According to Dan's English you just predicted both a Dem and Republican will win the presidency.
Rita didn't hit Galveston much less obliterate it.
No wonder your predictions suck. 6 years after the fact you don't even know what happens, how the are you going to know beforehand?!??!!?!?!?!?
was the public ever notified of this problem?
Thank you for taking time away from your conscripted service in Iraq to point this out.
Of course not...it was all kept quiet by the cattle industry and thousands of cows were destroyed to cover up the plague? end of problem right? right?
Talk to the thousands of soldiers who did their time in combat duty but had to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan, away from their families and in harm's way....do you even care about the military or are they just a political tool for you when convenient?
How many of those soldiers were/are conscriptions?
Nice strawman BTW.......
You are conscripted when you are forced into a combat zone beyond the obligation that you originally agreed for, soldier or not....
Ah yes. The Vast Cow Wing Conspiracy.
is there still a problem?
has anyone been diagnosed with BSE in these last 5-6 years?
sounds like something from The Far Side
sounds like something from The Far Side
First, this is clearly not the situation you were talking about in your original prediction. Your request to move the goal posts is hereby denied.
Second, "solider or not" makes a world of difference. Soldiers signed enlistment papers that explained "stop loss" to them when they volunteered. That's a completely different scenario than someone who has no interest in volunteering to serve getting conscripted into service.
Can't find something we don't test for (appropriately) now can we...
as far as its effect on humans...ever hear of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease?The surveillance program has been a source of controversy in areas related to testing protocol, announcement of inconclusive results, and an incident in Texas in May 2004 in which an animal exhibiting central nervous system symptoms was not tested for the disease. Inconclusive (or false positive) test results are expected with the Bio-Rad rapid screening test used by USDA. The false positive rate is variously estimated at between one in 50,000 to as little as one in 300,000 tests. Thus far, the USDA has announced three inconclusive results—two in June 2004 and one in November 2004—all of which, upon confirmatory testing using immunohistochemistry (IHC), were found to be negative. The initial announcements of inconclusive cases were controversial and led the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to revise their announcement procedure—delaying announcement until a sample produced two inconclusive results with the rapid test. Concern about potential market disruption due to false positives is one reason cited by opponents of wider scale or voluntary testing. For example, following the announcement of the third inconclusive test result on the morning of November 18, 2004, most live cattle futures contracts opened around $2/cwt lower than the previous day's close, and many moved limit down that day. Very light sales in the cash market in the following days were likely the short-run cash market reaction to the news.
At the same time, there has been speculation that the USDA deliberately chose a test with a relatively high rate of inconclusive results as a means of desensitizing markets to the possible discovery of true positive cases (Mitc , 2004). Also controversial is the USDA's choice of IHC as their "gold standard" test. In February 2005, Consumers Union called on the USDA to retest inconclusive samples using the Western Blot test, which, they argued, was more sensitive and more objective. According to the Consumers Union, the Western Blot test is used as the confirmatory test in Japan and Europe and had been used previously by the USDA to confirm the December 2003 Washington State case. (See Pruisner, 2004, for more information on BSE testing.)
The future of the surveillance program has not yet been decided. Industry officials have called for it to be scaled back. Not surprisingly, some consumer advocacy groups favor wider scale testing. For example, a March 16, 2005 editorial in The New York Times proposed that "the only responsible way to resume international trade in beef is to ensure the health of the cattle. And the only way to do that is to test the cattle—all of them, if need be."
In what turned out to be a particularly thorny issue for the USDA, in July 2004 the agency denied an application by a small Kansas beef processor, Creekstone Farms, for permission to voluntarily test slaughter cattle in an attempt to regain access to the Japanese export market. The beef industry is sharply divided on the issue of voluntary testing. Proponents tend to view it in terms of a marketing decision with expected benefits outweighing costs, at least in the short run. Indeed, our analysis for the Kansas Department of Agriculture (Coffey et al., 2005) suggests a potential net benefit ranging from $27.50 to $48.50 per head (before fixed costs) if voluntary testing restored full access to the Japanese and South Korean markets. Opponents argue that BSE testing is unnecessary and costly, that it sets a dangerous precedent in terms of acquiescing to an unreasonable customer demand, and that it is not scientifically valid and provides no risk-reduction benefit to consumers. Large US meat processor stances regarding BSE testing suggest that the investments and logistics of large-scale testing, in addition to the potential impact on demand of a positive case, are such that it is a losing proposition for bigger firms—perhaps in particular for those diversified either internationally or across meat products. For a single small firm, on the other hand—especially one more heavily reliant on export sales to high-quality foreign markets than the major packers—the situation is different. If voluntary testing provided export market access, it could produce substantial monopoly-type benefits in the short run. Creekstone officials have stated that their increased revenue from regaining access to the Japanese market would far exceed the testing cost of $20 or less per head. Thus, for Creekstone, the private incentive to pursue testing was fairly clear. It is worth noting however, that this scenario would produce no benefit for producers, because increased demand from a single small firm would have a negligible impact on cattle prices. However, if testing did provide market access, more firms would be attracted to testing, and domestic cattle prices would increase.
Finally, regarding the current surveillance effort, it is not yet clear how successful the USDA has been in its efforts to sample the targeted high-risk groups. The APHIS website provides no breakdown of samples by animal categories (Table 1), in contrast to the UK, where detailed breakdowns for various risk categories in the active surveillance programs are provided (Table 2). Clearly, no one associated with the US beef industry wants to find this disease. However, the perception that officials may have la ude in terms of sample selection, rumors about animals not sampled, and allegations by at least one former USDA employee about the mishandling of potentially positive test samples, does not help engender confidence among foreign buyers or policy decision makers. Critics have commented that Germany did not begin to find BSE until it allowed private testing. If the disease is truly not present in the US herd, then the industry has little to fear from allowing expanded private testing. However, what are the odds that the surveillance program in place during 2003 managed to detect the only BSE-infected cow in a herd of 100 million?
Got a link instead of a cut-n-paste?
it's all wiki....sorry...
When I wiki Mad Cow Disease, I get very little.
Mad cow disease
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page or section does not have any sources. You can help Wikipedia by finding sources, and adding them. Tagged since June 2009
Cow with mad cow disease, unable to stand and trying to dig a hole
Mad cow disease is the common name of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. It's a disease that affects a cow's nervous system. It comes from the chemistry structure of prion protein. When cattle get this disease, they have holes forming in their brains. The brain becomes spongy and begins to waste away. The cattle become very violent and show signs of mental disorder and have trouble when they move. It has a long incubation period, about 4~5 years. Cattle that are 4~5 years old can get the disease very easily.
It was not a common disease, but in 1996 the Minister of Health and Welfare in England said that it could be contracted by humans. Mad cow disease has damaged the cattle industry. Some food was made from cattle that had the disease. In the England, the nation that worst affected, more than 179,000 cattle were infected and 4.4 million were killed in an attempt to get rid of the disease.
[change]Korea
Last year, Korean President Lee's negotiations about the import of beef from the USA made the public angry. Many people went to the square in front of city hall and protested. It caused a lot of trouble, and the approval rating of the president sharply decreased. The government is working hard to protect people from the disease.
is it because the date is old that you didn't source your info?
lol 2005
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2005-.../2005-2-03.htm
do you have anything more recent?
vaguely.as far as its effect on humans...ever hear of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease?
how many people have acquired CJD from a cow?
What a doozy this thread is.
Wiki, huh?
what's even better is that the conclusion in Dan's source is as follows:Wiki, huh?
good thread.Beef, like any other food, is not and never can be 100% risk free. However, today's salient risk is not mad cow disease.
As of June 2008, the total number of vCJD cases identified in residents of the United States is three; all of which were epidemiologically linked to likely exposures to cattle products contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, commonly known as “mad cow disease”)while residing in the United Kingdom (2 cases) or Saudi Arabia (1 case).
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/vcjd/...s_06122008.htm
vCJD was identified in 1996.
This was likely covered up by the VCWC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
