A New Breed of Ignorance: Blind "Green" Organizations or Why GreenPeace is causing the deaths of millions [Archive]

donniedarko

Apr 4th, 2007, 3:46 PM

lycanox

Apr 4th, 2007, 4:20 PM

Cartesiantheater

Apr 4th, 2007, 4:24 PM

Nice work donnie. These people annoy the hell out of me. All this resistance to genetically modified crops... it's sad that people have to die over this...

Nasik

Apr 4th, 2007, 10:18 PM

well i agree with you that we should be sceptic. And i know you are just using them as examples. But i must note that the technologies you describe are still in its development state. And accidents do happen with unpredicted results.

The problem with nuclear waste is real and there is currently no real solution besides burying the stuff and let later generations deal with it. It would be better to put our hopes on fusion technology instead of the inefficient and polluting fission nuclear reactors. Not to mention the risk of accidents and terrorism.

I do however agree with the yellow rice plants. But i doubt those are the uses of genetic engineering Greenpeace is worried about. Truth is that several uses of this technology that could result in global famine when they run out of control.
That nice straw of supermais that grows everywhere could become the weed of tomorrow.

Its good to have an critic view on this kind of stuff before jumping into large scale application. Don't forget that that is just what Greenpeace does. Its not like they rule the world or something.

I agree - well said and diplomatic.

GM foods don't just contemplate blending for example, rice and corn together. They develop all sorts of bizzare combinations that violate nature. Evolution would never have a potato splicing with a jelly fish so it can glow when it needs to be watered. (That's an actual example) or say, splicing pigs with humans in an effort to have the pigs grow faster. (which didn't succeed - they all grew fast only to die quickly with large cancerous tumors). These "round-up" ready crops are not wanted in the world. They threaten natural crops and the ramifications on the planet are not fully understood. Some combinations have produced highly toxic proteins. I think Greenpeace takes issue with this sort of thing.

Nuclear sounds good - but what to do with all the waste that is produced? That's not "clean" and as Chernobyl demonstrated, accidents do and will happen. I wouldn't want a nuclear plant near my house.

I don't think you can blame Greenpeace for deaths caused by vitamin A deficiencies and if this is happening why not simply send to this country vitamin A tablets - does it have to be in a genetically modified form of rice?

Cartesiantheater

Apr 4th, 2007, 10:26 PM

I don't think you can blame Greenpeace for deaths caused by vitamin A deficiencies and if this is happening why not simply send to this country vitamin A tablets - does it have to be in a genetically modified form of rice?

What's the difference between ARTIFICIALLY placed vitamin A in rice and ARTIFICIALLY generated vitamin A tablets?

Vitamin A doesn't come in tablets in nature; it's probably COOKED IN A LAB like aspirin or meth (although I am unsure about the modern methods these chemicals are obtained, I am pretty certain they are obtained via chemical means, which probably requires various catalysts that may be harmful on their own, but with the correct chemistry, it works out, etc.)... so really, what's the difference?

Chemistry is chemistry. The genetically altered rice will harm NO ONE- any more than vitamin A tablets.

Ningishiddza

Apr 4th, 2007, 11:45 PM

Example:

1. Hypocrisy: Greenpeace stance on nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the cleanest most energy efficient alternative to our current fossil fuel based energy grid. Uranium is one of the most abundant elements on the planet. Current reactor designs have shelf lives well over a century (with maintenance). A single unit mass of uranium in a modern reactor will produce over 34 million times the power of a unit mass of coal will producing next to no emissions (discounting extraction and transport emissions, which are still less than those of coal). Hazardous material can be safely dealt with via storage solutions or escape strategies (off-planet dumping into the sun). The amount of power that could be supplied by a nuclear power grid would be more than sufficient to supply our current needs and would be better able to handle the expected increase in the future as technology and its dependence on available power continues to develop. So why the resistance?

The advantages of nuclear power are grossly over-stated.

Yes, nuclear power will eliminate the need for destructive strip mining of coal, elimate acid rain from coal burning and reduce CO2 emissions. However, the last time I checked, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks hauling Wal-Mart crap and American SUVs do not run on coal.

Yes, nuclear power will also eliminate the need for gas turbine operated electric power plants and the small number in the US that operate on liquid natural gas made from refined crude oil. Again, 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks hauling Dollar Store and Macy's crap, and American SUVs do not run on natural gas or LNG.

Yes, nuclear power will eliminate the need from them god-awful ugly freaking windmills everywhere.

And yes, nuclear power will allow countries like Iran and Jordan (Ooops! Sorry, the MSM doesn't want you to know Jordan is building nuclear power plants, at least not until after Iran is bombed) to develop their economies and more importantly power desalinization plants, just like the kind Florida is going to need very soon.

Build all the nuclear power plants you want, but it won't change the fact that 300 Million people will continue to piss away 25% of the world's oil every single day.

2. Fundamentalist environmentalism and Golden Rice. A tragedy.

Economically feasible and fundamentally practical, one wonders WHY this is the case? In fact Greenpeace and others have pressured agricultural buyers to boycott countries that grow golden rice effectively hamstringing both a solution a widespread mortality problem by holding these countries economically hostage. One still wonders WHY?

Why?

Well, I'm looking in my personal files and those scientists have not asked me for permission to modify organisms on this planet. Unless and until they do, they can't.

I don't see their names on the deed or title to Earth either.

Just because one can do something, doesn't mean that one ought or should do something. We can build 100s of neutron bombs and use them. Ought we? Should we?

Vitamin A costs 0.00643 per pill. If they're so altruistic, why don't they just buy them and send them over?

And millions of blind people running around the 3rd world? They seem to be quite adept with machetes.

Anything for a buck.

14/03/2007 - Monsanto's genetically modified maize MON863, authorised for human consumption since 2006, showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity in a rat study, raising concerns about its safety.

The study, performed by French researchers from the independent CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering), based at the University of Caen reports that rats fed the maize for three months showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes.

"Our counter-evaluation show that there are signs of toxicity and that nobody can say scientifically and seriously that consumption of the transgenic maize MON863 is safe and good for health," lead author of the study, Professor Gilles Eric Séralini told France's TF1 television station.

MON863 is a transgenic maize genetically modified to express the Bt-toxin (Cry3Bb1) which enables the plant to be insect repellent against the corn rootworm pest. It is different from other GM corns of the market since these express the Cry1Ab toxin which is toxic to the European corn borer.

The study, published on-line in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, fed young adult Sprague-Dawley-derived rats (aged six weeks at the start of the experiment) diets containing 11 or 30 per cent MON863, or diets containing non-GM corn for 90 days.

At the end of the study, Séralini and his team found signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys of rats fed the MON863 maize, as well as changes to weight between the sexes. Indeed, male rats were found to have lost, on average, 3.3 per cent of their body weight, while females gained 3.7 per cent.

Triglyceride levels also increased by between 24 and 40 per cent in females, phosphorous and sodium excretion decreased in males.

"We have the first signs of toxicity that appear at the level of body weight, the kidneys, and the liver, and that are also different between the sexes indicating deeper effects at the hormone level," said Séralini.

The researchers raised concerns over the methods used by Monsanto to initially show the safety and non-toxicity of the corn, saying that the statistical methods used were insufficient to observed any possible disruptions in biochemistry.

The mechanism behind the apparent toxicity is not known, but there is some evidence that the Bt-toxin may perforate blood cells, they said.

"Considering that the human and animal populations could be exposed at comparable levels to this kind of food or feed that has been authorised by several countries, and that these are the best mammalian toxicity tests available, we strongly recommend a new assessment and longer exposure of mammals to these diets, with cautious clinical observations, before concluding that MON863 is safe to eat," concluded the researchers.

The moral of the story? Be wary of those who claim to champion a popular cause, more often then not they are using it as a means to propagate their own fundamentalist agenda.

No, the moral of the story is be wary of those who would burn their house down just to kill a fly that got inside.

donniedarko

Apr 4th, 2007, 11:47 PM

well i agree with you that we should be skeptic. And i know you are just using them as examples. But i must note that the technologies you describe are still in its development state. And accidents do happen with unpredicted results.

Neither of these technologies are in the development stage. In fact transgenic crops are being used throughout the world already despite stiff resistance from ignorant organizations with biased agendas. Nuclear power has been refined for nearly 4 decades now. The nuclear reactors that we currently have produce minimal waste, can use MOX fuel reducing waste even more and DO NOT require an enrichment program (required to develop nuclear weapons). The ignorance of the real state of affairs is fostered by socially disruptive organizations, Greenpeace being a prime example.

The problem with nuclear waste is real and there is currently no real solution besides burying the stuff and let later generations deal with it. It would be better to put our hopes on fusion technology instead of the inefficient and polluting fission nuclear reactors. Not to mention the risk of accidents and terrorism.

1. Fission does not pollute nearly as much as coal. The pollution from fission is in large part from the extraction process (i.e. mining). Radioactive waste CAN be safely dealt with, there are numerous viable options including sequestration. The amount of radioactive waste produced by Canada's nuclear plants in 40 YEARS of usage is barely enough to fill a standard hockey rink to the boards; we are not gonna be swimming in the stuff.

2. Fusion technology is the real "in development" monkey here. Tonnes of money has already been sunk into this concept with no real results. Why go with the glamorous yet ultimately unrealistic approach and instead get your hands dirty with what we know works.

Its good to have an critic view on this kind of stuff before jumping into large scale application. Don't forget that that is just what Greenpeace does. Its not like they rule the world or something.

I am not suggesting that Greenpeace rules the world, but they do have tremendous political clout as one of the leaders of the fundie environmentalist movement. Greenpeace has been cited as the leading campaign backer against the use of golden rice based on the agenda that no GM crops are beneficial in anyway. They put blinders on and ignore common sense. Golden rice has a TWO gene insertion in a BIOSYNTHETIC pathway. Even if the new genetic material leaked, it would allow bacteria to produce the last two steps of the Vitamin A biosynthesis pathway. Damn. How horrible! Ignorance of the method and blanket opposition to everything based on a flawed set of morals is what these groups do. Greenpeace as a leader should demonstrate how to properly evaluate what they choose to campaign against. They don't.

Freaked Out, the above is also in response to your post. Greenpeace doesn't just take issue with the unknowns, they are admittedly ignorant of the facts and choose to ignore them. It's a sweeping generalization that is hurting something that could be EXTREMELY beneficial to a number of people. One would think that people should take issue with THAT fact over whether or not the synthesis of Vitamin A (already in CORN I might add) could produce some sort of toxic Vitamin A (which is next to impossible, along the same odds of me spontaneously combusting and then reassembling as an alligator)

Nuclear sounds good - but what to do with all the waste that is produced? That's not "clean" and as Chernobyl demonstrated, accidents do and will happen. I wouldn't want a nuclear plant near my house.

Of course you don't because you don't have the knowledge of modern developments that make modern nuclear power the safest power generation technology we currently have. Chernobyl was how long ago? That's like saying I won't fly in a plane because the first ones crashed. I won't drive a car because the first cars exploded on occasion. The technology has developed. The risk has been drastically reduced but Greenpeace and its fellow organizations are reliant on your ignorance because they have decided to make a fundamental rejection of that particular option. In effect they are helping out the fossil fuel companies they are ALSO campaign against by preventing large scale application nuclear power. It is hypocrisy.

I don't think you can blame Greenpeace for deaths caused by vitamin A deficiencies and if this is happening why not simply send to this country vitamin A tablets - does it have to be in a genetically modified form of rice?

Cheaper, more efficient, better distribution. And we are talking about over a half a billion people here. To send enough vitamin A tablets to supply that many people for the course of each of their lifetimes? You must admit that it is a ludicrous idea. Especially given that a safe, tested and FREE option is already available.

donniedarko

Apr 4th, 2007, 11:59 PM

Build all the nuclear power plants you want, but it won't change the fact that 300 Million people will continue to piss away 25% of the world's oil every single day.

The transition to a hydrogen economy, along with construction a better transport infrastructure would result in this being a non-issue. Hydrogen economy is currently infeasible because we lack the power grid necessary to support hydrolysis to generate the hydrogen required. A nuclear power grid could supply this power without polluting. Think outside the box.

Well, I'm looking in my personal files and those scientists have not asked me for permission to modify organisms on this planet. Unless and until they do, they can't.

I am sorry, I am looking in my personal files and I can't find anywhere that you have some right to decide what should and should not be allowed on this planet. Non-argument.

Beyond that Ning, this plant has a two gene insertion into a pre-existing pathway, I am not sure how much you understand of genetics but the crux of the matter is the gene insertion is harmless. They are doing the same thing for insulin synthesis, making insulin production highly efficient and environmentally friendly, however that option will probably get shutdown too because people are ignorant and this ignorance is fed with fear. The single example you show of harmful effects from a GM crop has to do with pest resistance and the secretion of a insecticidal compound. Intriguingly, we already spray that stuff all over our crops, causing the same effect yet nobody seems to care about that method.

Vitamin A costs 0.00643 per pill. If they're so altruistic, why don't they just buy them and send them over?

Cheaper, more efficient, better distribution. FREE.

lycanox

Apr 5th, 2007, 12:53 PM

Nuclear energy is still fully in its development state. Simply because we still have the waste problem. It might get lesser and lesser but it still takes a whole lot of time before it becomes safe again.
If the Romans had nuclear energy we would still be guarding their nuclear waste. Can you guarantee that today's nuclear waste is gonna be safely stored for the next 10.000 years.
No civilisation has ever lasted that long, how do you want to protect the waste against war or an large earthquake in the year 4582. Or do you still expect the USA, Russia, North Korea and all those other countries that have nuclear reactors to be be rich or around at that time?
I agree that after all this Nuclear energy is still the best option. But you cant blame Greenpeace for pointing out he problems with them.

Its correct that genetically engineered crops are already in our stores for ten years. But there are also reports of those products showing up where they shouldn't. And even more disturbing, Cross contamination between GM crops and normal crops and bacteria. I agree that it never has gone wrong spectacularly, but there are clearly signs that it one day will. Its simply way to early to say whether or not its safe or not. Don't forget about the killer bee.

Genetically engineered food wont safe the people starving in the third world more than ordinary food would.
Besides, pumping food towards those countries is an bad idea on its own. It would make them even more dependable on us. And if farming normal food appearently doesn't work, why would Genetically engineered food work?
What really should be done to safe them from starving is stop funding our industry to price the third world out of the market and give the third world an fair payment for the products they export. Like fair trade and Max havelaar does. Instead of raping them of natural resources like oil.
Considering GM crops will probably the make the difference between the rich countries that have them, and the poor countries that haven't got them even larger. The idea that GM is gonna safe all those people is nonsense. Infact it could even enlarge the number.

And talking about fundamentalism. There is much to say about scientist that throw good advice and warnings ( like those of Greenpeace ) away in the name of pursuing science. Perhaps you should whine about those activists that force veganism on everybody, instead of an real pro environmentalism organisation that are just doing their jobs.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 5th, 2007, 1:35 PM

Genetically engineered food wont safe the people starving in the third world more than ordinary food would. His example showed that it certainly would save them.

And if farming normal food appearently doesn't work, why would Genetically engineered food work?The food can be engineered to grow in less hostpitable environments and with less maintainance.

I agree that it never has gone wrong spectacularly, but there are clearly signs that it one day will.Fearmongers see these "signs" everywhere they look.

What really should be done to safe them from starvingThis is about saving them from vitamin A deficiencies. Golden rice is a great way to do it.

Making potatoes glow is cool, not needed but not harmful. The ecosystem is such that if it isnt being invaded by our whacky expirements its creating its own. Its a very fluid entity and just because we stop playing with our food doesnt mean that its going to stop playing with our food.

GM foods are the future. And why not? They can more efficiently deliver the nutrients that we want or need and also do it with more flavor. Its retarded to disagree or be afraid of this.

Nuclear energy is still fully in its development state. Simply because we still have the waste problem.Then so is coal and fossil fuel.... The fact is that nuclear power is very very safe now. The latest designs implemented (think 40+ years ago) allow for the reactor to be underground and self contained. In the case of melt downs they bury themselves such that their waste stays contained for its shelf life. They also can completely eliminate the problem of gas cars given that we CURRENTLY have the technology for completely electic cars that can go from 0-150mph in 8 seconds while getting 250+ miles per charge. So thats, nuclear energy feeding a car that emits not co2..... Why is greenpeace against that? Why is greenpeace against more efficient crops which require less space and time to grow?

Something must be confusing them from the inside.

lycanox

Apr 5th, 2007, 2:20 PM

His example showed that it certainly would save them.
So would other means of giving them that vitamins. Its Greenpeace its job to protect the environment, not to feed the hungry. For that we have other organisations. You might as-well blame FIFA for giving money to sports instead of using that money to feed the hungry. Is FIFA guilty of murdering those hungry that die as well?

The food can be engineered to grow in less hostpitable environments and with less maintainance.
The concequences of this would be that it would grow even better in an normal enviroment. Turning into an weed that damages all other means of crops.

Fearmongers see these "signs" everywhere they look.
So do people see the signs that smoking is hazardous and that CO2 emisions are cousing global warming.

This is about saving them from vitamin A deficiencies. Golden rice is a great way to do it.
Nope this topic is about the really far fetched notion that Greenpeace is an evil organisation that murders millions of people. GM crops and nuclear powers are just examples that Donniedarko used to strengthen his point.

Making potatoes glow is cool, not needed but not harmful. The ecosystem is such that if it isnt being invaded by our whacky expirements its creating its own. Its a very fluid entity and just because we stop playing with our food doesnt mean that its going to stop playing with our food. Question is, what game are we playing with it. An pie eating contest or Russian roulette.

GM foods are the future. And why not? They can more efficiently deliver the nutrients that we want or need and also do it with more flavor. Its retarded to disagree or be afraid of this.
Then so is coal and fossil fuel.... The fact is that nuclear power is very very safe now. The latest designs implemented (think 40+ years ago) allow for the reactor to be underground and self contained. In the case of melt downs they bury themselves such that their waste stays contained for its shelf life. They also can completely eliminate the problem of gas cars given that we CURRENTLY have the technology for completely electic cars that can go from 0-150mph in 8 seconds while getting 250+ miles per charge. So thats, nuclear energy feeding a car that emits not co2..... Why is Greenpeace against that? Why is greenpeace against more efficient crops which require less space and time to grow?

Something must be confusing them from the inside.
Correct. I don't agree with Greenpeace on everything. But calling them an evil murdering organisation just because they disagree with one of the not even the best ways to solve world hunger.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 5th, 2007, 2:41 PM

ok, I should have clarified my position. Im half green, they are not out to murder and Im sure their intentions are good at heart. I do disagree with them on GM foods and nuclear energy.

The concequences of this would be that it would grow even better in an normal enviroment. Turning into an weed that damages all other means of crops.Actually the beauty of GM foods and the science behind it is that we can guide and control it to do almost exactly what we want.... The consequence of this would be that we could create a way to harmlessly destroy the weeds and strains of weeds that we dont like. Think, we can already make things not grow very effectively, with GM we could make exactly what we want to grow grow. Crops that harvest all year.... grass that rarely needs watering.... Think about combine the least favorite part of a weed, its relentless instintance on existing, with your favorite part of whatever your favorite plant is.... It can all be ours with GM! Imagine how cool lawncare would be if your grass glowed in the dark.

So would other means of giving them that vitamins. Its Greenpeace its job to protect the environment, not to feed the hungry. For that we have other organisations. You might as-well blame FIFA for giving money to sports instead of using that money to feed the hungry. Is FIFA guilty of murdering those hungry that die as well?non-sequitor.... If FiFa campaigned to not allow the manufacturing and distribution of golden rice with their money then you could lay blaim at their feet for the preventable suffering of a people. Since they only encourage hooliganism, a nonpreventable behavior, you can only blame them for filling a vacuum.... I mean, people would find other excuses to be hooligans if there was no soccer.

What I want from GM foods is a variety of high protein / creatine / glutamine fruits/vegatables that are small in serving size and large in flavor, and not just any flavor, a good flavor.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 5th, 2007, 2:46 PM

So would other means of giving them that vitamins. Its Greenpeace its job to protect the environment, not to feed the hungry. For that we have other organisations. You might as-well blame FIFA for giving money to sports instead of using that money to feed the hungry. Is FIFA guilty of murdering those hungry that die as well?

Hate to butt in, but I don't like this analogy. Greenpeace is using its resources to DIRECTLY oppose something that could help millions. FIFA is totally neutral on the issue, and is NOT actively opposing it.

Further, just giving them vitamin A pills would, as you said earlier, make them more dependent on us. Not to mention I'd wager that giving them this technology to use would be cheaper on us, and would help them to more independence, wouldn't it?

The consequences of this would be that it would grow even better in an normal environment. Turning into an weed that damages all other means of crops.

No it wouldn't. Not if you control it correctly. That's an overly simplistic view on this: we aren't creating super crops that will be left to grow unchecked. This would be very precise.

So do people see the signs that smoking is hazardous and that CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Yeah, but this fear leads to paranoia: there ARE no risks of genetically altered crops. We can MEASURE that smoking releases harmful materials; we CANNOT measure ANY harmful effects from genetically altered crops.

I mean, these guys are ridiculous. This stuff isn't going to harm anyone- there is NO evidence that there is any harm, and there IS evidence that there are tons of benefits. So why reject it offhand based on UNSUBSTANIATED FEARS?

Nope this topic is about the really far fetched notion that Greenpeace is an evil organisation that murders millions of people.

No, the topic is that Greenpeace is an IGNORANT organization that presumably unintentionally contributes to deaths of millions of people. There's nothing far fetched about that at all.

The people in Greenpeace simply don't know what the hell they are talking about. Genetically modified crops will harm no one- and depriving people of them WILL harm millions (because it could make such wonderful improvements without harming the environment.)

Question is, what game are we playing with it. An pie eating contest or Russian roulette.

We aren't playing Russian roulette at all. That's just what the paranoid loons at Greenpeace WANT you to think. I think donnie has made it clear that ignorance motivates them. There's not going to be any sudden magical deathstar potatos attacking us due to genetic modification. These guys really do know what they're doing here. Chemistry is chemistry. Biochemistry is biochemistry.

Correct. I don't agree with Greenpeace on everything. But calling them an evil murdering organisation just because they disagree with one of the not even the best ways to solve world hunger.

Problem is, this IS one of the best way to solve world hunger at this time. MILLIONS could be saved each year. However, they are not an evil murdering organization; they are simply ignorant, and their ignorance prevents lives from being saved. I don't see how you can argue with that point, unless you are also ignorant of the relative safety of genetically engineered crops.

Apr 5th, 2007, 2:57 PM

The actual running costs for Greenpeace leaves vary little in the way of funds to have any real effect, in fact if those bureaucratic salaries could be allocated to implement small scale projects, they would have a far better effect on local populations in the third world, at least more so than running around the globe in diesel burning freighters complaining about the operations that produce the vary source of fuel they use themselves.

lycanox

Apr 5th, 2007, 4:40 PM

ok, I should have clarified my position. Im half green, they are not out to murder and Im sure their intentions are good at heart. I do disagree with them on GM foods and nuclear energy.

Good. Than we finally agree.

The actual running costs for Greenpeace leaves vary little in the way of funds to have any real effect, in fact if those bureaucratic salaries could be allocated to implement small scale projects, they would have a far better effect on local populations in the third world, at least more so than running around the globe in diesel burning freighters complaining about the operations that produce the vary source of fuel they use themselves.
Well that's western companies for ya. Spending money on stuff they don't need.
This is why we currently see more people starting their own projects, And are actually more successful than the big boys.

Nasik

Apr 5th, 2007, 9:12 PM

First of all, these large corporations, namely Monsanto and Dow and Bayer, have patents on these terminator seeds. Any argument suggesting that the rice would free and cheap is flawed. These companies are placing pressure on poorer nations to take these seeds. The first crop might be "free" but then they would have to purchase seeds for the next crop. Unlike now, where these countries simply save seeds from the previous crop.

The testing on these foods is generally done by the Corporations themselves, with the EPA and FDA basically taking the approach "your tests look fine, let us know if kills somebody"

So, anyone thinking that Greenpeace is a blind and ignorant organization that doesn't know what it's doing is fairly uninformed themselves. I've been involved with Greenpeace for about four years. So when I read this, I just shake my head.

Someone mentioned toxic vitamin "A" - that's not what is toxic, some of these products produce toxic proteins when certain dormant genes are turned on or off - they generate often unintended and unexpected results. They don't save money in the end, most crops are modified with a bacteria to repel insects - but in the end just as much pesticide ends up being used.

Yeah, we all eat GM foods because our governing bodies won't get off their asses and regulate labeling so we know what is modified and what's not. If that happens the market will speak, I wouldn't buy them.

Anyone who says that GM foods are safe are ignorant. The effects on the ecosystems they're introduced are not well understood - there is very little peer-reviewed research on it. Monsanto et al does their own testing. When some independent tests are done it shows disturbing trends, like enlarged kidneys and pulmonary failures in rats. The Bt Corn kills also the natural pest control in the environment.

So, there's more to it than a funky glowing lawn or vitamin A rice - and to say these environmentalists are practising blind ignorance is, in of itself, an ignorant statement.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 5th, 2007, 10:53 PM

Anyone who says that GM foods are safe are ignorant. The effects on the ecosystems they're introduced are not well understood - there is very little peer-reviewed research on it.Would there not be MORE information on it if your fearmongers would just shut their mouths and let it take place?

The FDA is pretty strict so to say that they are taking a back seat in the distribution of GM foods is quite ignorant.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 6th, 2007, 11:37 AM

You are all ignorant... IGNORANT I say!!!!!!! :D

Ok, seriously, the scientists working on these things are very good at what they do, and are very knowledgeable.

Donnie, who I believe is in graduate school majoring or majored in some field of biology is pretty knowledgeable about genetics, and has explained a little bit as to why it isn't harmful. I suggest you skeptics look up transgenic foods.

Anyway, here's the thing that is throwing me off the most: It is the NATURE OF THE FOOD that determines whether it is harmful, NOT the METHOD THAT IT GOT TO BE THE WAY IT IS! (that is, the PRESENT CHEMICAL MAKE UP of the food determines whether it is dangerous, NOT the method that got it to its present chemical make up)

There is no magic that's going to cause foods with slightly different genetic/chemical makeups to be dangerous UNLESS THE ACTUALLY TRAIT ITSELF IS DANGEROUS. HOW it got to be a certain way WILL NOT MATTER AT ALL. The only thing that matters is WHAT "way" it is- and these things are tested and examined!

EDIT- best as I can see, the only real "danger" is if some of these plants "excape" and then compete with their non-transgenic cousins on farms. But that is NOT going to be an epidemic; and if it IS, GREAT! We'll have BETTER foods growing! - I mean, assuming farmers can take advantage :D

Nasik

Apr 6th, 2007, 4:24 PM

You are all ignorant... IGNORANT I say!!!!!!! :D

LOL - that make me chuckle, you're right there.

As far as GP goes, their main initiative is to persuade governments to mandate labeling of these foods, which we don't have in North America.

I know that these scientists are knowledgeable - but scientists can and are sometimes wrong - for example asbestos - which they used to make ... feminine - you know, products from. But at the time, when it was introduced it was lauded as safe (and highly absorbant).

These scientists are ignorant, I'm ignorant, we're all ignorant - we don't understand the long-term consequences yet, we are all guinea pigs in this global experiment - so, should we exercise skeptism? I think so.

DBA - the FDA doesn't require independent testing, there is little peer-reviewed research on these foods - the companies do the testing themselves. It is not out of the realm of imagination to think that they might, I don't know, fudge tests or omit bad results in order to get a product on the market. We've all seen that sort of thing happen before. I'm wary of all of it. We shouldn't blindly follow scientists, just because their scientists either.

donniedarko

Apr 6th, 2007, 4:29 PM

First of all, these large corporations, namely Monsanto and Dow and Bayer, have patents on these terminator seeds.

Nope, the company is syngenta and has already agreed to donate golden rice to developing countries for humanitarian use. Therefore:

Any argument suggesting that the rice would free and cheap is flawed.

is rebutted.

The testing on these foods is generally done by the Corporations themselves, with the EPA and FDA basically taking the approach "your tests look fine, let us know if kills somebody"

Once again, they have inserted genes to turn on a dormant pathway that already exists in similar plants. The production of these proteins ALREADY happen in other foods. I can understand the concern over cross-phyla insertions such as bacterial compounds etc. but again, ignorance to what is actually going on is what is stalling this project and projects like it. Take the insulin producing canola for example. It is predicted that we would be able to GROW the worlds supply of insulin at a fraction of the cost of what it takes to produce it through bacterial synthesis.

So, anyone thinking that Greenpeace is a blind and ignorant organization that doesn't know what it's doing is fairly uninformed themselves. I've been involved with Greenpeace for about four years. So when I read this, I just shake my head.

Someone mentioned toxic vitamin "A" - that's not what is toxic, some of these products produce toxic proteins when certain dormant genes are turned on or off - they generate often unintended and unexpected results.

see above. The synthesis of proteins that are already ingested in OTHER plants that we already eat wil not produce harmful results. These genes don't code for a transcription regulator so won't turn on anything else.

Nasik

Apr 6th, 2007, 4:37 PM

Donnie, Monsanto might [not] make the "rice" you mention, but they are a major player in GE foods - A MAJOR PLAYER.

No corporation is going to go out of its way with all the RD only to give it away for free - they have to pay eventually, and they will. Despite your technical language some of the independent studies (in layman's terms - so people can understand) says that they use a bacteria gene or viral gene to turn on and off other genes - sometimes when that happens, bang, the plant product starts producing a toxin - this whole area is new - not even the scientists working on it fully understand Donnie, I read one guy saying its like throwing a book into a library and hoping it lands on a shelf. So take what you want from it.

I cherish our planet - I give money to GP - I want those things labeled and I think maybe some people put too much faith in scientists these days. For every brilliant idea there are a host of shitty ideas. With lax oversight, we end up being the guinea pigs - that's not fun. I particularly am wary of scientists that work for these large money hungry corporations. These companies are not listed as non-profit - they intend to make large sums of money.

C'mon - agggreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e e eee with me.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 6th, 2007, 5:36 PM

It is not out of the realm of imagination to think that they might, I don't know, fudge tests or omit bad results in order to get a product on the market.With class action lawsuits being filed every day for something.... companies really have zero interest in releasing an unsafe product.

Nasik

Apr 6th, 2007, 6:00 PM

With class action lawsuits being filed every day for something.... companies really have zero interest in releasing an unsafe product.

I dunno about that... What about aspartame - there's a good example of much corruption at upper levels to get that pushed into the market - quickly. (Thanks Dow Chemical, for making Formic Acid and Formeldyhede (sp) taste so good, and and thanks too for agent blue, agent orange and all that other good stuff you've done for humanity - your shareholders love you)

What about PhenPhen - that made it to the markets and that muscle relaxant, ... can't remember the name....vio..something. They had to pull that off the shelves.

Whoah, about this - Tabacoo - boy, they have a well oiled and monied law machine that can fend off all those pesty lawsuits. (and that's a good example of panel after panel of "scientists" and "doctors" saying the product is non-addictive and not bad for your health testifying infront of congress).

Fear of litigation hasn't worked to regulate corporate activites - loads of examples, if they think they can get away with it - they'll try.

donniedarko

Apr 6th, 2007, 8:20 PM

FO, we can agree on something. There needs to be non-profit organizations whose purpose it is to provide objective assessments on things that might otherwise be pushed through. However, these organizations must also be knowledgable enough and unbiased enough to allow a good product through when it is available. My argument is that Greenpeace rejected Golden Rice out of hand because of the association of the genetically modified label. This is ignorant and harmful.

I apologize for the technical terminology but in laymans terms, this particular crop is harmless.

1. Yes, they used a bacterial vector for gene insertion. Laymans terms, they used a bacteria to insert the information into the plants genome allowing it to synthesize Vitamin A. What does this mean? Nothing. It is standard practice. If you are worried about leftover bacterial DNA doing strange things, there is a simple answer. There is none. Sequencing is as easy as photocopying these days. The sequence of the transgenic plant reveals no leftover junk including the removed hygromycin resistance gene that so many people are worried about.

2. I don't know what to tell you about the money making scheme. They have stated they will donate it to developing countries for humanitarian purposes. What more do you want? Of course they want to make money. They will try and market it as a nutrient rich rice version in developed countries and try and encourage developing countries to sell it as a cash crop. Of course they will, thats capitalism in all its glory. HOWEVER, accepting the donated rice will not require a country to also purchase it for export. I don't see any strings...

3. Finally, the notion that gene insertion is not completely understood is true... to an extent. It's not like throwing a book at a shelf and hoping it lands in the right spot at all. I have created NUMEROUS transgenic organisms myself. As I stated above sequencing to confirm that it landed in the right place is commonplace and easy.

In summary, FO, I do agree with you... to an extent. I still firmly believe that Greenpeace and other such organizations have blinders on and all too often act impetuously based on ideology as opposed to facts.

However, they are at least not as bad as PETA.

oldtimer

Apr 6th, 2007, 10:33 PM

Cartesiantheater

Apr 6th, 2007, 11:13 PM

Donnie are you a scientist?...What type of transgenic organisms have you created?I'm not trying to be an ass or anything,just curious.

Last I checked he was in graduate school (where all the MAGIC happens in science :D )

However, we shall let the man answer for himself...

Donnie, to clear it up, what IS your major? thanks...

donniedarko

Apr 9th, 2007, 10:41 AM

Lol, I am currently working in an oncology lab working on some prognostic assays for Wilm's tumour (pediatric nephroblastoma... err. kidney cancer in children). To do this, I have used lab yeast two-hybrid assays which basically means taking two genes that are hypothesized to interact and creating a transgenic yeast cell line to express them along with a fluorescent marker (reporter gene). I am hopefully (funding permitting) working with transgenic mice this summer to confirm my results. I'll post the paper if it gets published.

Also, off-topic but I am quite excited to be working in a new lab next year doing research on c.elegans. For those of you who don't know, c.elegans was the first organism to have its entire genome sequenced.

MaximumPain

Apr 9th, 2007, 9:30 PM

You are all ignorant... IGNORANT I say!!!!!!! :D

Ok, seriously, the scientists working on these things are very good at what they do, and are very knowledgeable.

I get kind of tired of your attitude that anything scientists do is automatically good. While most of what science does undoubtedly benefits mankind there are still cases where science has been used for evil. After all scientists are humans just like the rest of us and are subject to the same temptations and needs as us normal humans.

Donnie, who I believe is in graduate school majoring or majored in some field of biology is pretty knowledgeable about genetics, and has explained a little bit as to why it isn't harmful. I suggest you skeptics look up transgenic foods.

So because some guy on a forum claims to have a degree in biology we should just accept what the agri-business giants want to do to the food supply? (no offense Donnie I actually believe
you do have or are working on said degree I just want to make a point).

As for transgenic foods I googled the term and came up with several sites and lots of information some of it came from universities (who benefit financially from research donations both from the government and the corporations who hope to sell these products). Some of it came form the corporations them self’s (of course they would NEVER hide concerns about their products). And from some environmental groups. Here is something interesting I found on this site
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-23-01.asp

“Organic farmers worry that pollen drift from nearby genetically modified crops could contaminate their organic varieties. Consumers worry that the modified proteins in transgenic foods could cause health problems, such as allergies, and problems as yet unknown.
These fears were heightened by a May 22 report in the British newspaper "The Independent" that rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified maize, or corn, developed abnormalities in internal organs and changes to their blood.
The rats were part of research carried out by U.S. based food giant Monsanto, the results of which have not been disclosed to the public.
The Monsanto research showed that some rats fed on genetically modified maize had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood, while the rats fed on normal maize were healthy.
Monsanto says it cannot make the full report public because it contains information that might be of commercial use to competitors”

Wow looks great to me lets eat up.

Anyway, here's the thing that is throwing me off the most: It is the NATURE OF THE FOOD that determines whether it is harmful, NOT the METHOD THAT IT GOT TO BE THE WAY IT IS! (that is, the PRESENT CHEMICAL MAKE UP of the food determines whether it is dangerous, NOT the method that got it to its present chemical make up)

There is no magic that's going to cause foods with slightly different genetic/chemical makeups to be dangerous UNLESS THE ACTUALLY TRAIT ITSELF IS DANGEROUS. HOW it got to be a certain way WILL NOT MATTER AT ALL. The only thing that matters is WHAT "way" it is- and these things are tested and examined!

That is a pretty cavalier attitude for something as basic as food is to human survival. Quite frankly I don’t want for profit organizations changing the food supply that has worked for thousands of years. Sorry but I don’t trust them or the scientists they PAY to come up with this stuff. If there are negative side effects due to eating these foods they wont show up for years and will be nearly impossible to pin on any one source like transgenic foods.

EDIT- best as I can see, the only real "danger" is if some of these plants "excape" and then compete with their non-transgenic cousins on farms. But that is NOT going to be an epidemic; and if it IS, GREAT! We'll have BETTER foods growing! - I mean, assuming farmers can take advantage :D

What if these plants help create antibiotic resistant diseases, or turn seed bearing crops into non seed bearing crops? Is Monsanto going to come out and fix it all if they screw it up?

As for the vitamin A deficiency there are already plants that produce vitamin A here is a list
• liver
• sweet potatos
• carrots
• mangoes
• spinach
• cantaloupe
• dried apricots
• milk
• egg yolks
• mozzarella cheese
I am sure these foods can be grown in most places in the world and while it would be easier to just hand someone a bowl of rice then they are missing other essential nutrients.
You would need to make rice a multi vitamin for that strategy to be truly effective.
I am not against GMOs as a whole I just suggest that we approach these things slowly before we change something we cant change back.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 9th, 2007, 9:57 PM

I get kind of tired of your attitude that anything scientists do is automatically good. While most of what science does undoubtedly benefits mankind there are still cases where science has been used for evil. After all scientists are humans just like the rest of us and are subject to the same temptations and needs as us normal humans.

True, but the rest of us aren't held to such high standards as the institution of science. No, I don't claim science as gospel. I just claim that it is far closer to gospel than anything else.

So because some guy on a forum claims to have a degree in biology we should just accept what the agri-business giants want to do to the food supply? (no offense Donnie I actually believe
you do have or are working on said degree I just want to make a point).

If you didn't notice, I was talking about the knowledge of genetics that donnie was imparting to us, and why HE is more qualified to speak on the relative dangers than YOU or I am. I made no such claim that because donnie "claims to have a degree in biology" that we should "just accept that the agri-business giants" etc. etc.

As for transgenic foods I googled the term and came up with several sites and lots of information some of it came from universities (who benefit financially from research donations both from the government and the corporations who hope to sell these products).

They benifit MORE from having a prestigious reputation for acedemics. Sure, the government gives them money, but so do students, and with tuition upwards of $40,000 times say, 5,000 students EVERY YEAR until the institution is closed, I'd say they have a good financial reason to maintain intellectual integrity.

Oh, and I guess you're saying that donniedarko (who you claimed to BELIEVE) is also in on this grand conspiracy, right?

Some of it came form the corporations them self’s (of course they would NEVER hide concerns about their products).

DBA pointed out a good reason why they WOULD. Ever heard of a class action law suit? How about that recent animal food company that is losing MILLIONS at LEAST from a recall and lawsuits, due to about FIFTEEN MEASLY ANIMALS dying. Plus, with hefty fines from the government, not to mention their forever tarnished reputation would hurt sells. There are AMPLE reasons to not produce a product that will have mass negative effects.

And from some environmental groups. Here is something interesting I found on this site So you claim that universities are baised based on NOTHING BUT SPECULATION, and then decide to include ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS? See, environmental groups PROCLAIM their bias, so there is NO DOUBT that they have one.

“Organic farmers worry that pollen drift from nearby genetically modified crops could contaminate their organic varieties. Consumers worry that the modified proteins in transgenic foods could cause health problems, such as allergies, and problems as yet unknown.

These are fears of consumers, who are NOT QUALIFIED to make the call.

These fears were heightened by a May 22 report in the British newspaper "The Independent" that rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified maize, or corn, developed abnormalities in internal organs and changes to their blood.
The rats were part of research carried out by U.S. based food giant Monsanto, the results of which have not been disclosed to the public.
The Monsanto research showed that some rats fed on genetically modified maize had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood, while the rats fed on normal maize were healthy.
Monsanto says it cannot make the full report public because it contains information that might be of commercial use to competitors”

Unfortunately, studies that are not peer reviewed, scrutinized, and PUBLISHED are NOT scholarly, and thus are not studies that I would advise trusting. And, of course, if we do not have the details of the study, HOW THE HELL DO WE KNOW what the cause of these anomalies are, and if these anomalies are even legitimate?

Wow looks great to me lets eat up.

What I find hilarious is that you present to use a THIRD HAND report about a study that has NOT been published, that has NOT been duplicated, and that has NOT been scrutinized by critical examination, and then get upset that I trust science (where anything taken seriously IS published, IS subject to duplication, and HAS BEEN scrutinized by critical examination, and who's results are there for anyone with a subscription to a scholarly data base to examine... )

That is a pretty cavalier attitude for something as basic as food is to human survival.

Look dude, physics is physics. There is NO magic here.

Quite frankly I don’t want for profit organizations changing the food supply that has worked for thousands of years.

Yet you're ok with all the other THOUSANDS of changes to our lifestyle that has "worked for thousands of years" that we humans dumped in favor of more efficient ones?

Sorry but I don’t trust them or the scientists they PAY to come up with this stuff.

Again, you must not appreciate or understand how (university) scientists get paid, and who is paying them, and what the consequences are for fudging results.

If there are negative side effects due to eating these foods they wont show up for years and will be nearly impossible to pin on any one source like transgenic foods.

That all depends on how well we understand genetics and the product. However, what you are not seeing is that the area of ignorance is ALWAYS GETTING SMALLER.

What if these plants help create antibiotic resistant diseases, or turn seed bearing crops into non seed bearing crops? Is Monsanto going to come out and fix it all if they screw it up?

What if they create a vortex that sucks all cattle into the twilite zone?

As for the vitamin A deficiency there are already plants that produce vitamin A here is a list
• liver
• sweet potatos
• carrots
• mangoes
• spinach
• cantaloupe
• dried apricots
• milk
• egg yolks
• mozzarella cheese
I am sure these foods can be grown in most places in the world and while it would be easier to just hand someone a bowl of rice then they are missing other essential nutrients.
You would need to make rice a multi vitamin for that strategy to be truly effective.
I am not against GMOs as a whole I just suggest that we approach these things slowly before we change something we cant change back.

The point is that there are situations where starvation can be greatly helped with these transgenic foods.

I firmly believe, as donnie posted, that your side's argument stems from IGNORANCE about the procedures, and the technicalities of the tests done.

MaximumPain

Apr 9th, 2007, 10:02 PM

Sure Nuclear energy is safe and clean just ask those who used to live near Chernobyl. Nice clean energy totally safe and reliable. We could probably get some terrorists to take some of that extra waste off our hands as well they will know what to do with it for sure.

It would only take one real accident in the western world to show people the danger of nuclear power. If the reactor near me melted down (I’m about 20 miles from it) an entire city would be lost and millions of innocent people would be treated to a damaging dose of radiation. How many would die? How many of our children would be genetically damaged? Another question, how many of these reactors are in earthquake prone areas? Are they built to withstand a major earthquake or other disaster with out melting down?
How well guarded are these plants against terrorist attacks? We are lucky the attacks of 9/11 only hit buildings and not several reactors.

We certainly need nuclear power and I’m sure that the people who operate our reactors take their job very seriously but it only takes one mistake once that radiation is out you cant put it back. Oh and can we store the waste in your back yard? Don’t worry these casks we use for storage are totally safe and will contain every bit of radiation and never decay or rupture.

There are other solutions that don’t produce radioactive waste. The half life of uranium is 760 million years in the terms of human civilization that’s forever.

MaximumPain

Apr 9th, 2007, 11:17 PM

:grin
True, but the rest of us aren't held to such high standards as the institution of science. No, I don't claim science as gospel. I just claim that it is far closer to gospel than anything else.

Agreed, I actually trust science more than religion myself.

If you didn't notice, I was talking about the knowledge of genetics that donnie was imparting to us, and why HE is more qualified to speak on the relative dangers than YOU or I am. I made no such claim that because donnie "claims to have a degree in biology" that we should "just accept that the agri-business giants" etc. etc.

I agree with you here as well, Donnie is more qualified than YOU or I to discuss this topic. But in such a complicated science (at least to me: Biology kicked my ass in high school) no one person can predict all of the long term consequences of their actions.

They benifit MORE from having a prestigious reputation for acedemics. Sure, the government gives them money, but so do students, and with tuition upwards of $40,000 times say, 5,000 students EVERY YEAR until the institution is closed, I'd say they have a good financial reason to maintain intellectual integrity.

Oh, and I guess you're saying that donniedarko (who you claimed to BELIEVE) is also in on this grand conspiracy, right?

Never said Donnie was in on some grand conspiracy (at least not knowingly:grin ). And you are correct that research institutions do benefit greatly and in fact live and die on there reputations. That does not insulate them from working on things that could go bad or be used for profit at the expense of some third world country.

DBA pointed out a good reason why they WOULD. Ever heard of a class action law suit? How about that recent animal food company that is losing MILLIONS at LEAST from a recall and lawsuits, due to about FIFTEEN MEASLY ANIMALS dying. Plus, with hefty fines from the government, not to mention their forever tarnished reputation would hurt sells. There are AMPLE reasons to not produce a product that will have mass negative effects.

In the case of the recent animal deaths the animals died quickly from the effects of food poisoning that was easily traced back to one pet food factory. With genetically modified foods the harmful effects could take many years to show up and would be difficult to pin down to any one modified organism. Further more who’s going to be able to sue the creators of these GMO’s if they get into the environment and effect other food crops?

So you claim that universities are baised based on NOTHING BUT SPECULATION, and then decide to include ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS? See, environmental groups PROCLAIM their bias, so there is NO DOUBT that they have one.

No I am claming that the agri-business giants are biased in favor of their personal profits. There are at least hundreds of cases where corporations have produced products knowing they are harmful to people and/or the environment and did not stop UNTIL they were sued by the public or the EPA. Oh and by the way every one with a dog in this fight is biased at least a little bit. Sure the universities are not going to help create something that is instantly fatal but they could make just a part of a complex project that in the long run turns bad. Also a lot of this research is done privately by the agri-business giants how much do you trust them?

These are fears of consumers, who are NOT QUALIFIED to make the call.

So consumers don’t have the right to question how their food is grown and if it effects the environment? As a consumer I want to know that I have some scientists on my side checking out these organisms asking the tough questions about long term health and environmental effects.

Unfortunately, studies that are not peer reviewed, scrutinized, and PUBLISHED are NOT scholarly, and thus are not studies that I would advise trusting. And, of course, if we do not have the details of the study, HOW THE HELL DO WE KNOW what the cause of these anomalies are, and if these anomalies are even legitimate?

What I find hilarious is that you present to use a THIRD HAND report about a study that has NOT been published, that has NOT been duplicated, and that has NOT been scrutinized by critical examination, and then get upset that I trust science (where anything taken seriously IS published, IS subject to duplication, and HAS BEEN scrutinized by critical examination, and who's results are there for anyone with a subscription to a scholarly data base to examine... )

Do you think Monsanto would ever publish such a study?

Look dude, physics is physics. There is NO magic here.

But this is biology not physics, we are not talking about the towers coming down we are talking about humans screwing around with the very organisms that give us life.

Yet you're ok with all the other THOUSANDS of changes to our lifestyle that has "worked for thousands of years" that we humans dumped in favor of more efficient ones?

I was a little hasty there, what I meant to say was I don’t want for profit organizations changing the food supply with out looking into it carefully.
Most of them were good from the point of view improving our quality of life just as these GMO’s would likely improve peoples quality of life. We have the capability to examine the long term effects of changing our food supply I am suggesting that we not just run off and start doing it with out some more research.

Again, you must not appreciate or understand how (university) scientists get paid, and who is paying them, and what the consequences are for fudging results.

Not fully I am not a scientist, but I do know that it is not impossible that any givin scientist might “fudge” a result or take a pay off other humans do and scientists are in the end only human.

What if they create a vortex that sucks all cattle into the twilite zone?

Please that is no answer to my question, lets try again.

What if these plants help create antibiotic resistant diseases, or turn seed bearing crops into non seed bearing crops? Is Monsanto going to come out and fix it all if they screw it up?
I think we all know that the answer is no.

The point is that there are situations where starvation can be greatly helped with these transgenic foods.

Agreed but it is not the only answer to the problem.

I firmly believe, as donnie posted, that your side's argument stems from IGNORANCE about the procedures, and the technicalities of the tests done.

Sure you are talking about advanced science that the common man has no hope of fully understanding. I just want to know that people with the necessary expertise are examining this stuff to make sure that we are not going down a road we can not go back on.

donniedarko

Apr 9th, 2007, 11:55 PM

So because some guy on a forum claims to have a degree in biology we should just accept what the agri-business giants want to do to the food supply? (no offense Donnie I actually believe
you do have or are working on said degree I just want to make a point).

I totally understand where you are coming from, I think I may have made a specific post about credentialism here (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=6706&highlight=credentialism).

“Organic farmers worry that pollen drift from nearby genetically modified crops could contaminate their organic varieties. Consumers worry that the modified proteins in transgenic foods could cause health problems, such as allergies, and problems as yet unknown.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that certain transgenic plants have inherent risks but my argument is that many environmentalist groups reject ALL GM crops out of hand because of the GM mystique associated with them. Instead of heeding the facts, they simply discount it because ALL GMO's are risky.

That is a pretty cavalier attitude for something as basic as food is to human survival. Quite frankly I don’t want for profit organizations changing the food supply that has worked for thousands of years.

A thousand years ago, we didn't have the options we have now. You can't reject something because it is not tradition, especially given the benefits.

Sorry but I don’t trust them or the scientists they PAY to come up with this stuff. If there are negative side effects due to eating these foods they wont show up for years and will be nearly impossible to pin on any one source like transgenic foods.

Firstly, don't trust the engineers who get PAID by car manufacturers to make car's safer. This argument always seems a little ludicrous to me. We live in a capitalist society, everyone gets PAID to do something. It is a lack of understand that generates a lack of trust; genetics is just inherently difficult to understand.

As for the vitamin A deficiency there are already plants that produce vitamin A here is a list
• liver
• sweet potatos
• carrots
• mangoes
• spinach
• cantaloupe
• dried apricots
• milk
• egg yolks
• mozzarella cheese
I am sure these foods can be grown in most places in the world and while it would be easier to just hand someone a bowl of rice then they are missing other essential nutrients.

Now consider this.

1. Many of the foods you listed are not considered staples in the way that rice is, in other words, they are not eaten at the same frequency. To change people's diets to convert to these alternatives requires education which in the developing world is very difficult to come by.

2. Many of the countries that this particular crop would be useful in traditionally eat rice. Given that there are no inherent risks in planting the crop, it is just as effective as offering alternatives. Possibly even more so because these countries wouldn't have to change their agricultural infrastructure to accommodate non-traditional crop growth.

I am not against GMOs as a whole I just suggest that we approach these things slowly before we change something we cant change back.

I agree, this is exactly how it should be handled with the caveat that when something that does not pose a risk is introduced it should be allowed to be introduced without a blanket rejection out of hand due to ignorance and possibly a political agenda.

donniedarko

Apr 10th, 2007, 12:02 AM

Sure Nuclear energy is safe and clean just ask those who used to live near Chernobyl. Nice clean energy totally safe and reliable. We could probably get some terrorists to take some of that extra waste off our hands as well they will know what to do with it for sure.

How many years ago was Chernobyl? I think I made this argument earlier in the thread. It's like saying don't fly in a plane because the first ones had a tendency to crash. The technology has improved. That is why you haven't heard about another Chernobyl, and given that nuclear power is quite widespread now (although minimal compared to fossil fuel generators), you think you would have already

Beyond that, nuclear facilities are some of the safest and most resilient buildings in operation. Heck, there are so few moving parts that really, they are probably more earthquake resilient than a conventional power plant. Furthermore, location is everything in earthquake resistance. If you build on bed rock, no problem and little shaking and its all over. It is when you build on sediment that shit hits the fan.

Oh and can we store the waste in your back yard? Don’t worry these casks we use for storage are totally safe and will contain every bit of radiation and never decay or rupture.

Meh, if I had the right geologic backyard to bury it in, by all means. It's a non-issue, a straw man almost in that there is no argument about where to put it. There are plenty of locations that would have minimal to no impact on locals, but again ignorance abounds.

There are other solutions that don’t produce radioactive waste.

Such as?

MaximumPain

Apr 10th, 2007, 3:10 AM

I totally understand where you are coming from, I think I may have made a specific post about credentialism here (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=6706&highlight=credentialism).

Good point.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that certain transgenic plants have inherent risks but my argument is that many environmentalist groups reject ALL GM crops out of hand because of the GM mystique associated with them. Instead of heeding the facts, they simply discount it because ALL GMO's are risky.

I have noticed that the anti GMO crowd is pretty absolute on there stance. Personally I believe that GMOs are inevitable if we (the USA) don’t make them then someone else will. Further more there are many issues that GMOs can solve. Its just that I mistrust almost everyone (paranoid that’s me) and want major changes to our planet and its biosphere to be closely monitored by knowledgeable skeptical people.

A thousand years ago, we didn't have the options we have now. You can't reject something because it is not tradition, especially given the benefits.

Ill give you that point as well lets just be carefull.

Firstly, don't trust the engineers who get PAID by car manufacturers to make car's safer. This argument always seems a little ludicrous to me. We live in a capitalist society, everyone gets PAID to do something. It is a lack of understand that generates a lack of trust; genetics is just inherently difficult to understand.

Cars are different than GMOs in that the consumers who drive unsafe cars will be directly affected by them within a few years, where with the GMOs the effects could not be felt for 20+ years. Also with a car if it sucks you can get another one and make a decision never to buy from that company again. The choices regarding GMOs is not so clear cut, even someone who goes out of there way to buy natural foods could still be eating modified foods due to cross pollination ect. Also with cars an independent organization reviews the safety capabilities of the various cars and publishes the results for all consumers to see. If such a process exists for the creation of GMOs it is unknown to me (and likely the vast number of consumers). Also getting paid can effect your stance towards those who sign your checks and that goes for anyone from the garbage man, to the president of the united states.

Now consider this.

1. Many of the foods you listed are not considered staples in the way that rice is, in other words, they are not eaten at the same frequency. To change people's diets to convert to these alternatives requires education which in the developing world is very difficult to come by.

2. Many of the countries that this particular crop would be useful in traditionally eat rice. Given that there are no inherent risks in planting the crop, it is just as effective as offering alternatives. Possibly even more so because these countries wouldn't have to change their agricultural infrastructure to accommodate non-traditional crop growth.

I guess I didn’t consider the amount of people we are talking about (hundreds of millions even a billion). As a fat American its hard to understand that some people in this world only get a bowl of rice each day (if they’re lucky).
If this yellow rice is all its advertised to be it would undoubtedly help millions of people lead a better life.

I agree, this is exactly how it should be handled with the caveat that when something that does not pose a risk is introduced it should be allowed to be introduced without a blanket rejection out of hand due to ignorance and possibly a political agenda.

Agreed, just try to keep us laymen informed of the good and the bad and the trust levels should increase.

MaximumPain

Apr 10th, 2007, 3:40 AM

How many years ago was Chernobyl? I think I made this argument earlier in the thread. It's like saying don't fly in a plane because the first ones had a tendency to crash. The technology has improved. That is why you haven't heard about another Chernobyl, and given that nuclear power is quite widespread now (although minimal compared to fossil fuel generators), you think you would have already

Its just that one accident has the potential to effect millions of people. Also what are the chances smaller accidents go unreported? Especially in countries that have more control of there media like china and Russia?

Beyond that, nuclear facilities are some of the safest and most resilient buildings in operation. Heck, there are so few moving parts that really, they are probably more earthquake resilient than a conventional power plant. Furthermore, location is everything in earthquake resistance. If you build on bed rock, no problem and little shaking and its all over. It is when you build on sediment that shit hits the fan.

If the Japanese are building reactors I imagine that they are earthquake resistant as they get hit so often. Where I live is not earthquake prone but there has to be reactors built in earthquake prone areas. I sure hope they chose the sites well.

Meh, if I had the right geologic backyard to bury it in, by all means. It's a non-issue, a straw man almost in that there is no argument about where to put it. There are plenty of locations that would have minimal to no impact on locals, but again ignorance abounds.

Perhaps the environmental impact has been over stated by the no nuke crowd but what about the terrorism issue. Placing all the waste in one location makes it easy to guard but it still needs to be transported there. But I suppose there are many other things these days that could be converted into a weapon of terror and most of them are easier to get than trying to mount some Hollywood commando mission on Yuka mountain.

Such as?
Well let’s see wind, solar, biomass, and much better conservation methods and technology for starters. Sure we may not have the means to power the whole world with these technologies but I believe that we can develop them to meet our needs. Also in America it seems like we waste an incredible amount of energy because our infrastructure is designed around the single occupant car. It would take me 3-4 hours to get to and from work every day if I were to use the mass transit in my city. A few American cities have good mass transit but most do not, our suburbs are massive sprawls that encourage driving and are quite unfriendly to pedestrians. If we could realize the need we could create a much more efficient society it would take years to get it done so that’s why we need to start now.

donniedarko

Apr 11th, 2007, 12:16 PM

Well let’s see wind, solar, biomass, and much better conservation methods and technology for starters. Sure we may not have the means to power the whole world with these technologies but I believe that we can develop them to meet our needs.

Wind: Highly inefficient, high maintanance costs, inconsistent (amount of energy harnassed dependent on season, location, etc.)

Solar: Highly inefficient, high maintanance costs, inconsistent (amount of energy harnassed dependont on season, location, etc.)

For the two above, the extraction and fabrication cost is almost prohibitive.

Biomass: impractical in urban centres, still produces greenhouse gases, cannot meet demand. Of the ones you listed, this is the best to implement because of the low fabrication cost and ability to augment power grid.

As technology progresses, and population increases, the demand on the power grid also increases and we need to implement technology that can safely and efficiently and cleanly meet that demand. All the sources you listed can't do that. Even hydro can't do that. They are all augment technologies allowing for decreased strain but not feasible as primary power source.

Also in America it seems like we waste an incredible amount of energy because our infrastructure is designed around the single occupant car. It would take me 3-4 hours to get to and from work every day if I were to use the mass transit in my city. A few American cities have good mass transit but most do not, our suburbs are massive sprawls that encourage driving and are quite unfriendly to pedestrians. If we could realize the need we could create a much more efficient society it would take years to get it done so that’s why we need to start now.

I agree with this point whole-heartedly. I am entirely in favour of improving public transit to the level that i has developed in Europe. Nothing disgusts me more than seeing photos of traffic jams in big cities. All those engines running and going nowhere. The development of a better rail infrastructure should be a major goal of the next decade in North America.

Nasik

Apr 12th, 2007, 12:18 AM

DontBeAfraid

Apr 12th, 2007, 4:58 AM

Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should do it,We can solve the vitamin a crisis in wherever.... but we shouldnt?

We can solve the problem of losing miilions of acres of farming land to salination(I htink thats the word... salt) by making plants that not only grow in salted eartch but desalt it at the same time..... but we shouldnt?

We can completely shift our energy needs away from fossil fuels on one decade.... but we shouldnt?

FO, they can make potatoes glow in the dark! Im sure enough care is taken, to keep the monkeys from growing souls when splicing them with humans.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 12th, 2007, 9:05 AM

Truthout.org has several recent articles (too lazy to post at the moment, but if anyone shows an inkling of interest I will) on GMO products - and interestingly enough a recent US court decision saying there is not, repeat not, enough independent study in this area - short version: Monsanto feeding gmo corn to rats for 90 days and filtering the results is not their idea of oversight and independent studies are showing some disturbing things.

Also, as far as the idea of replacing a few genes here and there isn't a big deal, I beg to differ. while I do not have a Bachelor of Science, I did read that Humans and Chimps differ in their genetic makeup by only 1 to 2% - and (notwithstanding a neighbor of mine) there is a lot of difference between chimps and people in the final product.

Anyway, I'm not trying to awaken any debates or anything, but it is something to think about. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should do it, know what I mean.

If all you're asking for is more independent investigation from university scientist rather than corporate ones, then I totally agree with you. Science requires mass amounts of peer review, and a new product must be shown to be safe.

However, the vibe I'm getting from you is that your REAL argument is that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to EVER consider it, because in your mind it is "screwing with nature."

If THIS is the case, then you really ARE exhibiting the kind of willful "ignorance" donnie's original post was about (not to be rude or anything, but a spade is a spade, so to speak).

Demonskates

Apr 12th, 2007, 10:42 AM

A brief look into the Religion forum and a quick read of many of the creation vs. evolution debates reveals a collective frustration with what we call "fundamentalist ignorance". The idea that someone can believe something so completely that they will refuse to allow change despite the best evidence to the contrary. This problem, the problem of the vigilante fundamentalist is not restricted to religion. In fact it pervades nearly every aspect of our opinionated society. The latest fad, or bandwagon for fundamentalist extremism has been the burgeoning "Green" movement. An ideology of aggressive "environmentalism" as destructive as aggressive "Christianity/Islam/Capitalism/Feminism" has been in the past.

The most notorious of these extreme environmentalist groups is Greenpeace whose political clout as a result of the Green fad have brought about the deaths of millions and whose head in the sand attitude towards modern technology runs counter intuitive to there self-proclaimed goals.

Example:

1. Hypocrisy: Greenpeace stance on nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the cleanest most energy efficient alternative to our current fossil fuel based energy grid. Uranium is one of the most abundant elements on the planet. Current reactor designs have shelf lives well over a century (with maintenance). A single unit mass of uranium in a modern reactor will produce over 34 million times the power of a unit mass of coal will producing next to no emissions (discounting extraction and transport emissions, which are still less than those of coal). Hazardous material can be safely dealt with via storage solutions or escape strategies (off-planet dumping into the sun). The amount of power that could be supplied by a nuclear power grid would be more than sufficient to supply our current needs and would be better able to handle the expected increase in the future as technology and its dependence on available power continues to develop. So why the resistance? The most environmentally friendly option with the best track record for efficiency and durability is discounted by an organization claiming to support better environmental practice?

2. Fundamentalist environmentalism and Golden Rice. A tragedy.

Each year millions of children in third world countries die as a result of Vitamin A deficiencies in the diet causing increased susceptibility to disease and infection. Millions more lose their eyesight at a young age as a result of the same deficiency. A group of scientists developed a transgenic strain of rice with high yield vitamin A concentrations using genes from corn. These same scientists then secured deals with all the patent-holding companies to be able to offer the crop FREE OF CHARGE to countries in need. So why hasn't this taken hold? Greenpeace and its constant fear mongering of genetic engineering have bullied and pressured countries to stay away from this incredible solution. Economically feasible and fundamentally practical, one wonders WHY this is the case? In fact Greenpeace and others have pressured agricultural buyers to boycott countries that grow golden rice effectively hamstringing both a solution a widespread mortality problem by holding these countries economically hostage. One still wonders WHY?

These are just two examples of how fundamentalist environmentalism and its associated prejudices have generated hypocrisy and false priorities hurting not just people but the environment as a whole. The moral of the story? Be wary of those who claim to champion a popular cause, more often then not they are using it as a means to propagate their own fundamentalist agenda.

Read more on Golden Rice here:

http://www.goldenrice.org/

Read more on Nuclear Power here:

http://www.nei.org/

Regards

dd

As far as nuclear power, Most folks can't get chernobyl out of their minds when nuclear power is discussed. or what a nuclear missle is capable of. After seeing the results of nuclear power, coupled with most peoples lack of understanding about it, I think alot of folks think that it's just plain dangerous. That it can never be 100% safe, or trusted. Even though now adays, it is far safer then when chernobyl went up. people will always think of how devestating that accident was, and how to this day, its red hot on a geiger counter. Its hard to get people to see past that.
Gun shy as it were. I think that is just the mass populaces's lack of knowledge on the topic. Anyone who lives near one, always has it in the back of their head that if somthing does go wrong, its gonna be bad. Without a doubt. radioactivity is nasty stuff when released. people worry about earthquakes rupturing facilitys ect.
Most people dont get that the U.S. has in country, enough V.X. gas to kill every biological living thing on the planet three times over. Thats far more scary than any nuclear power.(which can and has run for decades safely) One microgram of V.X. agent will kill a full grown adult dead. Just one microgram. we have TONS of this stuff. Id worry more about an earth quake under that site than at a reactor.

As far as food goes, I think its sad that they found a soulution that would help people, only to be shot down because its been genetically altered. Alot of food at Our supermarkets have been genetically messed with. I think we need to research it for sure before any plan is put into action. Green peace is militant, pretty extreme in their views. Those are the same guys who go pounding giant spikes into trees to save them and inturn hurt a human whose chainsaw hits that sucker half way through. Thats sadistic. That is in fact not far from terror. They know full well that if a chainsaw hits that spike, its gonna jump back, and more than likely hit that guy in his neck. Thats puposly doing somthing that will result in maiming, or death, to make them afraid to do their job, and stop cutting down trees. thats terrorisim. Im sure they do alot of good, but they sure do alot of harm to alot of people. People who dont fall in line with their beleifs. Again, i think its lack of understanding about an issue, so they just assume its bad, it will have dire results, and it must be stopped. yet this group, certainly isnt proposing or putting into action an alternate plan to address these issues. I dont particularly care for green peace. They are NOT peaceful by any means.

Nasik

Apr 12th, 2007, 10:56 PM

Posted by DBA: We can solve the vitamin a crisis in wherever.... but we shouldnt?

We can solve the problem of losing miilions of acres of farming land to salination(I htink thats the word... salt) by making plants that not only grow in salted eartch but desalt it at the same time..... but we shouldnt?

We can completely shift our energy needs away from fossil fuels on one decade.... but we shouldnt?

FO, they can make potatoes glow in the dark! Im sure enough care is taken, to keep the monkeys from growing souls when splicing them with humans.

Sure, you have a point. There are plenty of things we can and should do. But sometimes, just because you can ... for instance, I can head into work strip off my dress and be as naked as the day I was born, but should I (if I want to keep my job?) I could eat my cheerios in the morning with vodka instead of milk, (I've been tempted) but should I really do that? There's plenty of "can dos" with a "shouldn't do" rider attached. Potatoes that glow in the dark does sound kind of nice, for a night light, I just, you know, wouldn't want to eat them.

Posted by CT: If all you're asking for is more independent investigation from university scientist rather than corporate ones, then I totally agree with you. Science requires mass amounts of peer review, and a new product must be shown to be safe.

However, the vibe I'm getting from you is that your REAL argument is that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to EVER consider it, because in your mind it is "screwing with nature."

If THIS is the case, then you really ARE exhibiting the kind of willful "ignorance" donnie's original post was about (not to be rude or anything, but a spade is a spade, so to speak).

You've backed me into a corner and so, I'm slinking out of this by saying, I won't admit to anything except that as a general rule, I like to eat food without having to wear sunglasses and typically prefer men whose knuckles, you know, don't drag on the ground.

Demonskates, you just disagree with me to be contrary I swear. I have a Greenpeace t-shirt, it's smart, biodegradable and a nice fit. I like to wear it to special occassions, weddings and so on. It just feels right. I haven't heard of Greenpeace blowing up anything, sure they wing golf balls at whaling ships but that hardly qualifies as "terrorist" group! They do plenty of good, even for you although you don't know it. Here's a tidbit. Since they started modifying soybean with a harmone gene from a horse or some such thing, 2% of children under the age of five are getting pubic hair. Interesting. Take that figure and compare it to the percentage of people that feed their children soymilk as a mainstay, and the percentage rises - alarmingly! Wild stuff I'd say.

donniedarko

Apr 13th, 2007, 10:23 AM

I think the compound you are thinking of is called "phytoestrogen" which is a plant hormone that is very similar to the steroid sex hormones in humans. This was already produced by the soybean plant for some time (and naturally I might add). I think the study may be biased because when the nutrient value of soy was finally realized (as a complete protein source) it has cropped up in EVERYTHING. Instead of getting a minimal amount of soybean product, you are basically swimming in it. In fact, I think there was a study out suggesting that soybean actually increased the risk of people predisposed to breast cancer (will find link). Me, I am more a meat and potatoes kinda a guy.

Also, as an aside, the glowing potato thing? I think that was proof of principle for gene insertion in potato plants. They used a flourescent reporter to show that they had successfully incorporated a protein localized specifically to the tuber.

Demonskates

Apr 13th, 2007, 12:02 PM

Sure, you have a point. There are plenty of things we can and should do. But sometimes, just because you can ... for instance, I can head into work strip off my dress and be as naked as the day I was born, but should I (if I want to keep my job?) I could eat my cheerios in the morning with vodka instead of milk, (I've been tempted) but should I really do that? There's plenty of "can dos" with a "shouldn't do" rider attached. Potatoes that glow in the dark does sound kind of nice, for a night light, I just, you know, wouldn't want to eat them.

You've backed me into a corner and so, I'm slinking out of this by saying, I won't admit to anything except that as a general rule, I like to eat food without having to wear sunglasses and typically prefer men whose knuckles, you know, don't drag on the ground.

Demonskates, you just disagree with me to be contrary I swear. I have a Greenpeace t-shirt, it's smart, biodegradable and a nice fit. I like to wear it to special occassions, weddings and so on. It just feels right. I haven't heard of Greenpeace blowing up anything, sure they wing golf balls at whaling ships but that hardly qualifies as "terrorist" group! They do plenty of good, even for you although you don't know it. Here's a tidbit. Since they started modifying soybean with a harmone gene from a horse or some such thing, 2% of children under the age of five are getting pubic hair. Interesting. Take that figure and compare it to the percentage of people that feed their children soymilk as a mainstay, and the percentage rises - alarmingly! Wild stuff I'd say.

LOL. Im sorry Freaked out. I really am not trying to be contrary to you on purpose.
No throwing golf balls at whaling ships isnt terrorr. But driving metal spikes into a tree so that a loggers chain saw will buck back and cut or kill him Is a from of terror in my book. Im not saying all of you in Green peace would do somthing like that. But there are a few fanatical people who do or have done these things. I know your a nice caring person. You care about the world, and the environment ect. I think that is fantastic. Theres plenty of good people in Green Peace. But with everything, there are those few who take extreme measures to get what they want. Thats all I was saying.

Check these out. Links to activisim, ect.
Some folks are members of green peace, and other organisations.
Green peace has individuals like these within their ranks. A very samll percentage, but still, they are trashing the rest of youalls good name.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/misc/sp000930.txt

http://www.cdfe.org/arrests.htm

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1217

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/ge-ar-gr.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/com74e.htm