Using fluoride bans to push other nonsense

Today on Facebook The Industry of Stupid posted what I consider to be a pretty ridicules screen shot:

(Let it noted that TIOS doesn't endorse this, they just posted it to show off some peoples' stupidity)

The first sentence says there has been some controversy over adding synthetic fluoride to water supplies, and sadly this is true. What they are claiming is that there has not been enough controversy. Many others would say differently and say that it's been to much controversy, and that there shouldn't be any controversy at all because the amount of fluoride added to most water systems is in such low doses that you would have to drink over three times as much water as the recommend daily intake inorder to ingest enough fluoride for it to be toxic to you.

Odds are you would probably die of water poisoning before you would die of fluoride poisoning if just from drinking water.

The sentence says that water fluoridation is a serious issue. This is somewhat true, but only in the financial sense and whether or not water fluoridation is worth the cost. All other concerns are are the result of not understanding the science behind water fluoridation, as well as fear induced paranoia brought on by conspiracy theories and junk science regrading water fluoridation.

The last sentence states that fluoride, along with GMOs and vaccines rank among the "greatest crimes against humanity".

Besides the fact that these two things have nothing to do with water fluoridation, this isn't simply not true, it's actually quite the opposite.

Both GMOs and vaccines are not only safe, they have also been two of the most beneficial things for humanity by decreasing starvation and decreasing one's chances of dieing from an infectious disease.

Not only is this person trying to push the made up controversies surrounding water fluoridation, they are also trying to couple this with the made up controversies surrounding GMOs and vaccines to make it sound like they are all the same in a sense.

The only thing these things have in common is the fact that people believe they are bad for you and that they are part of some conspiracy, as well as the fact they all have been beneficial to our overall health.

Last, the picture in the screen shot itself claims that 98% of all European counties ban water fluoridation. This is not accurate. Most places in Europe do not ban water fluoridation, they just choose not too.

Frankenbull: GMOs run amuck, or a deception of the Anti-GMO movement

Recently I saw an article on a conspiracy theorist website concerning what they claimed was a genetically modified bull called the Belgian Blue (read the article here).

As you can clearly see that is one right big bull (although most bovine species do tend to be big creatures) and looks like a result direct genetic manipulation. Also, the way the article is worded (and the fact that the title of the article is "FRANKENBULL: GIGANTIC GMO BULLS Are Now A REALITY") makes it sound like the species was only recently developed, and that is was the result of direct genetic manipulation. This is not true for either one.

While the species is the result of a kind of genetic manipulation, it is not however the result direct genetic manipulation (which involves directly manipulating a life form's DNA) but instead indirect genetic manipulation through the use of selective breeding.

Infact the breed itself was first identified in the early 19th century, and the modern beef breed was developed in the 1950's through the use of artificial insemination. So it is not a new breed, and was not developed by messing with it's DNA (which is technology that scientists did not have back then). The article ofcourse doesn't mention any of this.

Heck, one of the photos in the article is also clearly not a modern photo either, and appears to be from atleast from either the 50's or the 60's:

Now by the standards of the Anti-GMO movement this freakish looking bovine is not a GMO animal because it's genetic manipulation is not the result of manipulating it's DNA, but the result of genetic manipulation through selective breeding (which almost all other species of domesticated plants and animals that are used for food are the result of in one form or another) and by their standards is okay to eat (which apparently it is).

The article is clearly being deceptive, and was only posted inorder to scare people away from GMO foods by making it appear that if scientists are willing to create something like that through direct genetic manipulation, then who knows what they are willing and able to do with the rest of our food. Infact you'd pretty much have live off the land and eat nothing but wild plants and animals inorder to have a diet that consisted of no foods that are the result of genetic manipulation of one form or another.

If the anti-GMO movement is so blatantly willing to lie about something like this that was so easy to find the truth about and debunk, then who knows what else they're willing to lie about inorder to make GMO foods look dangerous?

"You Know You Are a Conspiracy Theorist If…" a deceptive test to make people believe they are a conspiracy theorist

A few months ago I came across this "test" (which I found to be laughable win I saw it) to help a person tell a conspiracy theorist or not (view the test here).

I have some things to say about this "test" and some comments about "questions" that were asked (well, they're not really questions) as well as a few questions of my own:

You are capable of critical thinking.

This is a paradox. If a conspiracy theorist was capable of critical thinking, then they wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist because people who are capable of critical thinking would figure out that a conspiracy theory was BS.

You distrust mainstream media.

So do most skeptics, although for entirely different reasons than conspiracy theorists do.

You like nature.

Lots of people do. What does this have to do with being a conspiracy theorist?

You think it’s a good idea to spend the Friday after Thanksgiving with your family rather than camping outside Best Buy to get a cheap plasma television made in China.

That doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist. That makes you someone who is smart enough not to waste their time in the cold waiting for some store to open in the hope of finding bargains.

You think it’s a little strange that WTC building 7 came down at free fall speed on 9/11 yet it was never hit by a plane.

This might make you a conspiracy theorist, as well as someone who has conveniently forgotten that WTC7 was hit by something... a skyscraper.

You think that drones in America might not be for Al Qaeda.

This might also make you a conspiracy theorist... or it might make you someone who knows drones that fly over America are also used for multiple benign purposes.

You would like to be able to get on a plane without having to engage in a mandatory radiation bath and digital strip search.

As do many Americans, especially those who have gone through that process.

You have read a book in the past year.

What does reading a book have to do with being a conspiracy theorist?

You think you have the right to protest.

According to the first Amendment I don't think I have the right, I have the right, period!

You think the War on Terror is a scam.

That depends on what your definition of "scam" is.

You think the War on Drugs is a scam.

Again, that depends on what your definition of "scam" is. Does your definition mean completely bogus and fraudulent, or wasteful and unnecessary?

You think the anger directed at America from the Middle East could possibly be related to our foreign policy rather than hating how amazingly free we are.

This just means you've done more than five minutes worth of research about the Middle East.

You think the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same on the important issues affecting our country.

This could mean you're a conspiracy theorist... it could also mean that you're a Libertarian, or you're just ticked off at both political parties.

You think believing in The Constitution does not constitute a terrorist act.

Who the Hell believes that believing in the constitution is a terrorist act? The only people who believe that are idiots!

You have heard of the Bill of Rights and can even name what some of them are.

As most Americans have and can...

You question whether the government loves you.

The government is not a living entity. It neither loves nor hates, therefore it is pointless to ask if it loves you or not.

You think the right to bear arms is not for hunting, rather so citizens can fight back should the government become a bunch of tyrannical thugs.

Yeah, this could mean that you're a conspiracy theorist... it could also mean that you just don't like the government, or you're afraid that the United States "could" become a tyrannical dictatorship.

You don’t own a television, and if you do, all you watch is RT, especially the Keiser Report and Capital Account.

(Reading that alone makes me wonder if this is satire) If all you watch on television is RT (Russia Today) then there is no need to finish this test. You are a conspiracy theorist.

You don’t think the NDAA is the name of Kesha’s latest single.

Who's Kesha?

You think rich, powerful and connected people should be subject to the rule of law and go to jail if they commit crimes. Even if they are bankers and work at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.

I'm sure that Bernie Madoff would disagree.

You think corporations aren’t people.

As do most other Americans.

You think Warren Buffet is a phony and a crony capitalist.

This could make you a conspiracy theorist. This could also make you a socialist, some one who doesn't like the rich, or someone who doesn't like Warren Buffet.

You don’t care that Warren Buffet likes cherry coke, hamburgers and ice cream.  He’s still a bad guy.

What does what he likes to eat has to do with him being a bad person or not?

You know that gold was made illegal by FDR in 1933 and confiscated from the American people.  You know that gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until 1975.

So American history experts are now considered to be conspiracy theorists?

You think politicians that push for war should be sent to fight on the front lines.  If they are unable, their children should go.

Lots of people think this. It might mean that you're a conspiracy theorist, or it could mean that you're someone that is against war and feels that the ones who start them should be the ones who fight them.

You want your food to be labeled GMO so that you can make your own decisions on what you are consuming.

This could mean you're a conspiracy theorist, or it could meant that you're a health fanatic whom has been lead to believe that GMO foods are bad for you.

You grow your own food.

Lots of people do that. This has nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist.

You buy raw milk.

You could be a conspiracy theorist, or much like with GMO foods, you could also be a health fanatic who believes that raw milk is better for you than pasteurized milk (the exact opposite is true).

You think food and energy should be included in inflation calculations.

I'm sure most economist would agree with this.

You are aware that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.2 billion rounds of ammo in the past year.

A lot of people are aware of this. A lot of people are also aware that this is just another example of bureaucratic waste.

You question whether said ammo purchases are in anticipation of a Normandy beach style landing by Al Qaeda.

I'm sure if you believe that is the official explanation for why so much ammo was bought (instead of the real official explanation in that it was a good deal on the price it was being bought at) then you're probably a conspiracy theorist.

You think allowing a small group of unelected people (The Federal Reserve) to print unlimited amounts of money and distribute it as they please might not be a good idea.

I might be a conspiracy theorist if I thought this way too about the Federal Reserve, and I would think this way if it wasn't for the fact that members of the Federal Reserve board have to be confirmed by the Senate first before they can take office, and the fact that the Federal Reserve is not incharge of printing money (the Department of Treasury does that).

Now the final part of this "test" says this:

If you answered yes to more than five of the above, you might be a conspiracy theorist.
You also may be on the government’s terror watch list.  Be very alarmed and report it to the authorities immediately should you discover your neighbors engaged in such uncivilized thought.

I answered yes to 19 of them. I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm almost certain I'm not on any terrorist watch list.

This test is extremely deceptive, and is meant to make the average person believe that they are a conspiracy theorist by throwing in a bunch of mundane questions that almost every American would answer yes to, and enough of them that it would be nearly impossible for anyone not to answer yes to atleast five. Heck, most of these questions have nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist, and should not have been on there.

Being a conspiracy theorist has nothing to do with growing your own food or having no trust in the government. It has everything to do with whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories.

11 Reasons why people believe in Pseudoscience

Why do some people believe in pseudoscience?

It's a question that I'm sure that many skeptics have asked when they encounter someone who believes in something that has been discredited for years (sometime centuries).

Doing a little bit of research into the subject, as well as a bit of thinking, I've come up with quite a few reasons why some people actually believe in pseudoscience.

11. It goes along with their beliefs.

Due to either religious or personal beliefs (or a combination of both) some people will believe in the pseudoscientific explanation for something, rather than the scientific explanation for something, if the pseudoscientific explanation goes along with their beliefs. Sometimes this will even go so far as to out right reject and ignore the scientific explanation, so long as the pseudoscientific explanation goes along with their beliefs, and the scientific explanation does not.

Examples of this would be people who have strong biblical beliefs rejecting the theory of evolution in place of intelligent design because intelligent design goes along with the creation story, or people who reject modern medicine in place of alternative medicine or believe in claims that vaccines cause autism because they believe pharmaceutical companies are evil, or people who believe that GMO foods are bad for you because they believe that organic foods are better for you and that GMO foods aren't tested or regulated.

10. Real science can be difficult to understand.

I have to admit, there are some things in science that are just difficult to understand, and unless you already have a decent amount of knowledge about a certain scientific field, you probably aren't going to understand whats going on if someone is discussing something about that scientific field.

Pseudoscience on the other hand is usually much easier to understand than real science, and because pseudoscience tends to be much easier to understand than real science, it can attract some people who have become frustrated with real science and their inability to understand it.

9. It sounds more awesome.

Besides being difficult to understand, science can also be boring to some people.

Because some people find the real scientific explanations to certain things to be boring and uninteresting, some people will go over to the pseudoscientific explanations, because it sounds a lot more exciting.

An example of this would be the explanation by ancient astronaut theorists that the Great Pyramid at Giza was constructed by aliens using their advanced technology for reasons unknown. Sounds a lot more exciting than the actual scientific explanation in that it was a giant monument and tomb constructed over a 20 year period by thousands of people for some egotistical Pharaoh.

8. It sounds more logical.

For some people that don't have a good understanding of both how science and logic works, a pseudoscientific explanation can actually sound a lot more logical than an actual scientific and/or logical explanation for certain things.

Lets take crop circles for example. Some people believe that crop circles are made by aliens as a way to send us a message. To some people this sounds more logical than the actual explanation of a bunch of pranksters getting together and creating these geometric shapes in wheat fields using rope and 2x4s.

7. It makes them feel smart.

Because real science can be hard to understand, it can make certain people feel dumb when they try to understand it and just can't. On the other hand because many things in pseudoscience are easy for most people to understand, and because of the false assumption that it is real science, it can make people feel smart when they understand it.

Because of the fact that they can understand it (and because they feel that it makes them look smart because they understand it) they might be more inclined to believe in it.

6. They were taught it and have yet to be exposed to the facts.

Most of the time when a person believes in a pseudoscience it's because it either makes them feel smart due to their lack of knowledge in the field of science, or they're just being stubborn in their beliefs that don't go along with the scientific and/or logical explanation. Sometimes of course it could also be that they were taught the pseudoscientific explanation, and never was exposed to the facts.

This could come in two different means: First, it could be because of an overbearing parent who refuses to allow their child to learn the scientific explanation for something in place of their own personal and/or religious beliefs (as is the case with many fundamentalist Christian parents who homeschool their children and only teaches them "intelligent design"). Second, it could be because what a person believes to a science fact is really a scientific misconception and they've had no reason to find out if it was true or not.

5. A celebrity believes in it.

Celebrities, much like the rest of us, are only human, and because of this many celebrities believe in some pseudosciences. Because celebrities can also be so influential to certain people, and can give off the misconception that they are smart, it can make some people believe that it's cool or okay to believe in that pseudoscience because this celebrity believes in it, and that it must be true because they believe that celebrity is smart, which may or may not be the case.

Most of the time this harmless because the pseudoscience the celebrity believes in is harmless. Sometimes it's not.

4. A scientist endorses it.

Much like celebrities, scientists are also humans as well. Because of this sometimes scientists will endorse a pseudoscience too.

Because an actual scientist, or doctor, or engineer officially endorses a pseudoscience, it can cause some people to not only believe in that pseudoscience, but even refuse to believe otherwise despite a majority of scientists, or doctors, or engineers who say otherwise and can back up their reasons why.

3. It was once considered real science.

There are several different types of pseudosciences out there that at one time were considered to be real sciences, but was either discredited by, or over taken by real science.

Because somethings were once considered to be real science, some people might be inclined to believed that it is still considered to be real science. Or, it could because they don't believe it should be outright abandoned.

2. The possibility it could be real.

There are some pseudosciences that exist not because the subject at hand is real, but because of the possibility that it is real.

Because there are certain pseudoscientific subjects that could be real (no matter how remote) this could lead some people to believing it really is real. Or, this could cause some people to believe in a pseudoscience is real just incase it ever is proven to be real and they don't look like a fool.

1. It goes along with something they are trying to sell.

Sometimes belief in a pseudoscience doesn't just make logical sense to some people, it can also make finical sense as well, especially if they are selling some product or service based on pseudoscience (like alternative medicine). This can be due to the combination of wanting something you're selling to work, and customers telling you that it works.

7 Reasons why Conspiracy Theorists get their videos and pages removed from Youtube

There are lots and lots of conspiracy theory videos on Youtube (and I mean a lot of them). These videos can range from being interesting to disturbing on multiple levels (being either because of the content in it, or the kind of conspiracy theory that is being talked about, or the fact that people can believe something so utterly ridiculous) and sometimes these videos end up getting deleted (and even whole pages).

Usually when a conspiracy theorist's video or page gets deleted they'll claim that (insert group here) are the ones whom either deleted the video or their page.

The reality is that this is never really the case, and that in fact there is usually some real, legitimate reasons why conspiracy theorists actually get their videos and pages removed from Youtube:

7. It contains copyrighted materials.

Probably one of the most common reasons why a video (or an entire page) gets removed from Youtube (and not just for conspiracy theorists, but anyone really, including skeptics) is because it contains a certain amount, or a certain type of copyrighted material that does not fall under the fair use laws, and thus is subjected to a DMCA complaint by either a single individual, or an entire group or business.

The recipient of the DMCA complaint does have a chance to get whatever material that was removed restored [example], but more often times then not they won't do this, either because it makes them look like the victim of some dark forces trying to hide the "truth", or out real of fear that if they do so then they might "disappear" after they give out the contact information that Youtube requires to begin the process of whether or not the video or page gets restored.

Of course there are those that say "screw these people, I'm putting that video back up."

6. The video contains hate speech.

Because many conspiracy theories have antisemitic undertones to them (or are blatantly antisemitic) it should be no surprise that some conspiracy theorists are antisemitic themselves, and are bigoted towards other groups as well. It should also come as no surprise that sometimes conspiracy theorists post videos that are blatantly bigoted and targets specific groups of people as well (Jewish people mainly, but other groups such as African Americans and Homosexuals as well) and contains language that can be best described as hate speech.

While hate speech is not actually illegal in the United States (although some kinds is legally questionable) Youtube does have a anti-hate speech policy, and will remove a video if enough complaints are launched (although sometimes this doesn't always happen).

5. The video encourages violence and/or other illegal activity.

Because certain conspiracy theorists believe that the government is preparing to throw certain citizens into concentration camps (or kill them) some conspiracy theorists may create videos encouraging their viewers to violently resist anyone who tries to arrest them. Other times these videos might even encourage the viewers to go out and commit acts of anti-government violence, or show you how to make something illegal, like a bomb.

Other videos might also encourage other types of destructive crimes as well, like vandalism. An example of this would be someone in the anti-GMO movement encouraging people to burn farm fields containing GMO crops.

4. The user is harassing people.

Sometimes when a person is removed from Youtube it has nothing to do with the videos they are posting, but rather it is their behavior and treatment towards others on the site.

While harassing and even threatening people isn't something that just conspiracy theorists do, it is something that conspiracy theorists do sometimes do in order to try to scare a skeptic away from Youtube. Sometimes it works, most of the time it just gets them in trouble with Youtube (and law enforcement).

3. The videos contain graphic images.

Sometimes Youtube takes down a video not because it's actually encouraging violence, or has had a DMCA complaint was launched against it. No, sometimes it's because the content in the video was simply to graphic to be allowed on Youtube, even under an age restriction.

2. They get hacked.

Many times when a conspiracy theorist's page on Youtube goes down they'll claim that their page got hacked by the government, and sometimes they are right (at least about the hacked part, not about the government part).

The truth is that conspiracy theorists do sometimes end up angering the wrong person, and said person might feel that Youtube is taking to long to take down a video or someones page (or they don't even bother to try to let Youtube handle it) and if they have enough skills and know how, they hack the page and get rid of whatever they don't like (an action in which I neither encourage nor endorse).

1. The user does it themselves.

Sometimes conspiracy theorists actually take down their own videos and then claim that Youtube told them to take the videos down, which Youtube does not do (Youtube would just take down the videos and then send a warning).

While there are probably multiple reasons why a conspiracy theorist takes down their own video, the most likely reason is that they want you to think that the government has something to hide, and thus it gets their own page more attention from other conspiracy theorists.

Anti-Vaccination & Anti-GMO: Proof that bad things do come from "Good Intentions"

Many of you probably already know about the Anti-vaccination and Anti-GMO crowds, and what they stand for. For those that do not, I'll refresh your memories:

The Anti-vaccination crowd claims that vaccines can cause debilitating in children, primarily autism, while the Anti-GMO crowds claim that food from genetically modified plants are unhealthy and possibly dangerous.

While I know that both of these groups believe very strongly that what they are saying is true, and that they are spreading whatever they think is true because they only have "good intention" and think what they're doing is right, the reality is what they are doing is very wrong.

Besides the fact that the information that both of these groups put out tends to be out right false, or is based upon outdated information, they don't seem to realize the real damage they are actually doing.

For the Anti-vaccination, the damage is very obvious.

The spreading of the anti-vaccine propaganda has caused some parents to become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines, which in turn has cause those parents to choose to not allow their children to get vaccinated, which has caused the rise of many illnesses among children that I had not even heard of anyone getting when I was in school, and that for the most part I didn't even think could kill someone because I had never heard of anyone dying from these illnesses before, more or less know someone who died from something like the measles.

As a result of this combination propaganda and paranoia, hundreds of children, if not more so, have died, and thousands of children have gotten sick unnecessarily because their parents failed to get them vaccinated, or because they were to young to get vaccinated, and they got sick from another child that was sick with something that could been prevent with a vaccine shot.

Then there is the Anti-GMO crowd, which while might not seem as harmful, could actually be worse.

While there is this popular belief that GMO foods are harmful, untested, and unregulated, all of these are false as GMO foods are heavily tested, heavily regulated, and are no more harmful than organic foods.

While organic food itself isn't actually bad, the people in the Anti-GMO crowd wants to ultimately ban GMO foods, and that is bad thing because the world population can not sustain it's current levels on organic food alone. In fact only 2/3 of that current world population would be able to sustain itself on organic food (and that's the high end).

The fact is that the world hunger problems are bad enough as they are, and would be far worse if the Anti-GMO crowd had it their way and the only food we grew was organic food.

I know that both groups have good intentions, and that both think what they are doing is for the betterment of human kind, but the fact is that they only things these two groups are doing are bringing needless suffering and death, and instead of being saviors of humanity, they are harming it.

Instead of GMO labeling laws, perhaps what we need is...

There has been a lot of debate recently over whether or not food companies should legally be required to label their foods as being either GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) or not if they happen to actually be GMOs.

Supporters of these laws claim that this would give consumers the ability to know what they are buying, and whether or not they are actually buying something that is organic or not.

Critics on the other hand claim that such laws are unnecessary and even excessive, since it is well established that most foods are in fact either considered GMOs (technically speaking all foods are actually GMOs in one way or another) or at least would not be considered organic by many people in the organic food community, and that many people who do produce organic foods already label their products as being organic.

While this labeling law debate is sure to not go away any time soon, I do wonder if perhaps the anti-GMO crowd is going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of there being GMO labeling laws, there should be  organic food labeling laws instead.

While the GMO food industry is heavily regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (despite what many people in the anti-GMO crowd believes) there is actually very little regulation for the organic food industry.

In the United States there are no laws that says what foods are considered organic, and what foods are not considered organic. In fact anyone can actually claim that the food that they are producing is organic, when in fact what the food that is being produced is not considered organic by anyone's standards...

While the United States Department of Agriculture does have a organic foods certification program that is regulated, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. that says a company has to go through this certification program before they start to claim their food product is organic, and no one can do anything about because there are no laws that says you can't do that.

It's even possible that some food producers will claim that their food is organic when it really isn't simply as a selling point, and so that they have an excuse to sell their product at a higher cost than what it really should be selling for in order to make a larger profit...

Also, the fact that there is no legal requirement for what can and can not be labeled organic foods might cause people not to wash off fruits and vegetables because they might not think it's necessary if they believe it's organic (this should be done anyways regardless if it really is organic or not as the USDA actually allows the use of pesticides for it's organic food certification program, and it's just common sense to do that anyways).

What really is needed is not GMO labeling laws, but organic food labeling laws, because not only would it be far easier and cheaper to implement (simply put, if someone doesn't believe that their product will receive a legal certification of being organic, they're probably not going to waste the time and money to try to get their product legally certified as organic in the first place when they can go on and sell it as it is, and they most likely won't claim that their product is organic because they won't want to face the legal circumstances if they do and they are not suppose to) and it would also allow consumers who choose to buy organic foods to know whether or not the food they are buying is in fact truly organic, and not just something some company claims.

At the very least it would help prevent companies from making fraudulent claims about their products...

Debunking the Anti-Monsanto/Anti-GMO claims

On May 25, a local group held a protest near where I live to protest Monsanto and GMO foods.

The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.

Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.

I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:

1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.

This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.

Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.

2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.

Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.

Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.

3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.

There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]

4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.

Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.

As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.

5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."

In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.

Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.

6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).

This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.

Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.

7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.

The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.

8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental,  and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.

While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.

Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].

9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.

If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.

10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.

While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.

11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.

There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).

While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.

Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.

Local Earth Day festival: Oh the Woo!

On April 20 my home town held it's annual Earth Day festival.

I walked down to it (since it is near my house, and I walk down to the area where it was held everyday anyways, so that's no problem) and took a look around to see what was going.

There was of course a lot of people selling stuff (clothes, hand made jewelry, etc.), there was activities for kids, and there was the selling and promoting of woo and pseudoscience...

Now there was a lot of promoting of organic foods (which doesn't bother me that much, it's just that there are some things that are claimed about it that are simply not true) and new age stuff, but there was also the promoting of things there that honestly should not have been there.

There was of course first this:

I have no idea what this has to do with Earth Day or conservation. All I know is that you are basically wasting $10 on something that is vague and won't really tell you anything.

Next I saw this:




















It's bad enough that adults go to these fake doctors, but kids???

If your child has any of these problems, don't take them to a chiropractor, take them to a REAL doctor.

Besides, what does any of these things have to with the spine in the first place???

Finally there was this:

Yep, it's the blatant promotion of anti-GMO foods (and the basic promotion Monsanto conspiracy theories, and also thus the promoting of GMO conspiracy theories).

This of course wasn't the only things that promoted woo and pseudoscience (and in my opinion should not have been there) but these three things should never have been allowed to be there at all, because they have nothing to do with either Earth Day, nor the environment, and not only promoted stuff that not only wastes money, but also may be harmful.

There were a few booths there that really were promoting conservation and environmentalism, but they were just drowned out by the people promoting stuff that really had nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism.

Over all the whole event left me with a feeling that it was more about the promoting and selling (quite literally at that) of woo and pseudoscience, and that much of what was there should not have been there, and that the whole event was more of a promoting of the New Age movement, rather than conservation or the environment.

5 Things I've noticed about... Organic Food

There's a lot of things I've notice organic foods and the claims about it, and of all the things I've noticed about organic foods, there are five things about it that really stand out for me.

So here are five things I've noticed about organic food:

5. It's expensive.

Organic food cost an awful lot, and in some cases twice as much as non-organic foods, and unless you are very well off, it can get expensive real quick and make a real hit on a households budget.

Even if organic food were to cost only 10% more than conventional food, the expense can still add pretty quickly, even if not all the food you buy is organic, just some of your food.

4. It's not as environmentally friendly as one might think.

Due to the sheer fact that organic farming doesn't produce as high of a yield of crops per acre as with regular farming, if organic farming was done nation wide (or world wide for that matter) over regular farming, then a lot more land would be needed to grow crops in order to feed everyone, thus things like deforestation would increase in order to make open land to grow crops on, and to raise animals for meat on.

3. There's no set guide lines for what's considered organic.

There is really no set of criteria or laws and regulations for what can be considered and labeled organic food, and also what is considered to be organic to one person might not be considered organic to another person.

Also, because there is no set criteria or guide lines for what is considered organic, a farmer could claim what they are growing is organic, but in reality is not by most anyone's standards, and could be claimed to be organic to only be used as a selling point to get people to buy their product.

2. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.

Studies have shown that organic foods is no more healthier or nutritious than conventional, non-organic foods.

In fact the only real benefits organic foods have over conventional foods is that sometimes organic foods tastes better, and that organically raised meat animals do have a much lower chance of getting certain types diseases that results from eating food made with animal by products, but it doesn't prevent animals from getting certain types of diseases that could be prevented through the use of antibiotics. Some people could even argue that not giving an animal antibiotics is a form of animal cruelty.

1. It's not really organic.

Most people who prefer organic foods over conventional foods will tell you that organic foods must be free of genetic modifications, but the thing about that is that most of our basic foods have been genetically modified at one point in time or another, either through crossbreeding, cross pollination, or just simple crop and animal selection.

Most of our modern basic foods are the result of some type of man-made genetic modifications. The only real difference is that it wasn't done in a laboratory using modern scientific equipment.

Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Water Fluoridation

Ever since the 1970's the United States, along with several other countries, has been putting fluoride in the public water supplies in an effort to reduce tooth decay, and ever since there has been controversy. While some of the controversy concerns some legitimate reasons, such as cost, and effectiveness, and some safety concerns. Others concerns tend to be just outright conspiracy theories.

The two main conspiracy theories concerning water fluoridation is that the fluoride in the water is causing peoples' intelligence to lower, and that it's causing people to become infertile. The reason why conspiracy theorists believe this is because fluoride is a poison, and that any amount of fluoride, no matter how small the amount, is dangerous to humans.

First, if water fluoridation did cause infertility, then why hasn't the birth rate and population gone down? Also, the fact is, is that poisons don't infertility. Genetics, disease, radiation, and injuries to reproductive organs causes infertility.

Second, while our intelligence "might" be lowering (and this is an issue of debate) it's more likely the result of the lowering of educational standards, and possibly some peoples' distrust in science.

It is true, fluoride can kill a person, but only if it's consumed in a large enough amounts. The amount varies from person to person, but usually it's somewhere between 5 to 10 grams.

It would be impossible to consume even a fraction of fluoride through drinking water from public water supplies to cause a person any harm. This is due to the fact that the water has diluted the fluoride so much that it renders it to the point where it is harmless.

It should also be noted that fluoride, even in larger, but non-lethal amounts, does not cause infertility, or lowering of intelligence. It can cause leg pain and incomplete stress fractures, and also stomach irritation and sometimes even ulcers. The amount of water you would need to drink at one time in order to cause the leg and stomach problems would be so much that it's physically impossible to do. You would either be physically unable to continue to drink, or you would dry drown.