On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:22:23 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:03:48 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:16:44 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

The mindset of a West Australian interested in native plants perhaps?
There are thousands of us.
Probably not too many wasting their time on newsgroups, however
snip

You misunderstand the situation. I am not trying to prove you are the
John Riley I refer to, I am trying to find evidence to disprove it.

Whatever floats your boat.

Now, I think I have given it a fair try, and since I can't find any
good evidence of differences, I shall assume you and he are
substantially equivalent.

Fine by me. Carry on....

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:38:08 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:53:24 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:

farmers are now an insignificant proportion of the electorate in the UK,
in
any constituency. So you can ignore them and just stuff the party coffers
with supermarket funds

Don't you have those bumper stickers "Without farmers we starve and go
naked"? Seems like a little factual "propaganda" should work wonders,
although you don't have compulsory voting there, do you. That's a
bummer. You could convert a dozen villagers, and they will not likely
bother to vote if it's raining.

The trouble with compulsory voting is that it allows people to vote who
otherwise couldn't find their backside with both hands.

Of course, it's not perfect, but rain hail shine or a forecast
landslide, folks still turn out. The "backside unaware" will likely
balance each other out.

If someone only
votes because of the law, should they have a vote in the first place? :-))

The vast majority cast a thoughtful vote. I always cast a thoughtful
vote, but when voluntary council elections roll along, I often have
other pressing matters that prevent my voting. Even with postal voting
now, I sometimes miss the deadiline. I may say to myself "it's only
one vote".

Trouble is that food is largely bought on price and any cheap imported stuff
will do. There is a niche organic and nice quality food market but
everything else is lowest price possible.

Yep, I've got no answer to that, other than if Britain wants
indigenous farmers, it must protect them by some form of welfare so
that lower standard of living countries can compete on a level playing
field (although they won't think so. Like they do in Europe).

Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible
would
lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even
if
they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market
(see
what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks
of
the
outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms)
In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the
supermarkets
were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in
the
country to stand a two week break in supply.

Yes, I believe London has only a short survival time if food imports
are cut.


I suspect very few major cities actually have meaningful food stocks.How
many public authorities actually do have any food stockpile?

None that I know of, they leave it to the supermarkets. I have a
couple of Woollies and Coles pantech barrelling up the road every day.

With 'just in time' and companies unwilling to carry stocks because of the
cost of keeping that capital tied up, it would be interesting to see just
what stocks are available in country

Yes, although many supermarket here apparently "lease space" to
manufacturers. Thus a manufacturer might better store his surplus in a
supermarket where it can be sold rather than in his warehouse. The
ideal of course is "just in time".

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:40:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message You seem confused. Do
you mean by "deal with nutrient", "replace those
extracted and exported with the crop?
I've never heard of yellow cake in rock phosphate, but if it occurs,
so what. If it's radioactive it is best avoided.


They had problems with this in Cumbria, not with Yellow cake but with rock
phosphate. A Cumbrian firm used to buy rock phosphate (from Morocco I think)
and make phosphoric acid, which they used in various processes. The waste
rock (crushed to power in the process, was just flushed back into the sea
from which it had initially come umpteen million years previously.
The sea of Cumbria is very closely monitored because of Sellafield Nuclear
Power Station, and it was discovered that actually there was so much
naturally occurring uranium in this ground up rock that they were bigger
polluters than Sellafield was.

Interesting, thanks. Just shows how safe nookyoulah powah is

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:53:11 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:04:47 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 03:25:31 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
Jim Webster

what a maroon

Violet, is that you? You are the only one I've seen use that
expression

Yeah, right. And I am Bugs Bunny. Listen to this :-)
http://www.ita.suite.dk/weeell-goodbye.wav


Thanks, I heard it first about forty years ago.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:14:45 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:40:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message You seem confused. Do
you mean by "deal with nutrient", "replace those
extracted and exported with the crop?
I've never heard of yellow cake in rock phosphate, but if it occurs,
so what. If it's radioactive it is best avoided.


They had problems with this in Cumbria, not with Yellow cake but with rock
phosphate. A Cumbrian firm used to buy rock phosphate (from Morocco I think)
and make phosphoric acid, which they used in various processes. The waste
rock (crushed to power in the process, was just flushed back into the sea
from which it had initially come umpteen million years previously.
The sea of Cumbria is very closely monitored because of Sellafield Nuclear
Power Station, and it was discovered that actually there was so much
naturally occurring uranium in this ground up rock that they were bigger
polluters than Sellafield was.

what a maroon

Interesting, thanks. Just shows how safe nookyoulah powah is

However, be careful you do not mention Sellafield as a typical
example of what nuclear power has to offer on the polluting side,
when you are among supporters. You could get yourself killed. :-)

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:14:45 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

Interesting, thanks. Just shows how safe nookyoulah powah is

However, be careful you do not mention Sellafield as a typical
example of what nuclear power has to offer on the polluting side,
when you are among supporters. You could get yourself killed. :-)

only by empty headed racists

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:24:01 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:39 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology
data
for any natural food products.

Keep me out of that, I have done no such thing. If you want to make a
silly claim, like that there is no toxicology data for any natural
food products, go ahead. Cheesh, what a silly claim. And you are doing
it on sci.med.nutrition, of all places.

Well, perhaps one of the other readers can provide this information since
you seem to be unable to do so.

Believe me, noone here is able to help provide information to prove
that "there is no toxicology data for any natural food products".
What you are proposing is simply, false. And silly, to wit.

Exactly my point - so why do you keep demanding such information for GE
products which are essentially derived from the same natural food products?

Dave

Exhibit:
Carum carvi L., seeds: negative on Drosophila mutagenicity assay (48h)
(Lachavechvanich 1997)

Thanks for your comments Klaus, I am fully aware of the Medline data on
plant components and routinely read the food tech journals. However you
missed the point of my comments- there is no toxicological data on actual
natural foods per se. The data is on components and recommendations and
guidelines are developed by extrapolating results of the individual
component studies.

Dave


"Klaus Wiegand" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:35:40 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


Why dont you answer my question first Torsten. Tell me ONE natural food
product that has undergone as much toxicological studies as GE products.

if you are not WILLING to look it up yourself, you're simply lazy
(google, medline or current content would have given you, what you did
not look for there are essentielly hundreds of journals for "food
science" and toxicology and usda should have the resources. duke's
tox database usually comes up with at loeast 20-30 references of tox
data - and that's just for ethnofood and not for staple food..
i randomly scanned a medline cd (i got 1992) and a combination of food
AND toxicology came up with 850+ hits. now please your turn with GE
and toxicology.

now for the foods: alcohol, fat, citrus fruits, pepper, papaver,
potatoes, meat, raw-milk cheese, milk, fugo, shellfish, cassava, soy,
algae, ginger, eggs, most allergenic foods, honey, rapeseed oil,
almonds, eatable fungi, fish oil, cannabis, amaranth, joghurts,
myco-proteins, apple juice, strawberries, raspberries, most fruits of
cucurbits, solanaceae and liliaceae, most foods with glucosinolates,
the whole bunch of foods in codex alimentarius with recommanded
restricted intakes, a huge number of edible herbs, ape brain. there
are more tox studies on shark cartilage and even more studies on
toxicity of whale penis (yep, also at least 2 in the usa) than studies
on ge-food safety worldwide...(it's just a little difficult to get the
nippon hoigaku-zasshi or the nippon-kyobu-shikkan-gakkai)


in case you're insisting, that some of these are no food products : GE
food is also no "product" as such...it's a variety of different foods
with a special trait just like fluor-enriched toothpaste. simple
toothpaste is something different.


next time please try a LITTLE harder....


klaus

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 02:16:19 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

.. so why do you keep demanding such information for GE
products which are essentially derived from the same natural
food products?

Demand? I am just taking you on your offering: "there is no toxicology
data for any natural food products. I will give you a source GE food
for everyone you can provide for me - a true toxicological study. It
is your chance to put up or shut up."

Exhibit 1:
Carum carvi L., seeds: negative on Drosophila mutagenicity assay (48h)
(Lachavechvanich 1997)

Now, do what you promised to do.

"David Kendra" wrote:
Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than
GE maize?

The FDA has reviewed more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies
with aspartame. How does that compare to the average GM event in
maize?

It does not compare at all with GE maize.

Why now avoid the question? I mean, you brought it up, and it is
rather straightforward, a simple count. How many toxicological and
clinical studies have been done on the average GM event in maize?

Why dont you answer my question first Torsten.

I think that settles the question. I mean, if there were more
toxicological and clinical studies done on the average GM event in
maize, than those 100s of studies done on aspartame, you wouldn't have
such difficulty coming up with a number for it.

Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data for
any natural food products.

Preposterous nonsense - it proves nothing. When millions of people have
been eating something for thousands of years, those billions of
people-years of real-world experience provide many orders of magnitude
greater confidence in its safety than the miniscule window into the world
of one lab study can possibly provide.

I will give you a source GE food for everyone
you can provide for me - a true toxicological study. It is your chance to
put up or shut up.

It's YOUR chance to put up or shut up.
Post a list of references to the studies of GE maize or be exposed as
a troll. Simply posting a number will not pass muster as there's no way
to verify whether any of the unnamed studies exist or are relevant.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

"Moosh:]" wrote:
GM is just like plant breeding that has been going on for
thousands of years. Just more accurate and quicker.

This is the fiction purveyed by biotech companies.
For a taste of reality, see
"Genetic engineering is not an extension of conventional breeding"
by Michael Hansen, Consumers Union
www.biotech-info.net/wide_crosses.html

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:44:12 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:14:45 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:40:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message You seem confused. Do
you mean by "deal with nutrient", "replace those
extracted and exported with the crop?
I've never heard of yellow cake in rock phosphate, but if it occurs,
so what. If it's radioactive it is best avoided.


They had problems with this in Cumbria, not with Yellow cake but with rock
phosphate. A Cumbrian firm used to buy rock phosphate (from Morocco I think)
and make phosphoric acid, which they used in various processes. The waste
rock (crushed to power in the process, was just flushed back into the sea
from which it had initially come umpteen million years previously.
The sea of Cumbria is very closely monitored because of Sellafield Nuclear
Power Station, and it was discovered that actually there was so much
naturally occurring uranium in this ground up rock that they were bigger
polluters than Sellafield was.

what a maroon

Interesting, thanks. Just shows how safe nookyoulah powah is

However, be careful you do not mention Sellafield as a typical
example of what nuclear power has to offer on the polluting side,
when you are among supporters. You could get yourself killed. :-)

But as dangers are usually comparative, what about a compare with coal
fired power?

"Moosh:}" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:44:12 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:14:45 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:40:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message You seem confused.
Do
you mean by "deal with nutrient", "replace those
extracted and exported with the crop?
I've never heard of yellow cake in rock phosphate, but if it occurs,
so what. If it's radioactive it is best avoided.


They had problems with this in Cumbria, not with Yellow cake but with
rock
phosphate. A Cumbrian firm used to buy rock phosphate (from Morocco I
think)
and make phosphoric acid, which they used in various processes. The
waste
rock (crushed to power in the process, was just flushed back into the
sea
from which it had initially come umpteen million years previously.
The sea of Cumbria is very closely monitored because of Sellafield
Nuclear
Power Station, and it was discovered that actually there was so much
naturally occurring uranium in this ground up rock that they were
bigger
polluters than Sellafield was.

what a maroon

Interesting, thanks. Just shows how safe nookyoulah powah is

However, be careful you do not mention Sellafield as a typical
example of what nuclear power has to offer on the polluting side,
when you are among supporters. You could get yourself killed. :-)

But as dangers are usually comparative, what about a compare with coal
fired power?

Each one puts more radiation in the air than 3 Mile Island did.

Gordon

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:28:35 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Moosh:]" wrote:
GM is just like plant breeding that has been going on for
thousands of years. Just more accurate and quicker.

This is the fiction purveyed by biotech companies.
For a taste of reality, see
"Genetic engineering is not an extension of conventional breeding"
by Michael Hansen, Consumers Union
www.biotech-info.net/wide_crosses.html

If you believe this simplistic nonsense....
Try some real evidence for any damage.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:02:48 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:44:12 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:14:45 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:40:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:
The sea of Cumbria is very closely monitored because of Sellafield Nuclear
Power Station, and it was discovered that actually there was so much
naturally occurring uranium in this ground up rock that they were bigger
polluters than Sellafield was.

what a maroon

Interesting, thanks. Just shows how safe nookyoulah powah is

However, be careful you do not mention Sellafield as a typical
example of what nuclear power has to offer on the polluting side,
when you are among supporters. You could get yourself killed. :-)

But as dangers are usually comparative, what about a compare with coal
fired power?

Sellafield versus a coal power plant? I can't see you posting a
compare doing harm to your rep. Consider making a new thread for it,
though.