wv wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

All I’m saying is that when he inhales deeply when entering a restroom after a stranger has had a bowel movement as he is wont to do, technically what he is smelling is not poop particles, but the gaseous eminations of coliform bacteria that live in and comprise the poop.

It’s a small but important distinction.

==================

Well again, Isnt the correct answer that Zooey is smelling gaseous eminations of coliform bacteria AND he is also inhaling airborne shit particles from various men?

Isnt it fair to say that after visits to mens rooms, zooey is full of shit particles and gaseous eminations?

w
v

Yes, that would be fair to say.

Of course, in zooey’s obsession with the idea of inhaling fecal material, he overlooked one thing.

You hinted at it in a post earlier in the thread.

Fecal particles are going into his mouth too.

And if zooey’s the mouth breather we suspect him to be, then the amount entering his oral cavity is probably an order of magnitude higher than what he’s inhaling up nose every time he enters a restroom.

And it’s been going on for years – fecal bacteria coating his mucus membranes, combining with his own tissues, co-opting their function, altering more and more of zooey’s physiology to serve their own purposes….

I’m afraid Zooey’s more feces than man at this point.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by nittany ram.

wv wrote:

As we have discussed before, there is a “toilet plume” effect when you flush. Shit and piss particles do get ejected from the toilet.

Despite all the evidence there are still many “toilet plume deniers” in the republican party. Though some of them admit that it exists but think its a natural effect, sent by God.

w
v

link:https://www.self.com/story/toilet-plume-poop-spray

“…Toilet plume sounds like it should be the most popular DIY trend on Pinterest. Adorn that plain ol’ toilet with a collection of decorative feathers for an elevated pooping experience! Unfortunately, the actual definition of toilet plume is far less delightful.

Toilet plume is a term for what happens when the force of flushing sprays microscopic particles of pee, poop, and whatever else is in the bowl into the air. “‘[This plume] is easily transmitted in a wide range of air space when you flush the toilet,” Kelly Reynolds, Ph.D., an associate professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Arizona who has studied toilet plume, tells SELF.

Unfortunately there’s not a wealth of research about exactly how far toilet plume can reach. One 2005 study in the Journal of Applied Microbiology found that microorganisms reached a vertical height of 2.7 feet after a toilet was flushed, but other information is scant. In general, Reynolds says the microbiology community’s consensus is that the spray can reach around six feet away from the toilet. That’s by no means a proven number, and a lot more research needs to be done to cement just how far toilet plume can go…

…So, what does science have to say about whether toilet plume can make you sick? A 2015 review published in the American Journal of Infection Control analyzed various small studies in which researchers purposefully put certain pathogens in a toilet, flushed, and then monitored how far they went and how long they lingered. The kinds of bacteria they included can often be found in the human intestines, then come out in poop or vomit and make you sick when ingested.

One study found that E. coli, which can cause diarrhea and vomiting, lingered in the air for up to four to six hours after flushing. Another determined that salmonella, which can cause similar symptoms, lingered in the toilet bowl for 50 days after it was put in there, got aerosolized every time people flushed, and contaminated surfaces like the toilet flusher and door handle. Still another found that Clostridium difficile, which can cause fever, diarrhea, stomach pain, or even a life-threatening infection, hung out in the air above the toilet for up to 90 minutes after flushing.

This all sounds disgusting and terrifying and….
“

Well, ok, but I took his question as being what’s causing the smell. That poop smell isn’t caused by inhaling the airborne bacteria from the toilet plume, it’s caused by the lingering metabolic gases released by the bacteria that are found in the poop. The sense of smell happens on the molecular level, and there is no poop molecule. What you smell is the gases produced by bacteria that are in the poop.

"RETURNS ON CAPITAL CONTINUE TO EXCEED THE GROWTH RATE OF OVERALL WAGES AND OUTPUT!!!" pic.twitter.com/VlU9IyVQ4g

— Mina Kimes (@minakimes) January 5, 2015

John McCain voted against imposing sanctions against apartheid South Africa on six different occasions

— Remi Kanazi (@Remroum) August 26, 2018

Well, technically, 83% of the time. (h/t @QuinZee33)https://t.co/7F3Gd1sgel

— Joé McKen (@joemcken) August 26, 2018

Dear #American friends.
I am a White South African living in South Africa.
I promise you the governement is not taking white owned land
nor is there a white genocide being perpetuated here.
Your president is a fucking loon,.
Thanks
Matt

— Matt Horn (@maxui) August 23, 2018

I can’t speak to Monsanto’s business practices but I do know there is no established link between glyphosate and cancer or birth defects. The journalist way overstates the evidence for a link.

The US uses way more glyphosate than any other country. Where are all the birth defects? Cancer rates in the US are going down as glyphosate usage increases.

Link: https://plantoutofplace.com/2018/08/glyphosate-and-cancer-revisited/

I have considered going vegan for ethical and environmental reasons, but I don’t have the will power to give meat up completely. So I’ve been trying to shift a larger portion of my meat intake away from livestock and more towards the more environmentally friendly poultry and fish. I ain’t gonna lie – it’s hard for me. I’m really hopeful for an assist from technology in the near future – such as lab grown beef.

It’s interesting that everyone assumes the secret to Brady’s longevity is his diet. Of course, eating healthy is important but his ability to play at a high level this late into his career may have more to do with other factors – work out regimen, genetics, luck, etc. Many QBs are playing longer than in the past and they all aren’t as strict with their diets as Brady.

There’s little to fear from gluten unless you have celiac disease. But if you’ve found a diet you can be happy with then stick with it.

I’ve eaten vegan before too.

They’re not bad.

Taste like chicken.

The Science Behind the Roundup Lawsuit

On August 10th a California jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $289 million dollars in damages against the company Monsanto (now owned by Bayer). The decision was based on the claim that Johnson (a greenskeeper) developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma because of his exposure to Roundup, an herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosate that was developed by Monsanto.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and is being widely criticized because it is not in line with the science. There is a long history of juries awarded damages based on flimsy science. Dow Corning famously filed for bankruptcy following class action law suits for alleged damages due to silicone breast implants, while the science was still preliminary. The claim was that the breast implants were causing auto-immune disease, which the manufacturer denied. Juries found the women sympathetic, however, and companies rarely appear sympathetic in such trials. But in 2000 a meta-analysis found:

On the basis of our meta-analyses, there was no evidence of an association between breast implants in general, or silicone-gel-filled breast implants specifically, and any of the individual connective-tissue diseases, all definite connective-tissue diseases combined, or other autoimmune or rheumatic conditions. From a public health perspective, breast implants appear to have a minimal effect on the number of women in whom connective-tissue diseases develop, and the elimination of implants would not be likely to reduce the incidence of connective-tissue diseases.

It seems we have a similar situation with Roundup and cancer, except the meta-analysis was published before the huge jury award, rather than after. The wrinkle here is that this and other lawsuits were likely sparked in part by the WHO decision in 2015 to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen”. That decision was an outlier, however, and was immediately criticized. Several independent reviews of the WHO decision concluded that the decision was in error, and that the totality of evidence does not support the conclusion that there is any link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma specifically, or any cancer. I review the evidence and the expert panel reviews here.

An interesting 2017 review explored why the European Union (which concluded glyphosate was safe) came to a different conclusion than the WHO:

Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses.

Essentially they used different data and methods. There is also this:

In a Special Report published on June 14, 2017, investigators at Reuters uncovered the shocking fact that an American scientist, Dr. Aaron Blair, the Chairman of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monograph 112 on glyphosate, suppressed critically important science.

The hidden science in question is recent data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted on pesticide exposure in humans. Evidence shows that Dr. Blair withheld updated data from the study which evaluates the pesticide exposure of more than 50,000 farmers and their families. The updated data reinforces the study’s original conclusion in 2005 that there is no evidence linking glyphosate exposure to cancer incidence.

So the best data we have shows no link between glyphosate and cancer, but that data was ignored by Dr. Blair. Further, Blair was involved with this study, and so definitely knew this data existed. Also, under oath Dr. Blair admitted: “[the] data would have altered IARC’s analysis.”

We are now, in part, seeing the fallout from this bad decision by the IARC.

According to reports of the case, Johnson’s attorney had to overcome the actual science showing glyphosate is safe and not associated with cancer. He did this by claiming that Roundup as a whole may cause cancer, even though glyphosate alone does not. While not impossible, this is an implausible claim that is still lacking in evidence. This was an act of simply moving the goalpost to avoid the more definitive scientific evidence. The ploy worked.

Johnson is also claiming that he has two accidental exposed to Roundup, so he was exposed to far more than would be the case with normal use. However, the time between exposure and his development of NHL was probably far too short for a causal relationship – a fact apparently not considered compelling by the jury.

Why should we all care about this? I of course have sympathy for Mr. Johnson, just as I have sympathy for all of those women who developed autoimmune diseases after getting silicone breast implants. I also think it is extremely important to hold corporations accountable if they cause harm due to their products. But justice in these cases will only prevail if the science prevails.

Further, glyphosate is demonstrably far less toxic than the alternative herbicides. If glyphosate is banned, or rendered unusable because of unfair lawsuits and unscientific jury verdicts, an important agricultural option will be eliminate – not because of science or because it’s the right thing, but out of fear and ignorance.

Reasonable people can argue and disagree about the optimal role of glyphosate and other herbicides in agriculture, and that is not the point of this article. But agricultural decisions should be based on a consensus view of the science, not the emotions of 12 jurors who clearly wanted to punish Monsanto regardless of what the science says.

This and other decisions also point to a flaw in our legal system. This is a much longer discussion outside the scope of this article, but the rules on the admissibility and role of scientific evidence in the courtroom still leave much to be desired in my opinion. Ultimately this case turned on an evaluation of a scientific claim, and I don’t see why such scientific questions should be decided by non-expert jurors.

Posted in: Epidemiology, Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Legal, Politics and Regulation Tagged in: Dewayne Johnson, genetically modified organisms, glyphosate, gmo, Roundup
Posted by Steven Novella
Founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and the author of the NeuroLogicaBlog, a daily blog that covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society. Dr. Novella also contributes every Sunday to The Rogues Gallery, the official blog of the SGU.

Do you know of Nina Illingworth?

I follow her on twitter. She also has a blog. She’s prolific.

I think you two would see eye to eye on just about everything.

Link: http://www.ninaillingworth.com/

wv wrote:

Well I’m just sayin if the plaintiff’s lawyers were cherry-picking evidence, Monsanto’s lawyers could have pointed that out with ‘their’ experts. etc.

w
v

I’m sure they did. And I’m sure the plaintiff’s lawyers made the same claim about the evidence presented by Monsanto’s lawyers. In the end it didn’t come down to which side had the best evidence; it came down to which side could convince the jury they had the best evidence – something the members of the jury really aren’t trained to know.

Plus I’m sure their decision wasn’t completely based on evidence. The jury had to decide between the poor unfortunate individual who is dying of cancer and a giant corporation that once made agent orange. I might have decided the same way.

I don’t care that Monsanto has to fork out $289 million. Fuck’em. I do care that this ruling advances the false narrative that glyphosate is extraordinarily bad. It’s not perfect, but if it goes away, the stuff that will replace it will be much worse.

I wonder if Bayer would have purchased Monsanto if they knew they would lose this suit?

I’ll never shed a tear when a big corporation takes one on the chin, but glyphosate most likely didn’t cause Dewayne Johnson’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nearly every credible study has found no link between glyphosate and cancer. The IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Class 2a carcinogen (meaning it probably causes cancer in humans) was based on cherry-picked data and the exclusion of some more relevant studies. Coffee is also a Class 2a carcinogen, btw.

Glyphosate isn’t the only chemical in Round-up. It also contains a surfactant that helps the glyphosate penetrate plant tissues more effectively. There aren’t a lot of studies to show if the surfactant is a carcinogen or not. More research is needed here. My guess is, when used correctly, Round-up isn’t carcinogenic. But the dose makes the poison. Any chemical (including water) becomes toxic at too high of a level.

Of course, the Organic Industry sees this court ruling as a victory. The irony is that glyphosate is one of the least toxic pesticides available. It’s much less toxic than the ‘natural’ pesticides approved for organic farming like copper sulphate, rotenone, azidirachtin, pyrethrin, etc…