Beekeeping Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

You think your honey is safe....NOT!!!

12K views 65 replies 6 participants last post by  Gypsi 
#1 ·
#2 ·
A bit alarmist of a title (and news paper article). Neonics have very low toxicity to humans; for example, imidacloprid has an LD50 of 450mg/kg; about 5x as toxic as table salt, and half as toxic as cola. And dose makes the poison - the highest level of neonic found in any of the honeys was ~10000-fold below the level reported as intoxicating for bees.

Not saying that neonics are not an issue for bees, but this paper doesn't show anything alarming.

B
 
#3 ·
If you add up all the poisons found in our food supply no one may be a big issue, but collectivey they do add up and do we really know the long term damage they will do to us? Monsanto has done a great job squashing as much negative info against them that gets printed... and keeps down playing that any of the pesticides and GMOs have on the bee population... I like to take the read between the lines approach when reading these type articles...
 
#4 ·
Toxicology isn't typically additive; compounds with unrelated mechanisms of toxicity do not have additive effects. In the case of neonics, we simply lack the genes targeted by them, so to us they are nothing more to us than a slightly bitter compounds that are on-par (toxicity wise) with common things in our diet like salt and pepsi. Neonics are simply a derivative of natural plant alkaloid compounds that we consume in massive amounts every day - including things like caffeine and aspirin. They just happen to target insect neuronal receptors, which is why they are toxic to bugs but not people/animals.

In terms of "do we know what the effects are", the answer is "generally yes". The first thing is that most pesticides are used at lower doses today that historically - pesticide use peaked in 1980 and has dropped since, so we have a good feeling for what higher-than today exposure looks like. Moreover, most modern pesticides have lower toxicity and environmental impact than those used historically (ironically, the major exception to this is the pesticides used by the organics industry). Most of the pesticides used today have been in use since the 80's, which means that we have ~30 years of data on the effect of (decreasing) continual exposure over trillions of consumed meals. And that is in addition to animal and biochemical data collected in laboratories, and from data stemming from veterinarian researchers monitoring their effect on livestock. There are scientists who have made their lifes-work the tracking of these exposures and analyses of potential effects, and we know their risks very well.

When it comes to new compounds, we also typically know up-front what the risks are. Toxicology is not magic; chemicals are absorbed, partition into tissues, bioaccumulate, metabolized and excreted in very predictable ways. There are very good assays for determining toxicity in the lab prior to field trials/etc. Prior to being legally sold, a full assessment must be conducted which includes all of these properties, along with a pretty extensive environmental analysis.

In terms of monsanto, sorry but that is nothing more than BS sold by people with a motivation to ignore science. Reality is that the world is full of scientists such as myself (and Dr. Lu, who published the paper in question) who are completely independent of monsanto/merck/etc. We're funded independently of any company input, publications go through peer review without company involvement, and papers are usually published without the company even being aware they are coming out. The whole "monsanto suppresses everything negative/publishes false supportive studies" is nothing more than a strawman, used as an excuse to ignore inconvenient data and the absence of data supporting their personal beliefs.

Bryan
 
#5 · (Edited)
Ok, first I will say I respect the info you supplied and your opinion on the subject, I also dont know where your loyalties belong to,but I also have to weigh in the hundreds or thousands of web sights, organizations and other scientists that say otherwise, also the amount of food allergies that have become issue since GMO has been introduced in both human and animals and the introduction of new pesticides and herbicides on the market my many chemical companies that have adversely affected many species that never had issues before..before GMO I would buy tomatoes that would last a week in the fridge and have taste and nutrients, now the tomato will last for a month or so, has no taste and reduced nutrients( as other scientists have tested and proven)..this tampering with nature has produced many un wanted side effects that are constantly down played, but if you look at the environment and issues we have now that didnt exist decades ago, its hard to believe all the messing around and new chemical agents didnt have some effect on this.. can you answer me this? if pest resistant corn kills off pests, how does it know good insect from bad? again this is my opinion from what I researched and dont ask anyone to take it as pure fact, but to do their own research and come to their own conclusions...:)
 
#6 ·
My loyalties are to science...I am an academic researcher, and other than the odd contract for developing infection control & QC procedures for fermentation companies (yoghurt, beer, cheese, etc), I have no commercial links. My one interaction with pharma has been to show that a drug under trial didn't work as advertised. I also grew up a farmer, and am moving back into that world as we 'speak'. As part of my academic duties I have taught courses on pharmacology/toxicology, so I know a fair bit about that field, although it isn't my expertise...which is immunology (i.e. allergies, responses to pathogens, etc).

Just to tackle a few things you brought up:
  1. There are no GMO tomatoes, so whatever is going on with your tomatoes is not due to GMO. Tomatoes last longer for the unsexiest of reasons - conventional breeding for slow-ripening strains. This is also why tomatoes suck today; the traits selected for slow-ripening also killed a lot of the flavour. Ironically, the only GMO tomato ever made (and withdrawn from the market prior to commercial release) was developed to prevent this loss of flavour. A quick search of the scientific literature did not find a single article claiming the nutritional value of tomatos has decreased.
  2. Food allergies were increasing decades prior to the first introduction of any GMO foods. The cause of increases in food allergy are well-known; a loss of helmithic infections, resulting in Th1 skewing of the immune system (fancy way of saying we're too clean, so our immune system starts attaching things it shouldn't). There is some evidence that antibiotic use may also be a factor, due to altered gut biota, although that is somewhat controversial. Their is also an acknowledged survival bias (e.g. kids no longer die when they have their first exposure, so more survive to then have allergies requiring management), and a reporting bias (there are central databases tracking these now; and the timing of the deployment of these databases corresponded to large 'spikes' in incidence). Also, most food allergies are against crops which have not been GMO'd.
  3. The environmental issues relating to pesticide and fertiliser use are less now than historically (in developed nations), largely due to the use of better-designed products and stricter laws regulating their use. One example, showing the trend in nitrate contamination of water. That's not to say that there isn't environmental issues - there are - but the ones which are worsening (in the developed world) are mostly those related to climate change and habitat loss.
  4. Anyone can put anything on the web; I'd suggest you look to publications by reputable scientific organisations for info on science. The vast majority of stuff on the web is wrong.
Bryan
 
#7 ·
Ok, you have given me some items to research, I appreciate the detailed response to each concern, I have a grasp of what your saying about living in a too clean of an environment as we killed our own immune build up...sorta like the movie war of the worlds...we over time developed immunity to the commonest germs and the aliens dint and died..lol
 
#8 ·
ok I looked around and thought about it for a while...and I still dont trust the gov or anyone telling me ingesting pesticide or herbicide is safe for the long term..and here is why..lead, asbestos, tobacco, the air at 911 trade center and the list goes on of items in the past the people have been told are safe to use and be around and 30 to 40 years later its proven different and plenty of people are dying from..how can you tell long term effects on a human if a product is only a decade or so old..you cant..you can go with your best guess, but thats all you have..so again no disrespect to your opinion on the matter , but this too is the internet...;)
 
#9 ·
Actually, our ability to tell if something has long-term toxicity is pretty good; we have assays and knowledge today not available in the 1960's. For most molecules, the risk of acute and chronic exposure can be reasonably determined from the chemical structure alone; the risk of acute and chronic exposure (as well as carcinogenic and tetranogenic effect) can then be directly tested with well established models that have a good history of accuracy. Moreover, glyphosate has also been on the market since 1974, long enough for any chronic exposure risk to be apparent; likewise, neonics have been on the market since 1985; again, more than enough time to directly observe risk.

...its also worth pointing out that your "sources" are lying to you; at no time did the US gov claim smoking was safe. In fact, the very first time a US federal gov agency released an official report on smoking was the January 11, 1964 surgeon generals report...which concluded that "cigarette smoking is - A cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men, A probable cause of lung cancer in women, The most important cause of chronic bronchitis". Much of the data for that came from the CDC, which as early as 1948 was funding research into the link between smoking and bronchitis. Prior to 1942 the US gov had zero agencies tasked with regulating health hazards, but even so, acknowledged lead as toxin in the early 1900's and engaged in nearly 30 years of litigation with the lead industry in order to try and regulate its use.

As I said, anyone can put anything on the 'net. Its unfortunate that you've chosen to use unreliable and factually incorrect sources for your "information".
 
#10 ·
I try not to rely on any 1 or 2 sources of info, and like I said before, I dont trust any governing body on what they say, the amount of scandals and corruption for big business has been going on from the 1800s ... the amount of man made chemicals that are now present in our environment are not good for us and anyone saying they are im sorry but are lying for corporate greed...there are just too many people dying from all kinds of stuff..heres another..BPA..so now its all BPA free plastics and the plastic is still toxic..you say everyone else is lying..how do I know you arent?? and again im not attacking you just giving an example, I dont know you from Adam, maybe if we were close friends for years and I could trust your info as the truth it would be different, but I dont know you, im sure you are very well educated and have great knowledge..but so do many of the scientists with conflicting info on many subjects..so we can agree to disagree at this point...I posted the article just to have people be aware of there environment around them and to open their eyes and see for themselves what may be going on around them and have people come to their own conclusions, not base what my opinion is as fact...:)
 
#11 ·
Hi, Interesting conversation. Hope you do not mind an additional comment for SuiGeneris.

I have a close friend 50 years old that has farmed his whole life. He is now suffering from several neurological disorders. If all these chemicals that farmers have been associated with are so safe, why are farmers at such a high risk of cancer and other disorders? Check out the percentage. I can not quote all the numbers.

If the chemical industry is so up front with the public and so trustworthy, why are they selling the chemicals that we deem unsafe to ignorant people in third world countries? People that can hardly read. Again, check the percentage of those people with chemical caused maladies.

I have nephew with a MS in chemical engineering, he has a high post in a large US industry. He is a global warming denier. What's with chemistry majors?
Just had to add that jab.

The industry you are dealing with is a INDUSTRY! The bottom line is the most important thing. They will say and do anything to increase their value. There are decent companies that try not to screw the public but it is not the chemical industry. What is the possibility that you have been brain washed by your "sources"?

Foreign chemicals in our bodies are just that FOREIGN. No matter how small the dose they are still foreign. No matter how many analysis's are performed they can not take into account the differences in each individuals genes. I and my wife may be in contact with the same flu bug, one of us may get it and the other will not. Same with chemicals in our bodies. We are all individuals, you can not "analyze" for all the differences.
Some thing is wrong and to deny that the foreign chemicals have nothing to do with some of the problems goes against probability. The bees are trying to show us something is wrong.

I may get kicked off this site for that but I just can not let it go. Sorry if I offended you I didn't want to.
 
#12 ·
Royal, this is an open dialog and all input is welcome if not encouraged.....:)
ps, your not gona get kicked off for any polite difference of opinion and dont get me started on the now its called " climate change " scam...they changed it from global warming because that didnt work out for them, so now climate change can cover anything that happens..lol
 
#13 ·
The point that I think most people miss about doing good science is you cannot trust it if the investigator "has an ax to grind". Even the most intelligent people can unintentionally bias their results and certainly their conclusions when they have a preconceived idea about how the results "should" turn out.

For example when someone has a child with autism, it would be very hard to distance ones self from the personal emotional connection to design, carry out and interpret investigational science about autism. I do not doubt that it can be done, but the track record of folks in that situation is not good. There is an old saying that applies here......"a doctor that treats himself has a fool for a patient".

Then you have the constant lure of fame (or even notoriety) that leads us down paths that are unimaginable to others not so bitten by that particular bug. The end result is junk "science" that gets by a reviewer that assumes the investigator honestly designed, carried out and interpreted the results of the study. It gets published and these days splashed across the internet even before publication and critique by other scientists knowledgible enough to critique it. Such a study may not hold up to scrutiny and eventually be discredited by the scientific community but still become the basis for a conspiracy theory that XYZ multinational corporation/the government etc has suppressed the "truth".

A case in point is the claim that childhood vaccinations cause autism. I am sure most folks considered that a reasonable hypothesis in need of investigation but the one unethical scientist that "cooked up" a study to "prove" it became famous and did a lot of damage to humanity. Once his study was published and began to be critiqued by knowledgeable scientists it eventually was discredited and retracted by the journal that published it, but the damage was done and now we have a strong anti-vax movement and outbreaks of preventable childhood diseases that had become rare and have not diminished the incidence of autism.

I encourage everyone to look up some of Randy Oliver's blog posts on pesticides and neonicatinoids in particular. His website is Scientific Beekeeping.
 
#14 ·
I reference that sight, scientific bee keeping often, it is a great resource and have read some of his articles on this issue..and there is alot of info to digest and it comes down to what you want to believe as not alot is proven beyond 100% doubt..( not from his web site, but all the info he has collected on the subject of pesticide, herbicide in the environment). I will continue to believe all these chemicals are not safe to the human race long term, that is my right to believe and your right not to believe, when billions and trillions of $$ are at stake and the corruption that follows are hard to ignore on many levels..just look at the now named climate change scam, again my belief and opinion...lots of smart scientists and people on opposite sides..anything not in our bodies at birth chemical wise seems to hurt us in the long run....again my belief and opinion...if this gets people to start looking around and questioning whats going on in our world..then that is a positive result..:)
 
#15 ·
I think that the interaction of chemicals is a very complex topic, and I read somewhere, and have forgotten where, that the combination of Roundup with I think it was a fungicide, is toxic to bees. The neonics cause problems with navigation if excessive powder from the seed is carried into ditches along side the fields and the bees try to gather the dust as pollen. Lose a lot of bees that way.

No system is perfect, not organics, not chemical laden. I think that we are playing with fire with a lot of things environmentally, and that we need to learn how things interact. My garden is about 90% organic, but away from the garden and where beneficial nematodes won't perform well I will use ant block, I just have to keep my chickens out of it.

And yes the anti-vax scam does a lot of harm. It is quite possible that exposure to mercury and other environmental toxins by the parents are causing autism, and it has always been true that if the father is older, the likelihood of autism was higher, back when the stats were much lower than they are today.

I wish I had the education, and particularly the time, to conduct studies but I do well to manage to treat my bees.

I've run down diseases in aquatics, and treatments, but even that I'm running out of time for and having to depend on others experiences, recommendations by medicine vendors, etc.

I've been kicked off a couple of places for not always nodding my head and sagely agreeing with whoever runs the site. I would like this site to allow open discussions as long as they don't become personal attacks on people.. If we are all mature I think we will do fine.

(and I know some immature 70 year olds but they aren't on here.)
 
#16 ·
I do think all the anti bacterial soaps and quick use of antibiotics on people have caused a lot of issues of knocking down peoples own immune systems. when I was setting up my koi pond everyone wanted to sell me all these expensive UV lights to sterilize the water and my question was they dont do that in the big koi ponds over seas and what if a bird craps in the pond, the fish will have no natural immunity against germs, and the response was , then you medicate them..I have my koi pond for over 20 years and never used any of the UV lights or antibiotics on them and never had any issue with disease ...another issue is all the pharmaceuticals are ending up in our water supply and the treatment plants dont have the ability to filter them out and plenty of animals and insects drink that same water..that has to have an effect on them as it does on humans....there are so many factors that intertwine for end results, too many to fully study to get real answers..but there are way more chemical to human contact now than many years in the past , almost every food we buy now is wrapped in some sort of plastic that has to leech chemicals, then all the building materials and furniture in our houses and cars are full of nasty chemicals that leech into the air we breath..no way is that doing us any good and the rise in all the medical issues in developed countries far out way the countries still living simple lives in simple houses or huts without all this man made stuff...
 
#17 ·
I also don't use UV lights, and my number one best ich prevention for fish is a dip in noniodized salt water for a couple of minutes (for freshwater fish). The antibacterial everything has actually been taken back a step, except for toothpaste the chemical triclosan is out of most of our personal care products. But yes, kids exposed to more germs, are healthier. So my grandkids come out here and help collect chicken eggs and clean out the coop. Can't get much germier than that
 
#18 ·
I have been adding salt to the pond water to also build up the slim on the fish that helps protect them..If I get a very sick fish with growths( once in the last 10 years) ill pull that fish into a quarantine tank and treat with potassium permanginate...and see how the fish does for a few weeks then reintroduce into he main pond..
I truly believe what doesnt kill you makes you stronger, as one of the hats Ive worn in my life as a plumber dealing with sewage and all the yuck in drain pipes, I rarely get sick and will contribute it to that and all the other dirt and crap Ive been exposed to over the years...
 
#20 ·
Im stuck using city water and all the junk in it, I use a chlorine killer as I fill the pond so the fish dont belly up and test for salt content for just a few % in the water...upstate I have well water without all the junk they put in and it looks and tastes so much better...
 
#21 ·
Man, you go away for a few days and the thread takes off. My apologies is I miss a "major" point...out of laziness I'm just going to refer to post #'s rather than quote.

@roadkillbobb/post 10
Conflicting data in science is normal, and these conflicts resolve over time. If you only look at one or two choice studies, and ignore the rest, you'll see what you want to see...if you look at the summation of research there is usually one clear answer. To help people cut through the noise, there are a number of scientific organisations that publish summary data and advisory guidelines, which is a good place to start. In terms of people dying, you've got your data backwards. Mortality is down across all non-elderly age groups. Fewer people are dying from when they're newborns to when they're in their 60's than at any time in the past. We are living longer, and healthier lives then at any point in recorded human history. There are increased incidence of many age-related disease (heart disease, cancer, etc) - but those increased incidences are a direct product of us living longer. More people living to old age = more people with age-related disease. Basically, because we no longer die before 40 from nasty infections we instead get to live until 80 and die of all sorts of "wonderful" things that result from when you extend your lifespan beyond that which we evolved for. On an unrelated note, BPA is considered safe at the levels used in foods; its endocrine disruption effect (at the levels used) are on par with eating soy (which contains phytoestorgen compounds similar to BPA). Most of the hysteria about BPA is just that - hysteria. One study found a weak correlation that couldn't be replicated by larger studies, but that first study got people worked up, and the later work was ignored.

/post 12
Your claim of global warming as a scam is a pretty good indication that you are not basing your opinions on facts or science, and are full-on into quackery. The data is clear, and the consensus among scientists is absolute. On a related note, "global warming" was never changed to "climate change"; both terms were introduced early in climatology research (1960's-ish), and are terms which are used to refer to distinct processes. Global warming refers to the observed phenomenon that global mean temperature is rising. Climate change refers to the outcome of that warming - e.g. temperature-driven changes in climate. In the scientific literature those terms are not used interchangeably; they have well defined and broadly accepted definitions, and are used to communicate specific (though related) concepts.

@Royalcoachman/post 11
You are mistaken about cancer risk in famers; age-matched cancer rates in farmers are much lower than in the general population. That link will take you to a table from the agricultural health study which lists the risk of cancer relative to the general population (a risk of 1.0 = same risk, below 1 = lower risk, above 1 = higher risk; numbers in bold indicated differences that are statistically significant); on average, US farmers get cancer at a rate 85% that of the general US population. There are a few types of cancers more common in farmers - skin/lip cancer is more common, due to higher levels of sun exposure. Ovarian and prostate cancers are also higher, but links to pesticides are not suspected. To date no pesticide has been linked to any of the small number of cancers that have higher incidences in farmers.

In terms of brainwashing, all I can say is that I spent over a decade being trained in critical data analysis (I'm a scientist, btw), my career is dependent on maintaining objectivity, and that none of my sources are from industry. I too distrust industry sources, which is why I base my knowledge predominantly on data/publications form other independent scientists whom, like myself, engage in research funded by NGO's and governmental grants and are completely independent of any industry interests...plus, I have the advantage of experience which gives me the ability to judge the veracity of individual data sets on things like the robustness of the experimental method used/etc.

@Gypsi /post 15
The link between mercury, aluminium and other vaccine compounds causing autism has been conclusively disproven. Removal of mercury and alum from most (in some countries, all) childhood vaccines did not change incidence, nor is there a correlation between the amounts of these compounds you are exposed to and your risk of autism. Even the "epidemic" in autism has shown to not be real (in the sense that there has been no increase in actual incidence) - its an "epidemic" of proper diagnosis; rates of the exclusionary diagnosis of mental retardation (i.e. what a physician records when s/he has a patient with mental deficiencies but cannot assign a specific disease as a cause) have fallen in lock-step with increases in autism diagnoses. Moreover, if you take adult born prior to the onset of the 'epidemic' and apply modern autism diagnostic criteria, you find the same rate of autism as you do in children born recently. In other words, there is no epidemic in the sense that the real rate of disease is increasing. Rather, MD's are doing a much better job of diagnosing kids, and instead of simply saying "your kid has mental retardation", are instead going the extra mile and drilling down to a specific diagnosis.

Despite the "epidemic" being shown to be a result of improved diagnosis, there still is an interest in what causes autism. Recent findings has demonstrated that autism forms in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy, and results from defects in a very specific genetic network responsible for the formation of specific centres in the brain - i.e. whether or not you become autistic is determined months prior to your birth, and long before you get your first vax.

@Gypsi / post 17, @roadkill / post 16
Antibacterial soap/etc are a huge problem, but not at the level of us humans. Our immune systems function fine after the use of the soaps, in fact, a few studies suggest that these soaps enhance our immune system by killing bacteria, which then act on the immune system in a manner similar to a vaccine. Its actually an issue as these immune responses can skew towards an allergy-type-response, where people end up hyper-responding to the bacteria...good from the perspective of fighting off the infection, but bad from the perspective of people ending up with moderate skin irritation to something that shouldn't progress past a pimple. The real issue with these soaps is that their broad use is leading to the evolution of resistance to the antibacterial compounds in them - meaning, these soaps are loosing efficacy. This is causing serious issues where these soaps are actually required (e.g. hospitals, care centres, etc). Full disclosure - one of the projects in my lab studies a form of multidrug resistant (including triclosan) Stphylococcus aureus.

Bryan
 
#58 ·
Man, you go away for a few days and the thread takes off. My apologies is I miss a "major" point...out of laziness I'm just going to refer to post #'s rather than quote.


/post 12
Your claim of global warming as a scam is a pretty good indication that you are not basing your opinions on facts or science, and are full-on into quackery. The data is clear, and the consensus among scientists is absolute.

Bryan
You were doing pretty well defending your points until the above.
'Absolute' implies 100 % agreement.
Please don't insult our intelligence with such a stupid, unproveable statement.
Unless, of course, you have written confirmation from EVERY scientist who has studied 'global warming' and EVERY ONE of them agrees that it is a proven fact.
Ball is in your court..................
 
#22 ·
Bryan,

I'm going to comment on the autism, on everything else we are relatively in agreement. I have lived in Texas 40 years and watched out climate shift here, and where I lived before, I do believe that humans are responsible for ocean acidification and temperature increases. The methane cloud over the Four Corners region is directly related to natural gas drilling and fracking and methane is a far more powerful heat trapper than CO2.

on the autism, the cause of the genetic mutation in second trimester could not be due to ingestion of mercury whether from eating excessive amounts of seafood during pregnancy or mercury in environmental pollution whether airborne (burning of coal) or water borne?

I have the questions but no time to do the research on a lot of things. At one time older father was thought to contribute to autism due to weakness of the sperm.

anyway, I have all the questions but no time to research today, and I have a lot of work to do, glad to see you back. I enjoy thoughtful conversation even when I don't have time to reply much.

Alice
 
#24 ·
on the autism, the cause of the genetic mutation in second trimester could not be due to ingestion of mercury whether from eating excessive amounts of seafood during pregnancy or mercury in environmental pollution whether airborne (burning of coal) or water borne?
None of the above (mercury is non-mutagenic). Its also not mutation, per se.

In humans, most genes have more than one form (these forms are called 'alleles'). For example, different alleles in the ABO gene determine whether your blood type is 'A', 'B', 'O', or 'AB'. The genes in the network that leads to autism are the same - each gene in the network has multiple different alleles. Some of these alleles don't work as well as other alleles, but in 99% of cases they work well enough to produce a normally functioning brain. In other words, the network is flexible enough that it can function normally in the presence of one or two parts that aren't functioning optimally.

What happens in autistics is, for lack of a better term, "bad luck" - they inherit enough of the "less-functional" alleles, across multiple genes, to "break" the gene network. As a result their brain does not develop normally, resulting in autism. The severity of the disease appears to be largely a product of just how "broken" that network is. The exact numbers are not nailed down, but it is expected that all but 0.1%-1% of autistics inherit these alleles from their parents; the remainder get autism due to a combination of inheriting "bad" alleles + new mutations resulting in a defective pathway.

That's not to say that environment doesn't play a role in autism - the data is very clear that it does. But rather than determine whether you get autism, environment instead appears to modulate disease severity and the rate of neurological development. Again, nothing in vaccines is linked to this aspect of autism; rather, major factors appear to be our microbiota, whether the mother experienced a fever during the second trimester of pregnancy, and maternal/paternal age (which relates to the number of new mutations in the child.

B
 
#23 ·
Good afternoon, SG, again I respect you time and effort and knowledge on the subjects..BUT..I would really like to see some links of where your info comes from to read up on what you are saying so I can compare and analyze the info my self , not that I dont trust you, I trust no one, I have my reasons I wont get into here, it really doesnt matter for the info at hand..I disagree on some of the issues and your explanations, hence I would like to see the links to the info..
have you studied the combined collection of all the so called safe chemicals and amounts in the human body? when you go to the Dr or pharmacy they ask all the time about what else you are taking and now they also ask what herbal or vitamin supplements you are taking as mixing them have bad results, the same would be making a cocktail of compounds in the human body...
I do agree we live longer and die from what we use to die with, but im not convinced that is just natures way..growth hormones in our food that are designed to make everything grow fast I feel does the same with all the bad cells in our body, so in simple forms the bad cells out perform the good cells and immune system, when I was in grade school most of the girls had flat chests, now..well I wish I was back in school along with enlarged organs and other issues that werent here before all the additives to food.
again you keep telling us that whatever we hear on the internet is false, I have a hard time believing the im right and all esle is wron from anyone, again absolutely no disrespect to you, im just being honest that im not going to have my mind changed by a few people with different explanations and poo pooing all others that arent what you believe..again hence the request for links to where your info comes from..
I believe there is plenty of false info out there, but big business and big money run the world, so when you say big industry doesnt impact your studies then who finances your studies, where does your materials to study come from, big business has its hands into everything, so that is another factor of my mistrust in studies that favor big business..
anti bacterial soaps have created super bugs like mersa, flesh eating disease and others that common antibiotics have a hard time fighting..there are too many issues now that werent around earlier before our environment had so many man made chemicals floating around..coincidence I do not believe..I like to play devils advocate on these issues , it has done well for me in the past and I will continue to do so, I look at many of the conspiracies as holding some truth, the people that know the truth and wish to hide it label anyone that challenges the info conspiracy nut to get people not to listen to them, and this runs the gambit from these topics to politics to world events and many happenings right here in the good old USA...
many people just bury their head in the sand and hope for the best and thats what the powers to be hope for, a silent obedient population, just smart enough to work and pay taxes but not smart enough to question whats going on around them.
its amazing what one can learn while debating many subjects, yes I have changed thoughts on some subjects when I feel enough evidence has been weighed and compared and researched, I try to keep an open mind but im not naive on how the world works and who is on top of the heap pulling the strings, and for what reasons...:)
 
#27 ·
Good afternoon, SG, again I respect you time and effort and knowledge on the subjects..BUT..I would really like to see some links of where your info comes from to read up on what you are saying
There were 4 or 5 in my previous post; I'm not hiding anything.

have you studied the combined collection of all the so called safe chemicals and amounts in the human body? when you go to the Dr or pharmacy they ask all the time about what else you are taking and now they also ask what herbal or vitamin supplements you are taking as mixing them have bad results, the same would be making a cocktail of compounds in the human body...
As I do not research toxicity, no I have not studied it. Many others, however, have. There are massive on-going studies (Framingham study, as one example) which track disease incidence and risk factors over huge populations, which is exactly where we would see such combinatorial toxicity. And, as I mentioned in my first post, toxicity is very rarely additive; unless two compounds hit the same metabolic pathway, there is not an addative effect.

I do agree we live longer and die from what we use to die with, but im not convinced that is just natures way..growth hormones in our food
In my country there are no growth hormones in our foods (its illegal) and our life expectancy and patterns of major causes of mortality are identical to similar nations who allow them. 36 million people is a pretty large test group...

that are designed to make everything grow fast I feel does the same with all the bad cells in our body, so in simple forms the bad cells out perform the good cells and immune system, when I was in grade school most of the girls had flat chests, now..well I wish I was back in school along with enlarged organs and other issues that werent here before all the additives to food.
The mean age of puberty hasn't changed much...the more rapid increase in the breast size of women going through puberty has accelerated. That is related to obesity though, not chemicals, with BMI being a strong predictor of rates of breast growth in pubescent women.

again you keep telling us that whatever we hear on the internet is false
I never said everything is false, just a lot of it. There are powerful and wealthy sources pushing a lot of the anti-science agenda; organic food is controlled by a few small companies (WhiteWave, as one example), several of whom who have larger market shares than monsanto. And they spend huge money on negative, fact-free add campaigns to convince you that safe food is unsafe - all so that you'll buy their more expensive, but equally nutritious and safe (and arguably, less environmentally friendly) products. Anti-AGM is (or was) funded by big oil & big coal - again, because adapting to climate change costs them money. Anti-vax is driven by a number of charlatans who make big money off of book deals and alternative therapies. Etc, etc, etc. Accepting their claims unilaterally while ignoring the work of independent scientists, serves nothing more than to reinforce your own biases. It is as accurate as relying on monsanto for all you info on GMO food safety. If one company is suspect, then all shoudl be treated as suspect. You're not applying that standard.

I believe there is plenty of false info out there, but big business and big money run the world, so when you say big industry doesnt impact your studies then who finances your studies, where does your materials to study come from, big business has its hands into everything, so that is another factor of my mistrust in studies that favor big business..
I've told you who finances my studies - a mix of governments (tax dollars) and NGOs. And scientific grants are handed out by independent panels - I sit on many myself - where grants are funded on the basis of their scientific merit and feasibility alone. No "company men" sit on these panels, and the level of direction provided by the gov/NGO is minimal. For example, the heart foundation dictates that we only fund grants directly pertaining to cardiovascular disease; specific topics and research lines are not pre-determined. The gov panels require only that the grant fit the research mandate of the agency; basic science for NSERC, health for CIHR.

anti bacterial soaps have created super bugs like mersa, flesh eating disease and others that common antibiotics have a hard time fighting..
Again, your understanding of basic scientific facts has been mislead by your beliefs or sources. MERSA (which we study in my lab, btw) is not a result of triclosan, and most strains are triclosan sensitive at this time (thankfully). Flesh eating disease is not caused by a singular organism, and has been around for at least 7500 years (which is the oldest bones we've found to date with damage typical of the disease). Triclosan resistance does not impart resistance to antibiotics (and triclosan is not an antibiotic itself).

I look at many of the conspiracies as holding some truth
Name one.

I'm serious - name just one.

If you have to invent conspiracies to "confirm" your beliefs, you've given up on objectivity completely. Scientific conspiracy in the modern world is a near impossibility. Last week there was a perfect example of this - a group published a paper with falsified data claiming a link between autism and aluminium. It took 22 hours - yes, hours - for the fraud to be uncovered by independent scientists reviewing the paper.

On a larger scale, Merck engaged in a conspiracy to hide the effect of vioxx, and spent billions to do so. They created fake scientific journals to publish supportive studies in, paid people to ghost-write for them, and used the threat of litigation to silence people raising the alarm. All that money hid the truth for a whopping 4 months...

Reality is that there is simply too many independent scientists, and sufficient funding, for scientific conspiracies to survive for any length of time.

B
 
#25 ·
can we agree that no one ( human) body is made up the same, more or less, example..a medication that works for one person may not for another and that happens all the time, so to be able to do a study on whats bad for the human race also breaks down to groups or individuals that are different so to do true studies it has to span a wide variety of people and there is no guarantee to get a true slice per se that covers everyone...how can one drink milk but another die from reaction, the same with nuts, bee stings, latex and almost any other element..then to say certain chemicals are safe?? to me it come down to the best guess but nothing in concrete terms..
 
#28 ·
how can one drink milk but another die from reaction, the same with nuts, bee stings, latex and almost any other element..then to say certain chemicals are safe?? to me it come down to the best guess but nothing in concrete terms..
Actually, we can say with confidence that chemicals are safe. And it all comes down to what is going on in someone with a food (milk, nuts, bees, latex, etc) allergy versus how chemicals cause toxicity.

Allergic responses are caused by the immune system mis-reacting to a substance, and if severe enough, that reaction can kill (though that is very rare compared to what the no-peanuts at school brigade would suggest). But to have this form of response (which is not a toxicity, btw) requires something specific - a molecule large enough for the immune system to recognise. Our immune system evolved to identify pathogens, and as such is only capable of recognising the large biomolecules that pathogens (and us) are comprised of - proteins, lipids, carbohydrate-polymers, etc.

The sorts of chemicals used for things such as antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc, are all far too small to be recognised by the immune system. So those sorts of person-specific "toxic" responses simply are not possible towards these chemicals. This is actually a major limitation in our abilities to develop treatments for some conditions where immune targeting of small molecules would be potentially therapeutic. This means that small molecule toxicity is limited to biochemical types of toxicity - and those pathways are generally invariant in people - i.e. we are all susceptible to the same toxicities at roughly the same doses.

B
 
#26 ·
We are all different, that is for certain. I never bought into the vaccines causing autism btw. Do excessive shots in one location cause cancer in dogs in that location, yes. Do I know why, no, but they quit piling all the shots into the loose skin at the back of the neck so I think they figured that out.

It is my understanding that radiation exposure can cause mutations in genes, including those passed on to children?
 
#29 ·
We are all different, that is for certain. I never bought into the vaccines causing autism btw. Do excessive shots in one location cause cancer in dogs in that location, yes. Do I know why, no, but they quit piling all the shots into the loose skin at the back of the neck so I think they figured that out.
Its more complex than that - only some breeds are affected, and they are all cancer-prone breeds to start with. The resulting cancer (which is a sarcoma - cancer of the connective tissue) likely occurs due to repeat inflammation in the site driven not by "toxicity" of the vaccine components, but rather by the desired immune response that results.

While inflammation is usually considered bad, its an important part of how our immune systems work, and is the predominant way in which our immune system kills bacteria & fungi. The downside to inflammation is that it is highly damaging to our own tissues and can be tumorogenic. In the case of dogs, a combination of inherited defects in DNA repair combined with multiple injections at the same site likely cause the cancer.

We don't generally see this in humans as most of us have normal DNA repair and its nearly impossible in a person to get that many shots into such a small site (plus, normal vaccine scheduling limits the number of shots/visit to a small number).

Somewhat related, but it is estimated that between 25% and 80% of tumours results from DNA damage caused by an infection - with most cases the DNA damage caused by our own immune systems inflammatory response, not from the infection itself.

It is my understanding that radiation exposure can cause mutations in genes, including those passed on to children?
It can. That said, the increase in heritable mutation observed in people who have had very high radiation exposures (e.g. victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, people near the Chernobyl accident) are not much higher than the basal mutation rate. Reality is that our DNA replication machinery makes a lot of mistakes, leading to 70 (mothers side) to ~200 (father side) new mutations in each generation. Radiation can increase that, but the increase is a pittance compared to what nature creates normally.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Thank you for the excellent information Bryan. Continuing to learn keeps me young. I don't watch much TV... too many interesting facts in the world, not enough hours in the day.

There is a good deal of misinformation spread "for a dollar" - false research funded by industries that would lose money if the truth were known. Somehow I found your post that referenced Vioxx, which truly was a scandal of misinformation, can't remember the death count on that one, only that it was in the thousands.

the united states pharmaceutical industry is who I distrust the most. They are making older safer drugs that are no longer patented either more expensive or unavailable, so that they can promote more expensive patented drugs that are often less safe. Quinine being one. It's a pet peeve of mine, I lost a few hundred dollars worth of fish due to quinine being made prescription only, and a shipment of fish with a resistant parasite coming in over the holidays a few years ago.
 
#32 ·
you can buy quinine sulfate over the counter to treat fish, ebay has it too. no script needed..my dad use to be a pharmacist so if I needed any antibiotics he would get them for me, I havent had tanked fish for 25+ years and the koi havent gotten sick, but once I treated one with potassium permaginate..
 
#33 ·
they may have it now, but when the new drug for restless legs came out, in december 2010, the only quinine available was in combination with a lot of other stuff in herbal preparations that were not safe for aquarium use. I eventually got a couple of prescription quinine pills from a client of mine whose husband had a prescription but by that time most of my fish were dead. I have a stash of quinine sulfate now, from a fish pharmacy that has since gone out of business.

when a new expensive drug comes out the competition must be eliminated, for 40 years quinine was available in the drug store otc, and in that time 2 people died possibly related to quinine. Compare that to vioxx.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top