Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-08-2006, 08:16 AM   #1
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Question Faux News At It Again

Now, we all know how I feel about Fox News, and their ability to outright lie. As was shown in the various news storeys in the run-up to the Iraq war, national watchdog groups showed that Fox was wonrg on over 80% of it's reporting.

Now, this storey they put out today is just mind boggling.

Top Ten Junk Science Stories of the Past Decade

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189706,00.html

According to this article the top ten 'junk science' storeys - in other words these are things that just aren't true, according to this lad, and Fox News. A summary of their conclusions...

1. Agent Orange isn't harmful to people
2. Cell phones don't cause any type of cancer or other bad effects
3. Living under power lines doesn't cause any damage to anyone
4. Man-made hormones don't have any adverse effects
5. Air pollution doesn't harm people
6. Being overweight is NOT a big a health risk as they claim
7. Genetically modified foods are 100% safe
8. Milking cows later leads to other types of animal cruelty, like eating meat
9. Deep fried fatty foods are not as dangerous as claimed
10. Global warming is NOT happening

Yes, thats the top ten from their list. Anyone else take issue with this? Aside from the cow milking, which was a PeTA campaign, not a scientfic one, I think they are wrong across the board.

Now I might add that emphasis on some of these is what these claims are based on, but the implications are as listed above. The claims made are done in such a fashion as to imply what I have condenced above.

That Fox is promoting this, putting it out there, and people are actually reading it thinking, hey, if I eat deep fried foods, get fat, and live under power lines next to a factory beltching soot into the air around me, I'm as healthy as a person who doesn't live like this.

Read the article and you will get the feel for the writing. Anyone else take issue with this?
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2006, 10:09 AM   #2
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Haha... oh, man.

I'll go ahead and repost the entire article so we don't get Sternn's propaganda summary:


"1. The most toxic manmade chemical? That’s what some called dioxin, a by-product of natural and industrial combustion processes and the “contaminant of concern” in the Vietnam-era defoliant known as Agent Orange. Billions of dollars have been spent studying and regulating dioxin, but debunking the scare only cost a few thousand dollars.

Keying off Ben & Jerry’s claim on its ice cream packages that “there is no safe exposure to dioxin,” we tested Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and found that a single serving contained about 200 times the dioxin that the Environmental Protection Agency says is “safe” – and who’s afraid of Ben & Jerry’s?

2. Dial “F” for Fear. Since the 1993 Larry King Live broadcast featuring a man suing a cell phone maker claiming his wife died from a cell phone-induced brain cancer, many cell phone users have worried about phone safety. But studies failed to identify any risk.

The final blow to the scare came in 2002 when notorious trial lawyer Peter Angelos’ $800 million lawsuit – alleging a Maryland physician’s brain cancer was caused by cell phone use – was dismissed (like the 1993 suit) for lack of evidence.

3. Powerline scare unplugged. Fears that electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) created by power lines and appliances caused cancer started in 1978. Parents worried about power lines over schools. Consumers worried about electric blankets. Power companies worried about burying power lines. The National Academy of Sciences finally unplugged the scare in October 1996, concluding that no evidence showed EMFs presented a health hazard.

4. Hormone Hysterics. Tulane University researchers published a 1996 study claiming that combinations of manmade chemicals (pesticides and PCBs) disrupted normal hormonal processes, causing everything from cancer to infertility to attention deficit disorder.

Media, regulators and environmentalists hailed the study as “astonishing.” Indeed it was as it turned out to be fraud, according to an October 2001 report by federal investigators. Though the study was retracted from publication, the law it spawned wasn’t and continues to be enforced by the EPA.

5. Secret Science? EPA air pollution rules issued in 1997 governing airborne particulate matter (soot) are estimated to cost $10 billion annually. The EPA claimed soot in ambient air causes tens of thousands of premature deaths every year.

Congress asked thr EPA to disclose the scientific data underlying the claims. EPA refused. A subsequently enacted law requiring that taxpayer-funded scientific data used to support regulation be made available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act has yet to be enforced. The EPA is preparing to make those very same rules even more stringent.

6. Obesity statistics lose weight. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added to our bodyweight panic in 2004 by announcing that obesity kills 400,000 people annually, a number approaching the death toll attributed to smoking (440,000). Criticism of the estimate from CDC’s own statisticians caused the agency in 2005 to back-off the estimate – adjusting it downward by 93 percent to 25,814 annual deaths.

7. ‘Ear-ie’ biotech scare. “Who plays God in the 21st century?” captioned an Oct. 11, 1999 full-page ad in the New York Times attacking genetic engineering. Placed by a coalition including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, the ad featured a photo of a shaved laboratory mouse with what looks like a human ear attached to its back.

The caption stated, “This is an actual photo of a genetically engineered mouse with a human ear on its back.” As it turned out, it wasn’t a real ear and it had nothing to do with genetic engineering. A template in the shape of a human ear was seeded with human cartilage cells and surgically implanted on the back of a mouse. The cartilage cells grew into the ear-like structure. The technology’s purpose is to help children who are either born without ears or who lose their ears through injury.

8. PETA: Milk drinking makes for future felons. With its web site repeatedly alluding to acts of animal cruelty committed in childhood as being predictors of adult criminality, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sponsored an in-school curricula teaching children that eating meat and drinking milk constitutes “animal cruelty.”

PETA’s “Milk-Stealing Ming,” for example, was depicted with his mouth attached to an unhappy cow’s udder, alongside a “wanted poster” describing his crimes and exclaiming, “cows make milk for their babies, not for maniacs like Ming.”

9. Choking on chips. Swedish scientists alarmed us in April 2002 that cooking high-carbohydrate foods – like potatoes and bread – formed acrylamide, a substance linked with cancer in lab animals. But even if lab animals were reasonable predictors of cancer risk in humans – a notion yet to be validated – someone of average bodyweight would have to eat 35,000 potato chips (about 62.5 pounds) per day for life to get an equivalent dose of acrylamide as the lab animals.

10. The Mother of all junk science controversies. The most important junk science story of the last 10 years is global warming. Though climate varies naturally and ongoing climate change is within that natural variation, the global warming lobby seems bent on railroading us into economy-killing regulation.

The Kyoto Protocol is being ignored by its EU signatories. Global warmers admit that the drastic and impossible step of halting all greenhouse gas emissions would have no impact on climate. Sky-high energy prices threaten our economy. Yet many yearn for global warming regulation.
"



Man, all I have to do to debunk your commentary, Sternn, is post the article, itself. Then people will read it and see that the statements on the site don't match the claims you've made. You make it so easy sometimes!
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2006, 12:39 PM   #3
Sobeh
 
Sobeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: couch-surfer
Posts: 598
This kind of posting political rhetoric (I'm not referring to Sternn at all but the political tete-a-tete that's going on between folk here) is strongly reminiscent of what happened on Cerescape to bring it down. Blah. At least here it's all in a seperate folder.
__________________
The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must---" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change cliches and others like them, when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.
Sobeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2006, 08:05 AM   #4
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Thanks for posting the article. I didn't want to copy and paste around all those feckin' ads, but thanks.

And I standby my original comments. So I take it your on the opposite side of the fence on all this? With the exception of the PeTA milk argument which I think is shite, the rest are right on the money

For example, the first one I can make reference to here is the acrylamide argument. That you have to eat 'X' amount of the substance to achieve the same effects makes it 'junk science'. Thats the same science used in saccarin, in Sweet N Low, and many other diet products. In fact, you have to eat an extremely large amount daily in comparison to the lab rat studies in most cases.

BUT if you check most products with warnings, you will see this is the same. Saccarin was the first that came to mind, but there are dozens of other chemicals now listed by the various governments of the world based on the same science.

Also the living under powerlines causes no issues, even though various power companies have settles multi-million dollar lawsuits invloving 'cancer clusters' - kids developing cancer at a very young age living under power lines - groups in fact - living directly under power line routes.

An any article encouraging fat people to stay fat because of any reason is just wrong. The deaths included related deaths originally, until lobbyists got bush to force the cdc to remove those deaths. You know who one of the biggest lobbying groups is in DC? The sugar industry. Tis why they are fighting so hard now to get soda and candy out of schools.

Yes, being fat doesn't kill you, but heart disease, high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, etc. are all caused by the same factors - which is overeating crap foods.

Your seriously aruging that is good for you? Keep it up. America, the fattest nation in the world with more people dying annually for health related problems for being so feckin fat, yeah, help your people eat and die faster. Thats a good argument.

Once again I don't care if a buncha people in the states want to kill themselves with fatty, deep fried, fast food, but I find it funny that ANYONE would defend them and say that over eating and being obsese is a HEALTHY lifestyle.

-S
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2006, 08:29 AM   #5
Morrigan_Dubh
 
Morrigan_Dubh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,247
Interesting. The impression I've gotten, wrong or right, is that stories on Fox are usually scaremongering tripe like "KILLER BEES WILL EAT YOUR BRAINS!" Is this a new twist in their tactics- Telling us that everything is alright and not to be afraid? Or is this just another everyday "oh those crazy Fox News kids up to their old tricks again"? I don't read the Fox News website and if I did it would be just for a kind of freak show entertainment, so I don't really know.
__________________
Petrified for the millionth time...
Slowly my soul evaporates
Morrigan_Dubh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2006, 04:09 PM   #6
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Let's go through the list:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
1. Agent Orange isn't harmful to people
What the article was really talking about was dioxin, which they noted is found in Agent Orage, but also many common dairy and meat products. The article notes that the doses of dioxin in some of these dairy products exceed the EPA's "safe levels" by an enormous amount - yet it hasn't caused health effects in people.
Quote:
2. Cell phones don't cause any type of cancer or other bad effects
Cancer is all it mentioned - and this is backed up by major studies done by recognizable organizations such as the WHO which established that there is no link between cell phone use and cancer. Everyone who's ever filed a lawsuit has lost on the grounds they don't have the evidence to link the two. Studies over the last 50 years have been conducted over and over again on the effects of RF radiation exposure to people who work around equipment with 60 times the exposure. No link to cancer. It's a myth turned urban legend.
Quote:
3. Living under power lines doesn't cause any damage to anyone
Cancer is the keyword again that the article used, and studies have been done over and over again and have concluded that it's almost implausable for elecromagnetic fields form powerlines to even cause cancer, because non-ionizing radiation (such as that which is emitted from power lines) is unable to break chemical bonds in genetic material (i.e. cause cancer)
Quote:
4. Man-made hormones don't have any adverse effects
The article points to a study done by a Univeristy which was claiming that when you combine toxaphene and dieldren, the combined mixture could be 1600 times greater. That's the claim which was "junk science." No one could reproduce the results, not even the lab which published the results. The study was therefore retracted. Your summation doesn't even come close to describing that.
Quote:
5. Air pollution doesn't harm people
Soot is the key word and it's relation to 11 thousand deaths is what's being scrutinized by this article. The EPA did not assess the deaths individually or even obtain hospital records to show that these people were being admitted to hospitals based on exposure to air pollution. Quite frankly, there is no scientific evidence at all linking the figures to soot. EPA monitoring stations recorded a slight increase in soot in the air and noted that several more people on average were admitted to hospitals with lung problems. They therefore concluded, without any further research, that these people were being admitted because of exposure to the increased levels of soot in the air. When Congress called them on their shit, the EPA buckled. That's "junk science" in it's purest form.
Quote:
6. Being overweight is NOT a big a health risk as they claim
The article stated that the deaths attributed to obesity were way over-inflated by the government bodies that conducted the study. Or in other words, it's hard to swallow that obesity kills as many people as smoking does yearly. And indeed it doesn't. Those figures were scaled back a year after being released by 93%.
Quote:
7. Genetically modified foods are 100% safe
How you related this to food, I will never understand. This article was attacking an isolated incident that was published in the New York Times, in which a mouse was shown with a human ear sticking out of it's back. The Times claimed it was part of a genetic engineering experiment. In fact it was not and the ear wasn't even real.
Quote:
8. Milking cows later leads to other types of animal cruelty, like eating meat
No, the article was attacking PETA's compaign that equated drinking cow's milk to "animal cruelty," hence PETA's cartoon of a man sucking milk out of a cow on a 'Wanted' poster decribing what he was doing as a crime. I don't even know HOW you come up with some of this stuff and still claim to have actually read the article.
Quote:
9. Deep fried fatty foods are not as dangerous as claimed
First off, cancer is the keyword. Second, I wouldn't call breads "fatty food," and rarely is it deep fried - it's baked. At any rate, the article was attacking the claim that propenoic acids created when you bake or fry certain foods can cause cancer. In small mice in a lab? Perhaps. But in humans it would take an enormous ammount of these foods each day in order for us to develope cancer from eatting them. You'd die from a wide array of other ailments attributed to the crazy diet you'd need to be on before you ever had the chance to develope cancer.
Quote:
10. Global warming is NOT happening
First off, Global Warming in terms of the Earth being heated by greenhouse gasses attributed only to humans is merely a THEORY. Your statement is therefore akin to saying, "They claim that evolution is NOT happening!" Prove that either are. You can't. No one else has either.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 03:28 AM   #7
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Ok, so to make it easier, I'm going to break it down into an argument by argument post by post.

Lets start with the cell phones. You are backing these lads up saying they don't cause cancer. in fact, and I quote...

Quote:
Originally Posted by binkie
Everyone who's ever filed a lawsuit has lost on the grounds they don't have the evidence to link the two. Studies over the last 50 years have been conducted over and over again on the effects of RF radiation exposure to people who work around equipment with 60 times the exposure. No link to cancer. It's a myth turned urban legend.
But recently...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6...=zdfd.newsfeed

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1790429

Long-term mobile phone use raises brain tumor risk: study

Mar 31, 2006 — STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The use of mobile phones over a long period of time can raise the risk for brain tumors, a new Swedish study said on Friday, contradicting the conclusions of other researchers.

The Dutch Health Council, in an overview of research from around the world, last year found no evidence radiation from mobile phones and TV towers was harmful. A four-year British survey released in January showed no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and the most common type of tumor.

However, researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life said they looked at the mobile phone use of 905 people between the age of 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and found a link.


*snip*

And your assertion that all lawsuits involving cell phone related cancer were throw out is ALSO wrong...

Supreme Court Clears Cell Phone Cancer Suits for Trial

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...cer_suits.html

November 1, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to throw out a number of class-action lawsuits that challenge radiation emissions from cell phones.

With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, the court refused to consider an appeal from cell phone manufacturers, who wanted the high court to overturn a decision by the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond.


*snip*

So when it comes to cell phone cancer and the 'urban myth' as you called it, your wrong on both assertations there. In fact, once again the studies and reports the article calls on and you are viewing are years old. New evidence and new lawsuits are saying the exact opposite, but fauxnews, and binkie, further perpetuate these false claims by relying on the fact people don't watch other news and don't keep up with current lawsuits, studies, and new data.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 03:35 AM   #8
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by binkie
First off, cancer is the keyword. Second, I wouldn't call breads "fatty food," and rarely is it deep fried - it's baked. At any rate, the article was attacking the claim that propenoic acids created when you bake or fry certain foods can cause cancer. In small mice in a lab? Perhaps. But in humans it would take an enormous ammount of these foods each day in order for us to develope cancer from eatting them. You'd die from a wide array of other ailments attributed to the crazy diet you'd need to be on before you ever had the chance to develope cancer.
So bread isn't fried? Ever notice that outter coat on the Burger King fries? Or curly fries? Or cheese sticks? Or Onion rings? Yes, large amounts over years has to be consumed for bad things to happen, much like I pointed out in my saccarin analogy, but have you checked the stats on McDonalds and Burger King sales in the states alone? Ever wonder how many orders of fries, onion rings, onion peels, etc. are sold by those two companies every day in the states? What about other fast food and sit-down resturants? I don't think it's a stretch to say many americans eat fries with most every meal, therefore making this idea more of a reality than a myth. Especailly when they say that were are basically talking about chips and pizza crust. How many college students do you know that live on that stuff? Would many consider that a 'crazy diet' eating fast food a few times a week? I don't think the science behind it is much of a stretch, as I know, and have known, many people who live off fast food, and would definately fall into that category.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 03:44 AM   #9
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by binkie
First off, Global Warming in terms of the Earth being heated by greenhouse gasses attributed only to humans is merely a THEORY. Your statement is therefore akin to saying, "They claim that evolution is NOT happening!" Prove that either are. You can't. No one else has either.
I could pull link after link about this, but I like these the most...

The national geographic article on this. With pictures from satellites from the past decades showing the risnig temperature along with other stats, info, etc. Very inclusive and very detailed.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html

But more importantly, the pentagon, CIA, and other top brass in bushs own group are now spending billions to FIGHT global warming, and are worried about it themselves...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...153513,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us


· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer


Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.


I like how bush discounts the idea of global warming as mere 'theory', but spends hundreds of millions on 'secret' reports that say it IS happening, then hides the results and continues claiming its a 'theory', but at the same time forces the military to prepare, and invests hundreds of billions of US taxpayers money to prepare, the military for the effects of global warming.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 03:51 AM   #10
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by binkie
The article stated that the deaths attributed to obesity were way over-inflated by the government bodies that conducted the study. Or in other words, it's hard to swallow that obesity kills as many people as smoking does yearly. And indeed it doesn't. Those figures were scaled back a year after being released by 93%.
And once again I point out, that the original stats had related deaths. Heart attacks, stroke, and heart disease don't just 'happen'. When you remove those stats from the people who died from being obsese (which is actually rated differently than being 'over-weight') the numbers do drop significantly.

I however still maintain that it's still the same factors, therefore, it's not junk science. Healthy lifestyles are not an 'urban legend'.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 12:58 PM   #11
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
Ok, so to make it easier, I'm going to break it down into an argument by argument post by post.
Ten arguements - you respond with four posts. There's something to be said about that alone.

Quote:
Lets start with the cell phones. You are backing these lads up saying they don't cause cancer. in fact, and I quote...

But recently...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6...=zdfd.newsfeed

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1790429
Oh yes, the Swedish study that the FDA dismissed on the grounds that it was anything but scientific.

http://www.teleclick.ca/2006/04/fda-...nes-to-cancer/

Nothing like drawing conclusions from "mail-in surveys." Once again, the kind of radiation that comes out of cell phones is just like that of power lines; it's non-ionizing. It's too weak to cause a break in chemical bonds in genetic material. And until a study is able to definitively prove otherwise, it's highly unlikely that "mail in surveys" are going to sway the scientific community on cell phones being linked to cancer.

In fact, this study is nothing new. The Swedes released something amost identical to this about 2 years ago that was equally unscientific:

http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/37411.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014075403.htm

Quote:
And your assertion that all lawsuits involving cell phone related cancer were throw out is ALSO wrong...
Once again, you seem to be having trouble with reading plain english. What I said was, "Everyone who's ever filed a lawsuit has lost on the grounds they don't have the evidence to link the two."

Maybe I should stop trying to teach you about what the article was saying and focus on teaching you how to read.

Quote:
New evidence and new lawsuits are saying the exact opposite, but fauxnews, and binkie, further perpetuate these false claims by relying on the fact people don't watch other news and don't keep up with current lawsuits, studies, and new data.
Right, kinda like how you kept up with the lawsuit that Ameer Bukhari, who died in 2000, filed in 2001, according to you.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 01:05 PM   #12
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
[quote=CptSternn]So bread isn't fried? Ever notice that outter coat on the Burger King fries? Or curly fries? Or cheese sticks? Or Onion rings?[quote]
Deep fry a naked potato, Sternn. You get that nice "outter coat" you see on your fast food french fries. I deep fried several cut up (and bare naked except for the skin on one side) mini-potatoes the other night when I had fondu. Mmmm... just like big ol' french fries. No "bread" required. But again, I think you're mistaking batter for being bread. Batter is actually an ingredient OF some breads. It's not bread, itself, though.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 01:07 PM   #13
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
I could pull link after link about this, but I like these the most...
*snip*
None of this descredits the fact that Global Warming, being attributed to humans, is a mere theory. Much like you could have 95% of the world believing in Evolution, but it would not make it anything more than a theory until it's actually proven.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 01:11 PM   #14
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
And once again I point out, that the original stats had related deaths. Heart attacks, stroke, and heart disease don't just 'happen'. When you remove those stats from the people who died from being obsese (which is actually rated differently than being 'over-weight') the numbers do drop significantly.

I however still maintain that it's still the same factors, therefore, it's not junk science. Healthy lifestyles are not an 'urban legend'.
Related? I can find you someone who weighs 140 pounds and still dies of a heart attack from eatting too much of a certain kind of food. I can assure you they did not die of obesity. Just because someone weighs 250 lbs and dies from the same diet, that doesn't mean they died from obesity. Figuring it that way is indeed "junk science."
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 03:05 AM   #15
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Keep telling people the world is safe, everyone loves america, fast food is healthy, and being overweight is not a health hazzard. Your only killing off other americans, because they are the only ones who buy into these ideas.

This once again can be shown through even more new studies once again...

Fast-Food Fries, Chicken Fattier in U.S.

http://news.**********/s/ap/20060413/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Wed Apr 12, 11:10 PM ET

Order french fries or hot wings at a McDonald's or a KFC in the United States and you're more likely to get a super-sized helping of artery-clogging trans fats than you would be at their restaurants in some other countries.

A study of the fast-food chains' products around the world found remarkably wide variations in trans fat content from country to country, from city to city within the same nation, and from restaurant to restaurant in the same city.

The researchers said the differences had to do with the type of frying oil used, and the main culprit appeared to be partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is high in trans fats.

"I was very surprised to see a difference in trans fatty acids in these uniform products," said one of the researchers, Dr. Steen Stender, a cardiologist at Gentofte University Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and former head of the Danish Nutrition Council. "It's such an easy risk factor to remove."

McDonald's Corp., which promised in September 2002 to cut trans fat in half, and KFC parent Yum! Brands Inc. said the explanation is local taste preferences. But nutrition experts and consumer activists said it is about money: Frying oil high in trans fats costs less.

The Danish researchers tested products from the chains' outlets in dozens of countries in 2004 and 2005, analyzing McDonald's chicken nuggets, KFC hot wings, and the two chains' fried potatoes. The findings were reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.

At a New York City McDonald's, a large fries-and-chicken-nuggets combo was found to contain 10.2 grams of the trans fat, compared with 0.33 grams in Denmark and about 3 grams in Spain, Russia and the Czech Republic.

*snip*

Jacobsen's center estimated a few years ago that trans fats prematurely killed 30,000 to 75,000 Americans a year. That number has probably fallen, he said, because many packaged-food companies have switched to healthier oils.

*snip*

"I don't think people would mind paying a penny more or getting one less french fry to avoid heart disease," he said.


Once again, same argument appears, and it comes down two three factors...

1. Cost. Costs more to use better oil.
2. Laws. The EU prohibits many things the US doesn't
3. Science. This goes along with the laws.

Government backed studies, partial funded by the sugar lobby, show trans fats aren't that bad and that deep fried food doesn't cause as many deaths as researchers around the globe claim. Much like the drug studies, where only in the US has the various marijuana and excstacy effects been found, by one researchers, backed by funding from the DEA, have found to have all those crazy effects they claim they do.

The US funds its own junk science, and sits alone in the world thinking its right while the rest of the world doesn't.

But like the article shows, we are more healthy, and will live longer, happier, heathlier lives. So I'm not complaining. If you want to further the bad science the bush regime spews forth from paid lobbyists, go ahead, you only hurt your own people.

Oh, and on the sugar lobby, again,

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...63/detail.html

Govenor Vetoes Bill Requiring Nutritious Food In School Vending Machines

DENVER -- Gov. Bill Owens has vetoed a bill that would have required schools to make sure half of all items offered in vending machines are nutritious.

Outside of the states we don't even HAVE vending machines in schools. Plus, meals are MUCH more healthy and don't contain all that sugar.

America, being a nation of fat people for the most part, find it easier to get behind science that proves what they want to hear vs. real science and losing things they like, like deep fried cheese and double chocolate chunk bars for lunch.

But if you want to argue being fat is not a health issue, go right ahead. Out of curiosity, how much do you weigh? I'm 6'2", 190lbs. As previously mentioned, after moving back to Europe I dropped from 230 down to 190 in less than a year. I eat as much as ever, still on the same workout, and have changed absolutely nothing other than the fact the foods I take in now are regulated more intensely, have less sugar, preservatives, and trans-fats.

The irony being, I had lads who moved over to the states about the same time I moved here come back for Christmas. We went out for pints, and all had increased their weight noticable. About 10-20 pounds each. Chunkier faces was the first thing I noticed.

But hey, once again, thats me spoutin' off personal experience other than science. But please, tell me how eating all that crap is good for you.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 03:13 AM   #16
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binkie
None of this descredits the fact that Global Warming, being attributed to humans, is a mere theory. Much like you could have 95% of the world believing in Evolution, but it would not make it anything more than a theory until it's actually proven.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...nvenienttruth/

The trailer is brilliant. Can't wait for the film. Actual documented proof, which for some reason only the bush regime seems to call 'theory'. EVERY other nation in the world has signed on to the idea that this IS happening. Almost every nation, all first world nations and industrialised nations, have signed on to the Kyoto protocol.

The bush admin hasn't as lobbyists for various industries (readin: oil, coal, gas) have claimed it will hurt their profits, so the US calls it a 'theory', but ironically at the same time the pentagon releases a report claiming that it's not a theory, it is happening, and it's hurting the military.

But you still say 'theory'.

These are all facts and figures from studies your gorvernment has done. It just likes to say theory as not to alert anyone to the fact the bottom line of lobbyists trumps the welfare of your own people.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 02:47 PM   #17
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Yep, read that article the other day too about the fast food fries. They attribute it to the oil though. No mention of bread. Not sure why you thought that'd help your arguement. Especially with you trying to now say the article on Fox was back to saying deep-fried foods don't cause bad health effects, when in reality, it was only refering to cancer. Your articles don't say otherwise. There's nothing for me to argue here, as you're not even arguing against either the article or myself.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 02:53 PM   #18
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...nvenienttruth/

The trailer is brilliant. Can't wait for the film. Actual documented proof, which for some reason only the bush regime seems to call 'theory'. EVERY other nation in the world has signed on to the idea that this IS happening. Almost every nation, all first world nations and industrialised nations, have signed on to the Kyoto protocol.

The bush admin hasn't as lobbyists for various industries (readin: oil, coal, gas) have claimed it will hurt their profits, so the US calls it a 'theory', but ironically at the same time the pentagon releases a report claiming that it's not a theory, it is happening, and it's hurting the military.

But you still say 'theory'.

These are all facts and figures from studies your gorvernment has done. It just likes to say theory as not to alert anyone to the fact the bottom line of lobbyists trumps the welfare of your own people.
It's still a theory, Sternn. No one has been able to prove human produced green house gases are causing the climate change.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 04:19 PM   #19
Sobeh
 
Sobeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: couch-surfer
Posts: 598
No one can say it isn't humanity and no one can say it is, at least not yet - humans have, frankly, not been keeping records long enough to chart the progressions as accurately as is required to make those sorts of claims.

Here's the kicker, though: no matter if it's caused by humanity or not, one's actions can still be reprehensible if, say, one throws recyclables into the trash or drives unnecessarily. Excessive driving, or overpopulous groups of people driving regularly, causes inversions and ground-level pollution and lung disease and all kinds of problems. It also consumes nonrenewable resources... the list goes on.

The cry that global warming is a natural process, or the cry that global warming is because of the damn dirty West... whatever. It doesn't matter on the ground, because there are other reasons besides global warming to practice healthy renewable living.
__________________
The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must---" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change cliches and others like them, when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.
Sobeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 04:35 AM   #20
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
In related articles...

Baby walruses cry out amid melting ice

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318525/

WASHINGTON - Arctic researchers who discovered a surprising number of abandoned baby walruses say melting sea ice may be the culprit, according to a study in this month's issue of Aquatic Mammals.

*snip*

But more importantly is this one, from the same writer who brought us the junk science article...

Twenty Years After Chernobyl

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191721,00.html

April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was.

*snip*

Tjhats right, according to the same author, and FauxNews, Chernobyl wasn't all the bad a disaster, and the after effects are much over hyped, as much like global warming, all those birth defects, and environmental problems people attribute to radiactive contamination might, like global warming, just be some quirk in the local environment and all those defects and deaths can be written off to other 'scienctific' causes in the area.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 02:39 PM   #21
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
And once again, all anyone has to do is read the article to find out you're still full of shit. That your summation of the article doesn't actually protray what is written.

Esimates that "activists" gave for the death toll that would ammount from the disaster turned out to be bogus and way over-inflated, as discovered by a UN report:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOX Article
April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was.

Although the Number Four nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded just before dawn on April 26, 1986, Soviet secrecy prevented the world from learning about the accident for days. Once details began to emerge, however, the anti-nuclear scare machine swung into action.

Three days after the accident Greenpeace “scientists” predicted the accident would cause 10,000 people to get cancer over a 20-year period within a 625-mile radius of the plant. Greenpeace also estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 people in Sweden would develop cancer over a 30-year period from the radioactive fallout.

At the same time, Helen Caldicott, president emeritus of the anti-nuclear Physicians for Social Responsibility, predicted the accident would cause almost 300,000 cancers in 5 to 50 years and cause almost 1 million people either to be rendered sterile or mentally retarded, or to develop radiation sickness, menstrual problems and other health problems.

University of California-Berkeley medical physicist and nuclear power critic Dr. John Gofman made the most dire forecast. He predicted at an American Chemical Society meeting that the Chernobyl accident would cause 1 million cancers worldwide, half of them fatal.

But the reality of the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident seems to be quite different than predicted by the anti-nuke crowd.

As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths were attributed to radiation from the accident – that’s according to a report, entitled “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” produced by an international team of 100 scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations. Almost all of those 50 deaths were rescue workers who were highly exposed to radiation and died within months of the accident.

So far, there have been about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children. But except for nine deaths, all of those with thyroid cancer have recovered, according to the report.

Despite the UN report, the anti-nuclear mob hasn’t given up on Chernobyl scaremongering.

According to a March 25 report in The Guardian (UK), Greenpeace and others are set to issue a report around the 20th anniversary of the accident claiming that at least 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the accident.

Ukraine's government appears to be on board with the casualty inflation game, perhaps looking for more international aid for the economically-struggling former Soviet republic.

The Guardian article quoted the deputy head of the Ukraine National Commission for Radiation Protection as touting the 500,000-deaths figure. A spokesman for the Ukraine government’s Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine told The Guardian, “We’re overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the [UN] data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago.”

Putting aside the anti-nuclear movement’s track record of making wild claims and predictions in order advance its political agenda, I put more credence in the UN’s estimates because it squares with what we know about real-life exposures to high levels of radiation.

Among the more than 86,000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts that ended World War II, for example, “only” about 500 or so “extra” cancers have occurred since 1950. Exposure to high-levels of radiation does increase cancer risk, but only slightly.

There is no doubt that Chernobyl was a disaster, but it was not one of mythical proportions.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island – the U.S. nuclear plant that accidentally released a small amount radiation in 1979 – are examples of how the anti-nuclear lobby takes every available opportunity to scare the public about nuclear power.

But no one was harmed by the incident at Three Mile Island. The Chernobyl accident can be chalked up to deficiencies in its Soviet-era design and operation. Neither reflect poorly on the track record of safety demonstrated by nuclear power plants designed, built and operated in countries like the U.S., U.K., France and Japan.

It’s quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear about greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants – the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for producing electricity.

Apparently, Greenpeace’s solution to our energy problems is simply to turn the lights off – for good.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2006, 01:14 PM   #22
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
In a less right leaning article released the same day,

http://news.**********/s/ap/20060415/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Few Reassured Over Chernobyl's Impact

Accounts vary, but experts agree that between 4,000 and 5,000 people, children when the explosion happened, have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer in Ukraine and Belarus — making it the single biggest Chernobyl-related medical problem. At least nine have died. Before the accident, the illness was so rare that in most years only about 10 children were diagnosed with it.

The numbers keep growing. The main spurt was expected to come around this time, but no one knows whether this is the beginning of the peak or its end.

"We cannot tell a patient that after a certain time, cancer will not appear," said Halyna Terehova, an endocrinologist with the Kiev Institute of Endocrinology.


Thats thing thing about cancer. You just because they take a survey now and only see X number of deaths related to cancer from the radiation and other poisons doesn't mean tommorow thousands won't develop it.

Are you seriously arguing that the nuclear meltdown was 'not that bad' as the faux article states?
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2006, 01:47 PM   #23
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
That's what the UN report stated, not to mention the article you linked to. Here, let me quote the very article you posted:

"Over the years, reports and rumors have spoken of thousands of these especially vulnerable people dying from radiation. But a September report by a group of United Nations agencies concluded that the accident wasn't nearly as deadly as feared."
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2006, 01:59 PM   #24
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
You know, originally they said 10,000+ were possibly killed by Katrina. Of course the number was far lower, a bit over a thousand I think.

Same with 911. First reports said 3000+ were killed or missing.

But if I posted an article that said...

Hurricane Katrina : Not As Bad As People Go On About
911 : Not As Deadly As Reports Would Have You Believe

You don't think that intentionally trivialises the actual issue? Trying to 'downgrade' the whole metldown of a nuclear power plant seems to me a bad idea, and condesending to the people who died there or were effected.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2006, 02:02 PM   #25
Cambodian Breakfast
 
Cambodian Breakfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Right now in England but I am an American
Posts: 162
Are you saying Katrina wasen't as bad as it was?
Cambodian Breakfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fox primary: complicated, contractual CptSternn Spooky News 1 09-28-2010 01:40 AM
Fox News To Infiltrate Canada Saya Spooky News 0 08-31-2010 07:55 PM
More Americans turning to Web for news CptSternn Spooky News 2 03-02-2008 10:55 AM
Jane Fonda, American Traitor Bitch OdinicRite Politics 95 02-26-2006 03:52 PM
Faux News CptSternn Politics 2 02-12-2006 11:30 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 AM.