michael adams wrote:
"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.
You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.
When Brasier said "we", I assume he meant the United Kingdom in
particular, as he was addressing a British audience.
...
[...]
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.....
....and, er...almost all the others. I imagine similar regimes are
also in force in Switzerland and the landlocked Danube countries.
[...]
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.
Eh?
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.
Er, yes, that _is_ what I had in mind.
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.
Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing.
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.
It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that
such controls are possible.
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.
I fail to grasp your reasoning here.
[...]
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.
Unless they want to promote a public debate. And this one appears to
have chosen his journalist with some care.
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.
Scare stories are not, as far as I know, a staple of _The Plantsman_;
or, to be fair, of _the Independent_. We can talk about avian flu and
the gas-men's strike in another thread, if you like.
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!
Yes, nuclear weapons are stupid, and ID cards a waste of effort in
the prevention of terrorism. I can't join that up with biosecurity,
though.
[...]
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.
Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the
prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either.
[...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini
on.asp
_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.
Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.
Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster
than I can run.
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
Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.
--
Mike.