Video of Patriot McCain shutting down Racist goes viral

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Wrong again as usual since you refuse to inform yourself

NO You Still made an Appeal to Emotion ... without posting and information to back up YOUR Assertion

now that you have, let us have a look at your quote ...

"This week Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler announced the agency’s decision to allow farmers to keep spraying a dangerous brain-damaging pesticide on fruits and vegetables. The pesticide, chlorpyrifos, has been shown to harm a child’s brain even at low levels of exposure."

Quoting a Progressive Chicken Little Group does little for your argument ... junk science and scare tactics

more emotional drivel

Environmental Working Group

Environmental “Worry” Group
EWG has overseen a Reign of Error lasting more than two decades

If you’ve picked up a newspaper during the last twenty years, odds are you’ve come across a breathlessly written news report warning against some item that is secretly poisoning you. “Sunscreen is causing cancer” the headlines might scream. “Why your baby’s bottle is poison,” says the local newscaster. “Non-organic vegetables are covered in toxins,” another report might ominously warn. If you actually read the story that accompanies these attention-grabbing headlines, you’ll notice that many of them come from the same source: the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and related organizations like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

There’s really only one thing you need to know about the Environmental Working Group when it comes to its studies of toxins: 79 percent of members of the Society of Toxicology (scientists who know a little something about toxins) who rated the group say that the Environmental Working Group overstates the health risk of chemicals.

That’s because the EWG has a history of passing shady “science” off as solid facts. Its main talent isn’t research, it’s duping reporters into credulously transcribing their “findings.” A nonprofit organization that has learned how to turn public panic into a stream of hefty donations, the Environmental Working Group has no problem ginning up outrage that causes families needless worry and does incalculable damage to honest industries. Hyperbole, it seems, is big business – last year the EWG raised more than $6 million.


Sunscreen Scare

In July 2010, the Environmental Working Group released a sunscreen guide; in it, EWG argued that certain chemicals that are commonly used within sunscreen solutions are dangerous carcinogens and should be avoided. Its bad guy du jour was retinyl palmitate. As Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society pointed out in the Montreal Gazette, “better known as vitamin A, retinol plays an important role in maintaining normal skin function. When added to creams or lotions, it can reduce the appearance of fine lines, giving the skin a more youthful appearance.” Since it’s not stable, it is turned into retinyl palmitate, which enhances collagen formation and increases cell division.The EWG based its report on laboratory experiments showing that mice exposed to ultraviolet light while having retinyl palmitate applied to their skin developed tumors more quickly than mice that didn’t. The only problem, as Dr. Schwarcz points out, is that the study has not been peer reviewed, no sunscreen lotion consists solely (or even primarily) of retinyl palmitate, and another study from 2009 on hamsters concluded the exact opposite of what the new study shows. (Make that “the only three problems.”) Indeed, the New York-based Skin Cancer Foundation disputed the report’s findings and, according to the Palm Beach Post, is worried that “consumers confused about the report might stop using sunscreens.” This is a legitimate concern, since over-exposure to sunlight is a well-known cause of skin cancer.The Skin Cancer Foundation and Dr. Schwarcz weren’t the only ones to express concern. The Orange County Register reported that “Dr. Matt Goodman, a dermatologist in the melanoma program at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, says the Environmental Working Group’s claims on retinyl palmitate are suspect because they rely on research done on mice. … ‘This leads me to conclude that risk is extremely low, if nonexistent.’”

Greens Want to Hide the Truth about Chlorpyrifos

As part of that appeal, farm groups have filed an amicus brief detailing how the ban would undermine food production. Apparently, the greens don’t want the farmer’s side of the story told because it shows that bans come with serious tradeoffs. In this case, a potential court-ordered ban on chlorpyrifos would impose verifiable and real costs to farmers and consumers in exchange for little to no health benefits.

Claims about chlorpyrifos risks are based on junk science and outlandish hype. You can learn more about that from a prior post and paper on the topic. Here we take a look at what farmers say about the ban.

Filed on behalf of 28 farm-related organizations, the amicus brief combines comments and data provided by a wide range of agricultural producers. See the brief for the footnotes to the original quotes included in excerpts provided in this post.

Farmers use chlorpyrifos and other pesticides because they provide critically important crop protection benefits. When these products are banned the adverse impacts can be substantial. In the amicus brief, they explain:

[T]he panel’s Order directing EPA to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations of products containing chlorpyrifos threatens to wreak havoc on Agricultural Amici in the coming growing seasons. As the Secretary of Agriculture succinctly stated, “[f]or some crops and target pests, chlorpyrifos is the only line of defense, with no viable alternatives,” and the “immediate, and total loss of this crop protection tool endangers agricultural industries and is expected to have wide economic impacts.”
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
So you admit Trump has accomplished nothing but since you agree with his racism, bigotry islamaphobia and you believe it makes Dem's mad you will still support him.


Seems like a well thought out voting strategy
Trolling doesn't work with me.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
NO You Still made an Appeal to Emotion ... without posting and information to back up YOUR Assertion

now that you have, let us have a look at your quote ...




Quoting a Progressive Chicken Little Group does little for your argument ... junk science and scare tactics

more emotional drivel

Environmental Working Group

Environmental “Worry” Group
EWG has overseen a Reign of Error lasting more than two decades

If you’ve picked up a newspaper during the last twenty years, odds are you’ve come across a breathlessly written news report warning against some item that is secretly poisoning you. “Sunscreen is causing cancer” the headlines might scream. “Why your baby’s bottle is poison,” says the local newscaster. “Non-organic vegetables are covered in toxins,” another report might ominously warn. If you actually read the story that accompanies these attention-grabbing headlines, you’ll notice that many of them come from the same source: the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and related organizations like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

There’s really only one thing you need to know about the Environmental Working Group when it comes to its studies of toxins: 79 percent of members of the Society of Toxicology (scientists who know a little something about toxins) who rated the group say that the Environmental Working Group overstates the health risk of chemicals.

That’s because the EWG has a history of passing shady “science” off as solid facts. Its main talent isn’t research, it’s duping reporters into credulously transcribing their “findings.” A nonprofit organization that has learned how to turn public panic into a stream of hefty donations, the Environmental Working Group has no problem ginning up outrage that causes families needless worry and does incalculable damage to honest industries. Hyperbole, it seems, is big business – last year the EWG raised more than $6 million.


Sunscreen Scare

In July 2010, the Environmental Working Group released a sunscreen guide; in it, EWG argued that certain chemicals that are commonly used within sunscreen solutions are dangerous carcinogens and should be avoided. Its bad guy du jour was retinyl palmitate. As Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society pointed out in the Montreal Gazette, “better known as vitamin A, retinol plays an important role in maintaining normal skin function. When added to creams or lotions, it can reduce the appearance of fine lines, giving the skin a more youthful appearance.” Since it’s not stable, it is turned into retinyl palmitate, which enhances collagen formation and increases cell division.The EWG based its report on laboratory experiments showing that mice exposed to ultraviolet light while having retinyl palmitate applied to their skin developed tumors more quickly than mice that didn’t. The only problem, as Dr. Schwarcz points out, is that the study has not been peer reviewed, no sunscreen lotion consists solely (or even primarily) of retinyl palmitate, and another study from 2009 on hamsters concluded the exact opposite of what the new study shows. (Make that “the only three problems.”) Indeed, the New York-based Skin Cancer Foundation disputed the report’s findings and, according to the Palm Beach Post, is worried that “consumers confused about the report might stop using sunscreens.” This is a legitimate concern, since over-exposure to sunlight is a well-known cause of skin cancer.The Skin Cancer Foundation and Dr. Schwarcz weren’t the only ones to express concern. The Orange County Register reported that “Dr. Matt Goodman, a dermatologist in the melanoma program at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, says the Environmental Working Group’s claims on retinyl palmitate are suspect because they rely on research done on mice. … ‘This leads me to conclude that risk is extremely low, if nonexistent.’”

Greens Want to Hide the Truth about Chlorpyrifos

As part of that appeal, farm groups have filed an amicus brief detailing how the ban would undermine food production. Apparently, the greens don’t want the farmer’s side of the story told because it shows that bans come with serious tradeoffs. In this case, a potential court-ordered ban on chlorpyrifos would impose verifiable and real costs to farmers and consumers in exchange for little to no health benefits.

Claims about chlorpyrifos risks are based on junk science and outlandish hype. You can learn more about that from a prior post and paper on the topic. Here we take a look at what farmers say about the ban.

Filed on behalf of 28 farm-related organizations, the amicus brief combines comments and data provided by a wide range of agricultural producers. See the brief for the footnotes to the original quotes included in excerpts provided in this post.

Farmers use chlorpyrifos and other pesticides because they provide critically important crop protection benefits. When these products are banned the adverse impacts can be substantial. In the amicus brief, they explain:

[T]he panel’s Order directing EPA to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations of products containing chlorpyrifos threatens to wreak havoc on Agricultural Amici in the coming growing seasons. As the Secretary of Agriculture succinctly stated, “[f]or some crops and target pests, chlorpyrifos is the only line of defense, with no viable alternatives,” and the “immediate, and total loss of this crop protection tool endangers agricultural industries and is expected to have wide economic impacts.”

HAHA. So you are now worried about the cost to farmers and consumers. Did you forget about the billions in handouts Trump is giving farmers after ruining their business with his stupid tariffs?

At least getting this chemical out of our food is a benefit.

Why don't you care the he is putting farmers on welfare to feed his ego and after failing to negotiate a solution
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
HAHA. So you are now worried about the cost to farmers and consumers. Did you forget about the billions in handouts Trump is giving farmers after ruining their business with his stupid tariffs?

At least getting this chemical out of our food is a benefit.

Why don't you care the he is putting farmers on welfare to feed his ego and after failing to negotiate a solution
139134
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member

I guess the conversation was too difficult for you to understand.

Not Banning a deadly chemical for fear that it would impact farmers profit is not a reasonable excuse.

Especially when Trump has bankrupted many family farms while bailing out the rest with government funds due to his idiotic stance on trade and tariffs his inability to negotiate
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
At least getting this chemical out of our food is a benefit.

Based on JUNK Science ..... but go on keep your head in the sand

Why don't you care
Ad Hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.


the he is putting farmers on welfare to feed his ego
Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and ASSUMPTION

and after failing to negotiate a solution
More Fantasy Suppositions .....

Looking at the products the Chinese are applying tariffs to

FARM GOODS TARGETING MIDDLE AMERICA TRUMP SUPPORTER5 .... NOT Goods they need for their OWN Manufacturing


US goods hit by Chinese tariffs


Poultry
— Frozen beef
— Fresh or cold pork
— Dried, smoked or salted pork belly
— Frozen chicken nuggets
— Frozen whole duck

Fruit and vegetables
— Farming potatoes
— Mushrooms
— Truffles
— Apples
— Cherries
— Avocados

Dairy products
— Butter
— Cream
— Yogurt

Fish
— Frozen red salmon
— Frozen mackerel
— Frozen yellowfin tuna

Seafood
— Frozen squid
— Lobster
— Canned shark fin
— Octopus
— Sea urchins

Tobacco
— Tobacco cigarettes
— Tobacco cigars
— Unstemmed tobacco

Pet food
— Canned cat food
— Canned dog food

Beverages
— Whiskey
— Modified ethanol
— Non-frozen orange juice with less than 20% sugar

Vehicles
— Some passenger cars
— Some small passenger cars
— Some off-road vehicles
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Not Banning a deadly chemical for fear that it would impact farmers profit is not a reasonable excuse.
Banning a thing on emotionally driven JUNK Science is not a valid reason .... and the CEL made the statement NOT Trump

Especially when Trump has bankrupted many family farms while bailing out the rest with government funds
A has NOTHING to do with B

due to his idiotic stance on trade and tariffs
YOUR Opinion ..... Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and ASSUMPTION


his inability to negotiate

YOUR Opinion ..... Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and ASSUMPTION
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member

As retaliation moron. They didn't start this . So far $28 billion has gone to farmers affected by Trumps stupidity
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I guess the conversation was too difficult for you to understand.

Not Banning a deadly chemical for fear that it would impact farmers profit is not a reasonable excuse.

Especially when Trump has bankrupted many family farms while bailing out the rest with government funds due to his idiotic stance on trade and tariffs his inability to negotiate
Frequently Asked Questions About Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)
What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to one of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for DHMO:

Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.



Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.



A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.

Why haven't I heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide before?
Good question. Historically, the dangers of DHMO, for the most part, have been considered minor and manageable. While the more significant dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are currently addressed by a number of agencies including FDA, FEMA and CDC, public awareness of the real and daily dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide is lower than some think it should be.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
As retaliation moron. They didn't start this .
So What .... the Chinese are still ATTACKING Trump Supporters in the middle states


Chinese retaliatory tariffs aim to hit Trump in his electoral base

Or take the largest item on the Chinese list due to take effect in two weeks – soybeans. They are grown in Iowa and Nebraska, both Trump states; bourbon on the EU list comes from Kentucky, another Trump state, home of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. Chinese tariff hikes on oranges will hit growers in the swing-state of Florida.

Dan Ikenson, director of Cato’s Herbert A Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, says that the tariffs could cost the US economy $100bn – roughly equal to the gains from Trump’s corporate tax cuts.

“The idea behind China’s strategic retaliation is to remind the president that he needs those states for Republican victories in the fall,” says Ikenson.

“The Chinese are responding in a similar way by picking off the products. They’re looking to increase the cost of production for US industries,” Ikenson says. Beijing, he adds, “is hoping that just the presentation of their list will be enough to get US industry to convince the administration that it’s going down the wrong path”.

So far $28 billion has gone to farmers affected by Trumps stupidity
So America should continue to all China to steal our Intellectual Property ......

Tariffs = An Attention Getting America is done eating Chinese crap




How is it YOU claim to be so fuking smart you cannot understand how this works
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
So What .... the Chinese are still ATTACKING Trump Supporters in the middle states

Trump is causing the problem by trying to ram through what he wants instead of attempting to negotiate. So far it has cost us $28 billion.

You can't blame this on the Chinese. Especially when Trump and his daughter continue to make their stupid hats, shoes and other clothing in CHINA


So America should continue to all China to steal our Intellectual Property ......

Tariffs = An Attention Getting America is done eating Chinese crap




How is it YOU claim to be so fuking smart you cannot understand how this works
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Trump is causing the problem by trying to ram through what he wants instead of attempting to negotiate.
that is YOUR OPINION ..... you obviously don not under the carrot and stick

You can't blame this on the Chinese.
:whoosh:


The Chinese Government made a poltical choice in the good they choose to put their on tariffs on
Farm Goods and Steel Products all designed to hurt Trump Supporters in the Middle States

Especially when Trump and his daughter continue to make their stupid hats, shoes and other clothing in CHINA

WTF does this have to do with the discussion
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
that is YOUR OPINION ..... you obviously don not under the carrot and stick



:whoosh:


The Chinese Government made a poltical choice in the good they choose to put their on tariffs on
Farm Goods and Steel Products all designed to hurt Trump Supporters in the Middle States




WTF does this have to do with the discussion

Do you really not understand why Trump dn his family making their products in China yet yelling about " America first is hypocritical?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Do you really not understand why Trump dn his family making their products in China yet yelling about " America first is hypocritical?


That has nothing to do with the Trade War / Tarrifs and the contents of this thread
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Say the man who supports a president who can't spell " Al Qaeda"
Says the hypocrite who supported a president who couldn't pronounce corpsman - when he KNEW it was coming up.






Sounds stupid doesn't it? That's because your critique is as stupid as that.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Says the hypocrite who supported a president who couldn't pronounce corpsman - when he KNEW it was coming up.






Sounds stupid doesn't it? That's because your critique is as stupid as that.

I highly doubt you've never mispronounced something in your life.

I also highly doubt you've ever misspelled a word as simple as "people"
 
Top