In article ,
Derald wrote:

"DogDiesel" wrote:


Which potato do you want to eat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=exBEFCiWyW0

I'm not an advocate of the arbitrary use of chemicals in or on foods but I
have to wonder where is the link to the youtube video explaining the
differences
between science and alarmist propaganda;
And you do? Considering that the U.S. in 2 wars, plus 2 half wars
(Yemen/Libya), it would appear that the difference between truth and
alarmist propaganda is lost on most Americans.

or to the one pointing out the
questionable morality of using school-aged children to promulgate uncritical
advocacy.
What was uncritical? She bought 3 different sweet potatoes, stuck them
in water, and we observed the results. Then she identified a difference
between them as being chlopropham. Maybe you would like a peer review
process?

When most students have their interest in science beaten out of them by
grade 11, I found it very refreshing that she had a question, did the
test, and then reached a conclusion. If you want to rail about
education, try railing against "No child's behind left", which has no
education, but only rote memorization.

Now, in a technological age, college is being placed beyond the
financial reach of most students. Only the rich need apply.

Is there a youtube video that deals with the ruthlessly relentless
indoctrination of school children under the banner of "education" or one
explaining exactly how advocacy groups function as de facto religions? I
rather
doubt any exist because rational thought is not the point, is it?

The school-aged child had data to support her position. Being
chronologically an adult, what do you have [facts, logic + premise]?

While you may be suspect of the girls conclusions, the different sweet
potatoes spoke volumes without her assistance.
--

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mical-controls

April 2010, Scientific American
p. 30
Chemical Controls

As the law stands, the EPA cannot be proactive in vetting chemical
safety. It can require companies to test chemicals thought to pose a
health risk only when there is explicit evidence of harm. Of the 21,000
chemicals registered under the law's requirements, only 15 percent have
been submitted with health and safety data--and the EPA is nearly
powerless to require such data. The law allows companies to claim
confidentiality about a new chemical, preventing outside evaluation from
filling this data gap; some 95 percent of new submissions fall under
this veil of secrecy. Even when evidence of harm is clear, the law sets
legal hurdles that can make action impossible. For instance, federal
courts have overturned all the EPA's attempts to restrict asbestos
manufacture, despite demonstrable human health hazard.

Consequently, of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., only
five have been either restricted or banned. Not 5 percent, five. The
EPA has been able to force health and safety testing for only around
200.
(cont.)
--

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...d-takes-on-gen
etically-modified-food-producers-video
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/