The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Xann]

8 minutes ago, limpid said:

What a load of nonsense. There are really issues with food safety, but "chemicals in the food" is just scaremongering.

 

Quote

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Sperm counts in men from America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand have dropped by more than 50 percent in less than 40 years, researchers said on Tuesday...

...  Experts asked to comment on the work said it was a comprehensive and well-conducted analysis and did a good job of adjusting for confounders that could have skewed its findings.

Daniel Brison, a specialist in embryology and stem cell biology at Britain’s Manchester University, said the findings had “major implications not just for fertility but for male health and wider public health”...

... Richard Sharpe at Edinburgh University added: “Given that we still do not know what lifestyle, dietary or chemical exposures might have caused this decrease, research efforts to identify (them) need to be redoubled and to be non-presumptive as to cause.”

 

Reuters

An interesting mystery.

It could be stress, atmospheric pollutants, fluoride in the water, phthalates in plastic or all or none of the above? No one knows for sure. The chap above thinks there should be more research for a definitive answer.

Research that potentially makes money often gets priority over research that might negatively effect profits - There's the rub.

If you're happy eating them, Simon? Go mad. I'm more of the opinion that it's likely to be cumulative.

[StefanAVFC]

Predictably, Liz Truss proves once again what a complete and utter moron she is.

 

[HanoiVillan]

Her hashtag game looks to have improved a little though. 

[limpid]

35 minutes ago, Xann said:

If you're happy eating them, Simon? Go mad. I'm more of the opinion that it's likely to be cumulative.

Are you still drinking water even though it's effects are cumulative? Or salt?

I don't select foods on the basis of how many scary named chemicals are (not) in them. You should see the ingredients in an egg.

[Xann]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Are you still drinking water even though it's effects are cumulative? Or salt?

I don't select foods on the basis of how many scary named chemicals are (not) in them. You should see the ingredients in an egg.

I drink tap water as I don't really regard it as more hazardous than the bottled gear.

Quantity of salt is an issue in processed food, as is corn syrup in the Yank stuff (bread!).

As for colours, preservatives, sweeteners and pesticides? It depends? As some E numbers are fine, E300 is vitamin C for example. Others aren't so essential and I'd rather duck them personally.

 

[limpid]

54 minutes ago, Xann said:

I drink tap water as I don't really regard it as more hazardous than the bottled gear.

But water is also used in nuclear reactors. Which is just as daft as some of the examples in that video.

[HanoiVillan]

Of course, this *was* pointed out in 2016, and was denounced as 'Project Fear' at the time. 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Of course, this *was* pointed out in 2016, and was denounced as 'Project Fear' at the time. 

To be fair to David Davis though, back then he didn't even know that we couldn't go and do a separate trade deal with Germany or that Ireland wouldn't automatically be leaving with us.

So the chap has been on a pretty steep learning curve over the last couple of years.

[Davkaus]

I wonder how much that's going to cost us.

The fishing industry is sure to make up for it, right?

[Xann]

16 hours ago, limpid said:

But water is also used in nuclear reactors. Which is just as daft as some of the examples in that video.

Get your Dihydrogen Monoxide point. The dodgy analogy tactic is all too rife on the web, agreed.

It's US made for a US audience, what can I say?  It will be short, sensationalised and dumbed down.

In this case the examples are being used to sex it up, not deliberately mislead. The following criticism of US food industry regulation is valid, in my opinion.

[StefanAVFC]

Leave.EU getting more blatant with their dog whistle bs

 

[ml1dch]

The Spectator (whose podcasts are surprisingly competent and even-handed) have a half hour interview between Andrew Neil and David Davis available to download.

Having listened to it, we're properly buggered. I think the man's dimwitted guffaws are probably scratched into my brain, they were so frequent when the alternative was to admit he didn't know the answer to the question.

[Xann]

[Awol]

Interesting to read today that the Observer (or more precisely, Carole Cadwalladr’s) story of the relationship between Cambridge Analytica (the Trump campaign) and this AIQ firm in Canada (the Brexit campaign firm) are entirely untrue. 

The retraction is buried on page 50 next to readers letters so I’m not sure they are keen to publicize it. 

Oops.  

 

[OutByEaster?]

I hadn't realised that Cambridge Analytica was owned by a company controlled by Robert Mercer, the man who brought us Donald Trump.

[snowychap]

47 minutes ago, Awol said:

Interesting to read today that the Observer (or more precisely, Carole Cadwalladr’s) story of the relationship between Cambridge Analytica (the Trump campaign) and this AIQ firm in Canada (the Brexit campaign firm) are entirely untrue.

Isn't that just to clarify that AIQ and Cambridge Analtica are two separate legal entities and that they (Cadwalladr, The Observer, Grauniad) aren't making the same accusations against AIQ as against CA? I don't think Guido's line that this is an admission that the story is completely untrue is necessarily proven to be right by this 'for the record' however hidden it may be.

I'm not sure that 'Cambridge Analytica (the Trump campaign) and this AIQ firm in Canada (the Brexit campaign firm)' is exactly correct either, is it? AIQ were the Vote Leave campaign firm and CA were the Leave.EU campaign firm, weren't they?

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by snowychap

[sidcow]

On 29/03/2018 at 06:34, HanoiVillan said:

Of course, this *was* pointed out in 2016, and was denounced as 'Project Fear' at the time. 

Its funny that any arguments put forward by remain in 2016 were said to be plain wrong by the brexiteers, just scaremongering., they need us more than we need them etc. 

And now any of those arguments which are now proven to be true are purely because of poor negotiation on our behalf, not that they were always going to be unobtainable, or that they are the result of some conspiracy to force a new referendum. 

[Awol]

35 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Isn't that just to clarify that AIQ and Cambridge Analtica are two separate legal entities and that they (Cadwalladr, The Observer, Grauniad) aren't making the same accusations against AIQ as against CA? I don't think Guido's line that this is an admission that the story is completely untrue is necessarily proven to be right by this 'for the record' however hidden it may be.

I'm not sure that 'Cambridge Analytica (the Trump campaign) and this AIQ firm in Canada (the Brexit campaign firm)' is exactly correct either, is it? AIQ were the Vote Leave campaign firm and CA were the Leave.EU campaign firm, weren't they?

 

I “think” CA pitched Leave.EU but didn’t get the work. They definitely worked on the Trump campaign. 

Further to that I thought CC had accused the leave team of doing all kinds of dodgy stuff with FB data. 

Then there was the camp dude with pink hair blowing his whistle all over the news - now seemingly a Walt telling tall tales. Mid essay right now but will catch up with it in the week, it just mDe me chuckle because CC’s ‘investigation’ got so much traction and now appears to be a little light on actual facts! 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

I “think” CA pitched Leave.EU but didn’t get the work. They definitely worked on the Trump campaign.

They pitched VoteLeave (the Cummings troupe) and didn't get the work.

Brittany Keiser was sat on the panel when the Banks troupe (Leave.EU) launched.

"We have America's most successful referendum strategist Gerry Gunster, and Brittany Kaiser of Cambridge Analytica, who are advising a number of US Presidential candidates" - Richard Tice  (6 min 10 sec on video below - which is where I hope it begins):

 

Quote

Further to that I thought CC had accused the leave team of doing all kinds of dodgy stuff with FB data.

That's rather the point. There wasn't, officially, one leave team. Accusations of one sort have been made against one team and accusations of another sort have been made against another and there may be some crossover accusations.

It's all a huge web and though there's plenty of room for people talking bollocks (from Wylie to Nix to Cummings to Farage to Banks), I wouldn't take some of it being wrong as an indication of it all being wrong or there being nothing in it.

23 minutes ago, Awol said:

Mid essay right now but will catch up with it in the week

No probs. GL.

[HanoiVillan]

44 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Its funny that any arguments put forward by remain in 2016 were said to be plain wrong by the brexiteers, just scaremongering., they need us more than we need them etc. 

And now any of those arguments which are now proven to be true are purely because of poor negotiation on our behalf, not that they were always going to be unobtainable, or that they are the result of some conspiracy to force a new referendum. 

Brexit can never fail, it can only be failed.