Ontario's electricity prices are soaring because the price controls on electricity were loosened about a decade ago, effectively you're still seeing the effects of the privatization of the energy infrastructure by the Mike Harris government combined with the elimination of coal power plants. Yes, it takes a long time for big changes to make their way through the system. Before the privatization Ontario had some of the lowest electricity rates in North America because the shortfall was simply being converted into debt held by a crown corporation. Since that can't happen anymore, electricty prices have riser to a little higher than average, plus I think you're still paying a surcharge to eliminate the accumulated debt from decades of price controlled shortfalls. The primary reason the electricity prices in Ontario are higher than average is because the cheapest way to generate electricty (after hydro) has been phased out in Ontario. If it were phased out all across North America, Ontario would likely be below the average price.

Indeed, the last time I saw that claim, they counted manufacturing emissions for constructing both facilities (including estimated manufacturing emissions for the solar panels, and replacement panels). Unfortunately, the author "forgot" to count the CO2 emissions from the process of mining, shipping and burning the coal for the coal plant. But it's just a minor oversight, right? One plant was required to account for all materials and wear and tear over it's lifetime, and the other was allowed to produce free energy perpetually with no fuel and no repairs. It was certainly a "fair and balanced" comparison.

From what I understand, there actually is something special about high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as opposed to cane sugar. High fructose corn syrup has most of the sugar content (ranging from 60-90%, as I recall) as fructose which our bodies have a more difficult time processing than cane sugar. As I understand the fructose sugar gets processed by the liver and thus the fat generates by HFCS products tends to accumulate around your liver. There is evidence that suggests that diets high in HFCS can lead to liver scarring and type 2 diabetes.

The rise in HFCS in the processed food industry also correlates well with the rise of the obesity. It is, most likely, only one of many contributing factors, but I really don't need a fatty, scarred liver and diabetes regardless of whether it's also making me fat.

Renault Alpine.

Don't let the science get in the way of dismissing a good bit of work.

Nope. Hybridization is incredibly common amongst plants, so everyone who has ever given GMOs any thought has known all along that the genes would get loose. I've posted about this on /. and elsewhere for years, and presumably others have too.

The important story is that the GMO/hybrids are seeing some selective advantage, which is what people are surprised at: the assumption was that since these genes do not occur in these plants in nature, the odds of them conferring any selective advantage were extremely low. It would be like any random mutation: billions-to-one odds against being beneficial, because there are billions of ways of screwing up the molecular machinery of the cell and only a few ways of making it better (in part because organisms are by definition pretty well adapted to their environment in almost all cases... if they weren't they would have been out-competed by their better-adapted cousins.

I'm not opposed to GMOs as such, because it is stupid to be opposed to an abstraction as diverse as "GMO"--it would be like being opposed to "nuclear power", say, because one particular type of reactor has proven to be uneconomic. But putting responsibility for GMOs into the hands of a small number of global agri-corps seems to me a fairly bad idea because they are going to downplay the risks posed by the genes getting loose, be more concerned with deploying organisms that are profitable rather than sustainable (Roundup Ready plants are a good example of something I'm very leery of.)

Yes, 34th out of 35 developed countries for child poverty. The U.S. is a shining example to all nations.

Someone else quoted it above, but it appears that Congress gave the President the war-time authorisation to use deadly force against anyone associated in any way with al'Qaeda in 2001, and has extended that authorisation every time it comes up for renewal. The U.S. has violated other countries' sovereignty and ignored internal treaties they've signed whenever they were inconvenient for at least a century now, so that's nothing new.

So technically, the president isn't murdering people. That would imply that the activity was illegal. You really should be claiming that he's ordering people killed who are believed to be associated with the group Congress authorised he and his predecessor to indiscriminately kill. Now maybe the Congressional authorisation to kill anyone associated with the 9/11 attacks is itself unconstitutional, but if you think you can build a credible case for that, you should be hiring a lawyer (or maybe you are a lawyer) and trying to get that authorisation revoked.

What makes you think it is bogus? It works for many people.

He's a Professor of Psychology who is a strong proponent of personal science. He is also the creator of the Shangri La Diet.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/

This study tells you nothing useful. How much more confounded can you be than with the lifestyle choices that associate with coffee drinking?

This.. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n7/fig_tab/nn.2867_F1.html
and this.. attach boilerplate rodent metabolism warning though .. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n7/full/nn.2867.html

Wheat may be part of the problem. I don't know if the franken-wheat is significant. I've seen no data either way on old wheat vs. franken wheat.

Not if your POMC cells in your ventromedial hypothalamus are messed up.

False positives is as you say a huge issue. It ties in to the ridiculous airport screening programs, to the daft idea of facial recognition for street-side cameras, as well as recent developments in common screening programs such as for breast cancer.