healthy... you also vaccinate to provide herd immunity. (Protection for people who cannot get vaccinated for some reason.) Thirdly, influenza does have rather significant effects. In Japan, its estimated that the end of of mandatory vaccination in children (and a subsequent drop in vaccination rates) has lead to approximately 37-49,000 addition deaths per year. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11259722) Of course, this doesn't include all the other types of secondary problems inflenza can cause... - Myocarditis - destruction of heart muscle/tissue. By the way, if you look at the number of people affected, it surpasses the number of people who supposedly came down with narcolepsy - Reye syndrom - Inflamation of brain and liver

Lets see... Looking at some of the links you provided: - Chinese lawsuit: bribery. Noting to do with "false information" - U.S. case: Case largely involved bad marketing practices. Pushing for doctors to proscribe products for "off brand" use. Which would not apply to vaccines, because the company is selling the vaccines for the specific reason they were manufactered, tested and approved for And neither of those cases involved vaccines.

Oh, and one more thing to add: From: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/01/study-finds-post-h1n1-vaccination-rise-narcolepsy-3-nations ...the new study found increases in two Danish age-groups, even though Denmark had relatively low vaccine coverage. ... They noted that although the signals in Finland and Sweden matched the background data they found, mismatches with age-specific diagnostic rates and pandemic vaccine coverage rates indicates that factors apart from the vaccine might also have a connection to the rise in narcolepsy cases that health officials detected. Conclusion: science is hard, and medicine is complex.

So much wrong, hard to know where to begin. But, lets see: Re: Vaccines "triggering" narcolepsy in europe...... First of all, the problems of narcolepsy are extremely rare. The lawsuit in the UK states that 1 in 55,000 may have developed narcolepsy. That means its something that affects less than 0.002% of the population. That is an extremely low rate for side effects. In Finland, the rate was also low (I believe around 0.006%) Even the most careful scientific testing would not be able to detect side effects that are that rare. Lets put that into context... in Canada, the number of hospitalizations for influenza typically varies from 2000-6000 in a given year. Given our population base, that means 0.01% of people get hospitalized for influenza. That is roughly 5 times higher than the risk of contracting narcolepsy. (And that's only counting those sick enough to be hospitalized... doesn't count all the other millions of people who might get sick but without getting hospitalized.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10445062/Legal-bid-over-swine-flu-jab-link-to-narcolepsy.html It should also be noted that the issue of narcolepsy and vaccines is not quite as clear cut as you might think... At least one of the papers linking the vaccine to narcolepsy have been withdrawn. Furthermore, some researchers are investigating the possibility that narcolepsy might have been triggered by an actual influenza infection (for example, in people who get exposed to the virus before the vaccine has allowed immunity to build up), rather than the vaccine itself. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/07/journal-retracts-paper-linking-vaccine-and-narcolepsy.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/swine-flu/8712366/Swine-flu-infections-trigger-narcolepsy-not-vaccine-says-study.html Now, that doesn't prove the vaccine didn't trigger narcolepsy, and the issue is certainly worth exploring, but at this point its far too early to jump on the anti-vax bandwagon. (Especially for a side effect that is exceptionally rare.) If you take a look at the first article, it says that the U.S. is wary of the use of adjuvants. It does not say that the U.S. bans them altogether. It doesn't go into details about what it means to be "wary", but I assume it means the U.S. requires additional testing, something that may be seen as cost prohibitive for some vaccines. The fact that you would take an article that uses the phrase "wary of adjuvants" and assume it means "bans them" demonstrates an inability to read and process information. Perhaps that may be why you seem appear to be anti-vax. A few things need to be kept in mind: GSK certainly has engaged in illegal activity. Certainly some of the things its done deserve punishment. But, its illegal activities tend to involve things like bribing doctors and marketing practices, and after skimming most of the references you gave seem to be mostly about regular medicines. Its science, in particular the science behind its vaccine, has not been subject to the same type of falsification. When dealing with science (in particular of vaccinations), there are various checks and balances... peer review, replication by independent organizations, etc. The system is not perfect (hey, Wakefield got published), but it does give a higher degree of confidence.