segnosaur

A few of the better ones: Something Positive - http://www.somethingpositive.net Very well-written strip, with long story lines and characters that change/grow throughout the history of the strip. Lots of sarcasm and a little bit of dark humor here and there. (I'd recommend going back to the very first comic and starting from there.) Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - http://www.smbc-comics.com/ Comics that often are geared towards the scientific/nerd crowd. Each day's comic is stand-alone (i.e. no repeat characters/storyline). Also, if you look on the web site, you will find the "SMBC Theater" with on-line skits, etc. (some of which are very funny) PvP Online - http://www.pvponline.com/ Follows a group of office workers who write a computer game magazine. Another strip that features long-running story lines and character development.

The problem isn't the amount that you post... its that what you post is wrong. Which, from the looks of things, seems to be very limited. The problem here is that you aren't exactly learning what you read hear. People have debunked pretty much all the points the anti-GM people have posted on the thread. But when you bring up points that have already been debunked, it shows that you're not exactly learning. I get satisfaction making sure my posts are based on, you know, fact. If that means I have to provide a few references, then I will do so. Except whatever points you've been made have been debunked. Someone has stepped in with the data that proves you wrong. Yet you still continue to cling to your arguments.

While it is possible for harsh words to be used in an on-line forum debate, people like you are certainly not helping the cause. There are a couple of key things that you (and GostHack) seem to be doing here... - You keep bringing up points that have already been debunked. Yes, its possible that there are some obscure bits of knowledge that not everyone is privy too... The problem is, when someone brings up a point, that point gets debunked, and the person brings up that exact same point, it shows that the original poster is either being a 'troll', or that they are even too lazy/stupid to even acknowledge that the issue has been dealt with. - You bring up points that are extremely easy to address. Its an online forum, in a thread dealing with scientific issues.... if you're going to make posts, you should do at least a bit of basic research. When we can debunk your claims in less than 30 seconds, it makes people wonder why your opinions are even worth considering. Actually it was a couple of years more than that. And you seem to be forgetting... they actually test this stuff out before the public is exposed, both in the lab and in controlled studies. Oh, as long as you read somewhere. Could you be any more vague? Some respected scientific organization, or some conspiracy nut? You see, this is why some people get looked down on... Yes, some people posted claims of "research showing problems with GMO shown here". However, those claims were completely debunked. Yet here you are bringing up the exact came claim, adding nothing new. Did you not read any of the posts showing that that "anti-GMO research claim" was flawed? Except that whether GM food is safe is not a political question, its a scientific one. Much like creationists or anti-vaccination people, there's no scientific evidence to back up their claims so they have to rely on emotion, on imagery, and deception to make their "political case". It doesn't take that long, to grow carrots. You see, this is one of these arguments that was made that is far far too easy to debunk. Did you ever realize that certain crops don't grow well in all situations? Carrots don't grow well in waterlogged soil (you know, the places where rice actually grows well.) The subsistence farmer working a field in sub-saharan Africa or a place like Cambodia will probably not have the proper growing conditions in his local field).

First of all, is there any point in pointing out that at this time, there is no logical evidence that GM foods or modern pesticides, when used properly, have caused any significant problems? The stuff has been studied over and over again, for years and years. Secondly, ever consider that there might be, you know, time frames involved? Ok, so you want to stop the use of GM foods and other modern farming practices because we will find "something better". So, what do you do with the millions in Africa that suffer from Vitamin A deficiency and can't afford to "go buy a carrot"? They need a solution now, not years down the road. Of course, even if they did find a 'better solution', some anti-science idiots will probably try to curtail those solutions as well.

Actually there are problems in some places that have implemented a lot of solar... From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/rooftop-solar-panels-overloading-electricity-grid/story-fn99tjf2-1226165360822 One of Australia's biggest electricity network providers, Ausgrid, yesterday warned that there was a "significant likelihood" that costs would have to rise because of the impact of the solar photovoltaic cells. ...Ausgrid warns that in areas with a high concentration of solar cells, voltage levels can rise and this can have "consequences for appliances and equipment in customers' homes"

Right which exactly why the only countries putting much in the nuclear basket are countries with no coal oil, and gas. You know, I keep pointing out the whole "global warming" thing. For some reason you keep ignoring it. 2 or 3 decades ago, having plentiful fossil fuels might make coal or gas powered electrical generation possible. But at this point in time many/most countries are trying to reduce their CO2 output. Actually we got a pretty good idea... given the fact that we've been using nuclear power for decades and accidents have been relatively rare. We can look at the cost of cleaning up (for example) 3 mile island and calculate and use that as a basis for calculating the expected costs. And once again, need I remind you that overall, the number of fatalities from nuclear power (when you consider the amount of energy they generate) is actually less than the number of deaths from almost every other power source? You seem to be running around shouting "Beware evil nuclear, for it can kill dozens", while ignoring the fact that the alternatives are probably killing many more people. Budget information for the organizations that license/monitor civilian nuclear plans would be available from the government.

Depends on your reason for not wanting to ingest them. If there was actual scientific evidence that pesticides were harmful (and not just some article appearing on some woo-website written by a guy who has never published a paper in the field before) then there would be no problem. But if multiple scientific studies have shown no harm (to either GM foods or pesticides), yet you still say "Organic is better!" then you are indeed anti-science, because you're looking at scientific results and saying "I trust a non-sense website rather than the work of qualified individuals". For one, its never been proven, in scientific studies, that modern pesticides are harmful to humans in our food when used properly. And of course the risk of not using pesticides must also be considered.... more crop losses, possibly mass starvation, etc. Unless you can show that there were actual reliable studies showing that those pesticides harmed humans, then the "origins" of those same pesticides is irrelevant. You're attempting to appeal to emotion rather than logic. And the failure to use DDT (or other pesticides) allowed the spread of diseases like Malaria. I think the other posters in the thread have adequately debunked your arguments, namely: - 'Natural solutions' will also result in weeds that are resistant (the only reason it doesn't happen is because Organic farming is rare.) - Many of those 'natural solutions' can be even more dangerous than the artificial ones (i.e. 'organic pesticides' don't decompose like artificial ones. For example, see: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019?popular=true Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not. Sweet Zombie Jesus. I already explained that in post 175. Do you even bother reading stuff that other people write? Organic farming is harmful because it produces lower yields. This means that more land must be plowed under to make farms to grow the stuff. I'm sure the fluffy bunnies and squirrels living in the forest would prefer not to have their homes destroyed in order to make more farmland so that idiots who insist on "organic everything" will have their emotions soothed. Not to mention the article I quoted above, which points to the fact that 'organic pesticides' includes things like sabadilla, which can harm honey bees. On the other hand, since organic farming is so inefficient, it means that if all-organic methods were used they could grow enough food to feed about 4 billion people. Problem is, there's close to 7 billion people on the planet. That means that you'd be killing off about 1/3 of the people on the planet by going 'organic'. Maybe that might actually help the environment. Oh, and by the way, while I'm at it, should I point out that Ecoli infections are roughly 8 times higher per capita by consumers of organic food than inorganic? When your material contains references to websites like "globalreasearch" then no, you haven't. Jesus christ on a pogostick. Another idiotic statement that's been debunked in an earlier post. Yes, it would be bad if transplanted genes lead to allergic reactions. THAT IS WHY THEY TEST THESE THINGS. Do you really think all scientists work in some underground bunker deliberately trying to kill us all off? Just like any food additive, medication or pesticide, these things are tested before hand. (And guess what? they actually have started developing lists of genes that are problematic.) Once again BECAUSE IT WOULD BE USELESS AND ADD TO THE COST. Wow... just, totally wow. The ignorance is amazing. Did you know that there are more countries that have Vitamin A deficiency than China? Actually, compared to most of the developing world, they're fairly well off. Here's a map showing countries that have been hardest hit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vitamin_A_deficiency.PNG Notice Africa? Almost every country there is listed as having clinical (severe) vitamin A deficiency. And did you know that sub-Saharan africa is also, you know, very poor? Their average income in 2001 was actually lower than it was in 1960 ($315) (See: http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0528/046.html). Simply put, they cannot afford to go out and "buy a carrot". But do you know what Africa does do? It grows rice. Perhaps not as much as they need, but 39 different countries grow rice (including many that have vitamin A deficiencies and who can't just "go buy a carrot".) http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x2243t/x2243t05.htm Anyone applying logic would think "Hmmm... I can't afford a carrot, but I'm growing rice anyways... so why don't I just use this rice that will give me the Vitamin A I need?"

Yes, there is the risk that genetically modified food can introduce proteins that cause allergic reactions. But so what? There's a simple solution... test the products and don't release them commercially until proven safe. In fact, that's what happens now. Do you really think there are lab technicians running around and releasing products willy-nilly? In fact, there has been substantial work done to identify which genes/proteins can cause problems, and avoid them. That's only pragmatic in the developed (western) world. We cannot go and tell people in the developing world to "eat better/eat a carrot" because many people do not have access to alternate food sources. They didn't create golden rice with "vitamin A" genes to help the teenage couch-potato kids in North America. They created it to help people in sub-Saharan Africa and Indian slums who may have problems affording the other foods needed for a "balanced diet". Oh and by the way, you know Monsanto, the "evil corporation" that's trying to poison us all with Frankenfood? Well, they were one of the first companies involved in the creation of Golden Rice to allow distribution royalty-free.

First of all, show me proof that each and every cost estimate has "hidden/subsidized" costs. I've provided a document laying out the costs of nuclear power. If you don't accept it, then fine. Now way to get into your head without a power drill. We arent talking about "lately"... You didn't specify the time frame... Of course, I could also point out that coal and oil have also been relatively cheap over the past few decades. For example, when adjusted for inflation the cost of oil was cheaper in the late 1990s than it was for the past half century. Since the secondary costs of using fossil fuels for power generation (eg. global warming, health issues due to smog) are typically not counted, they will appear cheaper (a fact I mentioned in a previous post). http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp Yup, no new plants started since the 70s (at least in the United States). Which was right around the time of 3 Mile Island (a "disaster" where there were no fatalities, heck, no injuries.) And around the time the movie "China Syndrome" was released. Which just goes to demonstrate the fact that people are often dumb and prone to illogical panic. The problems were largely political rather than technical. You know, its almost like circular reasoning... There's no new construction, because people people are looking at the past few decades and saying "there's no new construction". http://www.cracked.com/article_16078_the-5-most-ridiculously-over-hyped-health-scares-all-time.html Oh, and by the way, there actually has been recent work on building new reactors in the past decade. There was a slowdown caused by the problems with the Japan reactors, but there have been around 50 started since 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance ETA: I've already pointed out that building a nuclear plant requires HUGE upfront capital costs. Its not a case of overall costs, its a case of cost distribution. Then there is also the chance that a private investor will sink millions into a plant, only to have it cancelled for political (rather than economic/engineering) reasons... (On the other hand, a gas/coal/oil plant is cheaper to build, and provides far less risk up-front.)

Look, I think nuclear power will probably be key for long term electricity production. But I do have to question your "fire the waste into space" argument... Keep in mind that the space station is in low earth orbit, and gradually looses altitude. As such, it regularly needs to be 'boosted' into a higher orbit, to keep it from crashing back to earth. If you're going to launch radioactive waste into space you'd have to get it higher than the space station (which costs more money). I should also point out that the space station weighs 450 metric tons. The US generates around 2000 tons of waste per year. So, you'd have to boost the equivalent of 4 space stations per year. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/ Ummm... to do that you'd have to get it to at least the L1 Lagrange point (1500000km from Earth.) Given the fact that the moon is only 384000km from earth, you'd have to boost it more than 4 times the distance to the moon. The cost per pound to launch something into geostationary orbit is around $3000/kg. There is approximately 67000000 kg of nuclear waste. Getting rid of all nuclear waste that way would cost at least 200 billion dollars. (And that's a low estimate, since I'm not counting any cost of radiation shielding, etc., plus that's only a boost to earth orbit, and not to the L1 point.) Yucca mountain was to cost roughly $96 billion, or less than half the cost. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-05-2263572427_x.htm http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf

Not in any of the estimates Iv seen. In fact its almost impossible to even calculate all the subsidies because they are woven into a patchwork of literally hundreds of different federal laws. Once again... It is irrelevant whether the costs are subsidized or not. We know how much construction costs will be, we know how much fuel costs will be, and we know how much decommissioning costs will be. Whether those costs are paid for with subsidies or not is not an issue. We know the expenditures. That's the important part. The fact that you're assuming that the costs are hidden via subsidization does not make it so. Errr... not really. Not any more than any other big, long term engineering/construction project. Umm... first of all "astronomical" costs do not mean "impossible to calculate". And yes, a nuclear disaster would be expensive. But guess what? After many decades of nuclear power it has a better safety record (e.g. fewer deaths per kw of generated power) than almost every other form of electrical generation. Nuclear engineers know the risk, and they take precautions. Again, factored into the cost. The issue is not one of economics or engineering, its political. That's probably because things like electrical generation from natural gas from Shale has become very cheap lately.

Right, and as soon as Wild Bill figures out how to economocally (and safely) send fuel rods to the sun, blasting them off earth in low energy rockets we will be all set for the future of the human race. Reprocessing spent fuel rods would greatly reduce the bulk of material that would have to be dealt with. (I remember reading a statement that in theory, with reprocessing, the total amount of radioactive waste that would be produced by a family over their life time if they used nuclear electricity would be about the size of a cigarette lighter.) And internment (for example in Yucca mountain) is a feasible option from a technical/scientific view... its just politically unpopular.

The only downside I can see is maintenance of these types of systems, but I think we have progressed enough with certain technologies that the shingles thing can happen quite easily. The problem with many of these "alternative" energies like solar is that while an individual installation might appear "safer" than your local nuclear power plant, it is also generating far less energy. When you consider the amount of resources to generate electricity per kilowatt, as well as the number of deaths caused (from something as simple as falling off the roof during installation), Nuclear power has been one of the safest around. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf

I don't think anyone claimed that nuclear power was without its risks/problems. Only that the problems may have been overstated, and the problem with other technologies understated. Not sure if you want to use the Dutch as an example of "green power generation". They use natural gas to do a lot of generation, and in the summer their electricity imports reached record levels. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/08/electricity_imports_reach_reco.php Iceland is also a country with a population of only around 300k people, and benefits from being situation in an area that's quite active volcanically. While I'm not saying geothermal will never be useful, it may not scale up to countries like Canada and/or the U.S., with larger populations and fewer "hot spots".

And I'm pretty sure nobody would want a hydroelectric dam, coal-fired plant, or wind turbine in their neighborhood. Ummm... who's this "we"? Rather than being a 'last resort', they should be our first choice. We know Nuclear Power works, its a mature technology, and its reliable. France went nuclear, and its has been exporting electricity. While I'm not opposed to research, keep in mind that many of those technologies you listed have limitations. Its unknown if they will ever be able to scale up to meet power requirements in a reliable fashion.

When they estimate the cost of generation (per kilowatt, or whatever) it includes all costs, whether the cost appears on your actual electricity bill or is subsidized by the government/taxpayer. Again, the problem with Nuclear is the huge up-front capital construction costs before any power is generated. Yes, they may need subsidies/loans/etc. to pay for building the plant. Once the plant is running it produces power cheaply.

Ummm... because people are stupid and governments often find it more expedient to ignore actual real scientific evidence in favor of what the unwashed masses want?

How about neither? The problem with cap and trade is that it can result in all sorts of abuse... for example, the 'credits' that companies/countries often trade might be based on reductions that were going to happen anyways. See: http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-to-save-world-that-dont-work_p2.html A carbon tax is a little bit better, but it ignores the fungibility of various energy sources (e.g. a unit of electricity generated from coal works the same as a unit of electricity generated by hydro or wind.) With the way our power grids are connected in North America you'd just end up transferring the carbon emissions to another location. This was one of the problems I had with the Liberal's "green plan" in the 2008 election... a province like Manitoba or Quebec could be as wasteful as they want, simply because they produced so much hydro-electric power, even though globally they'd be better off to sell that electricity to areas where they use more fossil fuels. If they want to get a handle on global warming, the government should: - Help subsidize the construction of nuclear reactors. Yes, it will be expensive in the short term, but it might pay off in the long term (and even make us big-time exporter of electricity) - Invest in speculative technologies. I'm not talking wind/solar. They're fairly established (although I'm sure a few enhancements will happen here or there), and at this point whether they succeed or fail will depend on economics. I'm talking about things like oil-from-algae, or nuclear fusion. - If any sort of tax is applied, make sure its applied based on overall energy consumption (not just based on how the energy is produced)

I've also found that many new TVs have VGA inputs in the back, so you can basically use your TV like a great big monitor.

But those "other things that increase food costs" tend to have a real, tangible benefit. For example, there may be costs associated with printing ingredients and/or nutritional values because those things do serve a practical purpose. (There are some people with food allergies and/or dietary restrictions that require that information.) On the other hand, there is no benefit to labeling food as "GM-free" because in real, practical terms, it makes no difference to the end consumer. (i.e. there is no known harm that will come from eating a GM-produced tomato compared to a traditional or organically produced tomato). The only reason people would care is to their own personal paranoia, and I do not feel that I should have to pay more because of other people's lack of scientific knowledge. Ummm... it was pointed out by another poster that printing the information would increase costs. Pretty much every company in the world would probably balk at spending money unnecessarily. That's probably because: A: We have a ton of laws/regulations helping to mandate our food is safe, so there is no need to go through the trouble of making such decisions Safer, not sure. It could if it prevents any food-borne disease. (Not aware of any specific manipulations for that though.) Actually, the longer shelf life might make it tastier, given 2 similar items (one GM, the other organic) that are stored for similar periods of time. The non-GM product would end up spoiling (and tasting worse) sooner than the GM would. Actually some of the modifications actually do make food more nutritious. Pretty much all food eaten by people in the western world is the result of large-scale farming, where GM would be cheaper. Actually yes it would be less harmful to the environment. Longer shelf life means less spoilage/food waste. This ultimately means less farm land is required to grow the same amount of food. So less wilderness is plowed under for crops, fewer bunny rabbits with their homes turned into fields.

First of all, keep in mind that not all estimates show that Nuclear power generation more expensive than gas/coal/etc. Estimates vary widely, but at least some show that Nuclear can be cheaper. The problem with Nuclear is the huge upfront capital costs (compared to fossil fuel generation, where most of the cost is with the fuel itself.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources Secondly, even when coal/oil is considered cheaper, that is often because only direct costs are measured.... external concerns are not factored in. So the cost of, for example, handling global warming or dealing with health concerns due to smog (both issues with coal generation) may or may not be included when they calculate costs. Lastly, the costs of nuclear power can be reduced further if spent fuel is recycled (something that isn't often done.) Minor point... France also has to import Uranium, although its probably a lot cheaper to transport a few pounds of uranium instead of a few tons of coal.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html Ummm... do you have any information from a reliable source regarding the shutdown of radiation detectors? In case you didn't know, Natural News is a 'woo' web site, promoting such scientific nonsense as vaccine hysteria and quack medical cures. You can also find articles on that site promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. Obviously, they're not exactly a reliable source of information. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

Equalization money doesn't come with strings attached. I never claimed there were strings attached. But seeing a "have not" province with social programs more generous than the ones I receive doesn't make me look too fondly at the whole equalization program. While that is true, it isn't so easy to just look at that and say that the province should be doing better. And why not? We know that the products that Quebec produces haven't really suffered in price or demand lately. Its a net exporter to the rest of Canada. You should expect it to be doing well. The problem with looking at GDP is that its a function of both external forces (prices and demand for products, etc.) and internal management. While Quebec's economy supposedly suffers so much that it needs equalization payments, it holds referendums on separation that serve to drive its economy even further into the ground.

While it is true that there are other provinces that receive higher payments per-capita, I think the main issues is why they receive such payments and what they use the money for. If I remember correctly, some of the Maritime provinces receive higher per-capita payments. However, those provinces have a relatively small population base (i.e. not much potential for heavy industry) and few resources (e.g. the fishery industry in many areas have collapsed). We don't feel bad about transfer payments to them because they appear to truly need them. Quebec, with a relatively large population base and significant resources (hydro, mineral, etc.) should be able to do without transfers. Yet they receive them, and the money is often spent on social programs that exceed those in other provinces (e.g. fully funded daycare, lower student tuition fees, etc.). The second issue is one of, well, gratitude. There is a perception from the "rest of Canada" that Quebec doesn't really appreciate transfers from the rest of Canada. Assumptions by Quebec that they can 'go it alone' financially (i.e. separate), as well as occasional polls that show at least some Quebec citizens falsely think their province is a net contributor to Canada. Well, apart from the issue of transfers that were covered earlier, there are a few other issues: - The tendency of some governments to appease Quebec (e.g. Mulroney giving F18 maintenance contracts to a firm from Quebec rather than Manitoba, more dairy production quotas for Quebec, etc.) - Holding referendums on separation do have a negative effect on Canada's economy due to the uncertainty they cause, and do give an air of ungratitude. And even though most Quebecers voted to stay in Canada, they still elected many politicians, federally and provincially who favored separation.

Not really sure if Germany is really in a position to lecture anybody about environmental policy. While they should be given some credit for their use of wind/solar power, much of their success in meeting Kyoto's requirements for carbon reductions was due to the merger of East and West Germany (and the subsequent shutdown/clean up of East germany's inefficient industries.) Not that I don't think carbon emissions should be ignored.