http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/20/monsantos-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-rats-real-scientists-deeply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/ "Their claim is that the rats fed GM corn and Roundup got more such tumours earlier than the control group. The criticism of this finding is that the control group was simply too small to allow such an observation to be made with any certainty. And they have not conducted, or at least not presented, the standard statistical tests which would allow they or us to determine whether the results were the outcome of pure blind chance." http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/anti-gmo-researchers-used-science-publication-to-manipulate-the-press/ "Any journalist that wanted to receive an advance copy was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement before receiving one. That agreement prohibited the outlet from sharing the results with any outside experts before the embargo lifted. In other words, if a press outlet wanted to be one of the first to cover the story, it would have to run the story without having any experts sanity check the paper." "The embargo lifted during a live press conference from the researchers, hosted in London in cooperation with the Sustainable Food Trust. The SFT conveniently had a press release prepared; a release claiming that the research was "supported by independent research organization, CRIIGEN." However, this neglected to note that the paper's lead author, Eric Seralini, is on the CRIIGEN board." Conflict of interest, and keeping the newspapers from doing any fact checking before publication ... that's not accepted protocol. https://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/stenographers-anyone-gmo-rat-study-co-sponsor-engineered-embargo-to-prevent-scrutiny/ " One of the main reasons for embargoes �" if you take many journals at their word �" is to give reporters more time to write better stories. Part of how you do that is talking to outside experts. And scientists �" ones interested in science, anyway, not those interested in spin and political points �" should welcome that kind of scrutiny."

Both common and glossy buckthorn are absolutely, without a doubt, DESTROYING vast wooded areas up here. Shade tolerant and very prolific, they easily move into wooded areas and set up shop. Once established they prevent EVERYTHING else from growing there. No more spring wildflowers, no more tree seedlings. Even maples, which are as a group very shade tolerant themselves, will not regenerate under the buckthorns. If you don't think something like this is a problem, it is because you lack the awareness of, and appreciation for, what was there before. Every exotic species is not invasive. I intend to plant some Norway spruce, for example, on land I plan to buy. Norway spruce can reproduce in this area, but will never become a problem plant. This discussion absolutely calls for a nuanced approach. Banning the use of ALL non-native species would be hugely ill-advised. But taking the view that any plant that can grow in a given locale should therefor be allowed to do so is just plain ignorant. The buckthorn invasion up here has been described as a slow-motion catastrophe, by people that can see and understand what's happening. Again, I think that people that don't see these invaders as problems have little understanding of the havoc they are causing. +oM

OK, it's easy to get excited about something when there is no apparent reason to suspect that it may be a scam. Gasoline and Diesel fuel are actually both blends of lots of different hydrocarbon chemicals. Thats just one of the reasons we have computer controls that provide instant adjustment of air fuel ratio's and timing curves. Oh, and yes today's diesels are computer contolled we simply have to wait for the fleet to age and pass before the majority of diesels are computer controlled. IMO, no additive dumped in a fuel tank is going to make a significant improvement in the efficiency, and cleanliness of the older designs. No additive is going to improve today's automobiles. What you described about getting people into this "investment" has all of the appearance of a classic pyramid scheme. The only guarantee's about that are a few people will get some money, and some of them will return it (or at least some of it) under the threat of prosecution. Many will lose their "investment". Pyramid schemes are illegal, and for good reason. If there was any merit to this product, they would have no short list of people (with big bucks) interested in investing, and they wouldn't be looking for the "little guy".

How you feel about winning a particular medal is a relative thing. Going in to a competition expecting to win nothing, you would probably be elated to win Bronze. Going into the same competition expecting to take Gold and ending up with Bronze, that's a completely different feeling. Not that I'm excusing anyone, just that I can completely understand. It's human to feel disappointed when losing a hard fought game. On the other hand, do ya just LOVE Apolo Ohno? He got disqualified in that final round in the 500 meter when he could have won silver. I'm CERTAIN he was disappointed, and he made some remarks regarding the fact that he disagreed with the judges' decision, but he still smiled and said how he had no regrets and felt that he'd had a successful and satisfying time. And speaking of speed skating controversial decisions, the judge who disqualified the Chinese team in the women's relay received threats on his LIFE! How's that for sportsmanship? Ah well, it's over. It was great fun to watch. Congratulations to ALL the winners. Looking forward to the summer games in London in 2012.