HuckleB
HuckleB's JournalStudy suggests impact of climate change on agriculture may be underestimated
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-impact-climate-agriculture-underestimated.html#jCp"One of the most critical questions surrounding climate change is how it might affect the food supply for a growing global population. A new study by researchers from Brown and Tufts universities suggests that researchers have been overlooking how two key human responses to climate—how much land people choose to farm, and the number of crops they plant—will impact food production in the future.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, focused on the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, an emerging global breadbasket that as of 2013 supplied 10 percent of the world's soybeans. The researchers used variations in temperature and precipitation across the state over an eight-year period to estimate the sensitivity of the region's agricultural production to climate change. Those historical comparisons can help in making predictions about the sensitivity of agriculture to future climate change.
The study found that, if the patterns from 2002 to 2008 hold in the future, an increase in average temperature in Mato Grosso of just 1 degree Celsius will lead to a nine to 13 percent reduction in overall production of soy and corn. "This is worrisome given that the temperature in the study region is predicted to rise by as much as 2 degrees by midcentury under the range of plausible greenhouse gas emissions scenarios," said Avery Cohn, aassistant professor of environment and resource policy at Tufts, who led the work while he was a visiting researcher at Brown.
But the study's broader implications stem from the mechanisms behind the changes in agricultural output. Most studies of this kind look only at the extent to which climate shocks affect crop yield—the amount of product harvested from a given unit of agricultural land. But by only looking at that single variable, researchers can miss critical dynamics that can affect overall output, says Leah VanWey, professor of sociology at Brown and senior deputy director of the Institute at Brown for the Study of Environment and Society (IBES).
..."
--------------------------
Interesting, but not in a good way.
Cleanup of Massachusetts Chipotle complete after norovirus illnesses
Source: Reuters
A health official on Wednesday commended Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc for its handling of norovirus infections at a Boston-area restaurant, saying employees prevented more problems by calling in sick rather than report to work and that a cleanup of the restaurant was done.
Shares of Chipotle fell as much as 6.1 percent before easing, down 3.5 percent to $506.12 in afternoon trading.
The closure of the Chipotle in Billerica, Massachusetts, was seen as a test of a new food safety system rolled out after a series of illnesses hit the fresh burrito chain last year.
"They did the right thing," said Howard Penney, who covers the chain for Hedgeye Risk Management. However, he argued that Chipotle was still a "broken company" and that it would take years to return to its peak performance.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-chipotle-mexican-health-idUSKCN0WB22B
They should be good at this kind of stuff, by now. Alas...
While his parents slept, a 7-year-old boy's life was saved by Jedi, his diabetes-sniffing dog
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/while-his-parents-slept-a-7-year-old-boys-life-was-saved-by-jedi-his/2268662"It was the middle of the night. The lights were off, the house was still, the six members of the Nuttall family were sound asleep. The machinery that monitors the blood sugar levels of 7-year-old Luke Nuttall, who suffers from dangerous type 1 diabetes, was utterly quiet.
But Jedi, Luke's diabetes-sniffing dog, was not.
The black lab jumped on and off of the bed Luke shared with his parents, thumping onto the mattress in an attempt wake the slumbering adults. When that didn't work, he lay on top of Dorrie Nuttall, startling her out of sleep.
She clambered out of bed and examined her son's continuous glucose monitor, but its reading was normal. Still, the dog was unrelenting. He bowed again and again, repeating the signal he'd been trained to send if he sense that Luke's blood sugar had gotten too low.
..."
-------------------------------------------------------------
First-of-its-kind cataract surgery using stem cells shows promise
Source: CBS
A new form of cataract surgery using a patient's stem cells has restored vision in babies for the first time, and someday the technique may hold promise for millions of older Americans who undergo traditional cataract eye surgery every year, say scientists who developed the new procedure.
Eye experts across the country who spoke with CBS News are alternately excited and cautious about the findings, published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
The procedure, developed by researchers at the University of California San Diego and China, is less invasive than traditional cataract treatment, said the scientists.
Cataracts are most common in older adults. As most people age, an opaque film slowly forms over the lens -- the part of the eye that helps with focusing on images at various distances. It clouds vision and can lead to blindness.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cataract-surgery-using-stem-cells-shows-promise-in-babies/
Good news.
More than 270 organizations and scientific institutions support the safety of GM crops
http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/There is nothing "sound, serious, or balanced" in your bad propaganda. Here's reality.
The world's serious, sound, and balanced scientific organization all recognize the safety of GMOs.
Now, it is time for you to stop pretending.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)
American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)
World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)
National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)
The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)
The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)
American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)
American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)
American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)
American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)
American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)
American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)
International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)
Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)
International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)
Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)
Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)
Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)
Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)
“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)
French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)
International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)
The Organic Food Industry Is The Pinnacle Of White Privilege
http://modernliberals.com/organic-food-industry-pinnacle-white-privilege/"Once upon a time, I got partially sucked into the organic food industry’s corporate campaign against companies like Dow, Syngenta and their favorite target: Monsanto. Their advertising and social media campaigns are really appealing, and I began to buy into some of the industry’s propaganda because so many of my liberal (and some conservative) friends got caught up in the March Against Monsanto hyperbole and pseudoscience.
One of the usual shrill retorts from people who believe the organic food industry’s spin is “OMG, DO SOME RESEARCH!!! MONSANTAN AND GMOS ARE KILLING US ALL!!!” After I wrote my first couple of mildly anti-GMO articles, I was politely urged to do some fact-checking by individuals who understand science better than I did at the time – which I went on to do.
The organic food industry, led by the likes of GMO Free USA and fear campaigns like that of Vani Hari (aka Food Babe) or David Avocado Wolfe have been fierce lobbyists for ridiculously-priced foods which put these products well outside the financial means of poorer Americans. These individuals aren’t trying to help Americans eat better. They are all about spreading fear in people who don’t understand science, and have the money to buy products from the Amazon affiliate links these grifters receive a cut of the sales from.
...
But please make your choices based on reason instead of fear. Don’t waste your money on the claims of industry charlatans like Food Babe or snake oil salesmen like David Avocado Wolfe. They make their riches by preying on the good intentions of individuals who rightly distrust corporations – all while representing other corporate interests themselves."
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of the greatest marketing scams of all-time is the "Organic" label.
Anti-GMO is not about health concerns.
It's about believing in fictitious evil, just like the the people who imagined devil worshipping cults. So it's quite equivalent.
For instance, DU is full of people blasting glyphosate, and focusing on the one organization that says it is a "probably carcinogen," much like shift work, btw. Somehow, those same people ignore the reality that glyphosate replaced much more toxic products, and the reality that the science doesn't seem to support the IARC.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/03/glyphosate-and-cancer-what-does-the-data-say/
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/
When It Rains, It Increasingly Pours, Scientists Say -- No place is safe from risk of harder rains
Source: Bloomberg
As the climate heats up, the forecast is also calling for more rain. Think downpours. Cats and dogs. Or just “extreme rain,” as the scientists call it.
The overall rain and snowfall average is increasing only moderately. But observations since 1951 show that the wettest days every year have increased their intensity by 1 percent to 2 percent per decade, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change. The heavy precipitation is increasing over both wet and dry land areas, a surprising conclusion drawn from the research.
A mantra among climate scientists for years has held that, as humanity continues to pump out carbon pollution, regions with lots of rainfall will receive more, and relatively arid places will get even less. That’s a global projection, however, and most of the globe's surface consists of ocean. More recently, scientists have wondered if that will hold true over land as well.
The Australian and U.S. scientists who conducted the new study conclude that it may not hold true. The skies are dumping more and more water on land, regardless of traditional, local climatic conditions.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-08/when-it-rains-it-increasingly-pours-scientists-say
Studies On What Causes Overconfidence... by Steven Novella
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/what-causes-overconfidence/"People are overconfident. That is a clear signal in psychological research that is reliably replicated. At this point it can be taken as a given. The brain is a complex machine, however, and any one factor such as confidence interacts in multiple and complex ways with many other mental factors.
Questions that have not been fully addressed include the possible causes and effects of overconfidence. Dunning and Kruger famously isolated one factor – overconfidence (the difference between self-assessment and actual performance) increases as performance decreases. This effect (called the Dunning-Kruger effect) is offered as one explanation for what causes overconfidence – the competence to assess one’s own competence.
...
The results confirmed what the researchers suspected, that the subjects exposed to the entity article had higher overconfidence than the incremental article, 68% vs 59%. This difference is not as big as when subjects self-sorted into these two groups but that makes sense. In the first experiment the researchers were looking at the subjects’ long held views of intelligence. What is remarkable is that in the second experiment these views were so easily manipulated by reading a single article (at least temporarily).
...
It’s interesting to think about all of the competing thoughts and emotions leading to the end result of behavior in people. With this series of studies we may have one more piece of this complex puzzle – people are overconfident, especially if they think intelligence is fixed, partly because they focus on easy rather than challenging tasks.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
Interesting research, indeed.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
