You are an angel. This was very much what I was looking like. Thank you!
flicker
joined 4 months ago
Came to say this!
Thick, curly waist-length hair requires that I be in there. God help me if I want to do a second pass at it.
That is a very fun fact.
Woah. Soulism is actually pretty cool.
...I only read a quick description just now for the first time so if I'm about to stumble into some insanity, don't spoil it for me.
The stories I could tell you from my time as a caregiver for adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities...
::: TW: neglect, abuse, SA
Here is a link to a lawsuit against Clover Bottom Mental Hospital, which was one of these institutions. The lawsuit happened in 1993. This was not that long ago.
"At the defendant state institutions, plaintiffs spend their days waiting out the hours. They sprawl in ill-fitting wheelchairs or carts. They are parked in dayrooms or hallways unattended, or are left alone in their rooms. Many plaintiffs languish in hospital beds or cribs, with no stimulation except when they are changed or fed. Others are left in wheelchairs, unattended for hours, with no stimulation or human contact available to them."
"Plaintiffs' basic care needs are ignored; they are left alone for hours. Clover Bottom residents in diapers are often wet, their clothes soaked through with urine."
"Defendants have failed to protect residents of the institutions from physical abuse and neglect."
"Verbal abuse is widespread. Staff at Clover Bottom use abrupt, verbal commands to communicate with residents; often, they scream at them."
There is so much more, and so much worse. The thing is, some of these folks are still alive, and still members of our community, and they still have the evidence of this ongoing trauma writ large. The current system isn't ideal. There's never enough care, and the people who are providing care are often under-trained and under-paid and over-worked. But at least it's better than this.
ETA: I had to come back and add: I left out all the sexual abuse. There was... a lot. There's evidence. It's mentioned in that lawsuit but there are stories I can't bring myself to tell. :::
So like I said, there can be satisfaction in breaking the rules. But you're still going to get the obvious repercussions.
If I called a nazi a nazi and get punished for it, I'd wear that shit proud, not bitch about it. And things being the rules doesn't make them moral. But you can still deserve the reaction you got, even if you were right in everything you did, and when that happens, you should be thrilled, not complaining.
If I called a nazi a nazi and got punished for it, I wouldn't be posted to YPTB, because that's not power tripping. I'd be posting it everywhere else that there are nazis, and don't you want to come call one of them a nazi and collect your trophy ban?
Man, what a comeback story, No Man's Sky!
I'm psyched for Light No Fire.
Here's a link to the song "Pet" by A Perfect Circle.
Don't know why your comment made me want to add this.
I don't know why your comment made me think you might know. Oh, well, thanks anyway.
YDI.
I'm not usually one to be a tone police bastard, but (hope I'm tagging this right) @[email protected] was right.
Rule #3 on [email protected] "Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don’t post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don’t troll nor incite hatred. Don’t look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia’s List of fallacies." Emphasis mine. "No the German authorities are the racist idiots. And so is anyone agreeing with the German authorities." That's pretty obviously insulting.
I really want to stress that my judgement here is independent of the point you were making. No one provoked you. You can read the rules. You could easily have made your point without insulting someone, but you chose to be insulting. And don't get me wrong, you can take satisfaction in doing that, if you're doing it on purpose and you feel it's called for, but you still would've deserved it for breaking the rules of that space.
I happen to recall that in this scene, she's speaking nonsense Italian words (she doesn't actually know Italian) but the first time they show it (and the viewer doesn't know she can't speak Italian) they show Speaking in Italy... and later when they're showing that she's saying words, but they're nonsense, it still says 'Speaking in Italy'!
This is not a big deal but it is entirely wrong. Why do I care so much about this?!
(The close caption is wrong in a lot of places on this copy of The IT Crowd, but that's the most ridiculous.)
Edit: Later in the episode they show a speakerphone, on which, an Italian man is speaking. The caption for this? "Voicemail in Italy." What!
15 days ago CrimeDad posted to this community, What's the deal with Moms Across America? And I promised I'd emailed Snopes about it. Well, I got an email this morning that they had posted a news article about it, so here it is! Copied below for ease of readability:
In conjunction with the launch of the 2025 "cookie season" from the Girl Scouts of America (GSUSA) claims (archived) spread online that the consumer-favorite snacks tested positive for toxic heavy metals and the herbicide glyphosate.
The claim spread on social media, including via TikTok videos of users capitalizing on said claims to share their recipes for homemade Girl Scout cookies.
The claims also showed up in the Snopes email inbox, with readers concerned that their favorite snacks might be doing harm to their family's health.
(Link to Moms Across America's post on Instagram)
The annual GSUSA cookie sale is a $1 billion industry, according to National Public Radio. The organization calls the annual initiative "the largest entrepreneurial program in the world, [the girls] acquire a host of invaluable entrepreneurial skills, including goal setting, money management, decision-making, people skills and business ethics."
But the self-described consumer group Moms Across America (MAA), in conjunction with GMOScience, the CEO of which is listed as an adviser to MAA on its website, allege the cookies are rife with toxic metals and pesticide. This claim is based on a lab analysis of 25 samples of Girl Scout cookies sourced from three regions of the U.S. that exceed the recommended levels from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for drinking water.
However, as with past claims made by the MAA organization that Snopes investigated, the scope of these tests was limited and the presentation of the results was misleading.
Further, while the lab results did indeed show varying levels of heavy metals and glyphosate, all fall within the tolerated levels safe for consumption as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In short, the FDA says there's no need to throw away those Thin Mints.
Dr. Jessica B. Steier, CEO of Vital Statistics Counseling, public health scientist, health services researcher and host of "The Unbiased Science" podcast, told Snopes via email, "The certified lab results show all tested parameters fall well within established food safety guidelines. The variation between samples is normal and no single result approaches levels of regulatory concern. In fact, the results demonstrate compliance with food safety standards rather than raising red flags. This is total fear mongering."
When asked for comment, MAA and GMOScience maintained their stance on their findings and claimed GSUSA did not respond to their inquiries. Further, they said they met with the FDA and encouraged the agency to replicate the study.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for GSUSA told Snopes via email, "The health and safety of our customers is our top priority. All Girl Scout Cookies are produced by our trusted licensed bakers, who are leaders in their industry and adhere to rigorous food safety standards set by the FDA and other relevant authorities. When you buy Girl Scout Cookies, proceeds stay local, every purchase of Girl Scout Cookies supports local troops in your community."
#What Moms Across America and GMOScience claim the test results show
The alleged study from MAA and GMOScience makes the following specific claims:
100% of the samples were positive for glyphosate.
100% were positive for toxic metals.
22 out of 25 (88%) of samples were positive for all 5 toxic metals.
76% were positive for levels of cadmium that exceed EPA limits in water.
24 out of 25 (96%) of samples were positive for lead.
Michelle Perro, CEO of GMO Science, told Snopes via email:
"What we can say is that in our research the entire sample of 25 cookies were positive for glyphosate/AMPA and toxic metals. The responsible thing to do by the Girl Scouts is to have their own cookies tested and demonstrate that indeed we were incorrect in the analysis. We did reach out to the Girl Scouts several times prior to publication without any response. The laboratories that conducted the studies are fully accredited and meet all national standards. We welcome a third party validation ...
Our goal is to improve the health of our children, which is disastrous. Over 63% of U.S. children now have a chronic disease driven by environmental toxicants which include pesticides and toxic metals. The focus is to make the invisible visible and force our governmental agencies responsible for regulation to do their jobs and set a high bar for industry. Our request, as was for the Girl Scouts, is to switch to organic regenerative ingredients. As you noted in our article, their salaries are egregious, with the head of the Girl Scouts making over $700,000. The Girl Scouts make $. 65 per box of cookies sold. We believe that they should be promoting health, not profits."
The organizations also made a plea to GSUSA to enact a series of steps to rectify the alleged results. A blog post shared on the Moms Across America website read:
- Inform your suppliers that you will only be sourcing wheat and ingredients that are NOT sprayed with glyphosate and other harmful drying agents starting 2026.
- Source non-GMO ingredients starting 2026.
- Require your suppliers to conduct batch testing for pesticides including herbicides such as glyphosate and heavy metals in orders made 2025.
- Remove seed oils and substitute for coconut oil, organic butter, or organic unscented tallow in 2026.
- Start a 2025 program to support Girl Scouts to be champions for Regenerative Organic farming practices and be leaders in creating a healthy America!
"For the record, we were all Girl Scouts and support their mission," Perro told Snopes.
#What the test results actually show
The first piece of testing, performed by Health Research Institute (HRI), a nonprofit research lab, related to glyphosate. According to the EPA, glyphosate is "a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses" that has been registered for use in the United States since 1974.
According to an FDA webpage about the herbicide, the "EPA has established tolerances for glyphosate on a wide range of human and animal food crops, including corn, soybean, oil seeds, grains, and some fruits and vegetables, ranging from 0.1 to 400 parts per million (ppm)."
The HRI lab reports show glyphosate levels for each tested sample fall within EPA parameters deemed safe for human consumption. However, the results are measured in nanograms per gram (ng/g), which after converting to ppm, shows the levels within acceptable ranges.
For example, one sample of Thin Mints sourced from Louisiana tested at 111.07 ng/g for glyphosate, the highest of all the samples tested. This converts to 0.1111 ppm, on par with the lowest tolerance determined by the EPA.
Steier told Snopes that "a 66 lb. child would need to consume approximately 9,000 cookies daily to approach the EPA's chronic reference dose."
Snopes reached out to HRI Labs for further comment on the results and their interpretation by MAA and GMOScience and will update this piece if we hear back.
The second piece of the testing pertained to the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and aluminum, all five of which the report claimed were present in 22 of the 25 samples.
According to the NJ Labs reports, an accredited laboratory that tested the samples for these metals, this is true. Snopes cross-referenced the chart below from GMOScience and found it to accurately reflect the lab reports.
However, GMOScience's chart cites the EPA's regulation of metals within drinking water, an important detail that serves to skew the perception of the data presented. Scientifically speaking, using drinking water standards for food guidelines is comparing apples to oranges. Steier explains:
"The body processes contaminants differently in food versus water, which is why we have separate standards. For example, cadmium from food has a much lower absorption rate than cadmium in water. Additionally, we consume much more water daily than any single food item, which is why water standards are necessarily more stringent. Using water standards to evaluate food creates unnecessary alarm and doesn't reflect how these substances actually interact with our bodies. "
According to the results, arsenic was detected in all but one of the samples, with the highest level being 33.3 parts per billion (ppb). Similarly, cadmium and lead were detected in all but one sample, the highest levels being 38.2 ppb and 42.5 ppb respectively. Mercury was detected in all but three samples, with the highest level clocking in at 21.9 ppb.
Steier told Snopes that "it would take thousands of cookies daily to approach concerning levels of lead or cadmium." She added, "This illustrates the fundamental principle of toxicology that 'the dose makes the poison' — virtually anything can be harmful in sufficient quantities, but the levels detected here are far below amounts that could cause harm through normal consumption."
#According to the FDA:
"These contaminants may occur in the environment naturally (as elements in the earth's crust) and from human activities. Levels in the air, water, and soil used to grow crops, process foods, and raise animals can vary depending on natural geographical differences and proximity to past or current pollution.
The amount of arsenic, lead, cadmium, or mercury in certain foods depends on the amount in the environment and how much the plant or animal "takes up" from the environment."
Individual FDA pages for arsenic, cadmium and lead include identical language aside from the name of the element being discussed:
"Testing results that detect arsenic [and cadmium or lead] do not necessarily mean the food should be avoided. Because many of the most nutritious foods can also contain contaminants, consumers should eat a variety of nutrient-dense foods across and within the main food groups of vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and protein foods. This is good for nutrition and can also limit exposure to a contaminant from a specific food. In addition, research studies have found that good nutrition can also help protect from the effects of exposure to contaminants."
Mercury, while naturally occurring, can have adverse health effects, though the concern is mainly regarding seafood. The FDA's webpage about mercury reads, "Because the very young are more vulnerable to the harmful health effects of mercury exposure, and because there are significant differences in the levels of methylmercury between different types of seafood, the FDA and EPA have issued advice on eating fish."
Despite this, Steier told Snopes that there is no reason for consumers to be concerned about the levels detected:
"Based on the certified laboratory results from New Jersey Laboratories, the levels detected are well within normal ranges for grain-based products. The highest lead level (42.5 ppb) remains below the FDA's action level of 100 ppb for foods intended for children. The mercury levels (mostly under 2 ppb) are far below the FDA's 1,000 ppb action level for seafood. These levels are consistent with what we typically see in similar products and don't indicate a safety concern."
Finally, aluminum was detected in all samples, with the highest level being 27.5 ppm. However, GMOScience points to Canada's guidelines for aluminum in drinking water as a reference point. The FDA does not include aluminum in its environmental contaminants of food.
Again, Steier explains:
"Aluminum isn't classified as an environmental contaminant in food because it's the third most abundant element in Earth's crust (after oxygen and silicon) and the most abundant metal, comprising about 9% of the earth's crust. It naturally occurs in most foods — adults typically consume 7-9 milligrams daily through normal diet. For perspective, breastfed infants ingest about 7 milligrams of aluminum in their first six months of life, while formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams. The levels found in the cookies (7-27.5 ppm) are consistent with natural background levels in grain-based foods."
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) corroborate Steier's explanation:
"You cannot avoid exposure to aluminum because it is so common and widespread in the environment. Exposure to the levels of aluminum that are naturally present in food and water and the forms of aluminum that are present in dirt and aluminum pots and pans are not considered to be harmful. Eating large amounts of processed food containing aluminum additives or frequently cooking acidic foods in aluminum pots may expose a person to higher levels of aluminum than a person who generally consumes unprocessed foods and uses pots made of other materials (e.g., stainless steel or glass). However, aluminum levels found in processed foods and foods cooked in aluminum pots are generally considered to be safe…
Most aluminum in food, water, and medicines leaves your body quickly in the feces. Much of the small amount of aluminum that does enter the bloodstream will quickly leave your body in the urine."
NJ Labs declined to comment further on the results of their testing. A spokesperson told Snopes via email:
"As an FDA-registered, ISO-certified contract laboratory, NJ Labs conducts testing based on client requests. While we understand that our name and reports have been shared publicly, we operate under strict confidentiality agreements and are not the owner of the tested products. Due to our NDA/CDA obligations, we cannot provide additional details regarding the testing performed."
Steier pointed out that the number of samples provided for the testing "has significant limitations for drawing broader conclusions."
The 25 samples "identify presence/absences of substances… a robust safety study would typically require a larger sample size for statistical significance, control samples, multiple batch testing, greater geographic representation and comparative analysis with similar products," Steier told Snopes. "This study's design is inadequate for making broad claims about safety concerns."
Perro said the reason only 25 samples were tested was due to cost.
"Running these tests are extremely expensive. Zen Honeycutt (CEO of Moms Across America) and I are both 501(c)3 nonprofits and we utilized our own funds as well as small donations from philanthropies. Ideally, we had hoped to study 40 samples which increases the statistical significance and powers the study, however, because we wanted to study both glyphosate and its toxic byproduct AMPA, as well as 5 toxic metals (the government usually only studies 4), we had to limit the number of cookies sampled because of the expense."
Honeycutt added via email:
"We tested the samples that we could afford to test. Feel free to raise the funds to conduct your own testing. Any claim that the testing we commissioned with GMOScience, by an accredited lab, is inadequate would be a fraudulent statement. Even one sample with contaminants would be indicative of contamination in other samples, seeing as the cookies are made in large batches. The public deserves to know if even one sample is contaminated."
Perro continued:
"Upon learning that different states source their ingredients locally and two different baking companies are used, we included three sample states as we identified in the study: California (a "green" state), Iowa (highest use of pesticides in the U.S.), and Louisiana (home of the runoff from the Mississippi River). We did find some regional differences as you will note in our study.
As with any research, validation is key. We met with the FDA and have invited them to duplicate our previous work including the Girl Scout Cookies, infant formulas, gluten-free products, fast foods, and school lunches — different projects that our various organizations have researched in the past. We would be delighted if the government were to conduct further studies."
Snopes reached out to the FDA for confirmation of this meeting and further comment on the study and will update this article when we hear back. In 2021, the FDA launched a campaign called Closer to Zero, an effort to "reduce dietary exposure to contaminants to as low as possible, while maintaining access to nutritious foods."
This includes testing of "arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury to monitor the safety of the U.S. food supply, enforce FDA regulations, and inform agency guidance to industry and advice to consumers."
#The Girl Scouts' response
The Girl Scouts of America addressed these claims on the GSUSA blog, saying, "Girl Scout Cookies are made with ingredients that adhere to food safety standards set by the FDA and other relevant authorities." The post also includes the following, which echoes information found on the FDA website:
"Environmental contaminants — which can include heavy metals — can occur naturally in soil. This means that nearly all foods using plant-based ingredients, including organic foods, may contain trace amounts. This does not mean that these foods are harmful to consume.
Glyphosate is widely used in agriculture in accordance with established EPA standards and is found nearly everywhere in the food chain. Trace amounts of glyphosate can be found in fresh fruits, vegetables, cereals, baked goods, and other food and beverage commodities.
Similarly, small amounts of heavy metals can be found naturally in the environment, including in food products, due to air, water, and soil exposure.
These metals are not added to our Girl Scout cookies.
While such occurrences are not unique to Girl Scout Cookies, our trusted baking partners continue to ensure the integrity of our recipes and the safety of all Girl Scout Cookie products in accordance with federal regulations and Global Food Safety initiative standards.
Our bakers have confirmed that the levels reported do not pose a food safety concern to our customers."
#Are Girl Scout cookies safe to eat?
Public health experts say there is no danger in eating Girl Scout cookies, no matter the geographic region in which they are acquired or which variety you prefer.
While it is clear that high exposure to the chemicals found in these tests can potentially cause health issues if consumed in enormous quantities, the levels found within the samples — assuming children aren't eating 9,000 cookies in a day — are within the safety guidelines as outlined by the FDA, EPA, CDC, and public health experts.
Additionally, heavy metals occur naturally in most food products and comparisons of drinking water standards with food quality standards are unequal.
Snopes has investigated similar claims in the past, including reports that Lindt chocolate contains dangerous levels of heavy metals and another claim originating with Moms Across America regarding an alleged avian contraceptive found in Chik-fil-A sandwiches.
I
I felt like this deserved it's own post after making it for a thread.
aRe yOu sUrE tHaTs nOt jUsT nOrMaL
This is from https://www.tumblr.com/floccinaucinihilipilificationa and it's so relatable.
https://www.tumblr.com/floccinaucinihilipilificationa
Dustin off that old meme folder but like, trying not to flood...
Constantly forced to be an investigator in my own life.
It's never not pills for me.
109
What item you use frequently would you be least surprised to learn is secretly bad for you?
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
view more: next ›
Don't equate pretending that Elon Musk is an anarchist is at all the same as defending IP laws.