Thursday 5th October 2017

[citizenJA]

Honey tests reveal global contamination by bee-harming pesticides
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... pesticides" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I love honey
I'm distraught

[tinyclanger2]

You think Brexit is going to be bad for the economy, just wait until you see the other things in store for us in 2020
From trade shifting to emerging markets in the East; joblessness as a result of automation; ageing populations; and the breaching of local and global environmental thresholds, we are in for a rocky ride
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 84861.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinyclanger2]

automated checkouts are evil

[tinyclanger2]

and I mean why have bartenders when you could just have a machine to do it

[tinyclanger2]

BECAUSE WE'RE SOCIAL ANIMALS AND EVEN I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT WITH MACHINES ALL THE SODDING TIME

[tinyclanger2]

apologies for shouting

(but it irks me)

[HindleA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b096j4lw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Robots & AI: Laurie Taylor takes a cool, non dystopian look at future possibilities. He's joined by Toby Walsh, Professor of Artificial Intelligence at the University of New South Wales, Judy Wajcman, Anthony Giddens Professor of Sociology at the LSE and Kathleen Richardson, Professor of Ethics and Culture of Robots and AI Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility at De Montfort University.
Does automation herald the death of work or even pose an existential threat? How significant are the differences between humans and machines? What should be the ethical limits to the development of killer and sex robots? How can we create a society in which technology is a force for collective good given that future imaginaries are shaped by such a narrow, Silicone Valley elite?

[Willow904]

automated checkouts are evil

If you're rubbish at scanning, have uppity bags or buy lots of alcohol, you can provide just as much real person employment by using the "self-serve" checkouts as the manned ones, in my experience.

[howsillyofme1]

Honey tests reveal global contamination by bee-harming pesticides
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... pesticides" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I love honey
I'm distraught

The levels in this article are about 1ng/g, or a max of 10ng/g - this id equivalent to 1-10 microgram per kg or 0.1-1 microgram in a 100g jar

I would like to see what other things that are in there at the same or much higher levels - I very much doubt that these compounds are toxic at these levels which would put it at more than a 1000x toxic than cyanide

Analytical chemists can find pretty much anything in anything if they look hard enough

The academic is a soil biologist so his views on toxicity should not be taken as authoritative - he is outside is academic competence

Oh and honey is full of sugar which is probably far more harmful than ppb levels of these chemicals

[Willow904]

Honey tests reveal global contamination by bee-harming pesticides
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... pesticides" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I love honey
I'm distraught

The levels in this article are about 1ng/g, or a max of 10ng/g - this id equivalent to 1-10 microgram per kg or 0.1-1 microgram in a 100g jar

I would like to see what other things that are in there at the same or much higher levels - I very much doubt that these compounds are toxic at these levels which would put it at more than a 1000x toxic than cyanide

Analytical chemists can find pretty much anything in anything if they look hard enough

Oh and honey is full of sugar which is probably far more harmful than ppb levels of these chemicals

I think the harm from neonicotinoid insecticides that is worrying scientists is the threat they pose to bees, without which many crops wouldn't be pollinated. The UK has been ignoring EU directives restricting their use.

[howsillyofme1]

I think the harm from neonicotinoid insecticides that is worrying scientists is the threat they pose to bees, without which many crops wouldn't be pollinated. The UK has been ignoring EU directives restricting their use.

But that is not the point of this article - the argument about use of them and effect on bees is another one

They are clearly toxic to bees - it is difficult to think of an insecticide that isn't, although different modes of action will have different effects. What has happened though is that farmers will now use more toxic and pervasive older technologies to control insects.

Insecticides are extremely difficult to manage and the manner of application is key - farmers are notorious for ignoring usage advice.

And be wary of the claims of organic farmers - some of their solutions are just, if not more, harmful.

It is not an easy answer to find an insecticide that maintains yields whilst not harming bees - the insecticides currently in development are really active and have more specific modes of action - the amounts needed are much lower than other technologies - but the will have a toxicity to bees nevertheless

Toxicity is linked to dose though so just saying something is toxic is meaningless without the dose - is 1ng/g in honey a problem? Is the fact that lead is frequently measure at levels 100x this of more concern or less?

[tinybgoat]

Mark Steel:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the ... 85136.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of May’s supporters suggested that since she overcame such horrors, this proves she’s the ideal person to deal with Brexit. He has a point, because during the negotiations, if she manages to complete a sentence with only six or seven pauses for a Lemsip, the Germans will say 'Aren't you clever' and scrap the demand for £50bn

[citizenJA]

apologies for shouting

(but it irks me)

No need to apologise, I'm in complete agreement with you. I refuse to use self-service checkouts. The store requiring customers staff their tills decide their merchandise isn't worth my having to pay for it. They'll not get money from me.

[howsillyofme1]

BECAUSE WE'RE SOCIAL ANIMALS AND EVEN I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT WITH MACHINES ALL THE SODDING TIME

I agree with this - I refuse to use them

I have a friend who is high up in Sainsbury's and he says that Brexit and margins are tight so they are looking at using more of this type of thing - I pointed out to him that people like interacting with other people - although could be a generational thing?

To be fair he understood completely and he says he sees people queueing when there are free machines....

[citizenJA]

I can moderate my honey intake
I should have made my point more clear
I'm less concerned about the toxicity of the honey than I am with the unsuitability of some insecticides
Bees gone means game over

[citizenJA]

automated checkouts are evil

If you're rubbish at scanning, have uppity bags or buy lots of alcohol, you can provide just as much real person employment by using the "self-serve" checkouts as the manned ones, in my experience.

I know. It's stupid, 'self-service' checkouts. More trouble than they're worth

[PaulfromYorkshire]

automated checkouts are evil

If you're rubbish at scanning, have uppity bags or buy lots of alcohol, you can provide just as much real person employment by using the "self-serve" checkouts as the manned ones, in my experience.

I know. It's stupid, 'self-service' checkouts. More trouble than they're worth

None in LIDL

[Tubby Isaacs]

automated checkouts are evil

If you're rubbish at scanning, have uppity bags or buy lots of alcohol, you can provide just as much real person employment by using the "self-serve" checkouts as the manned ones, in my experience.

I know. It's stupid, 'self-service' checkouts. More trouble than they're worth

I'm with you there. Have always preferred the checkout. Good staff at my local Tesco.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

If you're rubbish at scanning, have uppity bags or buy lots of alcohol, you can provide just as much real person employment by using the "self-serve" checkouts as the manned ones, in my experience.

I know. It's stupid, 'self-service' checkouts. More trouble than they're worth

None in LIDL

Or in any of the family owned businesses we are lucky enough to still have in our little town

[howsillyofme1]

I can moderate my honey intake
I should have made my point more clear
I'm less concerned about the toxicity of the honey than I am with the unsuitability of some insecticides
Bees gone means game over

Although bees are not the main pollinators - lots of other things are too and I don't think issues with bees will go away with banning of some insecticides.

I don't think anyone wants to see issues with pollinators but farmers have problems with insects damaging crops and will use something else which may or may not be as harmful as the neonics - but are of less interest to the NGO's at the moment. Organic insecticides can be included in this as well

Saying that I am not an expert on the toxic impacts so I will let those who are argue it out and come to a decision

I personally think the mass extinctions caused by climate change is more pressing and has more of an impact on the wildlife than pesticides (which are far less toxic and targeted now than they were in the past) - ban cars anyone?

[Tizme]

BECAUSE WE'RE SOCIAL ANIMALS AND EVEN I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT WITH MACHINES ALL THE SODDING TIME

Greetings all from the wilds of Watford.

Totally agree with you TC. About 20 ish years ago, I worked with a woman [Joyce] who refused to use cash dispensers. When I asked her why, she replied because it ultimately would lead to banks needing less cashiers, so, loss of jobs. She said it was "the thin edge of the wedge". How right she was.

I must admit, I do occasionally use cash dispensers, but I refuse to use self service checkouts. Also automated payment on the 'phone - though it can be nigh on impossible to get past the automated systems. The children are used to hearing me yelling, "just put me through to a frigging human being you freaking heap of crap" or words to that effect!

[Tizme]

BECAUSE WE'RE SOCIAL ANIMALS AND EVEN I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT WITH MACHINES ALL THE SODDING TIME

Greetings all from the wilds of Watford.

Totally agree with you TC. About 20 ish years ago, I worked with a woman [Joyce] who refused to use cash dispensers. When I asked her why, she replied because it ultimately would lead to banks needing less cashiers, so, loss of jobs. She said it was "the thin edge of the wedge". How right she was.

I must admit, I do occasionally use cash dispensers, but I refuse to use self service checkouts. Also automated payment on the 'phone - though it can be nigh on impossible to get past the automated systems. The children are used to hearing me yelling, "just put me through to a frigging human being you freaking heap of crap" or words to that effect!

So as to avoid accusations of 'bad parenting due to use of 'cuss' words', I feel it incumbent upon me to remind everyone my children are in their 20's. None of my bad parenting involved swear words when they were still 'children'. I was far more inventive in my crap parenting.

[HindleA]

Banning cars?-Not unless you make exemptions.The bodies would pile up on a daily basis,for a start.Really a solution for those with choice and not reliant on them,directly or indirectly.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Banning cars?-Not unless you make exemptions.The bodies would pile up on a daily basis,for a start.Really a solution for those with choice and not reliant on them,directly or indirectly.

It would certainly need a step change and a half in public transport provision, but maybe we shouldn't rule it out. I mean if you could take Uber logistics and couple it with green public transport ideals....

[HindleA]

Sorry steadfastly against or at least be conscience of accounting for care workers etc and the taking away of what may be the only avenue of independent travel regardless of public transport.I realise I speak from.a certain perspective.

[howsillyofme1]

Banning cars?-Not unless you make exemptions.The bodies would pile up on a daily basis,for a start.Really a solution for those with choice and not reliant on them,directly or indirectly.

I don't drive, never have and so you can live a life without them....but that is not the argument I am making

I think the risks posed by pesticide use are well understood in the main, regulators are hazard focused and so are very strict - even in the US (until Trump defenestrated the EPA). I am not a fan of hazard based assessments and think risk based ones are more appropriate . Pesticides are getting more selective, more complex, lower risk profiles and more active (leading to much lower usages)

I do not see them as being though the great danger to the world that some of these hysterical articles portray and the noise is not always commensurate with the actual risks -1ng/g ffs.......

The point I was making that climate change is already having significant effects on populations and the "C world is already with us - can we prevent it reaching 4C? I see this as a much greater risk and so was the source of my facetious comment on cars

PS I work for a company that makes pesticides.....I use them in the labs and I know the toxicities and the details of what we do to try to make the products as safe as we can. No perfect by any means but not always the ogres portrayed as. If you think that I would work for a company that has the morals and ethics that are portrayed in the press and by certain NGOs then fair enough but I would just say don't treat everything you see from the NGOs as the absolute truth and don't think they don't have an agenda as well

My view on agriculture is we need a mixed approach with much less waste, much less animal feed and use whatever science can provide to help us

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Sorry steadfastly against or at least be conscience of accounting for care workers etc and the taking away of what may be the only avenue of independent travel regardless of public transport.I realise I speak from.a certain perspective.

For clarity I'm not for banning anything really. I'm quite a small l liberal that way.

What I'm saying is it would be good to imagine public transport that was so good you would choose it over your car (well maybe not you HindleA ).

[howsillyofme1]

Sorry steadfastly against or at least be conscience of accounting for care workers etc and the taking away of what may be the only avenue of independent travel regardless of public transport.I realise I speak from.a certain perspective.

I am playing devil's advocate but if climate change is the threat it is portrayed as then at some point cars will need to be massively reduced....along with many other changes to our lifestyles.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

[PorFavor]

@citizenJA

Night night.

[HindleA]

@howsilly.I don't drive,We have a choice of independent travel.Many don't.Perhaps think of having to be accompanied every time you left the house.

[PorFavor]

Night night.

[RogerOThornhill]

Evening all. Busy day today which is why I have been MIA.

This might be the most laughably bad post that Brendan O'Neill has ever written.

This is a fact, I'm afraid: if Emily Thornberry or Diane Abbott had coughed and spluttered during their conference speeches, any journalist who ridiculed or mocked them would be accused of misogyny and / or racism. There would be a million thinkpieces. "The sexism of calling out women for having a cold"; "Why focusing on women's physical ailments IS misogyny"; "White men laughing at Diane Abbott's sniffle is what racism looks like". Vice would make a video showing white male politicians coughing too. It would be shared 500,000 times. There'd be gifs of Gove once having a coughing fit. The Guardian would publish a longread on all the times in history women were treated as too prone to illness to engage in public life. Twitter would go into meltdown. Imagine the hashtags. #coughsexismcough But Theresa May is a Tory so she is not covered by the media sisterhood. You're on your own, T!

There you go - you discuss something which hasn't actually happened, call it a fact...and whine about it.



How people still think he's on the left is beyond me...

[howsillyofme1]

@howsilly.I don't drive,We have a choice of independent travel.Many don't.Perhaps think of having to be accompanied every time you left the house.

MrA I am not advocating cars be banned - I am just trying to say (badly) that some of the reactions we have are not actually justified based on the reality

Some of these articles make it seem like the end of the world is nigh due to pesticides when the reality is we are living longer with more access to food (although the Tories are trying their best to change this) than we ever have been in history

Biodiversity and ecological damage is on the rise though and excessive use of pesticides has a part to play in that but not to the levels justifying the hyperbole we see in some quarters.

The main threat and the main cause of ecological issues is climate change - by a massive distance but we are reluctant to actually do anything about it whereas we are quite happy to see pesticides banned.

If we are serious about protecting the planet then there are other things that come before insecticides (which I actually think are only partly responsible for the issues we see with bees - there are other causative factors as well) on the concern list

[HindleA]

Fair enough.A knee jerk reaction to your "ban cars",question,on my part.

[tinyclanger2]

I can moderate my honey intake
I should have made my point more clear
I'm less concerned about the toxicity of the honey than I am with the unsuitability of some insecticides
Bees gone means game over

Although bees are not the main pollinators - lots of other things are too and I don't think issues with bees will go away with banning of some insecticides.

I don't think anyone wants to see issues with pollinators but farmers have problems with insects damaging crops and will use something else which may or may not be as harmful as the neonics - but are of less interest to the NGO's at the moment. Organic insecticides can be included in this as well

Saying that I am not an expert on the toxic impacts so I will let those who are argue it out and come to a decision

I personally think the mass extinctions caused by climate change is more pressing and has more of an impact on the wildlife than pesticides (which are far less toxic and targeted now than they were in the past) - ban cars anyone?

Ideally, but limit, certainly.

Edited to add, the above is my response to HSOM's initial post before reading the rest of the posts on this. Totally agree with all comments (esp Mr H on different perspectives) but I do believe that we'll all be a bit ****ed if our attitude to fuel doesn't change. It's the fuel not the car that's the problem.

One thing I noticed the other day is that electric cars will need to make a noise. One reason (as a committed user of public transport/pedestrianism) that I 'prefer' cars to bikes is that I can hear the ****ers coming (and they're generally not on the pavement).

[tinyclanger2]

https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.c ... -partners/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Brexit made EU27 more determined that the Union is our common future … will work with India as strategic partners’

[HindleA]

Exceptions contingent for some people and circumstances surely,though surely ie.how do you continue facillitate in own home care by not exempting categories of workers,people using direct payments to go out including to hospital appointments etc,otherwise far more expensive taxis or hospital transport.Even if excellent public transport not a feasible option for many,certainly alone.I can't see limiting advocation being anything more than more deleterious to those with already limited options,I am afraid.

[tinyclanger2]

As I said I agree there would need to be exceptions.
My beef is with a) fuel and b) the notion that for everyone on the planet a car is a human right.
No matter how many more people die due to cars that to terrorism.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Question Time was a little better tonight. Angela Rayner from Labour was impressive, but I'm a bit of a fan of hers so maybe there's some bias on my part. Fraser (worst accent in the world) Nelson was his usual smug twat of a self and the lass from Hull who was on the Apprentice did ok.

The star of the show for me however was in the audience, a Boris Johnson supporting Brexiter who when asked to explain his position decided to express himself by waving his arms about in peculiar gestures while blurting out "Boris is for Britain". It's always good to have one's prejudices confirmed.

[HindleA]

You can always hear me coughing swearing or panting to alert others of an approaching bicycle.

[HindleA]

Or indeed of a pedestrian.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

On the subject of automated checkout tills, or in fact the lack of actual human checkout staff, I was in Tesco earlier and there were substantial queues with hardly any staff on the tills. So I was standing there with my basket behind a couple of people with trolleys full of stuff waiting my turn when this guy in (I guess) his early sixties joined the queue behind me and started making disgruntled noises. Out of sheer boredom I engaged him in conversation and he went off on one about it being a 'disgrace' that they didn't have more checkout staff and how waiting about 10 minutes was 'ruining his evening' and such like. To which I pointed out that such perceived problems were in fact rather petty concerns in the grand scheme of things, for example despite the delay it was unlikely he'd be shot on the way home by some arsehole with a semi automatic rifle, or have his fingers broken by the police, or get home to find it burned and he and his family having to flee the country. This did not amuse him one bit and afterwards we stood in an awkward silence. When I put that plastic thing on the belt to seperate our shopping he did not thank me.

[HindleA]

I fell out with Tesco we are not talking.The buy one get one free con,where several oranges does not result in the same several more but one orange.

[HindleA]

The Tory bastards never paid my £10 Christmas bonus with one of my pensions in 2015.Quite quick reaction for me.