SkepticLance

To Mr Skeptic That is the wrong question. You would have to say, do pitbulls save more lives than the alternative (other breeds of dogs as guard dogs), and is that excess, if it exists (unlikely), greater than the number of people they kill?

To ecoli If anyone has found a way to quantify taste, I would be pleased to hear about it. Taste is subjective. However, the difference was substantial. Try a simplified version of the experiment yourself. Buy some supermarket tomatoes and put them in a bowl to ripen for a week, or until they are bright red and softer. Then buy some more supermarket tomatoes - less red and less soft - and taste both. You will find the difference that simple ripeness makes is substantial. What surprised me was that the old gene stock was so bland. We had been told in very enthusiastic terms that the old stock tasted far better. In fact, if anything, the modern hybrids were sweeter.

To dichotomy Re tomato taste I carried out a personal experiment a few years ago. I was told that organic tomatoes tasted better. I was also told that old genetic stock tomatoes tasted better than modern hybrids. My experiment was to grown 3 different old stock tomato plants, alongside 3 different modern hybrids, all using organic methods. I also bought supermarket tomatoes, and kept them in a bowl till totally ripe, and compared them to supermarket tomatoes bought just before tasting. I compared taste. Conclusion : Tomato flavour depends on ripeness. Tomatoes from the supermarket taste awful, until ripened in a bowl for about a week. All tomatoes, whether organic or not, whether old stock or new, tasted good if ripe, and bad if not.

A couple of points 1. Colony collapse disorder in bees. As I understand it, the focus of research on this is now on virus diseases. Pesticides are not implicated http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm 2. Biological magnification of pesticides. What you are talking about is bioaccumulation down the food chain. This works for persistent chemicals such as DDT and PCBs. It does not work for modern products such as synthetic pyrethroids which break down in the environment and also break down inside the bodies of animals that consume them. End result is what organisations such as the USFDA and USEPA could tell you. When they analyse foods for pesticides, they find levels of 1 part per million or less. In fact, about half of all analyses (according to the NZ Food Safety Authority) end up 'not detectable.' This means, with modern very sensitive chemical analytical methods, levels of 1 part per trillion or less. As long as pesticide residues end up below maximum recommended levels (as prublished by regulatory authorities) there is little or no risk. Here is the result of such a survery in NZ. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2004/2004-07-16-survey.htm When I spoke to Mr. Gary Bowering from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority about a year ago, I asked him whether pesticide residues in food in other western countries often exceeded regulatory limits, and he told me it happens extremely rarely. Anyway : end conclusion - being afraid of the toxic effects of pesticide residues in non-organic food is to be afraid of something that is simply so rare as to be inconsequential. Organic food is not free of such risks. For example : in many countries, copper sulphate is permitted as a fungicide spray on organic crops. Copper sulphate is a nasty, non-biodegradable liver toxin. If sufficient remains on organic food, it can cause liver disease, and on soils, it may kill soil animals and remain there for decades. http://www.medications.com/news/view/362970

To iNow The phrasing of the question came from another thread, in which that question arose, using that wording. I would like to comment on pesticide residues. We are talking about poisons, and that falls into the science of toxicology. It is very well known that the first principle of toxicology can be worded as : "The dose makes the poison." This has two consequences. 1. Any chemical substance becomes toxic if the dose is high enough. Even water, where a humorous 'data sheet' describes its oral LD50 as six feet deep! 2. Any chemical substance becomes harmless if the dose is small enough. The second principle is the one that is relevent with respect to pesticide residues. If the residue is low enough, it is harmless. (Definition for the message below. Oral LD50 is mentioned. It means the amount of the test chemical, taken by mouth, sufficient to kill half the test population.) How much is low enough? As a general rule of thumb, a single dose of 1% of the minimum able to cause death will not cause lasting harm. For example : ethanol is a toxin, and is found at about 40% in whiskey. The oral LD50 as measured in male rats translates as a dose of 1500 ml for male humans. In other words, if humans react in a similar way to rats, then a session of whisky drinking in which every adult male drinks 1.5 litres will result in the deaths of half of them, if no medical assistance is forthcoming. A single dose of 1% of the oral LD50 translates as 15 ml, or a single shot of whiskey in many bars. Clearly not enough to cause lasting harm, if just one dose is taken. However, government regulatory organisations generally work off the NOAEL (no observed adverse effect limit). The lowest dose observed to cause a measurable harmful effect, which is much lower than the lowest lethal dose. Most regulations are based on a dose of 1% to 0.1% of the NOAEL. This measure is used because it is extremely conservative. Evidence of toxic effects in humans would suggest that a dose of 10% of the NOAEL is probably, in most cases, quite harmless. For ethanol, 15 mls of whiskey clearly causes an adverse effect (slowed reflexes). 1% of the NOAEL is 0.15 mls. If a government had just discovered ethanol and was setting a regulatory limit, it would be 0.015 to 0.15 mls of whiskey. This gives an idea of just how conservative regulatory limits for pesticide residues really are! Thus, pesticide residues in food become of concern only if they reach a level substantially higher than the limit set by government regulations. As far as I can see, this is a very rare outcome.

There are a lot of people who think we should all eat organic food. Some for nutritional reasons, some for ecological reasons, and some for animal welfare reasons. What do you think? Should we all be eating organic food? Some organic food? if so, which? Or is the issue silly?

I am going to start another thread under the title "Is organic food silly?"

To CaptainPanic To be fair to iNow, I think what happened was that he and I were typing a post and pressing 'submit' at almost the same time. I think he was responding to my post number 75, rather than number 77, which makes his reply (78) look inappropriate.

To Peak Oil Man I have to say it, though. Just found another reference to the fact that sea ice retreated far faster than models predicted. http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html I quote : "When the authors analyzed the IPCC computer model runs, they found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model simulation was 5.4 percent per decade. September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic. But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period. "Because of this disparity, the shrinking of summertime ice is about thirty years ahead of the climate model projections," said NSIDC scientist and co-author Ted Scambos." Of course, this was to a degree reversed by the colder than normal northern winter just gone. http://vocalnation.net/posting/external/3599

Current sea level rise is about 3 mm per year, or a little more than the length of the average human foot over 100 years. Unless it increases substantially, not too much flooding in the near future. Most of Antarctica and Greenland have average temperatures well below 0 Celsius. Thus no melting unless temperatures rise A LOT! Melting of sea ice does not count, since it has no effect on sea level. In fact, global warming puts more moisture into the atmosphere, which in theory should lead to more moisture in the winds blowing from the sea over Antarctica and Greenland, leading to more water falling as ice onto the land mass. This would be a sea level lowering mechanism. Again, unless temperatures rise a lot. The current sea level rise appears to be caused by a combination of thermal expansion of water, and the melting of glaciers and ice fields in areas other than Antarctica or Greenland. eg. The Rocky Mountains, the Himalayas, and the Andes etc.

Captainpanic When you suggest a global climate model is complex, you were right. The only way the computer modellers can make it 'work' is to add simplifications and assumptions that are of debatable merit. And on top of that are all the unknowns that have not been quantified. I had this argument with iNow earlier, and I pointed out, that before this just gone northern winter, the global climate models had drastically underestimated Arctic sea ice melting. The global climate models have to be considered, at best, as approximations.

Wisdom is one of those words I absolutely HATE. It has a different meaning for everyone who uses it. My dear old (now departed) Dad used the word a lot, generally meaning that he had it and I didn't, and that meant I should listen to him. But my father's definition basically meant believing everything in the bible. As a dyed in the wool agnostic, I cannot accept that definition. When I was a science teacher in Fiji, the local community considered me to be 'wise'. It was a label I could not accept, and I shuddered each time I was so accused. Their definition of wise meant educated. I think it is quite inappropriate for the science forum to debate something based on a word so ill defined. I would rather debate the value of scientific 'truth'. The definition of scientific 'truth' meaning discoveries that have been verified by enough testing to have reasonable confidence that they are strong models of reality.

There is no single scientific theory to explain the origin of life. There are, however, a number of results from scientific studies which each give a possible clue. Millers experiments, plus many similar follow up experiments, showed that, in a reducing atmosphere such as the Earth had over its first billion odd years, any major energy source (lightning, ultra violet, meteor strike etc) can induce the gases to react together to create a wide range of organic molecules. This includes amino acids, purines, sugars, fatty acids etc. All the basic building blocks of life. In a world where there are pools of water, these building blocks will dissolve, and eventually make a fairly strong organic solution - the primordial soup. Further experiments show that, on the surfaces of some minerals such as Montmorillonite, and calcite, some of those molecules line up. Once aligned, they can combine to form small polymers, which are essential to life. The existence of certain other chemicals (fatty acids and detergent type molecules) permit the formation of small 'cells' which enclose portions of the primordial soup, presumably including the polymers. If one of those polymers has the ability to replicate (eg a small version of RNA), then it will grow in number and occupy a large part of the brew. If it 'mutates' into different forms, then those different forms will compete with each other for resources, and evolution has begun. Now for the disclaimer. The above is NOT a unified theory of abiogenesis. It is a collection of scientific results and some speculation. The origin of life is still not really understood, and a lot more work needs to be done.

How not to break an egg? Hard boil it!

Mihael, Many people have postulated a force of that or similar nature, and that idea is heavily represented in certain alternative therapies. For example : acupuncturists postulate a force they call Chi. However, all those ideas are purely hypothetical. Many scientists have tried to find evidence of such a force, and failed. Most probably, no such force exists. The force you talk of, to drive organisms to survive, is not needed. Normal ideas of evolution are sufficient to explain the behaviour of animals that increase chances of survival. Quite simply, if any animal has genes causing behaviour in a way to make it less likely to survive, it is less likely to pass on those genes. Over time, those genes will be weeded out of the population. Animals whose genes alter behaviour in ways that increase chances of survival will likely survive, and those genes will become more frequent in the population. No force is needed.

To CDarwin The book : 'The three Trillion Dollar War' claims that the Iraq war is the second most expensive. less than WWII but more than VietNam.

To Sayonara As you say, we need to devise a predictive test for the hypothesis. How about this? The range of prey species that a predator feeds upon should be less in areas where poison species are common, such as coral reefs, and wider in areas, such as cold waters or the deep ocean, where poison species are less common. Is there a marine biologist in the house? Someone who could comment on the prediction above?

I totally agree with bascule when he says that torture is wrong. It does not matter if it worls or not. It is just plain wrong. As to its efficacy - here is what the Washington Post says : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html

To Pangloss It would be difficult to get strong scientific evidence of the statement :'torture does not work.' After all, what scientist would ethically carry out the experiment? However, there are encyclopaedias of experience on the subject covering literally hundreds of cultures that have used torture. When the torture is used to elicit information, the accumulated experience strongly indicates that the information gained is not reliable.

Modern christian churches very fortunately edit the bible, and carefully select from it what they teach. After all, the bible teaches that homosexuals be put to geath, 'witches' be killed, adulterers be stoned to death, most seafood be banned from the diet, that slavery is OK, and there is nothing wrong with polygamy.

I am a non Christian (agnostic) and I have read the bible from cover to cover. You are right. The 7 deadly sins was another pope's ravings. As is this lot.

To Sayonara I presume you want me to reply to your idea that sharks may occasionally kill a bunch of people and remove all trace of the deed. This is, of course, possible in the deep ocean. As I said before, the one shark that I have personally seen act aggressively to me is the Oceanic White Tip, and it lives in deep water in the tropics. It is possible that groups of people adrift in deep tropical water may be killed and all traces removed by this shark. However, there are a number of recorded situations where groups have been rescued from deep water, and there has been no attacks. So lets call that a maybe. The great majority of recorded shark attacks are coastal. Certain species are known to make these attacks - bull sharks, great whites, and tiger sharks especially. It is much more difficult for such an attack to be carried out with no witnesses or trace of a body. And those attacks are pretty much always fleeting. The shark strikes only once. We get repeated news reports of the victims 'fighting off' the shark, or rescuers risking their lives. I do not want to denigrate the courage of those who carry out such rescues, since they are no doubt terrified, but do the brave thing anyway. However, I doubt they are in much danger. The sharks strike and then fail to follow up. My interest is why they strike. My own experience is that sharks often see humans but rarely attack. When they attack, they do not follow up. Why? My theory is that marine predators have evolved to avoid eating unknown foods, because so many marine organisms are toxic. Thus sharks attack and eat only the organisms on their mental 'shopping list' in order to avoid being poisoned. Land predators do not suffer this risk, since few, if any, large prey animals are poisonous. So why do sharks attack, even if rarely? My feeling is that is is curiosity - mouthing something to investigate it, or by accident when they strike at a white flashing object from reflex.

To thedarkshade I agree with you. I see it all as a matter of politics screwing up perspective. It all came from 9/11. Now, while that was a terrible tragedy and an act of mass murder which was so utterly reprehensible, it is hard to stay calm about it; nevertheless, the response has been utterly out of proportion. 3000 dead people is a major tragedy, but still amounts to less than the death toll from tobacco related illness in the USA of less than THREE days. George Bush's response has led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis, and the cost to the American taxpayer equivalent to $US 10,000 for every American - adult or child. I regard Al Qaeda as a pack of international criminals, equivalent to, but worse than, the Mafia. The proper response to them should have been to instigate an international police effort to round them up and put them on trial as common murderers. It is now too late. They have become a political force, due to the inept handling of the aftermath of 9/11, and their recruits pour in faster than the war in Iraq can kill them.

A lot of the way I think about shark attacks comes from my own personal experience. I have, over the past 40 odd years, been in the water with sharks on many occasions. Only twice have I been threatened. Both times it was in very deep tropical water, in places where very few humans ever go (once at North Minerva Reef and once at the Rowley Shoals); both times it was the Oceanic White Tip which rarely encounters people (its home is deep tropical waters) and both times the sharks turned and fled from me anyway. I have also snorkelled off popular swimming and surfing beaches and encountered sharks. People have no conception as to how often sharks come within range of their senses to human swimmers. From experience, I can tell you it is far more common than most realise. In spite of this common encounter (only perceived by the shark - the swimmer remains oblivious) attacks remain very rare. From personal experience, I would judge that people coming within striking range of sharks is far more common than people coming in striking range of lions, tigers, hyenas etc. Yet attacks are rare.

This is the title of a new book that details some of the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the American people and the American taxpayer. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/03/08/bosti108.xml The direct costs of the Iraq war - including salaries, munitions, materials, aircraft flying costs etc - are now approaching a trillion dollars. However, the INDIRECT costs are far greater. This includes what the war is doing to oil supplies and oil price, the cost of rehabilitation of the wounded, psychological trauma etc.