+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Inglorious aging...

  1. #61

    Re: Inglorious aging...

    Whoa there, this isn't personal. I'm not interested in proving you wrong. I am interested in the reasoning and evidence behind the assertions you have made. If what you are is asserting is opinion then let us discuss the logic, if you claim fact then I think the evidence to support it is of interest.

    When you resort to claiming mental illness on my part to try and make ground for your case then it really isn't worth pursuing this line of discussion further.

    Let's just leave it there it seems I have hit a nerve and you are no longer willing to engage in a civil or rational manner.


  2. #62
    Go diving zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz is a jewel in the rough zzzzzzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    242

    Re: Inglorious aging...

    Quote:
    B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well as on the dark surface of plants.[1
    Quote:
    In 1995, potato plants producing Bt toxin were approved safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA.[16] By 1996, Bt Maize, Bt Potato and Bt cotton were being grown by farmers in the USA.[17
    Quote:
    Environmental impacts appear to be positive during the first ten years of Bt crop use (1996–2005). One study concluded that insecticide use on cotton and corn during this period fell by 35.6 million kg of insecticide active ingredient which is roughly equal to the amount of pesticide applied to arable crops in the EU in one year. Using the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) measure of the impact of pesticide use on the environment,[20] the adoption of Bt technology over this ten year period resulted in 24.3% and 4.6% reduction respectively in the environmental impact associated with insecticide use on the cotton and corn area using the technology.[18]



    What is interesting about the above subject matter is with regard to human health and the fact that these effects are being ignored. Negligence does not constitute proof of safety.

    While there may be a benefit to the environment, the reality is that transgenics result in a higher effective dose of toxins to pests... and humans! The negligence of this approach is that it also translates to a higher effective doses of toxins to humans, the effects of which are being ignored and are unknown.

    So, to disentangle your misrepresentations, the health impact on human being would theoretically have to play themselves out over several lifetimes as is the case with insects. This means that the negligence is going to last for human generations. This is, in my estimation, going to come to light someday and going to be viewed as the hideous deed that it is.

    It is fair that you should be running scared SilentBob. You should be scared once the full impact of the monstrous and hideous effect that is being inflicted on human health becomes known.

    We can thank Europe for providing sanity in this debate and supporting the concept that unknown human health effects are not negligible and that it is unacceptable to conduct this type of experiment on humans. Bravo Europe! If we could only be as wise!

    Meanwhile, back in North America, folks are no doubt feeling these effects in ways not easily understood by health practitioners or themselves. The alarming statistics on human health are straining budgets everywhere. Your advocacy of not looking after ourselves and trusting the process are quite clear.

    Just remember that when everybody finds out what is going on, you may be the one who feels all alone. Maybe we are all suffering from a lack of civility, but do be careful when people at large figure out this scheme. Yes, do dismiss us as irrational. You can fool some of the people... It is only a matter of time before this all gets figured out.

  3. #63

    Re: Inglorious aging...

    You seem keen to continue so I'll play but on the proviso that we move away from the vitriolic side of this and concern ourselves more with the logic of our opinions.

    The impression I have is that the central theme of your position seems to be mistrust of intent and competence (you use the word negligence repeatedly) on the part of those developing GM crops.

    Of course I may be wrong so maybe we should start by stating as accurately and as succinctly as possible our positions.

    Me first..

    I think Genetic Modification of food crops to be a possibly risky yet potentially very beneficial way to bring food security to the nearly 1,000,000,000 whose existence both in body and mind is threatened by malnutrition and correlated diseases.

    I base my claim on what I perceive to be a lack of real concern (or at least concern translating to action) on the part of richer nations and therefore think that the distribution of crops better able to withstand harsher climate, disease and insect attack to be crucial in the democratizing of food.

  4. #64
    Acme Serpentine Lubricant lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland has a reputation beyond repute lizardland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North...
    Posts
    2,372

    Re: Inglorious aging...

    Quote Originally Posted by Silentbob  View Original Post
    I think Genetic Modification of food crops to be a possibly risky yet potentially very beneficial way to bring food security to the nearly 1,000,000,000 whose existence both in body and mind is threatened by malnutrition and correlated diseases.

    I base my claim on what I perceive to be a lack of real concern (or at least concern translating to action) on the part of richer nations and therefore think that the distribution of crops better able to withstand harsher climate, disease and insect attack to be crucial in the democratizing of food.
    That sums it up for me. I hate the idea of GM crops entering the food chain but equally I find it a bit galling that we sit here on a high horse with a fridge full of whatever food we want regardless of the season arguing about diet whilst we come up with reasons why half the world shouldn't have the basics of survival. You want to live a paleolithic diet? OK, starve in the winter and then tell me about how you are living naturally.

    We do it with everything, food, fuel, electricity, medicine... everything that means we can sit on our fat collective arses (and collectively we are fat regardless of the efforts of individuals) living in luxury (and we do live in luxury compared to most of the southern hemisphere). We piss resources down the drain and then tell the rest of the world they can't have what we had because we screwed it up.

    I don't like GM but equally I don't want to be the one telling a country you need to starve for our indulgences. Unfortunately (for us, fortunately for them) many of the countries that struggle meeting the demands of food security are the ones whose economies are growing whilst we stagnate. Give it a few decades and it's going to be China, India and Brazil saying no to America or the EU.
    Last edited by lizardland; 27th August 2011 at 11:28.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts