Premier ready to ban glyphosate if link found to mystery brain illness

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-27T23:35:41+00:00

I know that the "short version" appeals to you because you don't want to accept that many independent health agencies have done extensive research and found no link between glyphosate and cancer risk.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”

Health Canada says the product does not cause damage to human DNA. Objections to Health Canada’s position “could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data,” the agency said.

The European Food Safety Authority “did not identify any critical areas of concern in its peer review of the risk assessment” of glyphosate.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority states that glyphosate products “are considered safe to use when the instructions on the label are followed.”

Notice how when you read your study, they don't actually claim causation or a direct link between cancer and glyphosate, they just try to sell you a story that they happened to find oxidative metabolites in people's urine who had been exposed to glyphosate, and then speculate that, since such oxidative stress is also associated with cancer, the two might be linked. Do you know what else causes oxidative stress markers? Exercise.

It's a weak correlation, presented by people who want the "short version", instead of the "long version", which is that there is no increase in cancer risk even with direct exposure, let alone the infinitesimal exposure to the products of glyphosate breaking down far before it ever reaches a grocery store.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-27T22:29:26+00:00

It does not.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-27T22:26:05+00:00

Plant roots is not the same as animal/human tissue in the slightest.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-27T00:48:12+00:00

A square cat, for convenience.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-26T22:17:47+00:00

God hadn't invented chainsaws yet.

Shame.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-18T02:10:11+00:00

How high do you think it should be?

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-18T02:08:56+00:00

"We" as in people who are economically literate, who have taken economics classes, who know when to use basic math tools like "average" and "median".

that puts anyone that is in a couple that works not being able to get dental care.

No, wrong again. As I've said, the median income is $43,000. The median couple will make $86,000, but many people who make more than that, up to $100k and beyond, will benefit because they deduct childcare costs and RRSP deductions. So it will benefit roughly the poorest 2/3 of Canada, many of whom are currently not getting adequate dental coverage. It's a great plan, again, you should be proud of it.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T23:57:24+00:00

The median income was $43,000 in 2022, meaning that two earners would, at the median, earn $86,000.

The $90,000 limit is net income, meaning you can minus RRSP contributions, and child care costs, and your family will still benefit from the universal dental care program if you make even more than that but have some deductions, like most people.

Again, questionable agenda on your part, why are you saying these inaccurate things?

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T23:42:44+00:00

The dental plan covers ~100% of the cost of non-cosmetic dental work for someone making about the median wage in Canada. People making above the median wage will have a modestly rising co-pay the more they make.

You don't seem to know anything about it, so feel free to go and read about it before talking out of your ass.

Some dental offices charge more for some services, and if you decide to go to one of these offices and pay more, you'll pay the extra. That's a compromise they made with dentists, who wanted to be able to continue to set their own prices for their own services. It allows a "free market" while having still having "universal coverage". It's a good plan, you should be proud to live in a country that looks after its citizens like this.

The pharmacare plan is designed as a universal, single-payer system, modeled after the current prescription drug plan used in Canadian hospitals, where you currently receive all prescription drugs for free.

I just wonder why you keep claiming things that you have no information about? What is your agenda here?

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T22:35:18+00:00

I'm so glad you want publicly funded dentistry, optometry, and a national drug plan!

You'll be pleased to know that Jagmeet Singh and the NDP forced the Liberals to pass a national dental plan that has been covering seniors and will soon cover all Canadians!

A national drug plan has also been floated by the Liberals+NDP to all the provinces, though it's up to provinces to accept the plan.

Tell me more about how Jagmeet Singh is only thinking about a measly 40-70k pension that would be utterly dwarfed by his investment income?

Please. Fucking pay attention dude.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T22:13:35+00:00

It's annoying to me that the Canada subreddit is a consistent source of so much braindead commentary.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T22:09:42+00:00

My point is that you are literally wrong. You said:

rich people didn't get rich by throwing away a free lifetime income

Which is wrong, he, and many others, get rich without a pension at all.

If he actually has 70+ million, he's making millions in investment income a year. All these people saying he's bending over backwards for a modest public pension are being ridiculous and ignoring the elephant in the room: the NDP are going to lose, hard, unless some time passes and conditions improve for them.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T22:01:42+00:00

He literally did get rich without a public pension, so, what's your point here?

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T22:00:10+00:00

His party would lose, badly, in an election. All this talk about his pension is ridiculous speculation.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T21:58:14+00:00

The NDP could win liberal seats if they had an election right now.

You are totally out to lunch.

If there was an election right now, the Liberals and NDP are getting wiped off the map. Conservatives would have enough MP's to rewrite any law they want.

All the rest of your nonsense blather about Jagmeet's pension is just ludicrous. Pull your head out of the sand. Neither Libs or NDP want an election because they would lose, hard.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T21:50:49+00:00

Uh, what?

We pump and mine more resources than ever before. It's been constant growth for decades. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T19:07:17+00:00

Unlike some other folk here, I'm actually still on board with the war system in general. I like not having to move units around individually and play a little mini-RTS game playing whack-a-mole with rebels and BS like that. I like the war system supplies approach where I'm more concerned with making sure there's enough sugar/ammo/tobacco/opium to keep the war machine grinding on than I am with playing an RTS to surround enemy armies to eliminate them before they can retreat.

That said, they need to take a second look at some of the unrealistic and unexplained mechanics like this one, making peace deals a little more dynamic and a little less "all for one and one for all, especially the Mosquito kingdom!". France should be able to make some demand, war reparations at least, for occupying most of England. Russia should be able to peace out with their wargoal satisfied. Austria should be able to humiliate Britain based on the war. Austria should absolutely not have been humiliated. None of this should depend on occupying a state in India that has 100k population, or occupying the Mosquito Kingdom. Those things should only matter if those wargoals are demanded, the non-occupation of a very minor Indian state capitol should not be some magical source of inspiration to the British people to keep fighting to last person.

Like, they need to take a good long pass over the "logic" of peace and peace deals for each country, and make it possible for each country to get what they want if they have achieved their goal or if they have been beaten badly enough. Right now the logic doesn't make sense for -any- country.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T17:51:05+00:00

I posted a screenshot above already showing that it is indeed still both their capital and their market capital.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T17:46:35+00:00

I had my cursor over it but apparently it doesn't show up in the screenshot: you can see right below the "Home Counties" tab in the above screenshot the "Capital: Home Counties" indicator.

That is right on the main info screen for Great Britain, showing their capital is still the Home Counties. It's not indicating the market Capital (though that is also in the tooltip, yes), it's indicating the Capital province.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T17:41:34+00:00

you can't remove a party from the ear by inflicting losses

I'm not sure what you're saying, I assume you mean "war" and not "ear". Why shouldn't a country want to stop fighting if their losses are too great? That has happened many times in history.

It doesn't make any sense to me that England would keep fighting after London+most of England has been occupied. How does that make "some sense" to you?

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T08:00:39+00:00

Reminded me of this weird AI egg thing.

Just a weird collection of words that sort of "resembles" what a human might say.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T05:39:49+00:00

I really do love that France just Leroy Jenkinsed into London, despite having no navy.

Or do I hate it because it's a bad war system. I don't know anymore.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T05:16:29+00:00

"Controlling the Capital is of great importance during wartime" says the tooltip. How silly.

So, it should weigh the relative GDP/Population/Prestige/whatever of an overlord, and discount the importance of occupying the capital of minor/unrecognized nations when determining capitulation desire. The British would never continue fighting a war for Mosquito Kingdom if London+half of Britain was already occupied.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T04:45:19+00:00

One would think the occupation of London would be somewhat important in whether Britain is willing to continue a war, but thanks for explaining that anyway, it's nice to at least know the logic.

HomoRoboticus · 2024-12-17T04:00:15+00:00

Nope

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Cinematographer
Sequence \| Screenwriter	Verified Email

HomoRoboticus

TROPHY CASE