Pssst... I can't get this video to work - I just see a big empty white space where the video should be... Anyone else...??

Try the embed found here: http://youtu.be/exBEFCiWyW0

I can't see it either, but I have something even weirder going on. Every video I try to submit comes up and says that it's already been submitted and it points me to this one. WTF?

me too

Blank screen

old style embed gets around it

That little girl is so *cute the way she talks about *healthy food for cooking!

Adding video to channels (Cute, Health) - requested by notarobot.

Blank for me too. Please fix it. *dead

Only published or personal queue videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by ant.

Weird - I couldn't seem to fix it until I reduced the tags to less than 7 and pasted in the 'old embed'... sorry about that...

Moving this video to TickTock's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

This vid makes me want to grow more food in my window. *Eco. *Promote!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by notarobot.

Adding video to channels (Eco) - requested by notarobot.

The cute/fear ratio here is off the charts!

Wait, hold on here. I appreciate that the girl is taking an interest in science, but the adult(s) guiding her have made some serious errors. Even if we ignore the fact that the experiment should have tested all three potatoes at the same time and conditions, the most she could have concluded from her study was that potatoes with the additive were less likely to sprout in the given time frame.

Instead, she's claiming that the additive can cause cancer in animals, and then saying that an unnamed number of chemicals, presumably added to food, cause cancer in humans. Whoever was guiding her just taught her how to perform an experiment and then make claims that have nothing to do with what she was testing. It's disappointing to see what could have been a successful small scale science test turn into vague, unsubstantiated organic food propaganda.

@DrewNumberTwo:

She's not making it up. She's just not citing sources.

Five minutes of internet searching found me this:

"ACUTE TOXICITY

Chlorpropham is moderately toxic by ingestion (2). It may cause irritation of the eyes or skin (2). Symptoms of poisoning in laboratory animals have included listlessness, incoordination, nose bleeds, protruding eyes, bloody tears, difficulty in breathing, prostration, inability to urinate, high fevers, and death. Autopsies of animals have shown inflammation of the stomach and intestinal lining, congestion of the brain, lungs and other organs, and degenerative changes in the kidneys and liver (2)"

Breakdown of Chemical in Soil and Groundwater

Chlorpropham has some potential to contaminate groundwater because it is highly soluble in water and it has only a moderate tendency to adsorb to soil particles (3, 5). Chlorpropham adsorbs strongly to organic matter, so it is unlikely to leach through soils high in organic matter. Chlorpropham does not readily adsorb to montmorillonite or kaolinite clays (4).
Chlorpropham is subject to degradation by soil microbes. Photodegradation and volatilization do not readily occur. Increasing temperatures above 35 degrees C and increasing soil moisture capacity may increase volatilization (4). Soil half-lives from 35 days (3) to 65 days at 15 degrees C or 30 days at 29 degrees C (4) have been reported. Degradation rates are affected by microbial activity and soil moisture levels (4)."


/Pesticide Management Education Program.

(This is about the adults guiding her, not the girl...)Even if what she said is true, it has nothing to do with what she was testing so it's bad science. If she doesn't cite her source, then she's not properly reporting what she found. What you quoted above still doesn't support her assertion that the additive can cause cancer in animals, and that an unnamed number of chemicals, presumably added to food, cause cancer in humans.

If you tried watching the video again you might notice that she doesn't make an assertion that Chlorpropham causes cancer. She says that there have been studies that have shown animals to grow tumors after prolonged exposure to the chemical.

What I quoted was only a portion of the website about chlorpropham (Bud Nip) toxicity. If you were not too lazy to click on the link I provided in my comment above you would have found "Carcinogenic Effects: Long-term exposure to chlorpropham may cause tumors (2). In one experiment chlorpropham initiated skin cancer in mice" (/PMEP) in the same report. The Pesticide Management Education Program website does suggest that more studies should be done to link chlorpropham exposure to cancer, but they are pretty clear that it has toxic effects on laboratory animals. It is an easy inference to make that it probably isn't good for other mammals either.

What the girl says after is: "With all of the chemicals it's no wonder so many people age getting diagnosed with cancer." Her assertion is that too many chemical additives in general in our food supply may have a factor in increased cancer diagnosis in general.



Besides, her experiment isn't about cancer. It is about the results of her attempt to grow sprouts from root vegetables. The information she provides about toxicity of chlorpropham is simply the result of using a google search to find out what else Bud Nip does besides inhibiting plant growth.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

(This is about the adults guiding her, not the girl...)Even if what she said is true, it has nothing to do with what she was testing so it's bad science. If she doesn't cite her source, then she's not properly reporting what she found. What you quoted above still doesn't support her assertion that the additive can cause cancer in animals, and that an unnamed number of chemicals, presumably added to food, cause cancer in humans.

"If you tried watching the video again you might notice that she doesn't make an assertion that Chlorpropham causes cancer."
Not only did she assert that it causes cancer, she asserts that it is causing cancer in humans. "With all the chemicals, no wonder so many people are getting diagnosed with cancer".

"She says that there have been studies that have shown animals to grow tumors after prolonged exposure to the chemical."
Which is false. There has been one study that showed that it initiated skin cancer in mice, but a later study did not confirm those findings.

"It is an easy inference to make that it probably isn't good for other mammals either."
But that's not what she said and has nothing to do with her experiment.

"Her assertion is that too many chemical additives in general in our food supply may have a factor in increased cancer diagnosis in general."
No, her assertion is that this chemical, along with other unnamed chemicals, is causing cancer in humans. Her experiment does not support that for either the unnamed chemicals or chlorpropham. Her experiment dealt only with growth rates for one vegetable that had been treated with one specific growth inhibitor.

"Besides, her experiment isn't about cancer."
That's my point. She did an experiment involving potato growth and her conclusion was that a variety of unnamed chemicals cause cancer. Bad science. Again, an adult's fault, not hers.

If by "off the charts" you mean "approaching 1", then yes. >> ^brycewi19:

The cute/fear ratio here is off the charts!

DrewNumberTwo, unfortunately many people don't understand what scientific method actually means. You're right in your criticisms but it was always going to be a popular vote loser to criticise a vid with a cute little girl in it. Even if you're not criticising her (which you aren't) people will just read your post however it suits them. For what it's worth, I'm with you 100%.