Need advice: storing pre soaked beans

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
@GG---- in post # 17 you referenced something that my 'find' function can't find. :)

And, strangely, when I 'quoted' for this post it didn't appear!

So here is it:

"Quote:
Some scientists pointed out that the types of experimental rats used in the study are prone to tumors, says NPR. David Spiegelhalter, a professor at the University of Cambridge whose specialty is the public perception of risk, said in the New York Times that the “numbers of animals in each group was too low to draw firm conclusions.”

In addition, other scientists pointed out that the rats who ate a diet with a GMO concentration of 11 percent were less healthy than those whose diet contained a GMO concentration of 33 percent: if the experiment intended to show a link between developing tumors and GMOs, those who ate more GMOs should have been less healthy.

In Reuters, Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, observed that, since genetically modified food has “been in the food chain” in the U.S. for over ten years, “If the effects [of Seralini's study] are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?”"

You were referencing AnthonyJs post:

Quote (In AnthonyJ's post)

The health effects of Roundup cannot be understated. Research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and cancers. Laboratory rats that eat Monsanto’s GMO food get tumors and die faster than rats that eat other food. Most children in Argentina where Roundup is used in high concentrations have been found to be in poor health, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.

Read more: 75% Percent of Rain and Air Samples Contain Roundup Pesticide | Care2 Causes"


Since that "75%" article was the only actual link AnthonyJ had offered I went to it and couldn't find what YOU said was there. Maybe my Find function didn't work as good as it should.

Clear as mud??? :ohmy:

If you would post the url to your quote I'd appreciate it.
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Thank you---- I hadn't followed all the links within links.

And that proves that a study has to be devised so the results are non-biased. Sadly, that's not true of all research since the agency or group funding it plays a large part in how the study is constructed.

That's true to an extent, but every institution that conducts research has at least one Institutional Review Board that reviews proposed research and study design for soundness. At the medical school where I used to work, the IRBs included researchers from other institutions and members of the community. Not saying it's a foolproof method, but they're there :)
 
That's true to an extent, but every institution that conducts research has at least one Institutional Review Board that reviews proposed research and study design for soundness. At the medical school where I used to work, the IRBs included researchers from other institutions and members of the community. Not saying it's a foolproof method, but they're there :)

No, not foolproof at all. When a large amount of money might be garnered from a positive review well, then foolproof goes out the door. That holds true for both for-profit and not-for-profit IRBs.

A good pro and con discussion is found here:

PLOS Medicine: Should Society Allow Research Ethics Boards to Be Run As For-Profit Enterprises?

Snip:
"Why might we think that for-profit IRBs do these functions poorly? Perhaps being for-profit, they need to woo business, and so they are less independent of their clients, less inclined to be critical, and more inclined to overlook ethical problems.

But these potential difficulties are not unique to for-profit IRBs. Researchers who sit on not-for-profit, academic IRBs are evaluating their colleagues' research protocols, so these IRB members also have ties that may compromise their independence and critical evaluations. Furthermore, many academics tend to view IRB service as an uncompensated burden, which is not conducive to careful review work. Academic medical centers and their researchers also have their own financial interests in getting research protocols passed. They get money—as well as access to new drugs and prestige—for conducting the research. Many not-for-profit IRBs are also charging drug and device companies for review of their research protocols, and their rates are comparable to the rates charged by for-profit IRBs."

And Wiki also has something to say about IRBs--- both good and bad---- just as the PLOS article does.

There will be good IRBs and bad IRBs. Just saying an IRB has conducted the review isn't enough to guarantee a full ethical review, as you, GG, implied.
 
My husband was telling me that some disillusioned scientists are trying to set up a system where studies are submitted to scientific journals before they are run and where the scientists promise to publish whatever results they get.
 
So back to my question from yesterday. If you don't trust the government, the universities or the companies, on what do you base your decisions? Alternative sites that don't actually do any research?
 
My husband was telling me that some disillusioned scientists are trying to set up a system where studies are submitted to scientific journals before they are run and where the scientists promise to publish whatever results they get.

Would that be PLOS?

PLOS ONE : accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

"Rigorous Peer-Review

Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/s think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication of your work. PLOS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them)."

(That's the PLOS view of their journals. There are people who don't share that view. I'm somewhere in the middle, see below.)

There are many other open access sites and they all have their good points and their bad points. I happen to have been privy to many discussions about these on another forums---- for years.

I believe that each article 'rushed to print' has to be assessed on it's own and not lumped in with others that may be too rushed or even flawed on many levels.

On the other hand I've also seen journal articles by established medical journals that are flawed on many levels.

TL--- I know you weren't dismissing them, just as I'm not defending them but there are almost always two sides of each coin.
 
I don't know if it was that. As I understood it, the data would have to be published, even if it didn't agree with someone's pet theory.
 
I don't know if it was that. As I understood it, the data would have to be published, even if it didn't agree with someone's pet theory.

Well THAT would be a breath of fresh air! :LOL:
Thanks for replying.
 
Yeah, science advances based on evidence. More people should remember what Edison said about his "failures" to make an electric light bulb, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
 
So back to my question from yesterday. If you don't trust the government, the universities or the companies, on what do you base your decisions? Alternative sites that don't actually do any research?

I'm not sure what you would think as ''proof'' of why I don't trust them. But I first want to make it clear that I'm very happy that we DO have the FDA, universities and most companies. But it's not a blanket endorsement of them for there are times when all of them fail us at some level.

The Bayh-Dole Act and it's consequences is one of the 'proofs' while not giving you a 'hand in the cookie jar' video.

So here are some things I dug out from my saved documents from other discussions in other forums.

FDA
Wiki
"The FDA's federal budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2012 totaled $4.36 billion,[2] while the proposed 2014 budget is $4.7 billion.[8] About $2 billion of this budget is generated by user fees. Pharmaceutical firms pay the
majority of these fees,[8] which are used to expedite drug reviews
."

Citation # 8 on Wiki
*************************************
"The drug industry is already the primary funder of the FDA’s operational budget through the payment of user fees. The FDA’s proposed 2014 budget, a whopping $4.7 billion, includes a proposed increase of $821 million, 94
percent of which is to be funded by drug companies. While some believe self-funded regulatory agencies to be a good thing, others feel it allows industry to have major leverage over FDA policy decision making. "

Drug Take-Back Programs Coming To A Municipality Near You
***********************************
Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
**************************

Dr. Herbert L. Ley, Jr ----retired FDA Commissioner ----said:
"After his resignation, in an interview to the New York Times, Dr. Ley warned the public about the FDA’s inability to safeguard consumers. People were being misled, he believed “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them - it isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day,” he said. The agency, in his opinion, did not have the motivation to protect consumers, faced budget shortfalls, and lacked support from the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare ."

Herbert L. Ley, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
****************************************
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/OralHistories/SelectedOralHistoryTranscripts/UCM265774.pdf

(Pages 42-47) Kinslow Report
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what's being discussed here. I thought the topic had to do with beans. :ermm:

:LOL::LOL:

Yeah, it has drifted, hasn't it? From Faraday cages to GMO to IRBs to the FDA and other excursions. I figured since it was OP AnthonyJ who brought up the topic of the FDA that he would be o.k. with further discussion about it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom