BS: Views from Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM

And, then there was the pseudo-science that some chatter on about fraking.
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:30 PM

Q? WTF is that shit? You got a case, prove it. And, BTW... start another thread for it and don't try to screw this one up with unsubstantiated bullshit.

One more BTW, I can't be arsed with bullshit that ignores science by trivializing it in a condescending manner like a bully on a playground. Put or shut up.

I have read the science. I shant spoon feed it to you. Nor will I be back. I am done with this tread.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:17 PM

No need to provide a multitude of links to corporate fubded research that provides the basis of food and drug sector decisions- it is the way government operates today.Unfortunately, government science is mostly underfunded and welcomes the research, regardless of its accuracy.

Corporate interests have a large impact on government and those elected and of course is always given the benefit of the doubt, when economics are figured in.

If government food and drug aporovals, based on science were so good, why do so many approved drugs cause do many problems?

The reason many countries do not permit their dairy industry to use these added, artificially sources hormones is animal health. Dick animals receive more antibiotics, which ends up, in varied amounts, in dairy products.

Labeling could be as elementary as in fruit products, for example, no sugar added -in this case no growth hormones added.


OK, Q?

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM

there is also a shitload of BS Science, more appropriately called corporate sponsored food science.

Could you provide links to this. I would be very interested in seeing the names of university based or government funded food scientists who are receiving funding from corporations and publishing scientifically unsupported data.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

Canadas Arctic ignored 


""All of Moscow's effort and attention, combined with Canada's neglect, has effectively turned the Arctic Ocean into Putin's Lake.""

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:05 PM

"OK, more specifically BST and rBGH."

They're all the same thing. I guess you missed the part in the post of 09 Nov 15 - 01:23 PM where it says that the added BGH is indistinguishable from the native and that measured levels in treated milk fall within the range of variation for untreated milk. That's an important fact right there but one that is conveniently ignored by those espousing a cause but not understanding the science.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:57 PM

Most legitimate "scientists" are very Leary of so called "corporate science". Please read independent scientic reports on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:39 PM

Agreed, there is also a shitload of BS Science, more appropriately called corporate sponsored food science.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:34 PM

The scary thing is I understand CCT perfectly well.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:11 PM

Now THIS Canuck military strategy is the best yet!

Any Herring Chokers or nearby folks out there who will understand this?

I am still laughing.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:15 PM

Agreed, science literacy is sadly lacking among the general public and the pseudo science served up on the interweb is not helpful (and there is shitloads of it out there).

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:40 PM

Most people seem not to understand the issue of so called growth hormones. Reading the actual science would be helpful on any case.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:40 PM

Guest... don't mess with my milk or my dairy farms or my apples or my blood pressure. PERIOD. Canada got rid of that shit years ago based on good science.

Ya wanna talk science?

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:10 PM

"Queen's portrait pulled down, Alfred Pellan paintings back up in Foreign Affairs building""

Canadian picture 

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:42 PM

OK, more specifically BST and rBGH.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:18 PM

Since I doubt many Canadians would prefer their milk with growth hormone

If you read the post of 09 Nov 15 - 01:23 PM you would know that all milk contains growth hormone and if you drink animal milk you are ingesting growth hormone.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

Since I doubt many Canadians would prefer their milk with growth hormone, choice now is an inoperative notion. However, with the introduction of it into the Canadian milk market, without labeling it. Of course choice will be impacted. That's not to difficult to comprehend.

Yes,milk is more expensive now in Canada because of supply management. That has nothing to do with adding growth hormones in dairy products to increase profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:59 PM

I don't understand the bit about personal choice. We do not appear to have it now. Countries either allow this or they don't...so the consumer, in either the US of Canada has no choice now. And I know that in many parts of Canada they also have no choice over the extraordinarily high price of Dairy Products. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM

I suspect the term poison is emotional.
However, it seems reasonable that folks should have a choice of what they injest through labeling.
Let's not forget that some compounds deemed safe to ingest have later found to not to be nor safe at all. Personal choice seems to be the key, that would potentially be negated by this economic agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:23 PM

"There is no question that some hormone, both in treated and untreated cows, does pass into the milk. This is of no apparent consequence because bovine growth hormone is inactive in humans. In any case, like any other protein, it is broken down in our digestive tract. BGH actually exerts its milk producing effects by triggering the synthesis of a protein known as insulinlike growth factor-I, or IGF-I in the cow's liver. This protein is always present in milk but is found in higher concentrations in the milk from BGH treated animals. These elevated levels are still within the range of variation for untreated milk, and in fact no technology exists that can determine whether a specific milk sample came from a treated or an untreated cow. IGF-I is also a protein hormone, and therefore does not survive the digestion process.

Arguments about possible health consequences of BGH or IGF-I as present in milk are based more on emotion than on science."

McGill University - Office for Science & Society

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:12 PM

I am aware of that, but that does not render them "poisonous". It has been suggested that those countries that do not allow it are doing so for economic reasons, i.e. to keep out competition in order to keep local dairy products very high priced.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:07 PM

"Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) is a synthetic version of the naturally occurring growth hormone somatotropin. It is approved for use in the US to increase the production of milk in dairy cattle. However, it is not approved for sale in Canada."

I dont believe rBST is allowed in milk in the UK either. What concerns some is tge TPP agreement would allow this product in milk and milk products andvthat it would not be marked as so in the products. While tgere is no evidence (yet) that it impacts human health, it seems to impact the cows health. The hirmone ix only used to increase milk production.


growth homones not in Canadian milk

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:49 PM

The document regarding this is thousands of pages long so I doubt that many have a full understanding of it, at least not enough to make a judgement.. I have no idea why one would think that Dairy products from the US of NZ would be "poisonous"
I may be a good idea to know a lot more before dismissing it out of hand, yes ?

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 11:27 AM

Harper said the TPP was great. Out of the other side of his face, he said he would give at least $1B to the auto industry and also compensate dairy farmers. As I have mentioned in the past, fuck Harper and the TPP. One has been semi-done. I hope the TPP gets completely undone. We don't need poisonous dairy products from USA and NZ and we... blood pressue... that is all for now...

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:50 AM

I suspect this guy is right about his concerns, which likely means he is wrong :)


TPP 

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

ollaimh, I agree with you about the TPP. I disagree about Ed.

The TPP is a Harper legacy and it needs to be rewritten or ignored for twenty years and then rewritten.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

Ok

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 09:23 PM

LOL don't hold back ollaimh
tell us how you really feel

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 06:48 PM

let's pray we don't join the tpp. but it probably depends on the united states. lets hope Clinton and sanders stay against it. then we can get off without much trouble.

this isn't a trade deal, it's deal to destroy social services, envornmental protections and labour, workers, women's and human rights, so we all will be at the lower protections. this so the military capitalist corportions can have international legal power over governments.

and as usual ed the talking horses a... is wrong on everything.

does he have a shadow of education on anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 09:05 AM

Maybe so, brother of Charmion. However, the Defence choice does seem fresh, and is in line with many other cabinet choices.I would not rule out that Butts had a major role in some of those choices, versus the "old boys club" way of political thinking. One may have to do a reboot of the old was of thinking to better understand this new government? But, time will tell.

I felt this article considered Canadas various military choices into interesting moral perspectives.

IMO, the practice of changing regimes is complex, and often backfires, wastes resources creates enemies and frequently does more harm than good-especially, if
done in a cavalier way, and not reul santioned by the UN.

As I see it, engaging in war in expectation of an economic benefit is morally wrong and is a worn out economic approach in the current global trading villiage.

various perspectives 

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:44 AM

Ed, the decision not to put Andrew Leslie into cabinet was likely driven by a combination of regional representation and gender parity criteria. Had there been room for him at the cabinet table, I do not think it would be wise to put him in a portfolio that contains a department where, in a previous career, he buried bodies and shut skeletons in closets. With his master's degree in conflict studies from the London School of Economics, he would seem to be a better fit for foreign affairs.

I am watching to see if he winds up a parliamentary secretary.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:13 AM

It seems like a reasonable explanation 

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 09:24 PM

Yeah, but at times diplomacy does take away one's ability to say fuck you. The guy has had the job for 48 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: meself
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 08:02 PM

I like the guy - but here's what I don't like about him: the media decide they've caught him in some kind of not-quite-political-correctness - i.e., some of his female ministers are mere junior ministers - what an insult! - so his way of dealing with it is NOT to say, Tough shit, but rather to say, No, no, it's okay, we're going raise their salaries so that they'll get paid as much as the real heavies - after all, what's another $100,000 of taxpayers' money when my image as Mister Nice-Guy is on the line?

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

Canadian scientists unmuzzled? 

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

Looks like we won't be rushing into the TPP. That is one big relief.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:03 PM

free Commonwealth movement?

A petition to allow free movement among Commonwealth Nations. Considering that the UK is part of the EU, I suspect it will never happen, for security reasons-at least in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 06:40 PM

it's fantastic to see a progressive cabinet.   a native woman as minister of justice, so we should get an inquiry in murdered native women, implementation of the truth and reconciliation commission, and hopefully some fairness in courts for natives.

(I haven't forgotten the british columbia law society trying to discipline a native right lawyer for saying judges have participated in a conspiracy for centuries to destroy native rights. this being so controversial--the American justice dept head, ramsay clark, wrote a public letter about harassing lawyers for natives-- so they sent it to the Ontario law society--the law society for upper canada. they said, yes it's contempt of court but it's true, and we cannot discipline lawyers for speaking the truth in court. imagine speaking the truth in court--some of the racist mudcatters should try it here)

and he didn't use blair or leslie, so the right wing didn't win out. a very educated and talented group of mps, totally different from the used car sales men and convicted criminals of the harper caucus.

so the cabinet has a very educated and talented group, and it's half women, and has more minorities than ever before.

so harper and his race baiting and hate politics are gone, and so is Q , our own harperite racist here on mudcat.

maybe we will have respect for the courts again. harper spent over a hundred million dollars for twenty losing appeals to the supreme court and federal court of appeal. lost em all. including trying to secret the criminal records of people convicted of torture and sexual abuse of children. criminal records are public in Canada. but not to the scoff law harper.   protecting the worst criminals possible. that says it all.

so lets hope for a return of decency. a friend wrote an article about"is it wrong to steal candy from a baby"? the harper government answer" whose baby"?

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM

An interesting interview withbthe new minister, gnu. A good sign. Hopefully, we are not disapointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

Charmiron, I dont see that it was a "far reach" to conclude you support Canadian foreign military missions, such as Afganistan, (as your case did not seem that clear to me). If I misunderstood, my mistake.I will move on with an understanding that you do not.

Whatever you, andbothers choose to call the" Middle East" Charmion, is fine with me.for clearity, I will use this definition in any future discussion we may have the pleasure in engaging. I see no real purpose to stick on a difference in termonology, once it is explained (which I have provided).

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Charmion
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:27 PM

No, Ed, I never claimed Afghanistan as a peacekeeping mission; I'm surprised that you could get such a ntion from what I have written.

And if you consider Afghanistan to be part of what we are pleased to call the Middle East, you're in a small minority, at least in Canada. The namers-of-things at DND like the phrase "Southwest Asia" for that locality, and -- ex-civil serpent that I am -- I assumed that we were following their convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:48 PM

I've been reading up on this guy. Very impressive resume. Good choice for Minister for more than one reason. Here is but one snippet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fWSq0mnXM

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

Charmion, it seems you are "nitpicking" when it comes to the term Middle East in my earlier post. This seems to be defined differently by different folks. Bush referred to "the greater Middle East" when discussing the "coalition missions" , this definition is fine with me, so, consider it as amended (if, it really matters the discussion, and your original case).

I would hardly consider the Afghanistan mission peacekeeping, but if you promote it as such, good luck. Again, my meter was actual Canadian dollars diverted from defense and peacekeeping in other areas, including Canada. Possibly some of those dollars coud have been used to rebuild capacity and equipment for santioned UN and reasonable NATO defense purposes? You seem to put a case forward that Canadas involvement in Afghanistan was money well spent. I disagree. I also suspect Canadas bombing missions in Libya, Iraq and Syria did little to make much better. Some feel it may have made things worse (as the Arab League once cautioned that suddenly emiving leaders could open up a Pandoras box in the region-much like we see today). BTW, because of a lack in transparency brought about by Harper, accurate data the real financial costs of Canadas military involvement in "the greater Middle East" is difficult to determine.




libya mission 

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 12:41 PM

Smart lady... always was.

Hopefully, the new minister won't be a piece of shit like the last one was. Sad to say he was from NB. Glad to say "so long" to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 11:29 AM

When asked about why (cabinet gender) parity was important to him... "Because it's 2015," Trudeau said. A cheer went up in the crowd gathered outside of Rideau Hall.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Charmion
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM

But Ed, you referred specifically to operations in the Middle East, not Afghanistan, and those "peacekeeping" missions are the cheapest kind there is! Hardly any people, no complex weapons systems, only combat support and combat service support equipment ... How is that disproportionately large?

Afghanistan was large by comparison only with Canadian deployments (not counting Germany) since 1970. Joint Task Force Afghanistan was capped at just under 3,000 all ranks, in all units and functions -- or about the size of the 1st Canadian Division in Italy circa 1943. As for the billions spent, a lot of that was spent to acquire howitzers, helicopters, Globemasters and other big-ticket items we needed just to operate in that theatre, and to fund the development projects that the great and the good thought would make the war go away but didn't, from primary schools and police sub-stations to the dam on the Arghandab River that was supposed to ensure the supply of electricity to Kandahar City. The last combat rotation of Operation Athena was spent laying the bed of a new road through the Panjwa'i District from Sperwan Ghar to Mushan, rather less than 30 kilometres. (See the latest film by Paul Gross, "Route Hyena", for a highly romanticized view.) Wanna guess how much that cost, with the construction site under constant guard by a company of infantry and a squadron of Leopard tanks?

But in the league table of per-capita defence spending, Canada has never cracked even the middle ranks of the NATO nations. For many years, it was said that only Luxembourg spent less than us, and if we have edged up in the ranking by much it's very recent.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM

We are fortunate to have Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan--a guy who's been there and done that--to inject wise council into civilian thinking about what a military is and what the human cost is.

' "He was the best single Canadian intelligence asset in theatre, and his hard work, personal bravery, and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives," said Brigadier-General David Fraser in a letter to the VPD [Vancouver Police Department].

"Through his courage and dedication, (then) Major Sajjan has singlehandedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan." '

I haven't felt this positive about Canada in ten years as I do today. But sufferin' jaysus there is a pile of work ahead of us. Belt-tightening time for a bit I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM

Since you refer to economic in your earlier post, Charmion, these were the cost metrics I refer to, not human costs.

I would hardly call the billions spent in the Afghanistan mission "teenie" - which was hardly a peacekeeping nor defensive mission. These resources, IMO, could have been better spent in actual defense, or preparedness to assist in less agressive missions in other parts of the world. While it does not take that many troops to drop bombs (there, in Libya, Iraq, or Syria), the financial costs alone (to the bombed population and to Canadians) are significant.

Considering the lack of transparency (aka Harper) regarding Afganistan, from outside estimates, it is likely that that this mission alone cost Canada between $30 to $40 billion (note the future costs to veterans lingers). Given his way, I suspect Harper would have continued down this path in the middle east, or accelerated it more. Firtunately, Trudeau may inject more sense into the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Charmion
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:40 AM

I don't know which metrics you're using to determine size, Ed, but as I see it, Canada's contribution to military operations in the Middle East has never been large, and is now downright teeny-tiny.

Here's a run-down of the "traditional peacekeeping" missions, by which I mean mandates limited to observation, monitoring and supervision of compliance with cease-fire agreements.

* In UNEF I and II (1956-1978), the Canadian contingent consisted mostly of logisticians, communicators, technicians and engineers, plus a few combat arms types for leadership, staff support, force protection and labour. UNEF I ran to about 1,000 personnel, or about the size of a modern battle group, out of an army mustering something like 40,000 all ranks. UNEF II was about 1,150 deployed from the post-Unification CF of about 95,000 strong.

* In 1978, according to Wikipedia, we had a contingent of about 110 people in UNIFIL; if I recall correctly, that group was spun off from UNEF II, then winding down, for the theatre-activation phase of the mission.

* In UNDOF on the Golan Heights (Operation Danaca), we provided a logistics battalion (typically about 100 personnel) from 1973 to 2002-ish; now, that mission is down to two staff officers deployed under Operation Gladius.

* In UNTSO (Operation Jade, running since 1953), we contribute military observers, never more than 10 at a time.

* In the MFO in the Sinai Peninsula (Operation Calumet, running since 1981), our people are air traffic control technicians who provide a "flight-following" service. That contingent tops out at about 30 all ranks.

* In the Office of the United States Security Coordinator in Jerusalem (Operation Proteus, running since 2005), we contribute staff officers whose activities are described with great delicacy in the Canadian Joint Operations Command website:

"The CAF members deployed on Operation PROTEUS fill a variety of key roles within the USSC as an integrated part of the organization. Task Force Jerusalem has grown and adapted to new roles within the USSC, and now has an emphasis on institutional capacity-building.

The members of Task Force Jerusalem:

- provide the Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF) with training advice and support;
- help the PASF develop logistics capabilities;
- support the construction of security infrastructure for the Palestinian Authority; and
- facilitate co-operation between the Palestinian Authority and Government of Canada on issues that are not usually of military interest, such as borders and crossings, and movement and access."

Said website does not indicate the size of the deployed task force, but I happen to know that it has varied from as few as one member to about 35 all ranks.

And that's it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:16 AM

Opinion column on Canada's new Defense Minister, provides interesting military background:


National Observer