(upbeat music) - The Data Skeptic Podcast is a weekly show featuring conversations about skepticism, critical thinking, and data science. - Welcome to another episode of the Data Skeptic Podcast. I'm joined this week by The Credible Hulk from crediblehulk.org and the quite popular Facebook page of the same name. And welcome to the show, Credible Hulk. - Hey, how's it going, Kyle? - Very good, thanks for joining me. So I actually discovered you somewhat recently. I previously had on the show a guy by the name of Randy Olson, who is one of the moderators on a subreddit called Data Is Beautiful. That I think a lot of my listeners are probably already familiar with. And they shared a lot of the great figures you did in a recent blog post you put on your site. And very well thought on our article, I thought, and very timely. So I asked you to come on the show to kind of cover some of that. So it's more or less about the herbicides and pesticides that go into our foods. And we'll get into that in a bit. But I thought maybe we could start by your background and your interests and how you got sort of started looking into this subject. - Well, I guess I'm what one might refer to as a polymath. A person who pursues a bunch of different skill sets and subject matters of science. And I'm an advocate for the idea that everyone can benefit from accumulating a broad and well rounded scientific knowledge base, even if they're not planning on being a scientist and perhaps even more importantly, getting people in the habit of thinking more skeptically and scientifically about the various claims that were part of that in the information age, we need to be able to differentiate more confidently between information of varying veracity and reliability. Because with all this information available to us, we also have all this misinformation available to us. You know, I have background in music and physics, mathematics, general engineering, general studies, and things like that, you know, but a lot of my scientific understanding has come from studying on my own in addition to work in universities, you know. As far as my interest in this subject, I got into the GMO food debate mostly through social media, just witnessing the debates that were going on. Now, I think part of me has always thought that the idea was cool of being able to use our understanding of genetics to change organisms in beneficial ways and possibly maybe even someday ourselves. That's always, you know, I grew up being really into super heroes and so like that. You know, that sounded like a pretty cool thing and before I was really into science on any serious level. But as far as the GMO food debate, I think it's just a really fantastically appropriate topic for skeptics to get into. It's a mainstream topic. It's not like a lot of the traditional skeptic topics like UFOs and Bigfoot and, you know, whatever dowsing or whatever it used to be, you know, and the skeptic moment. And it's something that has a lot of widespread ramifications for society and so it's important. And it is absolutely just loaded with misinformation and motivated reasoning by people who are invested in their opinions. - Yeah, it seems to me as I look at this, that humans, we've been systematically trying to manipulate our food for centuries. How is genetic engineering different from that? - Well, I'd be a sort of as an extension of that. You know, 'cause we kind of continue on and we have selective breeding and you see like the rise of hybridization techniques and white cross-hybridization. And then weird things like eudogenesis where they're changing, basically inducing random mutations through the use of chemicals and all radiation. But with genetic engineering, it instantly involves identifying, extracting, isolating and cloning a particular gene from another organism. So you find like a particular trait and you identify what gene is responsible for coding for a particular protein associated with that phenotype, which is the outward expression of a particular genotype, so to call it a phenotype. So typically with genetic engineering, they isolate that. So it can be from a really distantly related species, which is difficult to impossible to do with those older methods. But the thing is that with genetic engineering, you're only usually changing one or two genes at a time. Whereas those other methods, they're affecting hundreds, thousands, sometimes even tens of thousands of genes in ways that are completely untracked and no idea which ones are ending on layer. And results are not even, they're rarely, rarely tested at all for allergens and other general safety features, which is not the case with genetically engineered organisms where we have all these different tiers of testing after they go through. The main difference is genetic engineering is faster, it's more precise, and it permits us to incorporate genes from species that are further away in the phylogenetic tree. It would be like really hard to do that otherwise. But I think what creeps people out about it is the fact that you can take a gene from another dysentery related species, that you can put a fish, take a gene that you found at a fish and put it in a tomato and stuff. I think it just capitalizes on the gross out factor for people who have this notion of the purity of the natural way of things. And they don't seem to understand that DNA is this universal language that functions in terms of the rules of bio chemistry. We don't have fish genes versus tomato genes. We have genes that happen to be an efficient, genes happen to be a tomato or whatever, and they all comprise of the same four nucleotides. In fact, we share a lot of our DNA with other species. All life on earth shares certain genes with certain other species. We'll say it's something like 40% of our DNA is shared with bananas. Maybe closer to 98%, 99% of the share with chimpanzees. I mean, they're all related. - Yeah, makes sense. It's always been puzzling to me why there's that inbuilt fear there. I hear the term frank and food a lot, which really kind of displeases me in a bit. I don't think it's a fair description of the science that's taking place, but definitely a timely topic. So I was glad when I had found your blog and some of the writings you've done, 'cause they seem well researched to us, just really the genesis of me asking you to come on. So maybe we could start there and talk a little bit about if you would mind summarizing the recent post you did and the research on pesticides and herbicides. - Well, I did this piece that was taking a look at usage patterns of different popular herbicides. The reason for that was because there's this common argument that's made by opponents of biotechnology. They say that GMOs increase pesticides. They're usually thinking of what we call the glyphosate resistant strains. They're thinking those because, oh well, that if they weren't resistant to glyphosate, then you wouldn't be able to spray it on there. So they must be just using oceans of the stuff now that they can get away with it, which is kind of silly. So if you think economically, like as a farmer was going to waste money on using more of an expensive product when they needed to more to do the job, but I was putting that aside. That was the premise behind, oh, well, GMOs must increase pesticides. It turns out that it's actually decreased in slightly, according to this one, Brooks and Barfoot study, I always tell you about, there's something about 8.6% of mass, but that's lumping together herbicides and insecticides, and the reason for that is attributable to the fact that insect resistant GMO crops have led to less need for spraying insecticides. So they are mainly responsible for the reduction in total pesticide use, but parallel to that, we have an increase in glyphosate usage. So that's what pisses the anti-GMO people off so much about those things, because they've been told by these special interest groups that basically glyphosate is like the most toxic poisonous stuff since ever known in the history of the universe. Which is not true, but that's the impression one would get if they didn't really have the background to go analyze these plants. It's easy to, we are longer than to brain things a certain way. We can make dihydrogen and oxides sound scary to some of the dozen known chemistry, but you tell them that all serial killers have found it, or they're autopsies, or they're in all kinds of ridiculous things, and it's a kind of a running joke. I felt that there was a common rebuttal to this, within a certain load of people. I was associating with an honest, we're getting into the subject. And that was that, okay, well, sure, glyphosate use went up, but then that allowed farmers to use less of these more toxic herbicides. And the example I used to hear a lot of people use is it was HZ. It turned out that H or Zine was not the best example, 'cause it actually didn't really go down that much. But that got me thinking. So what happened was I was arguing with somebody on the internet, on my page, it's a credible hulk on Facebook, and somebody said, well, actually H or Zine used hasn't really, it went down a little bit at first, but then it's pretty much close to what it was when glyphosate-resistant crops first came out. So you can't say that GMO crops led to the phasing out of H or Zine, and so he was right. I had to like change my position on that, because I was presentable with evidence that that was wrong. I figured, well, I better look at some other ones. You know, what did go down? What herbicides stopped being used as much when the popularity of glyphosate started growing up, because of the popularity of glyphosate-resistant GMO crops. And so that's when I started looking at all these other popular herbicides and finding out how they kind of fell off, most of them fell off. Someone went slightly back up after 10 years or so, and some of them got completely phased out, others won't kind of hovered around the same amount, so it was an issue. - Yeah, one of the main data sources you quote is the water quality assessment from the USGS, as well as a few other studies. And I'll link to most of those in the show notes. I also encourage people to go check out your Postit, crediblehulk.org that I'll link to as well. In terms of those as data sources, I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but for the sake of scientific inquiry, I did want to ask, you know, why should we trust those as being credible sources? - I did touch on this a little bit in the article, but the USGS data was derived primarily from two major reports. There's the stone failing report, and then the Baker stone reports, which themselves came about by allocating county level estimates of pesticides, which do agricultural land estimates, from a combination of data from USDA, crop reporting districts, and USDA farm resources region, and some other farm surveys. I think it's all hyperlinked in the article, or somebody could read the entire thing, where they detail that. So it's only applicable to the US. And to be honest, really, but the exception of some really good data had available to me for California and CSN, there really wasn't a whole lot of other choices, for me to go with in terms of the total US usage. But strictly speaking, I mean, you can't conclusively disprove the notion that those farm surveys were just numbers that were simply made up, or a period of decades, and a plan to preemptively refute the notion that GMOs changed herbicides, which is a little worse, you know? - Sure, I suppose. - You know, maybe the reptilians, the reptilian sheep shifters got to stone, and his people, maybe the Shillmanati, and all of a sudden, he can't disprove it. You know, I'm not supposed to be telling us right now, 'cause black helicopters end in it. - Right, right. - It reminds me of the idea of last Thursday-ism. You ever heard of last Thursday-ism? - I have not, actually. - Well, there's this idea that the universe was created last Thursday. No, it's completely unfalse about it. What was the idea is that it's created last Thursday with all our memories in place that's already implanted, and with all the physics of the universe, basically everything is in motion, and exactly the right velocities and accelerations to make it look like the universe had been around a lot longer. - Uh-huh, cleverly constructed to appear as though it had been there, yeah. - We can't, strictly speaking, disprove that, you know? But usually we go with the information we have unless we have some specific reason to think that it's a fabrication, you know? It's we have some reason to think that it's wrong, but since it's unalsifiable, I mean, that's how it is with a lot of things very secret, really, because you can always kind of tweak one part of the theory to accommodate some inconvenient data here and there, and who knows, you know, you can't know for absolute 100% certain that the reptilians didn't manipulate the data, go back in time, send a monstatin cyborg superchills, you know, back in time and, you know, kill whoever they have to kill and change some numbers around and come back to the future. - Very true, yeah. I may not be able to disprove any of those theories, but one thing I could do is try and reproduce any of these studies. So it seems very practical, you know, maybe a lot of work, but one could easily go and get samples from the water tables and investigate if these claims empirically match what, you know, reproduced measurements are. So in that respect, I think they're pretty good studies, also coming from generally credible sources. I see no reason to think that, you know, the U.S. government would be embroiled in some grand conspiracy to, I don't know, pollute the food or whatever. One thing that I did find interesting, you were talking about, or as you quoted, the EPA found that one of the chemicals, the first one you looked at, which has shown a strong decrease from '92 to 2011, is Alchlor, is that how it's pronounced? - I've been pronouncing it, Alichlorid. - Alichlorid, yeah, that looks more correct. - I've never heard anybody say it, so, I mean, there's probably a lot of things in my vocabulary that I've been saying while for years because of some of the stuff I've felt. - Yeah, yeah. I know the EPA says that in excessive amounts that there are health reported risks involved or correlated with that, but I'm kind of torn because first, the list of those health concerns seems pretty broad and somewhat nonspecific and second, they say drinking in excess of the maximum really sounds like an extreme case to my ears. You know, like, I hear about these studies sometimes where a mouse that consumes so much of some chemical ended up being more likely to develop cancer, but if you scaled it to the human scale, it'd be the equivalent of having like eight bags of rice or something, you know, some extreme amount of something per day. - So how do you interpret data like that, like the threat of alkalor or whatever else? - Well, honestly, with alichlor, I can't really say how prevalent the consumption of excessively contaminated water everybody was. Yeah, I know the EPA has protocols in place for responding to cases in which someone's water spot tested too high, but I'm really just going off of what they said. I know that now, as a restricted use pesticide, which means basically that it can only be applied by a certified applicator. I also know that it doesn't appear to be very popular anymore. But to me, the take home point, you know, it's just a quick glyphosate usage into perspective because the same thing, the same sort of criticisms that people make about glyphosate or applicable here because they aren't necessarily applicable in practical real world scenarios. I mean, I've even done calculations on, okay, well, if so, supposing that this crop had trace amounts at the upper cost of what's permitted by the EPA tolerances, you know, how much of this would a person of X, you know, number of kilograms or NAS, how much would they have to consume to exceed the level that we think is unsafe? And it turns out to be some ridiculously high mouth that will be extraordinarily difficult for anybody to consume. I'm not meaning to beat up on alichlor, so much. So look, you know, you have to look at things in terms of comparative risk. You have to look at things in terms of what is getting rid of one thing going to result in? What's going to take its place? What are the methods involved? And I think a lot of people who want glyphosate and just don't really have a realistic concept of what would happen, you know, if that were the case. I mean, we've seen a similar thing already happening with neonicotenoids. It's pesticides in certain parts of Europe where there's some suspicion that they might be some player in the colony collapse disorder problem with the money. We end up having farmers like falling back on worse insecticides, you know, when they fan in certain places. There, or something else goes on, you know, that they're yield supper or there's consequences. You can't just be all passion and no brains, you know, when you want to protect the environment, you have to use a critical thinking. We need to apply the totality of our knowledge of the science behind whatever it is that we're studying and make a proper risk benefit analysis. - It's tricky too, I think. You said it well that it really requires the totality of our knowledge. I remember once reading the chemical composition of a banana and I found it terrifying. It could just have well have been the recipe for some bio warfare weapon to my non-chemist ears. So, I don't know what's your take on how the average person who doesn't know what these scary sounding words mean? Like, how do we interpret the threat of a scientific sounding chemical in the water or in our plants or whatever the case may be? - Well, first and foremost, I'd say don't listen to food. - That's a given, yeah. - First and foremost, I would say that one shouldn't use the length or ease of pronunciation of an ingredient as part of one's criteria for risk assessment. Ideally speaking, I recommend that everybody learn some first gear chemistry, even if they don't wanna be a chemist or be in any related field. Scientific literacy provides a person with a tremendous advantage in so many different ways. And there's really no shortcut to understanding how the world works, at least not any shortcuts that I will, if that's too much to ask, then I would say that people should at least be aware that unless one plans on subsisting on an all-court clue on plasma diet, then everything we consume and all the matter with which we interact and are exposed to on a daily basis is comprised of chemicals. We are comprised of chemicals. Chemicals which contain the same elements in different arrangements can behave drastically differently than those same elements in a different arrangement. Whereas a sodium is an explosive metal, chlorine gas is been used in chemical warfare. Yeah, sodium chloride is table salt. We can eat reasonable amounts of that and be saved. I mean, surely there's limits to it. I mean, you don't wanna just eat indiscriminate in a mouse, but the properties are different. You know, if something has mercury in it, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're gonna get mercury in books. It depends on the amount and it depends on the compound in which it's apart. And many chemicals have multiple uses. You know, so if Rubabe says that something shows up in the yoga mat or in paint liners and like that, that doesn't tell you anything about whether it's safe to consume. Water is found in a lot of stuff. I mean, it's not safe to consume. Yeah, in fact, water in high enough dosages is toxic to humans from what I understand. Absolutely. You've shown a couple of similar trends over other chemicals. One is cyanosine as well that basically has gone since '92 to the present to virtually no usage. I don't know that's necessarily been a replace store if it's just that we're building genetically modified crops that are naturally resistant or have the genes to be resistant, but there's sort of an interesting caveat that caught my attention around that chemical that I think could be cherry-picked. That pesticide was put under some sort of special review and then DuPont, who is, I guess, owned the patent on it voluntarily withdrew it. I'm finding that a little hard to interpret because, you know, it's like when I hear cases settled out of court. It's not a formal admission of guilt. Sometimes celebrities, for example, get blackmailed into go-away payments just because it's easier than this long drawn-out complication. So how do you interpret a situation like DuPont voluntarily withdrawing this chemical after it's undergone some study with no particular conclusions per se? Well, I should probably say, first and foremost, that I actually found out about that particular caveat after I'd already written that section. And I was talking to my friend, Mark Brazow of Food and Farm Discussion Lab. He said he found out that it had actually put under special review, then it was dropped by DuPont, and then later banned. And so then I went back and edited that section and took that in there. But as far as interpreting how that went down, well, I can't claim to know what other people's motives, but my guess is that probably there was some preliminary evidence that sciency could increase cancer risk. So they just decided to cut their losses and drop it rather than risk having a turnout to be harming people and then receive a backlash later. They're not being blackmailed. Well, they may or may not have believed that it was likely to prove to be as harmful as might upon the examination. But as far as I'm aware, there's no way for us to really know that unless we do somebody who was working for DuPont at the time, which I might know such a person that I'm not sure, I might as well, but nobody has brought it up by several skeptics that I associated with going on. - Yeah, it's interesting. I find that a lot of the anti-GMO people will point at anything like this and say it's the big bad corporation. And of course, a company's goal is to make a profit. That's a fair expectation for a company, but a lawsuit in which it's shown that you failed to withdraw a chemical that ended up causing cancer and tons of people will be massively expensive. So even though we have enough data to support what the real risk was, it seems like this perhaps could be able to responsible action by DuPont. It just was my sort of take on it. - Yeah, I mean, I think it's kind of open-ended for people to interpret whether their glasses have empty and glassy half-fold type of person or somewhere in between. 'Cause I mean, you can look at it as like, "Oh, well, they probably knew already that it was going to kill everybody." And then they say, "Oh, the jig is up. Let's get rid of this thing before the shit has a fan." Or one could interpret that as like, "Oh, wow, they found out that it wasn't as safe as they thought it was, and they did the right thing. They got rid of it just in case it ended up being managed." I don't think there's really any way first to know which of those were either of those, either of those two. - It's rarely so black and white. I know one of the things that, for me, is the hallmark of a good skeptic, is the willingness to change one's mind. You were mentioning earlier about someone giving you some feedback and doing some edits. - And I thought it was really admirable that in Well Balanced that you included a discussion of the chemical atrazine, if I presume I'm saying that correctly in your blog post. Can you share your perspective on that herbicide and how it was different from some of the other ones you covered? - Well, I felt I had to include it for a couple of reasons. The first of which is that it's the second most popular herbicide among farmers in the US, so I brat. Secondly, it's often then used as the quintessential example of a harsher and more environmentally persistent herbicide that glyphosate allegedly pumped out of a picture. As it turned out, it hadn't done that. I mean, sure, you could say, well, if you go by per bushel or per capita, maybe you could say the atrazine use has gone a little bit because total corn yields have gone up. But the total amounts used have been pretty much flat. No damage, I know that some farmers still like to use it. And my understanding is that it's more persistent in the soil than a lot of herbicides, and it can sometimes end up in the water, and EPA classifies it as a possible carcinogen, which basically means a little bit, oh, no. - Yeah, it's tricky. I think, as we've kind of said earlier, research is really the only way to get firm answers on this. I don't think there's any cut and dry solution or right or wrong. But it seems to me also that there are some credible threats for unrestricted use of pesticides and herbicides that could cause human health issues and especially environmental issues. Do you think the right checks and balances are in place to monitor these potential threats? - Well, I don't have comprehensive knowledge of policies of various countries. So I don't know how they compare. But as far as the U.S., I think, well, herbicide choice in regulatory policy has this cumbersome task 'cause you're trying to balance biological safety, environmental safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. And I think that our system's not perfect, but that it does a pretty good job at managing the risk, at least in the case of man-made pesticides. I'm not as sure about the case of organic pesticides. I don't know if they, my understanding is that they don't have quite as rigorous of an entry requirement in terms of finding all the tolerances, you know, the reference doses and stuff like that. For the man-made ones, EPA reviews a whole bunch of studies and establishes what we call tolerances. And those tolerances are based on all these reference doses derived from animal models. And so they get that using what's called toxicological endpoint, sometimes called the no-observable adverse effect limit or NOAEL. They take whatever was the most sensitive mammal in the toxicological studies they did, and they use that for their reference doses. From what I understand, by no means an expert in this, but from what I've been able to assimilate, they usually use an uncertainty factor of about two orders of magnitude, like about a hundred and deriving the tolerances because they want to be able to ensure, to be able to account for variability within sensitivity in the population. No, it wanted to know more about that. The goal of my go-to person is Allison Bernstein, who runs the Facebook page Mommy PhD. She's a background in genetics, neuroscience, and toxicology. When it comes to the details of the toxicology stuff, she's a person, I'm friends with who knows a lot about it, and she's the first person I've talked about. She's just a really cool person, who is a nice person. So I feel comfortable, I guess, with stuff, even though she's super busy. - Excellent, sounds like a good research. I'll put in the show notes as well. - I think we can't kind of get into these topics without at least a mention of what's sometimes called the naturalistic fallacy. That's because something is natural, and I don't even know how you even define that, but set that problem to the side, that if you have a label that because something is natural that implicitly makes it better in some way, which I've never quite understood, but I do encounter quite a bit. Even if I were buying into the naturalistic fallacy, it seems that a lot of what you're showing is that genetically modified crops are reducing the need for pesticides and herbicides in a lot of cases. - Am I interpreting that correctly? - Well, compared to conventional crops, it would seem to be the case, yes. - Yeah, so it would be odd to be both against GMO and also wanting a reduction in pesticides and herbicides, that I hear these kind of being lining up, but they seem to be in conflict with one another. - I mean, I think that people who want them, and they have a belief that that's something they can be done without significantly sacrificing other things of the weed, like such as producing sufficient food on a certain amount of land, you know? So I guess some of them maybe, they have like their backyard gardens, you know? That's like quarter of an acre and the same wall. I know usually the pesticides on my garden. But the thing is that their garden isn't going to be enough food. It's probably not even going to be enough food for them, but alone for everybody else. What about the people who live on these stacked apartments like in I don't know Manhattan or Chicago or something? You know, there's no way that everybody's going to be able to have a garden and people live in different climates. Not everything grows as well as the apartments. So if we need it, we in part are good to come from. People who can farm efficiently. People who can produce a lot on the minimum land, which is still going to be a lot more land than these people in the pack of gardens, of course. You know, like you're talking thousands of acres, sometimes 10,000 from those large farms. But it's just the math doesn't work out, you know? The math just doesn't, it works out so that our water usage and our land usage would be so off the charts if we were to produce the same amount of food that it's hard for me to understand or how they find that to be realistic, you know? - Yeah, I imagine it's a whole lot top again of itself, but with the ever increasing population of human beings, it seems like not only is efficiency just better, it's required to be able to feed everybody. - It would seem so, and there's also other problems with being able to go to course. I mean, there's problems of distribution, there's problems of people just simply not having money. Part of the problem can be addressed, at least by technology, and that part is making it easier to produce the same amount with fewer inputs. Well, and just the loss of flying the man, and if you can produce things with fewer inputs, then it permits the cost of certain things to go down. You know, unless there's some imposition that's artificially inflating the prices. In principle, it should be able to help even in places where there's a lot of carbon problems. Nothing is a panacea, there's no technology out there, it's going to solve all the food problems, but it's such an amazingly powerful tool that I just, it would be really foolhardy of us to demonize and push back against the rate at which it can be used to solve problems based on some unfounded prejudices. And that's exactly what I see happening, with things like golden rice, green peas, and other activists trying to put the brakes on these humanitarian projects. Granted, they're not the only variable involved in actually getting these states to fruition. We can't blame all the problems on activists, but they're certainly not making things any easier, and they're making it so that the cost of bringing something to market remains high. So, ironically, only really rich corporations can afford to create something that can take the risk of the R&D and be able to pass all these tests. Now, the R&D is pretty expensive, so I mean, they get past that, but unless they're really right on the cusp, the chances are that they're probably in league with people that can afford to do the testing. You know, but it just makes it harder than it needs to be for other people to get into the gym again. - And it seems to me that the whole topic is a fairly complex one, and one that certainly no simple sentence can sum up without, you know, at least a half a dozen footnotes attached to it. So, I'm glad to have found your blog and Facebook page is a good resource for me. In addition to that, what can the average person do to keep themselves informed from a scientific perspective, especially in light of just how much pseudoscience and speculation is out there? - I know this isn't the answer to probably everybody wants to hear, but I'm not really sure that there is an easy answer to that question. I think the best I can suggest is to always strive to improve one's level of scientific literacy. Don't make it a sprint to the finish line just to get a piece of paper that says, and you know what you're talking about. Integrate an ongoing science education as part of your overall lifestyle. You want to stay skeptical, and you want to do your best to learn and identify quality sources of scientific information, differentiate them from less reputable ones, and that takes practice. There's no formula that's going to guarantee it every time. You need experience. No, you've got to learn to spot logical fallacies. You've got to learn to analyze the structure of people's arguments when they try to make a case for this or that conclusion or whatever. And you've got to remain cognizant, not only of other people's biases, but also of your own biases. You always have to remain amenable to evidence. It's critical. You have to be amenable to evidence or what else is the purpose of all of us. And you want to find out what's really true about the universe or not. It's not just about arriving at the correct conclusions. It's about how we arrive at those conclusions. It's about cultivating good habits from processing information and reasoning to tentative conclusions on the basis of the information we have with the willingness to adjust as foreign information comes back. When we lean in the direction of whatever the planners or evidence happens to be at a particular time. Because those skills are going to take someone that will hell a lot further than just happening to be right by pure dumb luck on one particular thing. - Yeah, I think that's incredibly well said and a great moral and bottom line to wrap things up on. So maybe to kind of close out, tell me a little bit about and share with the listeners where's the best place to find your writings and good resources online. - My blog, I've only had it for about a month and a half or two months or so now. That's crediblehulk.org. And I actually have a couple of new pieces that should be coming out within the next week. And I am most frequently, however, on my Facebook page, which is FB.com, the real crediblehulk. The crediblehulk was already taken, but the person that was using that address on Facebook wasn't posting anymore. They hadn't been posting for over a year. So I had to take the real crediblehulk. I had to pick some of them. - Makes sense. - Yeah, so if you see multiple copies of the crediblehulk on Facebook, I'm the one that gets a lot more active. - Well, sounds good. Well, thank you so much again for joining me. This has been really informative and I'm glad you came on the show. - I am too. I was this great media and I look forward to taking it again. - Sounds great. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)
