segnosaur

Listen to you. How pathetic are your comments. "But I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases" You sound like a nutcase for suggesting that... Really? Lets see.... From: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6651/full/389534b0.html Ireland's first genetically modified crop has been sabotaged by a group of environmental activists... From: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s. But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it.... "I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I could also bring up the arson committed by activists funded by peta, or the actions to prevent logging by implanting metal spikes in trees, which risks the lives of loggers; however, I wanted to stick to just cases where they've acted against GMO research. So, there's plenty of precedent for environmental activists taking actions that are downright illegal. (Keep in mind that I didn't say that sabotage by environmental activists was the only possibility, or even the most likely, only that it was a possibility (however slim). Actually, I'm a mouth piece for science. You know, the thing that you don't seem to have on your side. Its quite revealing that, when presented with information from reputable sources which challenge or debunk your views, your only alternative is to accuse others of being a shill for "big corporations". Is that really the extent of your abilities to think and reason logically? Do you really think people who actually like to think rationally and don't view everything as a big conspiracy would actually be convinced by your accusations? So? I'm not defending them over their actions in falsifying data in those cases. Organizations make mistakes. They sometimes do things that are illegal. I'm not supporting GMO foods because "big bad monsanto" says they're safe. I'm supporting them because reputable research appearing in peer reviewed journals (you know, with reviewers that are independent of Monsanto) shows that there are no problems. Why is that relevant? Monsanto has science on its side. Whether they spend zero dollars or bajillion, it won't change the fact that reputable science has shown their products to be safe.

Simply pointing out that they though it was good at the time, even after testing. And once again... although it may have been "passed testing", it did not take long for problems to be found and for the government to start issuing restrictions. I could also point out that back then the government was a lot less stringent regarding biological controls back in the mid 20th century. We now have significantly more regulatory oversight. (Its like a creationist suggesting that evolution isn't true because Issac Newton didn't believe in it, while ignoring the fact that the body of scientific knowledge has greatly expanded since his day.) GM food has been around a lot longer than DDT was when the EPA started issuing restrictions. So, where's the evidence that GMO food is a problem? But was used anyways. Yes it was. In fact, its still approved for some uses even today... That's because the alternative (e.g. people dying from Malaria) was considered a more significant problem. And again, you seem to ignore the fact: problems were found with DDT impacting wildlife within a couple of years. No such problems have been found with GMO foods. Why exactly are you unable to grasp the difference? Actually, the EPA actually started issuing restrictions on its use. Oh, and by the way, even if the makers of DDT claimed their stuff was safe, there was actual real science indicating problems with its use... tests from the governments and university labs. There is no such tests showing problems with GMO foods that have passed scrutiny. This is to show that they cannot do controlled experiments and make 100% sure that the strain does leave the test area. ... Even if you go with the notion that the GMO is safe, this specific strain was experimental and never meant to be farmed. It was never tested and did not get FDA approval. But we are finding it out there. That does not seem to a concern here? Not greatly. I never claimed that testing procedures and protocols were perfect, only strong enough to handle the vast majority of problems. Heck, for all we know, this wheat was planted by some environmental activist attempting to discredit monsanto. (Not that its the most likely source of the problem, but I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases.)

Problems with DDT were found within a few years of it being available for commercial use. In 1945, tests already showed the death of various bird species in areas that were sprayed. The fact that it continued to be used was not a case of people being unaware of the danger; they just thought that the risks outweighed the rewards. Compare that with GMO foods... there have been no credible research done showing any harm.

The tests that Monsanto did for these wheat strains stopped in2005. These specific strains were experimental and never were pursued, and these are the ones being found in wheat crops. These specific strains never got to the FDA approval stage. And? So what? I'm familiar with the case. As I said, nobody knows how the crops got there. The fact that they were never used commercially only ads to the baffling nature of the case. Let's ask them! Hey, you were the one who was pointing to those other countries avoiding GMO food because they have some "inherent wisdom", rather than looking at the more logical explanation... that countries are avoiding GMO food because scientifically illiterate politicians are overruling experts who say GMO food is safe because they want to gain favor with certain voters An irrelevant comparision. Even if you think granting personhood to a company is stupid... many countries don't grant that status to corporations, yet still allow GM foods. Wow, you're really flinging the B.S. around to see what sticks, aren't you. Ah, DDT. Since you want to bring up that rather irrelevant comparison... DDT started to be used commercially as a pesticide in the mid-1940s.However, experiments as early as 1945 showed that it can have a negative effect on wildlife. (See: http://books.google.ca/books?id=Wf2NqvrhEz4C&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false). The fact that it continued to be used (and its still approved for some uses today!) was because of a risk-vs-rewards scenario. So, science showed problems with DDT right from the start. Compare that with GM foods... at this point there is no credible scientific evidence that it causes harm. None. Notta. Zip. Ziltch. Even though we've been using it for over a decade. Its not a case of "we know it causes harm, but it is necessary" (as it was with DDT.) Its a case of them finding no harm.

Keep in mind that the case of the GMO wheat in Oregon is still under investigation. Its not known where the plants came from. From what I've seen, the possibility of seed/pollen transfer from other farms has been ruled out (the seeds do not travel any significant distance.) Just out of curiosity, why exactly are you assuming that those other countries are the ones that "know something we don't"? No country has a monopoly on stupidity. Britain health care system officially believes that plain water can cure disease. Politicians in many African countries deny that HIV causes Aids. Are they automatically right because they "know something we don't"? Also, keep in mind that many countries that ban GM foods do so not because their agricultural or scientific agencies have found problems, but because their politicians have done the banning in an attempt to gain favor with their voter base.

Ah yes, when all else fails, assume there's some sort of big "conspiracy". Sadly, its a common tactic among those that are either dogmatic or scientifically illiterate. Do you believe in creationism? Then the entire biological community is somehow an evil cabal because they don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. Want people vaccinated because studies show vaccination saves lives? Well, you're a victim of "big pharma" and all the drug companies. Think 9/11 was carried out by a group of middle-eastern hijackers under the direction of bin Laden? Well, you're a sheeple for not believing it was an inside job carried out by the Bilderbergers, or the Hamburgers, or whatever! Its amazing how someone can complain how controlling Monsanto is, in a thread talking about large protests against Monsanto. Of course, the main problem with your argument is that, despite your claims of Monsanto "buying labs", there is still a substantial amount of work done, through university labs, through other companies, etc., who are completely neutral, or may even be competitors to Monsanto. Perhaps some of us actually believe that science is the best way to understand the world around us. While it may be tempting to "root for the little guy", sometimes the little guy is actually in the wrong. Monsanto is certainly not a perfect company; however, that does not mean that everything it does is wrong; in this case, it seems to have science on its side. Or maybe some of us actually, you know, like humanity and like the environment, and want to take actions that actually help humanity and the environment. For example, we look at the number of people who go blind from Vitamin A deficiency (rather than going blind from masturbating, the way god intended) and we think "Hmmm.... that's not good". So, we would prefer people in 3rd world countries to start growing genetically modified Golden Rice (which produces extra vitamin A) rather than go blind. Yeah, I know, living in nice, safe comfortable North America such matters may not seem that important. Or we look at insects like the European corn Borer, and the pesticides we spray to control them (which in turn also kills beneficial insects like bees) and think "Hmmm... maybe we shouldn't be killing off our bees like that". So, I'd prefer farmers to grow genetically modified Bt corn strains which reduce the amount of insecticides required (a 35% decrease in global pesticide use to control the borer). Oh, and not only that, by producing a higher quality of grain you also reduce the amount of carcinogens (since damage caused by the borer can help molds grow on the corn.) See: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413 So, maybe you don't care much for saving people's vision, or for saving the bee population, but some of us do. And if the price of speaking out to end these problems is that we have to be on the side of Monsanto, well, that's the price we pay.

Once again... reasons why it is not a good idea to label genetically modified food have been discussed in this thread already. While some may think its just a case of slapping a label on the package, its not as easy as that... If you're going to label something as 'genetically modified', you have to first set standards. (What level of contamination is allowed? What about GMO foods fed to livestock; do they become 'GMO'?) Then, companies have to set up their production facilities to handle 2 separate foot "streams" (one GMO, one non-GMO). And, since people don't necessarily trust "big business", you need government inspectors to verify that no GMO products have been used (either deliberately or by accident) in non-GMO products. All of this increases costs, both for the production companies (e.g. replication of infrastructure) and for the government (inspectors to verify the foods are non-GMO.) I believe one of the other posters gave a reference to a 10% increase in food costs if labeling were mandatory. I would rather not see my food bill increase because other people don't understand science and get freaked out by "frankenfood". Ummm... not sure how to tell you this, but your food has likely been sprayed with herbicides even if it hasn't been genetically modified. For example, wheat can be sprayed with 2-4D, Dicamba or any one of a half dozen chemicals. http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1803/eb1803.html Even organic crops get treated with herbicides. For example, 10 seconds of googling found an article which talked about treating organic wheat with Meadowform (a plant). Thing is, meadowform contains N-hydroxy-2-(3-methoxy-phenyl)-thioacetamide. (Any idea what that is? I certainly don't. But if you eat "organic" wheat you might be eating some right now. http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/node/322

I am fine with it if the company stand behind that statement (with no fine prints). I wouldn't write that if I was the company. It brings no benefits since most consumers wouldn't understand it... But here's the problem... if you simply stuck the label "genetically modified" on the label, most consumers wouldn't understand that either. Sadly, most consumers (and, lets face it, probably most greenpeace and other environmental activists) don't really understand science. That's why i suggested a phrase that is not only accurate, but actually gives real information. How would people be scared off? Its a label saying: - Science has established this food is safe to eat (true) and - There are problems with other sources of food (specifically organics) It would be less scary than actually using the term "genetically modified", since there are people that are scientifically illiterate who get freaked out by scare words like that. The only people that would fear such a label are groups like greenpeace. The reason that they want foods labeled "genetically modified" is because they think it would scare people. ("Ooo... frankenfood!"). An educated consumer is their worst nightmare.

Hey, how's this for a compromise.... We require food producers to label any products with GMO food, but we get to let them choose the wording of the label. Here's my suggestion: Use the exact phrase "This product contains foods that every reputable major food organization has found to be completely safe. Furthermore, you're far less likely to get food poisoning from this food than eating 'organic' food". Unlike simply sticking the label "GMO" on it, at least the above label actually tells you valuable information. (And its true... you're roughly 8 times more likely to get sick from eating organic produce than you are from eating conventionally produced food.) And hey, if you really want to avoid GM food, at least you know what to look for on the package. Think Greenpeace would go for it?

Sorry, overlooked a few things in my previous post... Actually, both the farmers and Monsanto benefit...Monsanto because it gets to sell its seeds; the farmers because they end up with a better crop (either pesticide resistant, more durable or in some way "improved"). This gives them more produce to sell at the end of the year. Now, if you don't allow Monsanto to protect their work through patents and contracts, a farmer could just take Monsanto seed and continually replant it. Monsanto would have no incentive to produce additional products if they didn't have some method for enforcing contracts related to its use. (And while I'm sure you'll be all happy with the idea of Monsanto being pushed out of business like that, there are a lot of farmers who actually would like having new GMO varieties at their disposal. The problem with that argument... farmers had already started shifting away from the idea of saving seeds, and had started purchasing from seed companies years before Monsanto ever sold its first GMO seed. From: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them. By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. Depends on the terms of the contract... If the contract says "use seeds in a certain way", then the farmer is obligated to follow those terms. If the farmer doesn't like those terms, then he does not have to sign the contract. He is still able to go to a conventional seed producer. You have any proof that Monsanto requires Monsanto pesticides to be used on their seeds?

Ummm... I really don't think you understand the specifics of that case. The farmer in question was not doing "original GMO research". Instead, he was taking crops that came from seeds provided by Monsanto, spraying them with roundup, and harvesting the survivors as his own version of "roundup ready" crops. He wasn't doing anything new or unique.He wasn't doing any genetic manipulation. He thought he found a loophole in a law, but found that the loophole didn't exist. You know, I really think you're over-estimating Monsanto's ability to dominate the market. There are still plenty of seed companies out there that provide organic or conventional seeds. A 2 minute search with google found these: http://www.organicxseeds.com/oxs/static/pdf/SupplierCropgroupUK.pdf (dozens of organic seed companies in the UK) http://www.organicgrains.ncsu.edu/cropproduction/seedsuppliers.htm It should also be noted that despite the uproar over GM foods, its actually used in very few crops... most crops farmers grow use are produced the conventional way. (See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted) So, organic/conventional seeds are not going to disappear any time soon. And if Monsanto gets too greedy and drives up the price, what will happen? Farmers will realize that the improved crop yields are not worth the added expense. If farmers have been using Monsanto products, its because they find it works better for them.

You're right... they do market conventional argiultural products. Of course, I have no idea how their business works (what portion is organic vs. conventional.) I could also point out that they also sell "vitamins" (not exactly something you would expect from a more, well, mainstream site.) However, the main point is still relevant: a private or company web site does not have the same standards for ensuring quality as a peer reviewed scientific journal. I never denied that. (In fact, it mentioned Monsanto right on the very first page as well.) But as I mentioned before... even if it was paid for by Monsanto... even if Monsanto employees worked on it... even if the crops were grown personally by the president of Monsanto and watered with the tears of a thousand children... the article was still peer reviewed. That means somewhere along the line, experts from outside the company reviewed the work and had no problem with it. The article by HJ had no such peer review. And, as I pointed out, there were problems with it. yours is quite a 'purist' definition of peer-reviewed. And what exactly is your problem with the 'purist' definition? Granted, there can be a little more complexity... different journals may have more or less reputation (even if they're all considered "peer reviewed"), and mistakes do get made. But, 'Nature' is one of the more reputable journals, with a strong reputation and a large reader base. They published an article that gave roughly equivalent levels of various nutrients in GM vs. Non-GM foods. Here's another reference. This one was posted on a web site run by the University of California. It included multiple references to various peer reviewed journals, government and international organizations pointing out similar results, that the nutritional content of GM vs. Non-GM foods does not vary significantly: http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=30 While I did encounter the "monsanto blog", its rather irrelevant, since the study itself was published in a peer reviewed journal. And while the blog did discuss some problems, I still 1) made sure it was accurate by consulting the peer reviewed study, and 2) made sure I stated things in my own words. While I'm not a chemist or botanist, I did take a lot of courses in chemistry and biology, both at the high school and university level. As such, I do have a basic understanding of the flaws in the reference provided by HJ. (edited to fix tags)

Do you really not understand the concept of peer review? What is it about the idea of publishing in establish scientific journals that are reviewed by fellow scientists that you don't understand? Yes, the study was done by Monsanto. But guess what? Other scientists (i.e. not Monsanto) reviewed the findings and found no fault with them. And just how many established scientists reviewed your little chart? You know, the one that claimed that corn was somehow made of rock because the organic content was so low?

But yet no bias when dealing with Monsanto and GMOs? Do you even know what the term 'peer reviewed' paper actually means? It means a scientific article which has been passed to other experts in the field for evaluation. They examine the paper for flaws, and if there are any problems with (for example) the methodology used in the experiments, the paper will get rejected. (Even if it was Montanto itself that was funding a study, those doing the reviews have nothing to do with the company.) This is in comparison to the non-scientific article published by HJ, where his "source" was some pro-organic company, and the results have such obvious flaws (e.g. an "organic" content of ~2%? really?) that anyone with any sort of background in botany or chemistry would have said "this is B.S.".

As I pointed out before... the information that HJ quoted wasn't just 2 samples on different parts of the spectrum... he was pointing to a sample that wasn't anywhere on the spectrum. The values he gave for the GMO corn had no relation to reality at all. I suspect that he was quoting some non-scientific nonsense that's been passed around by the pro-organic crowd. (The reference he gave wasn't to a peer-reviewed paper, but to a company selling organic farming services... not exactly the most unbiased source you might find.)

I'm confused, if someone is not in a union, how can they be pressured to give their wealth to them? Well the original poster could have been referring to one of 2 things: - An individual working in a non-union shop sees an attempt to unionize their job. Depending on his position in the company, he may not necessarily be any better off from a job perspective...however, they now have to pay union dues (especially if its a 'closed shop'.) Thus, he's forced to "give wealth to them" - When a company is unionized and wages are increased, one of the possible results is that prices for people buying from the company will increase. (After all, a company does not have the ability to create the additional wages out of thin air; the money has to come from somewhere.) Thus, a non-union shopper ends up having his wealth transferred to a unionized worker. (Now, its possible for the shopper to try to find a non-unionized company offering the same product, but in a competitive environment a price increase at one location will allow its competitors to similarly raise prices.) Another possibility is that unionization will lead to reduced profits. While that may sound like a great thing to chant when you're in a protest ("Fat cat corporations!") the fact is that many company owners are composed of small-time investors. Heck, I have stock in various banks, manufacturing companies, and retailers in my RRSP mutual funds. (And I'm far from what you would consider a "wealthy" investor.) And there are probably millions of non-unionized Canadians in the same boat... they have various mutual funds that have stocks in them. If unionization cuts into profits, that means the small-time stock holders (i.e. average Canadians) end up having less money for retirement. So, the non-union worker can get hammered both ways... increased prices for the things they purchase, and/or reduced value in my retirement investments. Assuming its a "closed" shop (i.e. all employees who work there are effectively part of the union)... - It removes the liberty of the shop owner (and all corporations are ultimately owned by individuals) to negotiate with individual employees has he sees fit - It removes the liberty of individual employees to negotiate their own wages with the employer, independent of union influence Now, you might claim that "higher wages are worth it"... but that doesn't mean that liberties aren't being curtailed... only that you're willing to ignore the people who's liberties are being curtailed in your justification.

Your information is complete and utter B.S. First of all, what exactly is your "source"? It appears to be a company providing "organic" farming services. Hmmm... do you think that a company dealing with organic crop services would have a reason to lie about non-organic farming methods? Secondly, the chart has multiple problems... For example, they give the % of organic matter at only around 1-2%. (Even the so-called natural corn is only 2.1% organic.) Umm.... the chemical definition of "organic" is pretty straight forward... (it involves carbon atoms). Unless that corn was actually carved out of rock, the percentage of organic matter should be well over 90%. Here's a chart showing the real comparisons between GM and non-GM products. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n5/extref/nbt0510-402-S1.pdf (Go to page 50). Unlike your reference (that was posted on some company website that was pushing "organic' farming), the reference I posted appeared in a peer reviewed journal. (i.e. one where articles were examined for potential flaws prior to publication.) In it, you'll see that the nutritional composition of GMO and non-GMO corn overlaps to a large degree.

The fact is, every farmer uses pesticides of some type. Even so-called "organic" farmers use pesticides (although what they use is considered "natural", but it doesn't work as well so they have to use more of them.) The alternative to using pesticides is to either see farmers loose more crops to disease or insects (which would greatly limit our food supply), and/or see more cases of food poisoning since many of the problems that pesticides handle can also affect health. The use of GM foods would reduce this problem. Yes, some pesticides would still be needed, but since at least some of the modifications involve protecting against pests, less pesticides would be needed. That means fewer pesticides in the food you eat overall, as well as less damage to the environment (e.g. beneficial insects like bees killed by use of pesticides directed at insects like the European Corn Borer.) Oh, and the link between Parkinsons and pesticides? A couple of things need to be kept in mind: - At this point the research results seem to be referring to farm workers who would be handling the chemicals directly (those simply eating products would have much lower levels of exposure, and in many cases of harmful chemicals, dosage matters. - The results from the studies didn't necessarily involve RoundUp... for example, they were looking at things like paraquat (an herbicide) and maneb (a fungicide) in some of the studies I'm not discounting that pesticides can be harmful... just that they must be used responsibly, and the alternative would be far riskier. (And using GMO would actually reduce the risk.)

Errr... not really. Perhaps you can provide some. I've certainly never seen any. Pretty much any claims of harm have been based on either: - Products that hadn't been released yet (i.e. problems were caught in the testing phase) - The result of shoddy science - Based on anecdotes.

As a general guideline... when the title of a thread contains the phrase "wake up", you can probably guess that its going to largely consist of anti-science and/or conspiracy nonsense. Actually it was written by elected representativies. Actually, while it may have some benefit to Monsanto and other producers of GM technologies, the ones that actually receive the most benefit are the farmers. You know, the ones that grow the food. Actually, what it does is protect farmers from frivilous lawsuits. Basically, once a product has been approved by the FDA, farmers should feel confident that yes, indeed the product is acceptable to use. The link provided by carepov shows why such protection is needed... - The government, upon testing, found that GM sugarbeets were safe and farmers could plant them - Years later, a lawsuit was launched. It involved no evidence showing problems with the product, but it allowed a judge to order widespread destruction of the sugarbeet crops That hurt farmers. The law is not a blanket protection for Monsanto or any other organization. It does not prevent the government from revoking approval of GM products if actual evidence of harm is found, nor does it allow Monsanto to sell seeds or farmers to grow crops for any product that has actually been found dangerous by the FDA. If its "thinking about its citizens" then it might actually follow through with similar legislation. There is no hard evidence that any GMO crop that's been approved and is in production causes any harm, either to consumers or to the environment. GMOs can help us grow more food, and protect the environment by increasing crop yields without plowing under more land, and by using less pesticides. Uhhh... no. The fact that other countries make brain-damaged decisions doesn't mean that we should follow suit.

Its not a case of 'knowing everything'. Not even the most hardcore skeptic things a psychic must be 100% accurate. The question is, do psychics manage to make predictions which are better than just "random chance". There, the question seems to be a resounding "No!" There are a couple of issues here... First of all, keep in mind that many of the claims of "psychics helping police" are claimed by the psychics themselves... And when you have an individual who makes their living giving psychic readings, claiming they consulted on some big criminal case is useful promotional material. In some cases, the psychic is overestimating their influence. (They may have provided details that were totally irrelevant to the case, or the cops could have totally ignored their input.). In other cases they may be outright lying. Sylvia Browne has done that... On an episode of Larry King, she claimed to be working on a case with an officer Zantos in New Jersey. However, there was no Officer Zantos working with the New Jersey police at the time. Simply put, Sylvia lied. (It sounded good, and its not like anyone would have been able to follow up during the course of the show.) And most of the other cases that she claimed to have worked on were likewise lies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/03/lkl.00.html http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-85365.html http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failure The other thing to remember is that in many cases the cops are obligated to follow up leads. If some psychic calls a crime hot line, they may claim that they 'consulted' with police, even though their input was not requested. Now, I cannot claim that "no policeman has ever consulted with a psychic". Since there are thousands upon thousands of officers in the U.S., and its possible that some gullible officer in some backwards town may have wasted time with psychics, but there's no evidence that they actually contribute to investigations with actual useful information. They may get vague clues "the body will be found near a body of water", but for the most part it will be completely useless. Here's a question.. would you feel sorry for someone who lost their money to (for example) Bernie Maddoff? Yes, people should be more skeptical. They should think more critically. But, that should not absolve vultures like Sylvia Browne from their part in things. Its a good idea to lock your front door when you leave the house. But if you don't and someone walks in and takes your stuff, they're still stealing, and they should know "this is immoral" regardless of how easy it is. As I pointed out before, there are awards (for example, James Randi's $1,000,000 prize) for anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal ability under controlled observing conditions. If some people have psychic abilities, why has not one of them claimed the prize? $50 a crack? Wow... that's cheap. According to Sylvia Browne's web site, a psychic reading with her costs $850 for a phone reading. Speaking of Sylvia Browne, this isn't the first time she claimed someone had died prematurely. For example: - In 2002 she told the parents of Shaun Hornbeck that their son was kidnapped by a 'dark skin man', was dead and would be found in a wooded area. In 2007 he was found very much alive in an apartment. The kindnapper was white. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/sylvia_brownersquos_biggest_blunder/ http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/01/hornbeck_browne.html - In 2005, she claimed Bin Laden was dead. He was very much alive until the U.S. tracked him down in Pakistan. http://blog.newsok.com/smokeandmirrors/2011/05/06/bin-laden-prediction-wrong-again-sylvia/ For more information on this remarkably scummy individual, see: http://www.stopsylvia.com/

The difference is, even if someone doesn't know how some physical phenomena works, we know it exists and can study it. (For example, you may not know why the sky is blue... but, you can observe it, take measurements, and determine that yes, indeed the sky is blue.) When it comes to psychics, we haven't even determined that psychic ability actually exists. People will point to anecdotes, or talk about how "psychic X said Y and it was true!". But that does not prove psychic ability exists... any such ability can easily be chalked up to a combination of 1) Psychics making a butt-load of predictions (the 'shotgun' approach), knowing at least a few will be correct, and 2) a human tendency to remember the "hits" and forget about the "misses". Let psychics get their abilities tested under proper conditions... For example, let them give 10 'readings' to 10 people, and let each person pick the reading out which best matches themselves. If psychic ability truly existed, people would be able to identify their own readings.

Here's the problem... While its all well and good to look at 'brain scans', that in itself does not demonstrate that she is using any sort of 'psychic ability'. For all we know, the parts of her brain that changed were associated with imagination, or deception. Before people start running around trying to look for the actual biological causes of psychic ability, they should test whether such abilities actually exist. A simple double-blind study (no special high-tech equipment needed!) would be a good start. Former magician and skeptic James Randi is experienced in designing and running such tests. In fact, he offers a $1 million prize for anyone who can actually demonstrate any sort of paranormal ability (psychic ability, dowsing, etc.) Nobody has come close to winning the award. In fact, most famous 'psychics' run away in fear over taking their tests... they avoid it because they know that once proper controls are in place, their "ability" will disappear.

She's a witch! Burn her!

Ummm... no, it doen't. EI is payed for through a combination of payroll deductions and employer contributions. It doesn't "Pay for itself". And one of the changes that the conservatives made is to stop IE surpluses from being used to offset the deficit (something that both businesses and labor groups supported. Irrelevant. Water supplies are not covered under federal jurisdiction. Typical underhanded smears... The fact that a party may be on the "right" of the political spectrum and/or have members that have radical views does not mean the party at large or leader shares that same view. Yet 2 years ago the Harper government put out a proposal to increase health care, from $30 billion in 2013/14, to $38 billion in 2018/19. Perhaps if you want to complain about someone "dismantaling heathcare" you should be targeting the Liberals, who at one point greatly slashed provincial transfers (which help pay for health care) while at the same time engaging in questionable spending programs of their own.