No. 14654Anonymous 4th May 2014 Sunday 6:45 pm14654Rapeseed and other hayfever-inducing crops
Just fucking stop it, you're making my life hell. Smokers get taxed through the nose in part for second hand smoke (which may not even cause harm) but these fucking farmers ruin spring, summer and autumn for millions of people every year and face no punishment for it.
Grow livestock, like they do in Mudchute - a sensible farm that does not cause harm. Or even vegetables, just not fucking rapeseed that is only good for cooking oil. We don't even need the sodding stuff when we've got sunflower oil, olive oil, coconut oil, any other type of oil. Fucks sake.
Manure too. Ruins the countryside for everyone else.
I'd get done for spraying feces or anthrax into a farmer's house. Double standards or what?
>>14654 I live about half a mile away from a few fields and some cunt of a farmer has left a few big heaps of pigshit on the edge of the field for the past 3 or 4 weeks. Yesterday the wind was blowing it perfectly in my direction and even leaving a window open a crack was borderline nauseating.
>>14654 Fuck of cityboy, you neglect rural England to the maximum and then have the gall to complain when it's not what you expect. I'm still using copper wire Internet!
I live near loads of rape and it doesn't cause me a problem, I am sure that lime trees are to blame for my annual facial streaming and months-long irritation.
Ever tried using local honey in your teaa to mitigate the effects? It works a bit.
>>14666 Depends on the case. You do increasingly see them being used for electricity generation and heating, which comes under my heading of intensely silly (or woefully short-sighted, at least). There are special cases in which I'm more tolerant, for example it's quite a good idea where there's a waste stream to be exploited, and algal fuels which can be cultivated without displacing food production could be quite interesting, but today's biofuels are never going to be more than a stop-gap of dubious merit on the path to wherever we're headed, even in their natural domain of transport.
I have fields near me where rape has been grown 3 years consecutively. Farmers know this is generally bad for the land in the long run but they all owe so much money to the banks anyway. So they grow what is profitable in the short term to make ends meet.
>Grow livestock, like they do in Mudchute - a sensible farm that does not cause harm. Or even vegetables, just not fucking rapeseed that is only good for cooking oil.
I don't know what Mudchute do but keep in mind that rapeseed can be used to feed livestock. Several hundred thousand tonnes of the stuff goes to animal feed each year. Granted animal feed is likely to come from something else.
Science doesn't know everything. There was still no consensus on what women squirt when they squirt or even where it comes from. Some scientists flatly deny it happens at all.
There has been evidence that exposure to limited quantities of allergens decreases sensitivity, so it makes sense, it could work.
>>15411 >Science doesn't know everything.
Stop that shit right now. "Science doesn't know everything" is not a justification for unscientific bollocks.
I don't know much about the actual subject but there's a difference between going against clear scientific evidence and conjecturing in the absence of evidence. If you can point to a study that says there is no link between honey and reactions etc then of course the guy you're quoting would be engaging in unscientific bollocks. If however it's just that nobody in the scientific community has never looked in to it then he has every right to resort to old wives tails, because there is often a grain of truth in them and it's better than starting from square one.
No. To quote Dara O'Brien, possibly not Verbatim, for a second "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. However, that doesn't give you carte blanche to fill in the gaps with which ever fairytale best appeals to you."
It really feel like what you are expressing with that sentiment is, for example, because I'm an Aires and and I've never had a good relationship with a Libra that I should entertain Astrologists. Which is, of course, a load of bollocks.
>>15418 >If you can point to a study that says there is no link between honey and reactions etc then of course the guy you're quoting would be engaging in unscientific bollocks.
There's this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11868925
>If however it's just that nobody in the scientific community has never looked in to it then he has every right to resort to old wives tails,
However, you have no right to justify this by brandishing "science doesn't know everything".
So what you're saying is that nobody can have an opinion on anything until someone who may or may not be smarter than them tells them what to think about said thing? Sage for absolutely anti scientific bollocks.
>>15421 >So what you're saying is that nobody can have an opinion on anything until someone who may or may not be smarter than them tells them what to think about said thing?
No, that's not what he's saying, you daft cunt.
Not the other poster, but I'd argue that it can be worth personally investigating something anecdotal, even if it hasn't been proved scientifically yet (if the potential benefits outweigh the risks).
For example, if you're interested in fitness you're often wading through medical studies that aren't perfectly representative of a certain phenomena or the effect you're trying to achieve (e.g. they've been conducted on rats or on people in very specific physical states), but you can still experiment with principles derived from it just to see if it works for you. A controlled study would be nice, yes, but the worst thing that can happen for that poster is that they go outside a bit more and learn to moderate their own exposure to allergens.
Maybe you're right to be skeptical, especially with the amount of false information published about health in mass media which usually takes some study wildly out of context, but I'm not sure it's necessary here.
Fair. I've also just thought over your astrology example, which could also be considered as 'trying unproven stuff', and am forced to amend my own opinion a bit. I think there's something to be said for making a personal decision about what unproven ideas you wish to pursue if they're based on a good knowledge about the quality of evidence and an honest appraisal of possible benefits against risks. Astrology could be ruled out on that basis, I think.
I do agree that 'science doesn't know everything' is a poor reason to justify any old experiment. You could justify virtually anything that way. I'm now wondering if it might be productive to search for any evidence, anecdotal or not, of the allergen thing working for someone.
I have an afternoon of cleaning the bedsheets again due to banging my missus up the arse. I don;t mention this to brag, but to confirm that it is definitely not piss.
