"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
(I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply
may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.)
I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death,[...etc...]
I meant that.
as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants
either."
That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.
a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?
Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may
be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ.
....
So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.
....
The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around
the
world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of
demand. Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe.
So -
b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor
Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large
numbers for disease reasons?
To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to
strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime
frontiers.
....
i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er.....
The real irony being of course that if only the Native Americans
had applied similar restrictions to the European immigrants
and their accompanying plagues.....to which the latter had developed
resistance as a result of their proximity to domestic animals..
then the history might have been rather different.
In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the
rest of the world but not the other way around.
....
In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.
....
AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one
go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity.
In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine
restrictions.
The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it isn't.
The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally irellevant.
Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was the only
factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals around the world,
when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on everything else he has to say.
....
It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer*'s
livelihood
depends,
among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As
professionals
like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters
should the need ever arise.
Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists' livelihoods
depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's
generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I think
once again of MRSA and MMR.
....
Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists. And equally
scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird
flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas
this winter instead.
Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big
an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think
of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines
aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the oceans
of the world.
Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any radioactive
material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's now convinced
we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D cards.
Joined-up government at last!
....
...
Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a
paper
on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong;
but
that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary
dismissal
by minor verbal debating points.
...
And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an
antidote
to triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to
" a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of
mentions
of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually
provide
a link to the talk in question ? To wit -
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617
That isn't the original, but only the _Independent_ article. See
below.
Maybe Professor Brewer *, who you appear to find yourself in
agreement
with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the
paper
he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference
there
to our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for
disease reasons" ?
See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between the
biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is
perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular
conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate.
[...]
....
Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a purely
technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which awaits the
planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible invasion
of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.
....
I'm surprised and a little disappointed by what I take to be your
tone here. I asked a question, at the same time making it explicit
that I didn't know the answer. I used the expressions "I wonder if"
and "perhaps minor risk". I didn't refer to the _Independent_
article, because newspaper pieces, even from "broadsheets", aren't
first-hand evidence. I didn't have a reference to the original paper,
and I still haven't found one. Here, though, from long before the
conference, is a brief summary of his own and Brasier's positions
from the Master of Katz Cambridge in the RHS's _Plantsman_:
http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publi...05/opinion.asp
_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.
....
Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html
quote
Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream
· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather
· Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade
/quote
michael adams
--
Mike.