01-15-2014, 06:06 PM
Sorry Mr. Ruderman, but “the highest authority, that is, the Senate attorneys who decide such matters” is wrong. It is the Courts that decide such matters, not the Senate Attorneys, they can only give "Advisory Opinions", which we all know has a 50% chance that the judge will disagree with.
As far as your article, it is an opinion piece, nothing more, nothing scientific, no facts at all, coming from someone who states what he thinks are facts yet fails to point to where those "facts" came from. What Richard Ha (and many others) have asked is where the studies or proof of your facts are?
"Thank you all for the interest. As mentioned in my column, I will be addressing these studies in more detail in future columns. I look forward to discussing the Seralini study, which, in addition to showing serious effects from GMOs, illuminates the aggressive tactics of biotec companies in suppressing science it doesn't like." - Russell Ruderman http://bigislandweekly.com/sections/news...ons.html?j comment section.
Again, the main question is, where are the “studies/citations” that prove your opinion that you clearly stated you have in the quotation of your post above? You can easily copy and paste those here and you would be answering the question, but you do appear to be dodging that exact question both here and there.
The ONLY study you have mentioned is the Seralini study... As stated it has been retracted, and you should know that before you start commenting in your "future columns" about a study that has been found to be bad..
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
Cambridge, MA, November 28, 2013 - http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-rele...SpNtV.dpuf
It was also found to be a bad study by other countries too..
"Following a review of the published data, scientists from Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have identified significant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting. The methodology used was inadequately described, the full data set was not presented, and the data that was reported was not presented in a transparent manner. Furthermore, the statistical methods used by the authors to analyse the data were judged to be inappropriate." "Reviews of this paper have also been published by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)Footnote 1i, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Footnote 2ii, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)Footnote 3iii, and the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES)Footnote 4iv. All of these reviews concluded that study design, the presentation and interpretation of the data are flawed. As such, all four agencies concluded that it was not possible to give weight to the study results and concluded that there was no reason to revisit the safety evaluation of NK603. These food safety assessment bodies also requested that the authors of the study provide them with raw data for further analysis." http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/seralini-eng.php
And see how easy it is to give a citation, something you have been asked for over and over and still have failed to give on both sites .
I would highly recommend people read his article and the comments posted by many highly educated people with the same concerns about the citations needed.
As far as the claim of conflict...
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Disqualification
You must disqualify yourself from taking any official
action directly affecting a business or undertaking in
which you have a substantial financial interest.
HRS §84-14(a)
INITIATING A CHARGE
Charges: A charge by a person concerning an apparent
violation of the State Ethics Code is a written statement,
signed under oath. Individuals normally use a notary
public to authenticate oaths. Charges initiated by the State
Ethics Commission need not be under oath, but must be
signed by three or more commissioners.
Who may initiate a charge: Members of the public; elected
officials; employees; members of boards and
commissions; and the Hawaii State Ethics Commission
itself may initiate a charge of alleged violations of the State
Ethics Code.
How to initiate a charge: A charge may be brought by a
person by filing a statement, signed under oath, with the
State Ethics Commission setting forth the name and state
position of the alleged violator, and describing the facts
constituting the alleged violation.
Statute of limitations: Charges of alleged violations may
be brought within six years of an alleged violation.
HRS §84-31(a)(6)
http://hawaii.gov/ethics/pubs_guides/ethicsguide.pdf
You might also want to know it is more common for people on the internet to use "the usual pseudonyms", instead of their names for reasons, and it is a very acceptable practice by billions of people on the internet all over the world. Calling people out for using an "internet identity" (which is what it is called on the internet) is both rude and uncalled for and on many sites will get you banned as it is the same as name calling. Get over it.
As far as ethics, you might want to learn a little more about internet ethics, including BACKING UP YOUR OPINION WITH PROOF OR CITATIONS. For instance you will see many places on many sites (especially Wikipedia and such) that state “citation needed” as they are saying they need the proof, therefore this is (as we say on the internet) JYO or just your opinion or in legal terms hearsay.
Which is exactly why many scientists who know a hell of a lot more about it than you keep asking, where is your proof??? I am not saying you are right or wrong, you brought up the subject with your article. As Mr. Ha is doing I am asking for your proof of YOUR facts as YOU presented them to be.
As far as your article, it is an opinion piece, nothing more, nothing scientific, no facts at all, coming from someone who states what he thinks are facts yet fails to point to where those "facts" came from. What Richard Ha (and many others) have asked is where the studies or proof of your facts are?
"Thank you all for the interest. As mentioned in my column, I will be addressing these studies in more detail in future columns. I look forward to discussing the Seralini study, which, in addition to showing serious effects from GMOs, illuminates the aggressive tactics of biotec companies in suppressing science it doesn't like." - Russell Ruderman http://bigislandweekly.com/sections/news...ons.html?j comment section.
Again, the main question is, where are the “studies/citations” that prove your opinion that you clearly stated you have in the quotation of your post above? You can easily copy and paste those here and you would be answering the question, but you do appear to be dodging that exact question both here and there.
The ONLY study you have mentioned is the Seralini study... As stated it has been retracted, and you should know that before you start commenting in your "future columns" about a study that has been found to be bad..
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
Cambridge, MA, November 28, 2013 - http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-rele...SpNtV.dpuf
It was also found to be a bad study by other countries too..
"Following a review of the published data, scientists from Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have identified significant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting. The methodology used was inadequately described, the full data set was not presented, and the data that was reported was not presented in a transparent manner. Furthermore, the statistical methods used by the authors to analyse the data were judged to be inappropriate." "Reviews of this paper have also been published by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)Footnote 1i, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Footnote 2ii, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)Footnote 3iii, and the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES)Footnote 4iv. All of these reviews concluded that study design, the presentation and interpretation of the data are flawed. As such, all four agencies concluded that it was not possible to give weight to the study results and concluded that there was no reason to revisit the safety evaluation of NK603. These food safety assessment bodies also requested that the authors of the study provide them with raw data for further analysis." http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/seralini-eng.php
And see how easy it is to give a citation, something you have been asked for over and over and still have failed to give on both sites .
I would highly recommend people read his article and the comments posted by many highly educated people with the same concerns about the citations needed.
As far as the claim of conflict...
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Disqualification
You must disqualify yourself from taking any official
action directly affecting a business or undertaking in
which you have a substantial financial interest.
HRS §84-14(a)
INITIATING A CHARGE
Charges: A charge by a person concerning an apparent
violation of the State Ethics Code is a written statement,
signed under oath. Individuals normally use a notary
public to authenticate oaths. Charges initiated by the State
Ethics Commission need not be under oath, but must be
signed by three or more commissioners.
Who may initiate a charge: Members of the public; elected
officials; employees; members of boards and
commissions; and the Hawaii State Ethics Commission
itself may initiate a charge of alleged violations of the State
Ethics Code.
How to initiate a charge: A charge may be brought by a
person by filing a statement, signed under oath, with the
State Ethics Commission setting forth the name and state
position of the alleged violator, and describing the facts
constituting the alleged violation.
Statute of limitations: Charges of alleged violations may
be brought within six years of an alleged violation.
HRS §84-31(a)(6)
http://hawaii.gov/ethics/pubs_guides/ethicsguide.pdf
You might also want to know it is more common for people on the internet to use "the usual pseudonyms", instead of their names for reasons, and it is a very acceptable practice by billions of people on the internet all over the world. Calling people out for using an "internet identity" (which is what it is called on the internet) is both rude and uncalled for and on many sites will get you banned as it is the same as name calling. Get over it.
As far as ethics, you might want to learn a little more about internet ethics, including BACKING UP YOUR OPINION WITH PROOF OR CITATIONS. For instance you will see many places on many sites (especially Wikipedia and such) that state “citation needed” as they are saying they need the proof, therefore this is (as we say on the internet) JYO or just your opinion or in legal terms hearsay.
Which is exactly why many scientists who know a hell of a lot more about it than you keep asking, where is your proof??? I am not saying you are right or wrong, you brought up the subject with your article. As Mr. Ha is doing I am asking for your proof of YOUR facts as YOU presented them to be.