Moosh:] wrote:
On 29 Jul 2003 23:31:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 12:45:08 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
To my knowledge they only test people with protein that they expect the GM
plant to make. The actual plant could have the engineered promoters
switching on other genes, causing troubles you would not be looking for.

And do they look for unintended effects from mutations and cross
pollinating?

Possibly not as thoroughly as they ought. But those are not being applied
to such a wide sector of people as RR & Bt stuff, which goes to nearly
everyone in North America.

Mutations and cross pollinations go on constantly every minute in
every corn field in the world.

As I skimmed last article the living cell has tremendous
discrimination. It constantly controls repair of the faulty DNA
replication. But it may be defeated when too many or too clever
stresses are applied, that it is not used to dealing with.

When the tryptophan from GE sources killed some people it might not have
been discovered if the symptoms were similar to some other lethal
but fairly common disease.

But that tryptophan affair was nothing to do with GE.

If the govt thought that lack of purification could cause such a terrible
thing what have they done about preventing future such things?

Applied factory/product safety regulations?

Maybe they are starting some standards for alternative products now,
as we see with a first recall in Australia. But if purity troubles
alone could cause so many deaths with that one product and there
being such a lax approach and so many many products I would have
thought much more trouble would have been evident from purity
considerations alone. It must have been more that purity, or else
purity testing would have been brought in for everything
much earlier.


Linkname: The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/tryptophan.php
size: 199 lines
Linkname: Speech by Jeanette Fitzsimons in Urgent debate on GE
decision - 30OCT2001
URL: http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/ge-news/rcgm1o30.htm
size: 258 lines

The Royal Commission has been lauded by some as balanced, thorough,
informed, and many other plaudits. This was the same Royal Commission
which told the representative of oneorganisation, before they had even
made their presentation, that the Commission had already made their
decision and it would be the Great NZ compromise.
The same organisation, after handing in their written submission much
earlier, found there was an error and asked to correct it. They were
told it didn't matter as "no-one was going to read it anyway".
In fact the Commission disregarded a great deal of evidence which did
not support its conclusions and made numerous errors of fact - for
example in its reporting and assessment of evidence about the
poisoning of thousands by GE tryptophan

Sounds like grasping at straws -- after their key witness a few years
ago was charged with falsifying evidence?
The tryptophan poisoning had nothing to do with GE.


Linkname: The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/tryptophan.php
size: 209 lines
[...]

Those who search the Internet on this topic will soon discover
the claim by apologists for GE that the problem was only
decreased purification of tryptophan. We disagree for several
reasons - mainly, the first 3 GE strains had been causing EMS
(about 100 cases) for years before this slackening of
purification procedure in Jan 1989 when also the 'superproducer'
strain went into production and caused the epidemic. But this
question cannot be settled with finality unless Showa Denko
releases the GE microbes for detailed examination.

Whether you believe the impurities were due to incompetent
purification & monitoring, or to deviant metabolism in the
GE-bugs, or both, you had better believe that the fabled
'substantially equivalent' assumption flopped in that epidemic
of crippling & lethal illness.

Although GE proponents claim that the EMS epidemic was caused
solely by faulty filtering, it is possible to question their
seriousness. None of them has publicly argued that the Health
Food supplement industry should be subject to legal controls for
purity & efficacy comparable to those applied to the
pharmaceutical industry; yet this would be logical if indeed
such a deadly epidemic occurred solely as a result of inadequate
purification in manufacturing.

Either way, biotechnology - which includes GE but also includes
other processes such as purifying the mixture "lyprinol" from
green-lipped mussels - requires much-enhanced scrutiny.
[...]

I can
list several cases of food stuffs that case harm bred with conventional
methods an you can't list a single one with GM methods.

They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious.

Just like foods from plant mutations and cross-pollinating, only these
are more likely

Who is doing studies comparing recent health changes in countries with GM
food compared to countries with non-GM? Who is ready for what may show up
in the next generation?

Health is always being monitored by hundreds of thousands of health
professionals. Have you got ANY evidence of any problems?

I rely on what is allowed to be published. I note how the cigarette
and asbestos industries were aware of the risks of their products
though kept them covered.

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 25 Jul 2003 11:48:19 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 22:54:10 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
I don't think randomity explains what goes on.

Well it can, so why look for fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Think of Ockham's razor.

You are behind, as I explained last article.

No, I'm not behind the fairy stories

Ockham's razor illustrating the simplest explanation given the
evidence.

But in the last few articles I have shown the troubles with Crick's
`simple and elegant' `central dogma', as it has been exposed to
wider light more recently.

You are several years behind.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression. Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

"I would love to know how you would farm "organically" in the
southwest of Western Australia. It has extremely old soils with
almost no phosphorus. There is often a deficiency in copper and
molybdenum (IIRC)" (John Riley 2001)

"Tell me then how an Organic farmer in SW Western Australia on
ancient impoverished soils with almost NO phosphorus, and no copper or
molybdenum and very little potassium should function?" (Moosh 2003)

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression. Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

SNIP

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

Jim Webster

VBG Right on target.....

James Curts

Jim Webster writes

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression. Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

My brother in law, some 20 years ago, on his farm SW of sydney:

"Our soils have almost no phosphorus, so we just apply superphosphate".

Sounds pretty typical to me.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:58:41 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

SNIP

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

Jim Webster

what a maroon


VBG Right on target.....

James Curts

Careful there, you wouldn't want Moosh and I to get started
on Iraq. Pretty soon you wouldn't know who of us you should
hate the most :-)

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression. Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

My brother in law, some 20 years ago, on his farm SW of sydney:

"Our soils have almost no phosphorus, so we just apply superphosphate".

Sounds pretty typical to me.

My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that. We couldn't get a economic response from potasium in most
cases. Intensely irrigated Bermuda grass would show a response. But sandy
soils just becomes a hydroponic media for Bermuda grass if you push it hard
enough.

DAP would not be acceptable to an organic farmer but rock phosphate is. And
AFIK there is no rule against trace elements if they can use copper in their
fungicide they should be able to use it in their fertilizer or put on a
heavy treatment of fungicide. It doesn't take much copper.

Gordon

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted:

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you
don't
have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green
propaganda.

But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by
scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches

The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the
US
farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities
are
very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if
there
is a bias it would be ageist private breeders.

Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on
the
benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They
should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and
use
of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment.

I agree, but must say that I've heard of lots of advantages of GM,
often from the greenies saying that it is false

The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the
green
lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they
claim to be protecting.

I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the
technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to
town.

The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some
problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time
they just added crops to their list of targets. The hit conventional crops
more often than GM crops but that doesn't seem to matter to them.

They do have a very secure organization. The government or law enforcement
hasn't been able to penetrate them to any degree at all.

Gordon

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:58:41 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

SNIP

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

Jim Webster

what a maroon


VBG Right on target.....

James Curts

Careful there, you wouldn't want Moosh and I to get started
on Iraq. Pretty soon you wouldn't know who of us you should
hate the most :-)


This thread is on nz.general because in October the moratorium on GM field
releases expires.

I think it is important that we know if a person is speaking with more
than one net name, since they can give more apparent weight to their case.

The name Moosh appeared on Feb 11 with some 8 articles, after John Riley
had been having a gap in posting, following several to the microsoft
groups.

Approximately:

John Riley Moosh
Feb 11 8
12 3 1
14 1
15 3
16 6
17 2 8
18 2
19 2
20 1 4
21 5
22 3
23 1 5
24 1
25 3
26 1 1

Gordon Couger writes
My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that.

I don't think such complexities were warranted in the relatively
extensively grazed australian outback. A whiff of P&S gave a useful
response, dams gave water (well, more weirs down every valley to catch
stormwater) and that was as intensive as could be warranted. Oh, they
did use mineral blocks.

Quite pretty country, apart from the flies. Within the hour we all just
let them crawl over our arms and faces, one can get used to this
surprisingly easily. The alternative of flailing your arms *constantly*
is too stressful.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:58:41 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

SNIP

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost
no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

Jim Webster

what a maroon

what a racist

I would say that the 'maroon' is the one who hasn't worked out the
difference between sci.agriculture and soc.culture.iraq

Jim Webster

Gordon Couger wrote:
My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that. We couldn't get a economic response from potasium in most
cases. Intensely irrigated Bermuda grass would show a response. But sandy
soils just becomes a hydroponic media for Bermuda grass if you push it hard
enough.

DAP would not be acceptable to an organic farmer but rock phosphate is. And
AFIK there is no rule against trace elements if they can use copper in their
fungicide they should be able to use it in their fertilizer or put on a
heavy treatment of fungicide. It doesn't take much copper.

There is a tremendous amount to learn.

Moosh:] has been relating about varied diets being more healthy for
humans. And varied life on earth seems more healthy.

Currently we have powerful technology and can change the earth in a large
region for the current whim. Well fire has always been a powerful
technology used, but is mused more. The Aboriginal Australians used to use
top fires before the bush got too dense. The resulting fire would not be
so hot. They had learnt over many years and passed on the knowledge. We
need to be doing that now.

The current GM action seems like a big fire going through a rain forest to
open up new land when the nutrients have been taken from the land cleared
the year or so before.

Yes we need to deal with nutrients. There is knowledge to learn in the
organic approach, too. Watch out for yellowcake in the rock phosphate
maybe one. I don't think plants absorb much lead from dolomite (allowed?).

Organics can be more intense farming. Then land such as New Zealand with
low iodine and selenium and specialised life adapted to that could have
had more areas saved. I do not think it is healthy to have uniform
agriculture and small range of plants and beasts the world over, suiting
only the current financial drives we create.

We should be taking care of the oceans. The ocean food comes from the
surface algae that can grow, and while the area is larger than the land
area, the volume cannot be great because the layer is quite thin in
contact with light and much oxygen. Seaweeds can anchor near shores and
have more volume per area.

Let us find out more about what life has done up to the present before
setting in to change it for financial reasons with GM things we cannot
undo.

Rather than put RR or Bt &c genes in several cotton types and say you have
increased diversity, increased profit for the mean time or whatever, find
out about companion planting, closed ecosystems like marvelously diverse
forests, and long duration success.

You have your cotton fields, thanks for the photos. Now when the wind
comes it moves the sandy soil. So can you get a crop which like marram
grass will enable dunes to form? Then you have a greater area of land to
some extent. And on the more shaded side of the dunes different plants
could grow. Harvesting technology would need to be developed. We need to
set aside thinking places and not only relating to what the govt
currently enables (Jim's posiiton).

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes
My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that.

I don't think such complexities were warranted in the relatively
extensively grazed australian outback. A whiff of P&S gave a useful
response, dams gave water (well, more weirs down every valley to catch
stormwater) and that was as intensive as could be warranted. Oh, they
did use mineral blocks.

Quite pretty country, apart from the flies. Within the hour we all just
let them crawl over our arms and faces, one can get used to this
surprisingly easily. The alternative of flailing your arms *constantly*
is too stressful.

One thing we have pretty well controlled is the damned flies. As a boy I can
remember the north side of the house being black with them. Now we have cost
effective was to control them.

My mother's uncle died in the 50's from lung disease he got from spraying
cattle for a living. The rest have to wear out before they die.

Gordon

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:
My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that. We couldn't get a economic response from potasium in most
cases. Intensely irrigated Bermuda grass would show a response. But
sandy
soils just becomes a hydroponic media for Bermuda grass if you push it
hard
enough.

DAP would not be acceptable to an organic farmer but rock phosphate is.
And
AFIK there is no rule against trace elements if they can use copper in
their
fungicide they should be able to use it in their fertilizer or put on a
heavy treatment of fungicide. It doesn't take much copper.

There is a tremendous amount to learn.

Moosh:] has been relating about varied diets being more healthy for
humans. And varied life on earth seems more healthy.

Currently we have powerful technology and can change the earth in a large
region for the current whim. Well fire has always been a powerful
technology used, but is mused more. The Aboriginal Australians used to use
top fires before the bush got too dense. The resulting fire would not be
so hot. They had learnt over many years and passed on the knowledge. We
need to be doing that now.

The current GM action seems like a big fire going through a rain forest to
open up new land when the nutrients have been taken from the land cleared
the year or so before.

Yes we need to deal with nutrients. There is knowledge to learn in the
organic approach, too. Watch out for yellowcake in the rock phosphate
maybe one. I don't think plants absorb much lead from dolomite (allowed?).

Organics can be more intense farming. Then land such as New Zealand with
low iodine and selenium and specialised life adapted to that could have
had more areas saved. I do not think it is healthy to have uniform
agriculture and small range of plants and beasts the world over, suiting
only the current financial drives we create.

We should be taking care of the oceans. The ocean food comes from the
surface algae that can grow, and while the area is larger than the land
area, the volume cannot be great because the layer is quite thin in
contact with light and much oxygen. Seaweeds can anchor near shores and
have more volume per area.

Let us find out more about what life has done up to the present before
setting in to change it for financial reasons with GM things we cannot
undo.

GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in agricluture.
Would you eat food that was derived from seed that were irradiated by Cobalt
60 until half wouldn't sprout and then picked over for any thing that looked
good and incorpeted along with who knows what other mutations into crops
with no testing?


Rather than put RR or Bt &c genes in several cotton types and say you have
increased diversity, increased profit for the mean time or whatever, find
out about companion planting, closed ecosystems like marvelously diverse
forests, and long duration success.

We call those weeds.

Most mature forest are rather steril monoculutres compared to a monoculure
grassland.

You have your cotton fields, thanks for the photos. Now when the wind
comes it moves the sandy soil. So can you get a crop which like marram
grass will enable dunes to form? Then you have a greater area of land to
some extent. And on the more shaded side of the dunes different plants
could grow. Harvesting technology would need to be developed. We need to
set aside thinking places and not only relating to what the govt
currently enables (Jim's posiiton).

Before we could control the sand it was fairly common practice to plant 66
foot wide strips of cotton, wheat, milo and alfalfa with the rows
perpendicular to the wind and work our rotations off that. We progressed
beyond that in the 60's when 100 hp tractors came out.

No till give use many of the things organic supporters claim such as less
pesticide and it really does increase the organic matter in the soil.

Hitler and Geobles would be proud of the why the people that have taken over
the greens have used their methods to sway public opinion to support
practices that 180 degrees opposed to the claimed goals of the
organizations. The greens and others of their kind are responsible for far
more deaths that Hitler and Stalin combined by derailing public health
efforts in the world. Malaria program are almost at a stand still. In the
first world as many as 50% of the children in some areas are not getting
their childhood vaccines all becuse so people with more time than good sense
have take up the cause of a bunch of archest that have hijacked a once
respectable movement and use it to promote their own ends.

Their imagined dangers that have no basis in science make as much sense and
not having your kids vaccinated for tetanus, whooping cough, and measles
when we have real dangers of insecticides, persistent herbicides and water
erosion not only destroying our land but clogging our water ways with silt
and nutrients that are killing our estuaries.

In the mean time we have a ever-increasing number of hungry people to feed
unless you would have use starvation as a population control measure.

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me
the story his farther told him about the year it frosted every month of the
year in Indiana. Look up 'the year without a summer' on google. Think what
that would do if it happened today. If you look at tree ring evidence it is
not unlikely it will happen in your life time.

I have direct family history back to 1874 form my great grandmother. Almost
everyone in agriculture has roots like this. We did not hatch in a suburb
with only our peers as guides for our thinking. We started work when we were
8 or 9 and had investment in crops or livestock by the time we were 13. We
were working out for neighbors from the time we do something that the
needed. By the time we were 12 we were expected to keep up with the grown up
chopping cotton until 10 or 11 O'clock in the morning and do just as good a
job as they did.

For almost every one in the business from the farmer to the boards of the
multinational ag companies have farm roots. It's not a deal like Enron.
These people eat the food they sell and can only stay in business by
providing a product that their customer finds profitable. No farmer will
give all the profit to the seed company and the bank they will take the what
that makes them the most money.

Gordon