There is a real lack of data and scientific research in that field

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Although there have been more than 2,000 studies documenting that biotechnology does not pose an unusual threat to human health and genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, questions remain in the minds of many consumers.

[. . .]

But we don’t need to depend on anecdotes to address these concerns. Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.

The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

Here's the study itself.

Can you start putting "IMO" or "I believe" in front of your edgy statements from now on?

I guess you didn't read the OP because you clearly didn't see this part:

Form your own judgement about the Green Party.

GODDAMNIT BRECKENRIDGE YOU'RE IN MY LINE OF FIRE

From engadget.

Remember back in the '50s, when official-sounding newsreels promised that we'd have new-kew-lur-powered cars by the '70s and no one would ever be unhappy? Probably not, since we've gotten a skewed sense of history from watching too many episodes of Futurama. Still, several decades behind schedule, the promise of clean and unlimited energy might finally be looming upon the horizon, thanks to Lockheed Martin. The defense behemoth believes that it might have a working prototype of its Compact Fusion Reactor in a decade, which might just save the world as we know it.

For those not in the know, nuclear power is great, but there are many reasons why we've never ditched coal and gas in favor of fission. For starters, there's risk of a meltdown, the process produces hard-to-dispose-of nuclear waste and throws out highly lethal radiation at all times. Fusion, by comparison, is a lot less dangerous, and could theoretically be shrunk down to the point where it could power an airplane that never needs to land in order to refuel.

A team at the company's Skunk Works, lead by Dr. Thomas McGuire, has cherry-picked elements from previous fusion experiments to build a magnetic containment chamber that's 90 percent smaller than previous devices. The reactor's small size means that it's possible to turn prototypes around in under a year, and McGuire believes that Lockheed Martin will be able to demonstrate true fusion energy by 2020. The system also promises to be able to plug into the existing gas turbine power infrastructure, which would instantly eliminate carbon emissions in the sector, and, even better, enhance "energy security," which is a euphemism for not buying coal and gas from your political enemies.

Completely agree.

Other people shouldn't need to pay for you to be minimally responsible.

Reagan really was a moderate by our standards.

He did return some power to the States, and his use of block grants instead of categorical grants is commendable, but he didn't do all that much to dismantle LBJ's Big Society.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 17, 2014, 03:25:20 PM

Quote from: Nuka on October 17, 2014, 03:24:02 PM

Does anyone other than you really even care about the serious board anyway?

Your grandmother has been known to frequent it for the sake of witnessing my large phallus.

She's probably been dead for longer than you've been alive.

Duh, I had to dig the bitch up first.

I will fight you until the last moments to prevent this from happening.

<.<
>.>

We're getting closer and closer to that Rubicon moment. I'm all ready practically the Dear Leader of Serious, so how long will it be until I completely amalgamate the thing into myself?

UKIP is your most "liked"? Why? Serious question.

I agree with most of their policies. Immigration, however, is probably the biggest area where I disagree with them.

No one because a single vote counts for nothing

What a stupid thing to say.

A single vote is, unalterably, equal to a single vote.

I was going to do a neo-Nazi one but then alts are automatically banned here. . .

When the Stock Market did crash, the credit bubble popped, and it helped to intensify the immediate effects for citizens because none of them had the actual money to pay off their credit debts as the banks caved.

My argument here is that the banks' responsibility is minimal, because the Fed operated on a very tight monetary regime which allowed nominal GDP to fall dramatically. The banking crises of the Depression happened largely in the early '30s, as opposed to '29, as the banks couldn't deal with the lack of liquidity in the market.

Think of it as if the causation were reversed. The stock market crash died because the economy was suffering from a demand for money, and when the stock market did crash, it increased that demand and it just got worse and worse because the Fed didn't respond. Ben Bernanke former chairman of the Fed, has accepted this account - developed my Milton Friedman - to be factual.

You're too damn retarded to comprehend shit. That's why you just go off your generic "hur im a cis chresten" rants

You should be banned for that.

Going to stick my neck out and disagree with Icy here.

The government was largely responsible for the Great Recession, although certain not the Congress. Tight money from the Federal Reserve turned, what would be, a minor debt issue into a fiasco through tight money and allowing nominal GDP to tank. It was essentially the same with the Great Depression; tight money causes economic contraction, which in turn reduces liquidity and creates debt crises and bank failures.

As for the supposed recklessness with banks and mortgages? That was probably due to government regulation encouraging banks to pour money into such assets, since mortgages were deemed relatively safe. It was, most likely, a case of ignorance over recklessness.