Silence from almost all schools, LizzyM 73, complete all places early September

[babolat91]

Citation needed.

I usually buy organic simply because I'm not satisfied with the amount of research done about the effect of pesticides on human health.

Here's a study by the NIH linking pesticides to Parkinson's disease.
http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...-two-pesticides-associated-parkinsons-disease

Just because you have some weird bias against organics doesn't mean they don't have their benefits.

I've been researching organic vs. conventional agriculture for several years now. it is something I am extremely passionate about.

Organic agriculture uses pesticides. It is a common misconception that USDA-organic means 'pesticide free'.

Source: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...demonization-organic-farmers-widely-use-them/

Here is the list of USDA-approved organic pesticides:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7

This list includes: Copper sulfate, elemental sulfur, borax and borates which have all been shown to cause harm to humans. Rotenone, spinosad, limne sulfur, kaolin clay are all allowed as well.

Bt is the most commonly used pesticide and accounts for 90% of organic pest control market.

I believe you are mistaking 'local grown' with 'organic'. A local grown farm is likely to be 'organic' and pesticide-free because they do not grow a large enough yield to require chemical intensive pest management.

When organic farms scale up to produce the same yield as conventional, they begin using pesticides.

Source: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

"Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid's predators"

Also, if you know anything about the field of toxicology, you are aware that dose-response relationships for both synthetic and organic pesticides are well-studied in order to establish acute and chronic toxicity (LD50), and other studies have shown that consumers are not exposed to dangerous pesticide levels from their food.

Source - http://www.thepacker.com/news/study-pesticide-exposure-risk-consumers-low

"“Chronic dietary exposure to pesticides in the diet, according to results of the FDA’s 2004–2005 (Total Diet Study), continue to be at levels far below those of health concern,” he writes. “Consumers should be encouraged to eat fruits, vegetables, and grains, and should not fear the low levels of pesticide residues found in such foods.”

Look, I'm not trying to derail this thread. I already said that people should message me if they want to continue this conversation. So if you want to keep chatting, feel free to message me!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bearintraining]

Citation needed.

I usually buy organic simply because I'm not satisfied with the amount of research done about the effect of pesticides on human health.

Here's a study by the NIH linking pesticides to Parkinson's disease.
http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...-two-pesticides-associated-parkinsons-disease

Just because you have some weird bias against organics doesn't mean they don't have their benefits.

The previous post is accurate regarding nutritional value, and environmental differences are debatable. But YES, your point in bold is the real issue behind why organic is good for you. There's an infographic somewhere that lists the "dirty" (i.e. most contaminated) fruits and veggies that one should buy organic, and the ones that you don't need to. That's what I think is the most responsible guideline to buying organic.

 

[babolat91]

The previous post is accurate regarding nutritional value, and environmental differences are debatable. But YES, your point in bold is the real issue behind why organic is good for you. There's an infographic somewhere that lists the "dirty" (i.e. most contaminated) fruits and veggies that one should buy organic, and the ones that you don't need to. That's what I think is the most responsible guideline to buying organic.

Organic agriculture uses pesticides. See my other post.

Here is more information on organic ag vs. conventional:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html

"The majority of Americans believe that organic foods are healthier than food grown using conventional methods. The majority of Americans are wrong. Two systematic reviews, one from Stanford University and the other by a team of researchers based out of the United Kingdom, turned up no evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or lead to better health-related outcomes for consumers."

"But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides." In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides."

"So why are the misconceptions so pervasive? According to an in-depth report by Academics Review, a group founded by University of Illinois nutritional scientist Bruce M. Chassy and University of Melbourne food scientist David Tribe, the organic and natural-products industry -- which is worth an estimated $63 billion worldwide -- has engaged in a "pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal." Like their succulent fruits and scrumptious vegetables that we eat, the organic industry has given consumers a nibble of untruth and a taste of fear, and have allowed misunderstanding to sow and spread while they reap the benefits.

Commenting on the extensive report on his popular podcast, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Novella had some blunt words for the organic industry.

"People buy organic because they think it's better for the environment; it's not. It's safer; it's not. It tastes better; it doesn't. It's more nutritious; it isn't. And these are all misconceptions that have been deliberately promoted -- according to these authors -- by organic farmers and organic proponents despite the fact that scientific evidence doesn't support any of these claims.""

Again, not trying to derail...

If you want to chat, direct message me.

I think the misconception comes from the belief that farmers market / local grown organic produce is the same thing as the USDA-certified organic produce you buy from a typical grocery store. It's not. That USDA-approved organic "Nature's Promise" apple you get in a grocery store was grown on a massive, chemically and mechanically intensive mono-cropped apple farm. All they did was use 'organic approved' chemicals, which has no baring on the environmental or health risks of said chemical.

 

[jl lin]

I disagree with this viewpoint. At least where I attended undergrad, there's a very strict grading distribution employed. You'd have to look at what courses the student had taken and consider factors such as the class GPA to really be able to discern that the student was "lazy". And really, isn't this the entire point of the MCAT? to ensure that people are considered on the same footing and to the same standard? I would be surprised if even the brightest students could ace the MCAT without a fair bit of studying.

But she didn't just bring that part into it. She included the low EC hours into her opinion.

 

[DokterMom]

But she didn't just bring that part into it. She included the low EC hours into her opinion.

Exactly -- And clarified that it's "my first thought". Though 3,500 applications in, you might not get to 'thought two' unless there was something compelling in your PS - some sort of hook, or unless the school was well-known for grade deflation or the tippy-top academic caliber of the students they admit.

 

[jl lin]

[

 

[t0bes]

Hey guys... sorry to derail the thread's new subject matter but 😛 😛 😛

I'm not sure it's worth it to move to the US, specifically to a state with some good IS bias, because it would take me at least a year of residency to gain resident status, am I wrong? I know that it works that way with being able to pay the IS rate at medical schools in New York State, which is to say, I know it takes a year of residency to gain OFFICIAL resident status.

Basically, if I were to move on, say... May 1st... and then submit AMCAS in June with my New York state address... would the schools treat me as an in-state applicant? Anybody know?

 

[t0bes]

Update: I'll just make a new thread

 

[Wolf3D]

Came across this again and wanted to say that it is OP's PS that did him in. Spend time writing an reflective personal statement, kiddies.. Hope this helps someone out there who wonders why their friend (or themselves) with the good grades and ECs came back empty-handed.

 

[texan2414]

Saw in your first post - only 8 hrs of shadowing.