/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6674850
Monsanto has an all organic cafeteria. They won't eat the food they produce.

>>6674861
>this implies causal relationship
>checkmate, this proves these two phenomenon must be direct linked
>>>/x/

Use eliminative induction and stop running to conclusions, faggot.

>>6674861
That's wrong moron:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/what-monsanto-serves-in-its-cafeterias.aspx

>Inb4 "Dur thats what dey wood say"

If you aren't going to accept facts then you'll find >>>/x/ to your liking.

>>6674868
yeah, their PR department put that out after the fact.

Of course there are people who don't know what they're actually talking about.

But still
>defending Monsanto

Lab rats aren't really the issue

The problem with GMO companies is also largely economic.

>>6674874
>Reducto ad monsantum
Nobody's defending Monsanto the company. I hate Monsanto. We're defending GMO the technology. "Monsanto" and "GMO" aren't synonyms

>>6674870
>yeah, their PR department put that out after the fact.
>Since I think there's a conspiracy, therefor I can arbitrarily discard any evidence that doesn't fit my view. That in turn indicates my view is correct, since all of the evidence fits it.
0/10

>>6674877
>Since I think there's a conspiracy, therefor I can arbitrarily discard any evidence that doesn't fit my view
**I think there's a conspiracy, therefor I can arbitrarily discard any evidence that doesn't fit my view

grammar typo

>>6674877
>Since I think there's a conspiracy, therefor I can arbitrarily discard any evidence that doesn't fit my view.
I'm not even saying there's a conspiracy. I'm saying the shit they make and call food is something they won't even bother to eat.

>>6674882
>they won't even bother to eat.
You have nothing but circumstantial evidence that this is even true. You just assume that their press statement must be untrue because you dislike them.

Again, I will agree that they're an awful company, but that in itself doesn't disprove their statement

Sure is /pol/ in here

>>6674850
Where was it republished?

>>6674896
Oh, it's Environmental Sciences Europe, another site where any crank can pay money to have a paper published sans peer review... I mean sans "censorship". topkek

>>6674896
Enviromental Science Europe

It had no further review since the original publication

The tiny handful of actual scientists who push anti-GMO stuff consult each other for peer review so they can circle-jerk their way into publication.

It's sort of like how BANDits in paleontology cite each other

BAND stands for Birds Are Not Dinosaurs. There's also MANIACS, or Maniraptors Are Not In Actuality Coelurosaurs (which is also retarded). The point being, rouge circles of (pseudo)scientists cite each other to push ridiculous junk science. Unlike paleontologists, geneticists like Seralini can appeal to activist groups for attention

>>6674861
The only problem is US IP Law being so cocked up that we need a total reboot, but that won't happen with professional bribery being legal and normalized in US Congress.

1. Get corporate money out of US representative politics.

2. Fix all the things!

>>6674910
The corporations man! Like, get us out of Vietnam man.

The US legal system is a lot like professional masturbation.

In comparison, the EU "legal process" is like being reamed with a splintered broom handle while asking for your income tax rates to be raised, but only slightly, please.

>>6674910
I'm completely against monsanto, but a lot of fucktards can't differentiate between monsanto and GMO

That's like saying all computers are evil because of Google and the NSA

>>6674911
money buys everything in US government. Most countries call it "corruption" and "bribery" and it's a crime.

>>6674911
>ignore
>mock
>fight
>lose

>>6674926
Monsanto is a group of people out for rational self interest, so they don't have to follow personal morality... group competition is a bitch. The broken system that gluts Monsanto with undue advantagr can be changed. You can't hate the beast Monsanto and engage directly, you have to change the system that allows it to glut.

Monsanto would crumble with sane IP Law.

I'm just going to leave this here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

>>6674932
Money mainly buys airtime on TV and campaign staff. It's hardly bribery or corruption. And as recent elections have shown, all the money i the world doesn't buy you a congressional seat when the voters want someone else. Most countries have actual bribery and corruption. In the US it's actually much rarer.

>>6674945
>criticism is affirmation that I'm right

>>6674951
What personal morality has Monsanto not followed exactly?

I remember in Australia, GM wheat was being grown in test conditions (sealed off so no seeds escaped) at a CSIRO facility. Greenpeace members broke in and destroyed all the test crops with line trimmers. Greenpeace claims that GM foods are untested, but that was the whole point of the GM wheat being grown - to test them and see if they were safe.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/gm-crop-destroyers-given-suspended-sentences-20121119-29l66.html
Just like creationists, you can not reason with these type of people. Same with anti-nuclear power protesters.

>>6675027
>I remember in Australia, GM wheat was being grown in test conditions (sealed off so no seeds escaped) at a CSIRO facility. Greenpeace members broke in and destroyed all the test crops with line trimmers. Greenpeace claims that GM foods are untested, but that was the whole point of the GM wheat being grown - to test them and see if they were safe.

Basically this.
>I hate GMOs because natural news told me they're terribad
>Anyone who defends them must be a reptilian shill because InfoWars says so
They basically are the creationist of the left

If I recall, some guy on natural news suggested protesters just kill anyone who supports GMO. That's like the Al Qaeda of enviromentalism. Truly insane
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/24/naturalnews-huckster-mike-adams-asks-anti-gmoers-to-kill-scientists-supporters-of-crop-biotech/

>>6675021
enough money spent in the right ways can make people want somebody else.
no, it's not hardcore corruption in the sense that people aren't in smoky backrooms exchanging brief cases full of cash in return for congressional seats but if money is being spent in such a way that effectively the ones spending the money are being represented in the gov't and not the population that the politicians are supposedly representing then yes, it's corruption.

>>6674850
I see a rat, probably GMO'd with cancer, and you complaining that people don't want rats with cancer...
Is there some evidence i'm missing?

Kentucky Fried Cancer?
Nom nom nom

Come and see our new 100% Breast Chickens!

>>6675058
>Is there some evidence i'm missing?
You're missing quite a bit

The breed of rats he used have a 70-80% chance of cancer under ordinary circumstances.

Also shit-tier sample sizes

>Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females got cancer under normal conditions).[37][38][39] The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, and the longer the experiment goes, the more statistical "noise" there is – the more rats get cancer naturally, regardless of what you do to them. So for the experiment to have adequate statistical power, all the groups – control groups and test groups – would have to include at least 65 rats per group in order to sort out any experimentally caused cancers from cancers that would occur anyway – but the Séralini study had only ten per group

>>6675067

In other words, it's like giving a leper colony feces infested waters, and then trying to claim it was the water that gave them leprosy in the first place

But a lot of people just look at the pic and say
>lol, there's a tumor there, GMOs must be bad, context be damned!

>>6675050
Money doesn't make people do anything. Having a loudspeaker can get people to hear you, it doesn't mean people will agree with what you're saying. And again, recent election show that no-name candidates with no money can win against well-funded incumbents.

>>6675067
Did something happen to this breed already to give such high cancer rates..?
Perhaps earlier GMO testing?

>>6675081
They were bred with a genetic predisposition towards cancer. Are you retarded?

A 1972 study compared neoplasms in “Sprague-Dawley” rats from 6 different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but 1 of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."[8]

>>6675081
No, they're very severely inbred. Lab rats are bread in "strains" to ensure minimal variation in genetics for more even results in studies. The side effect is severe mutations. Sprague-Dawley rats were noted for spontaneous tumor developement over 40 years ago

**(technically they're outbred, which has somewhat different breeding selection than inbreeding, but still, it's very small a self contained population)

cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf

It would be asinine to cite the GMOs in a 2012 study to be the cause to a problem dating since at least 1973

>>6675086
It seems like everyone is using these rats to test everything....
So yes, i must be retarded

>>6675106
>everyone is using these rats to test everything
>"there is only one breed of lab rat"

>>6675106
Yes, lots of people use these rats for studies on cancer, not attempts to show some substance causes cancer you ignoramus.

Spontaneous Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats and Swiss ...
cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768
by JD Prejean - 1973 - Cited by 151 - Related articles
A spontaneous tumor incidence of 45% was noted in 360 Sprague-Dawley rats (179 males and 181 females) and a 26% incidence was seen in 254 Swiss mice ...

>>6675109
So what do they use to show something gives cancer?
Elephants?

Suzuki, H; Mohr, U; Kimmerle, G (1979). "Spontaneous endocrine tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats". Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 95 (2): 187–96. doi:10.1007/BF00401012. PMID 521452.

"Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley". Huntingdon Life Sciences. Retrieved 26 October 2012.

"Sprague Dawley". Harlan. Retrieved 26 October 2012.

Luddites getting BTFO

Now I can't wait for conspiracy theorists to tell us how the Monsanto Reptilian Rabbi Illuminati planted all those studies too

Monsanto boot-lickers detected
>shuddup an' eat yer Frankenfood
>Roundup is good fer ya

Anyway...
> Picks bad study of GMO
> Hurr Anti-GMO is so stuupid

>>6675120
> Roundup is good fer ya
it isn't bad for you
> chemicals are bad mmkay

before you say Monsanto shill, I'll admit it.
My parents both worked for Monsanto before the split off.
My dad worked on Round Up.

>>6675086
They've been stuck in an american lab for the last 100 years...
Of course their predisposed to cancer

>>6675120
>GMO and Monsanto are synonyms
>Only Monsanto can make GMOs. It's physically impossible for anyone except Monsanto to make GMOs
>Checkmate, this proves anyone who defends GMOs can only be a Monsanto shill. The laws of reality say so

Sure is summer in here

>>6675114
Other rats that aren't incredibly prone to cancer, other animals, yes. Wow what a concept.

Then add on the selective breeding (ie GM)

How much evidence do you need?

>>6675126
>before you say Monsanto shill, I'll admit it.
>My parents both worked for Monsanto before the split off.
>My dad worked on Round Up.
topkek


>>6675123
Do you have any better studies? This is only the tip of the iceberg of bad anti-GMO papers

More importantly, do you have a tested hypothesis describing a mechanism liking GMO to cancer? Has it been peer reviewed and made its way into a reputable journal?

Go to bed faggot. You have no argument

Geez, i'm having a field day today =D

>>6675144
Selective breeding isn't GM. Wow you people are dumb.

>>6675149
He knows a lot more about Round Up than you do.
And he can't lie to save his life.

>>6675153
Well, it was either the breeding, the chemicals in the lab, or both
and 2 out of 3 ain't bad, as they say...

>>6675154
Roundup=/=GMO

A strain of GMO corn is roundup ready. But roundup is a pesticide, not a modification

Science literacy 101

>>6675153
because we are all perfect clones?

>>6675158
Please explain how food causes an entire lineage of rats to be cancer-prone. I'll wait.

>>6675160
I'm desperately trying to find a point in that sentence but all I'm getting is your massive stupidity.

>>6675159
>not following the conversation.

>>6675159
>But roundup is a pesticide, and Monsanto does not sell Roundup-resistant GMO crop seed
uninformed Monsanto boot-licker detected

>>6675169
>>>/x/

>>6675169
>>6675167
>Monsanto does not sell Roundup-resistant GMO crop seed
Great strawman.

>Monstanto is doing something bad with GMO technology, therefor all GMOs must be bad.

So if I write a virus in C++, that makes all C++ programs viruses, r-r-r-right guys??!!!

>>6675181
>> still not following the conversation

>>6675181
>Monstanto is doing something bad with GMO technology, therefore Monsanto must be bad
Now you're catching on, Anon.

>>6675186

>>6675149
i'll start here because mocha-and-chainsaw-break =D

And god that is an awful post...
I'll just say, if i need a Ph-D and peer review to state the obvious, it's no wonder science is in the state it is

>>6675242
How is it obvious when you won't even give a simple explanation for how GMO causes cancer XDDDDDD

> Breeding isn't GM...
Well, either the rats had a 70-80% chance of getting cancer in 1925, or the cancer isn't genetic?

>>6675242
>peer review to state the obvious
You do. This isn't 7th grade science fair, kiddo

>>6675249
Link to the posts you reply to, you retard.

The fact that these rats are particularly cancer prone was discovered in 1972. We didn't even have GMO food in 1972. The reason is their outbreeding, not GMO. You still haven't given one iota of explanation for how GMO causes cancer.

>>6675251
Then all i say will fall on deaf ears, coz don't you know i'm peerless? ^^

>>6675261
lol i dunno xDDDD

>>6675259
you mean inbreeding?
we had chemicals in 1972

>>6675269
No, I mean outbreeding. Try to keep up.

Again, how do chemicals cause an entire lineage of rats to be cancer-prone? Why do you keep repeating this bullshit without any reasoning?

>>6675264
yeah not really =)
where's my peers at?

>>6675259
>You still haven't given one iota of explanation for how GMO causes cancer.

Don't expect him to. Activists don't give a shit about mechanistic explanations, they just like to serenade us their emotionally charged narrative about how eeeeeviiiiiil nazi scientists are raping mother nature with their terrible oppressive patriarchal science

>>6675269
>we had chemicals in 1972

>"GMO" is just another toxic chemical, it's glowing green ooze that comes in 50 gallon oil drums with a skull-and-crossbone on the side

>>>/tvtropes/

Did you come here for science or just to shit out cliches and pretend you know what your talking about?

>>6675274
The Rats Have Fucking Cancer....
You bred the rats, and they got Cancer...
Now you say you were trying to do that! (see >>6675086 )
But no you weren't (see >>6675259)
*settles*
then (>>6675274) what is a carcinogen? What is genetics?
10/10 GMO

>>6675289
Eating cancer rats doesn't give you cancer though

>>6675289
>Now you say you were trying to do that!
Just because they were bred with a genetic disposition to cancer doesn't mean they were DELIBERATELY bred to be disposed to cancer you fucking dumbass. If all you can do is prove your illiteracy rather than respond with anything resembling an argument, this conversation is over. Good day, faggot.

>a carcinogen
Carcinogens give a single organism cancer, they don't give the offspring of those organisms cancer. You are truly shitpost incarnate.

>>6675289
First off, your probably arguing with three or so different people

Everybody sees through your semantics game. We're arguing that the GMO corn they were fed didn't cause cancer. Inbreeding is a form of GM, and in this case did cause cancer. Inbreeding the rats doesn't reflect on the safety of transgenic GMOs in anyway. Regardless of whether the rats were intentionally or accidentally breed to produce tumors is irrelevant, because inbreeding the rats doesn't reflect on the safety of transgenic GMOs in anyway.


0/10

>>6675299
>any form of selective breeding is GM

complete misaplication of terms couched in a banal technicality. do science a big one and go fucking kill yourself.

>>6675302
But it's true technically though. I'm just pointing out that he was trying to use that technicality to b8 us into calling GMOs dangerous

The evidence speaks for itself, the rats were predisposed to cancer, Seralini's study is shit

>>6675293
We'll see i suppose

>>6675295
Isn't carcinogen the correct word for something that damages dna? hence causing ..?
> semantics

>>6675299
Lack of evidence due to prior GM and cancer

...Ph-D's really are worth more to the people selling them these days, aren't they...

>>6675313
Look, if you're trying to say "hur, inbreeding is a form of GM and it caused cancer," we're not going to disagree with you.

We're only saying it's something completely different than what Seralini was trying to test for.

Yes, selective breeding genetically modified them into developing tumors. There, are you happy? Have you had your semantics-orgasm yet?

>>6675314
lol

But look at how breeding went, and that's the natural form of genetic modification... Maybe we don't get cancer by eating these, even if they do have cancer themselves...

This is the next level of GM...

There's a lot invested already, and people are getting better and better at ignoring `inconvenient truths'...

>>6675308
no, its not true technically. not by any definition of truth in legal terms. GM means you use biotechnology to specifically and purposefully modify the genetic code, in a test tube. Selective breeding in no way fits that definition.

Once again, go fuck yourself.

Who cares if our 100% breast chickens excrete a neurotoxin...
It was an Accident

>>6675325
>not by any definition of truth in legal terms

what does that even mean?

>>6675329
>the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

you are lying by omission when you leave out a few highly important details when you try to tell people that breeding is GM

>>6675322
>But look at how breeding went,
It's been known for centuries that inbreeding and related methods are bad for specimens. They're just trying to create genetically uniform rats, the rat's health be damned. And tumors are useful for cancer research anyway. We have quite an excellent understanding of breeding and can avoid such effects if need be. You're "selective breeding is beyond us" argument is shit

> natural form of genetic modification
"natural" is a literary term, not a rigid scientific definition

You have no evidence that transgenic GMOs are more hazardous. Your folk-logic is shit tier


>GM means you use biotechnology to specifically and purposefully modify the genetic code, in a test tube. Selective breeding in no way fits that definition.
No, GM literally means genetic modification. You're wrong, stop making shit up.


>specifically and purposefully modify the genetic code, in a test tube
transgenic is the term your looking for

>>6675325
>legal terms
>not scientific terminology
kek

>>6675331
>you are lying by omission when you leave out a few highly important details when you try to tell people that breeding is GM
Genetic Modification, GM. Breeding is a form of genetic modification, just a different form than transgenic GM.

>GMO can ONLY mean transgenic GMO because that's the context it's frequently presented in by mass media
>>>/trash/

>>6675338
>It's been known for centuries

> Though the structure of DNA was established as a double helix in 1953,[3] several decades would pass before fragments of DNA could be reliably analyzed for their sequence in the laboratory

Plz Tell me about how you've observed selective breeding at the genetic level for a very long time and now know how every pair of traits reconfigure themselves in DNA/etc...

Shit, why don't you just create the perfect being and bow to your new rulers already =D

>>6675348
You don't need to understand nucleotides to observe the phenomenon of inbreeding.

The new evidence shown by Watson and Crick reinforced existing theories like that of Darwin.

>but Newton couldn't have observed earth's gravity, because the graviton hasn't been detected!!!111
That's how stupid you sound


Keep arguing, I could do this all night

>>6675352
>perfection
>abstract ideal created by humans
pick both

>>6675354
You'd better be bowing ;D

>>6675353
Well done, you know how to create a genome in the lab that probably isn't inbred...
Anything else?

some tasty ebola?

>>6675058
>>6675081
>>6675106
>>6675114

holy shit you are literally the stupidest fuck I have ever met in my life. It's rare that I find someone who completely lacks the executive functioning necessary for basic deductive reasoning and inferential logic. You should literally kill yourself

>>6675362
I think he might be trolling

>>6675361
Not much less ethical than keeping these poor rats alive

>>6675362
Be my guest and debunk it
...others have already tried and failed

>>6675377
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo

i may have another mocha while you formulate some decent arguments

I'm not against GMO, but the behaviour of companies that practice it are pretty damning.

If you've ever read "The wind up girl" which despite being an extreme situation when it comes to GMO, seems to be the companies ideal endgame

>>6674850
But muh Monsanto

>>6675405
> Greenpeace
Fuck off

>>6675377
**tips fishing pole**

>>6675379
Kek, so true.

>>6675299
>Inbreeding is a form of GM
no.jpg
Lrn2gm

Yesa, Round 2?
when you're ready =D

>>6675308
>But it's true technically though
no-to-the-second-power.jpg
Lrn2technically

>>6675322
>look at how breeding went, and that's the natural form of genetic modification
no-to-the-third-power.jpg
Lrn2genetic-modification

C'mon

>GMO activists are blind to evidence. They're like creationists.

no one?

> Holds up a GMO fed GMO's
> even Its cancer has cancer
See guise, GMO's are healty

nobody is going to try to explain how retarded your argument is to you

the people who were autistic enough to even bother with your sorry ass fucked off to do more productive things a long time ago

just order a helium tank already

you aren't even worth directly replying to

How do you expect to get usable results from this abomination?

Aw, c'mon now...
It's okay to lose an argument =)

You'll thank me in 80 years when corn doesn't look like OP's picture...

The problem is, when a GMO plant infects organic plants with pollen that GMO is not supposed to produce, the farmer of the4 organic food is guilty of copyright infringement and he gets sued for having infected plants.

GMO companies are irresponsible fucktards. They had this problem with papayas. GMO papayas infected organic papayas.

THERE ARE NO MORE ORGANIC PAPAYAS LEFT ON EARTH.

Well, you would've if you had only listened...
I guess everyone will be thanking you for them looking like OP's picture instead

When you can take one of these genetically broken rats, and turn it back into it's healthy 1927 equivalent...
Then i might show a little faith

>>6674945
>misunderstand
>blaze it
>feel superior
>get paranoid

I'll take God over a Cancerous Rat anyday...
Where is your skepticism?

Isn't this the longest running GM experiment to date?
And look at it... Other rats would probably kill it as a mercy

Sprague and Dawley must be rolling in their graves with such a fine rat named after them

We need to get some Doctors of Philosophy in here Stat..
Philosophy really is Dying...