@newtboy

If you are only growing twice what you can eat yourself, you are describing a large garden, not a farm.

More over, what you class as 'industrial' farming is in fact the entirety of all grain farming. If there is a place in farming for wheat, corn, soy, canola and so on, 99% of it is done on what you class 'industrial' farming.

Your typical family farm is over a thousand acres today. If I go out and start naming the family farms of just friends and family I know, I can come up with 30-40+. They all farm over a thousand acres, they use tractors and combines and they make a fair bit more food than twice what they can eat. They aren't the ultra rich land barons that your 'industrial' moniker would imply either, at most they have a singular hired hand to help out with the work. The ones with children interested in taking over often don't need to hire anyone at all.

If you want to abandon that agricultural production and the methods used you mean raising the cost of production more than 100 times over. I can't even fathom the cost of weeding a thousand acres of wheat by hand, let alone removing grasshoppers from a corn crop that way. I'm sorry, but what works for your garden doesn't scale to grain crops.

Oh, and the conflation of herbicide and pesticide was done by the fear monger crowd. Listing round-up as a chemical that only kills plants and not insects and animals didn't fit their agenda so now everything is supposed to be called a pesticide across the board. Maybe that's just a Canadian thing, but the bottom line is that if you had a crop completely over run with insects you could spray it once a day with stupidly high concentrations of round-up and the water in the sprayer would do about the same damage to the insects as would the round up.


As for the video's other claims, I stand by my characterisation. You can't honestly tell me the video is trying to put forward on open and honest picture of Monsanto's actions and history. For example, the Manhattan Project, here's a transcription for clarity:
"Monsanto head Charles Allen Thomas was called to the pentagon not only asked to join the Manhattan project, but to lead it as it's co-director. Thomas put Monsanto's central research department hard to work building the atomic bomb.Fully aware of the implications of the task the budding empire sealed it's relationship with the inner cicrcles of washington with two fateful days in Japan.
"
- queue clip of nuclear blasts-

I think I stand by my summation.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

This propaganda ignores much more than that. Roundup is one of the absolutely least toxic to human chemicals that agriculture can use. The alternatives are chemicals a lot more harmful than roundup or abandoning the use of pesticides. Worse chemicals or the collapse of modern agriculture don't look appealing as alternatives so the ignorant roundup fear mongers protest too much in my opinion.

And then there's things like claiming neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons. You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people. None of this had any other motive than the thrill of inflicting cruelty on people, and none of it would have happened but for Monsanto's hard drive to push for these things to be done...

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading video would be hard to create.

It partly explains voter apathy on the Dem side. Obama was sent to the White house with a clear mandate (which he ran on), and he largely ignored it or "compromised" it away after he got there. And don't post me a link to that "lookie at what all Obama's done" page. It's horseshit. This election, many Dems are just voting for Obama because he's not Romney.

Also, fusion has been 30 years away for about 40 years now. How about a Manhattan Project-level effort towards that? In the meantime, let's help Japan build their space elevator so we can have a safe method of disposing all the nuclear waste from all the nuclear power plants we are going to need to build until fusion is viable.

Gives me a Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project vibe. I'd play a TF2 Side Scroller like this.

>> ^deathcow:

Just because you have a camera moving rail doesn't mean EVERY SHOT HAS TO MOVE
No, but it means every shot can.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
Ooo..
*promote
*quality

The actinides are, generally, "safe" to handle, like those Uranium Oxide pellets. You are more likely to damage the pellet with your nasty human oils than the uranium will you...unless you eat the whole thing, but its chemical toxicity will do you more harm that its radioactive toxicity. Uranium oxide just isn't that radioactive, that is why none of the containers or work areas were shielded in this lab.



Now, if they were dealing with a "hot" substance, one that has hard gammas (like when you do MOX fuel recycling), you have to take even greater precautions because then the radioactive problems really do start to show their heads. Not only will it damage your cells faster than they can repair, but it can start to take out unshielded electronics. This is generally only true for fission products, and a few actinides like protactinium which is highly radioactive AND chemically toxic, and generally only man-made (normal occurrences are less than a few parts per trillion in the crust).



These complications are pretty good generalization to why normal LWRs are not the best way to do nuclear, they just generate far to much waste compared to alternatives. You burn less than 1% of the mined uranium in current reactor tech and fuel cycle choices. With a thorium cycle in a molten salt reactor, you can burn greater than 90%, pushing up to 99% or higher if you try real hard. This means you generate an order(s) of magnitude less waste, and that waste generally is safe after about 300 years (radiation is about the same as naturally occurring radiation). There are also other alternates that use uranium in a faster spectrum that perform better than current tech.



A second age of the atom is fast approaching. Unfortunately, those great pioneers which made this industry in the shadow of "the bomb" failed to realize the full potential of e=mc^2. If nuclear power was developed along side the Apollo instead of the Manhattan project, we might already be in that future, alas...it was not to be.



Radiation is fascinating though! I used to believe what I read in the fear news about any radiation leading to death..turns out that isn't so true after all. The planet is a far more radioactive place then you normally consider, and FAR more radioactive when our primordial ancestors evolved. In fact, there are many people living today in what are dubbed High Background Radiation Areas that seem to suffer no ill effect, and some suggest, have lower rates of cancer than other groups. More studies need to be done, but initial findings fly in the face of the notion of radiation I grew up with (that it all is bad and it all kills you!) Some have even suggested that the creator of the entire model used for evaluating radiation risk knowingly lied about it. The entire basis for today's evaluation of radiological risk is evaluated by Muller's findings as supported by the National Academy of Sciences’ of the time. And in fact, might just be based in fear instead of evidence.



Perhaps ancient man went through the same struggles as he tried to adopt fire, some impassioned move against the dangers of fire prevented some groups from using fire and advancing their way of life. Fire, though, allowed the groups that adopted it to improve their life dramatically. The energy released from a fission event is over a million times more energy rich than any energy tech we currently use, imagine what that could mean for mankind. Fusion is over 4 times that of fission (but much harder), and antimatter over 2000x that of fission (and MUCH MUCH harder). Yes, the age of the atom has only just begun, and who knows were man will be a result? Don't settle for solar dandruff, the power of the atom will reign supreme.

So... ultimately we might find out "God" was just a being working in a monstrously huge Manhattan Project, and we're just a bunch of strings existing within "His" Trinity Site out in the middle of a baffingly massive Alamogordo?

Honestly? I'd prefer that idea over something THAT huge actually giving a shit about what we do.

HERP DERP DERP. No shit.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
No nuke was detonated over germany. Time to read a book.




In reply to this comment by budzos:
I bet you woulda punched ol' Hitler square in the jaw eh? Numbskull.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes

No nuke was detonated over germany. Time to read a book.




In reply to this comment by budzos:
I bet you woulda punched ol' Hitler square in the jaw eh? Numbskull.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes

The only "sock puppets" I see here are those who resort to name calling (instead of rational arguments) to defend this millionaire rockstar physicist.

He carried on banging hot chicks and writing best-selling books long after he murdered those people. Obviously that guilt really put a cramp in his style.



em>>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^The_Ham:
I dont like how smug he is about murdering 246,000 people.

246,000 people.

This one's for you The_Ham
<div id="widget_765087041"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=204823&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script><div style="display: none; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; width: 510px; height: 562px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsvid_659173547"><embed style="display: block; margin: 5px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gOmlkeLuEZg?version=3&controls=1&autoplay=0&cc_load_policy=0&loop=0&egm=0&modestbranding=0&a
mp;showinfo=0&theme=dark&version=3&color2=0x4fb3e2&showinfo=1&modestbranding=1&fs=1&border=0&rel=0&showsearch=0&am
p;iv_load_policy=3" width="500" height="432"><div style="float: left; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240); margin: 5px 5px 0pt 0pt; font-size: 14px; -moz-border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" id="vsvote_659173547"><a rel="nofollow" href="#" title="Sift this video up!" style="text-decoration: none; padding: 3px 5px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); display: table-cell;">▲ 18</div><div style="padding: 3px 5px 0pt 0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(215, 237, 248);" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Make-a-Sock-Puppet">How to Make a Sock Puppet<a rel="nofollow" style="float: right;" title="Visit VideoSift.com" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com"> </div><div style="height: 0pt; font-size: 0pt; clear: both;"></div><div style="margin-top: 5px; padding: 5px; overflow: auto; width: 500px; max-height: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240);"><div style="padding-bottom: 5px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Make-a-Sock-Puppet" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">Showing 5 of 6 Comments</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
Sock Puppets on Videosift?
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Boise_Lib
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
A name for a sock puppet?

@votedem
@progressivevideo
@CaptainObvious
@Keanu_

Any other nominations?
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">bareboards2
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
promote the creativity, planning abilities, and tech savvy of our resident puppets.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">bareboards2
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
I'm going to name mine choggie.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Zifnab
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
This video was seriously horrible but I up-voted for the description. Nicely done.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">CelebrateApathy
</div>
</div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Make-a-Sock-Puppet" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift</div><div style="text-align: right; margin-top: 5px;"><div style="float: left; font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logged in as <a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/The_Ham" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; border: 0pt none;">The_Ham!</div><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(167, 217, 240);" href="#">close</div><script async="" src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?action=load&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosift.com%2Fvideo%2FRichard-Feynman-on-helping-the-Manhattan-Project%3Floadco
mm%3D1%23comment-1292807&video=204823" type="text/javascript"></script></div><a rel="nofollow" href="#" style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsthm_659173547"> </div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=204823&width=500&comments=15
&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_765087041').appendChild(s);</script>

@longde

So everyone who competently resists conquerors should go to hell? When Feynman joined the Manhattan Project, it was unknown whether fascist states like the Nazis, the Soviets, Mussolini, and the brutal Japanese empire would succeed in conquering the world.

What I don't understand is why, if we follow the consequences of your position, you appear to wish the Soviets developed nuclear weapons first.

The individuals criticizing Feynman are only able to live such mundane, unchallenged lives because genuine fascist states didn't succeed in conquering the world.

Hmm. A lot of people seem to get *very* different reads on Feynman from watching this than I do.

I don't read him as "smug" at all. The smiling? Defense mechanism, I say. He felt regret for his part in developing the bomb, hopeful pleasure in the idea that perhaps dropping the two bombs on Japan represented a net savings in lives both among the Japanese and allied forces (an invasion would have been catastrophic), and the mish-mash of conflicting emotions makes even his incredibly gifted mind go into meltdown.

I personally don't think that any of the Manhattan Project scientists "deserved" to be blamed for deaths caused by the two bombs that were actually dropped "in anger", nor for the near-disasters of the Cold War, etc. etc. I don't think they should even have lost any sleep over their involvement in developing the weapons, but I expect that all of them did in spades.

I think a better (bit still rather unfair) place to start second-guessing things is either with President Truman for giving the executive orders, or the committee that suggested the targets of the bombs (which did include Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists along with military leaders). I have always wanted to think along the lines of:

What if we had dropped the first bomb in a remote forest, where there would have been hopefully little to no loss of human life but still plenty of evidence as to the destructive power and effective radius of the weapon? We could then have communicated with the Japanese, told them the area to inspect, and said "surrender or next time we drop the same thing somewhere that you're really not going to want us to."

Maybe that would have worked, but it is a dicey way to play the cards we had in our hand. The Japanese might have read it as a sign of weakness, it would have made for another delay before we could develop more bombs and hopefully end the war (although we already had to bluff that we had plenty to use if it came down to it), etc. So basically, now I am just glad that I have never had to and hopefully never will have to make a decision that has anywhere near the magnitude of those made by the people in charge of that whole situation. Second guessing them decades after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight and information that they didn't have access to seems rather crass.

I bet you woulda punched ol' Hitler square in the jaw eh? Numbskull.

In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
I was taught that when Ive made a mistake, I need to take action to make things right, not get paid to do interviews about it.

First, if I had realized what I had done was wrong, I would have gone straight to the lab and pulled all the wires out of the thing, and destroyed the plans. He didnt.

Or...I would have been in Japan after the war ended, trying to help those who are still getting cancer from the mess I helped create. He didnt. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541)



Ive made plenty of "contributions to science", but you don't see anyone excusing me of war crimes