hello david,

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 02:26:07 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

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.

david, would you agree, that the sole difference between corn and
rr corn is (quite simplified) a single component (with possible
implications on other traits. polymorphism and metabolism are no
fiction or a mere theory) ? i guess, you would say "yes" ? now
where's the difference to other food tested for toxicology ?
tests on the PURE component would be mostly useless, because tox
science meanwhile knows, that in a lot of substances there is a
HUGE difference between the pure component and the component in a
mixture of literally hundreds of other components. your statement
doesn't hold water. two simple examples:

a) the "lenape" potato. it was tested again and again (too late
though) as a complete food with an special protein just like
gm-corn. and most of the food i gave as examples are not only
tested by single components (a lot of these are not even known),
but as the food per se (reducing the health and toxic effects of
onions to alliciin would be ridiculous.

b) most pharmacologists would agree, that extracted components
would give different results than the whole matrix. sometimes
more efficient, sometimes less, but in any case DIFFERENT. that's
why they DO test - otherwise than you stated - the natural food
or herb per se. standardization is another thing and often not to
the best of the efficiency of the drug. the herb chaomille still
is more efficient than the analyzed components, the same for
garlic (just to mention two of the most common ones) next)

the most funny thing though seems to be, that you can find
hundreds of scientific tox data for raspberries NOONE asked for, while
there seems to be a refusal to test the gm components 90% of the
europeans definitely ask for - and do not get the results !!
somehow queer... about 10 research projects in 4 years and 5 of
them questionable or by company employees (from which noone would
expect negative results - that would be a call for getting
asked: "and when do you intend to leave our company?")

but that is not the REAL reason for refusal in europe. this is
for one the hype, the bribe, the lying, the cheating of the companies
involved and the insults to my intelligence, which results from
all that "new religion". gm food will definitely not solve the
hunger problem (read de grassi). nevertheless it is boasted by
your government. americans have always argued "as little
government as needed", now your companies are using it to sell
their products by political pressure. i've got news for them:
meanwhile they try to "convince" us for more than 10 years (one of
these convincing arguments being a WTO suit). by eurobarometer you
know, that 80-90% of all europeans are against gm-food. wouldn't
economic wisdom tell these companies to go for the overwhelming 90% of
consumers instead of spending billions on these 10% with a
questionable outcome ??

i can very well live with GM food in the german market shelves, so
even the WTO case looks just to me. but i want a choice (and that
means LABELLING), because it's the strongest weapon of consumers to
boycott products, which are produced in a way against their moral
opinion. the labelled food can lay there till it is rotting. whenever
a company comes up with an improved products, it's immediately
advertised in 24 point font in newspapers, flyers, it's boasted in tv
and radio and the company lets hardly a chance pass by to make it
public loud, shrill and proud. WHY NOT WITH GM FOOD ?? not even in
america.

to make my point clearer: there are few (yes, there are some)
restrictions for mercedes to sell their cars in the usa. but you have
definitely decided to buy a special chrysler model. your car dealer
phones you: "your car is there". you go to the car shop - just to get
handed over a mercedes smart. you get angry, but the car dealer tells
you: "what's your problem? essentially they are identical. look, it
has all the attributes of a car. and besides: the company isn't any
more able to separate their models, that would be too costy. price is
almost the same, it's even a bit cheaper. two minor restrictions
in advance: you are not allowed to sell the car without the
consent of the inventor mercedes benz (patent reasons) and you
need a special kind of gasoline called "roll-up", which comes
bundled with the car and of which you immediately have to buy 200
gallons at date of purchase of the car. for this disadvantage you
get 4 additional wheels for free."


i will give you just two of the arguments that upset me and most
of my collegues: last year our institute (i work as head of the
seed science dept. in a governmental research institute) hired 3
biologists (2 of them molecular biologists). these came so to say
directly from university. in the course of one year (and on
several external courses with "social evenings" with more wine
and beer than might have been healthy) i got several internal
information from collegues of these three. ALL of them working in
private bio-tech companies admitted, that they had to hype the
outcome of their research and fake financial reports about the
value of their research and the advances and practical
implications. (so no names, also none of the companies, you have
every right to say, i have invented this and it's therefore
absolutely useless. I DID NOT). my argument: we are 20-30 off
from enough insight in the functionality of the genome to draw
useful conclusions, but we seem to be 20 years ahead in marketing
them. i would not invest a single cent in any of these companies!
their basements are built on PR quick sand. it seems that
nothing has changed since 1968 (comment from gunter stent in
1968): "That was the molecular biology that was".

second example: you will have heard of the widely published
differences between the human and the ape genome. statements like
"we humans have 95-99 % in common with the genome of apes" are
running rampage. question: are you aware of any FULL
sequentiation of ANY ape genome ? no?? i also know of none. so
how can we give percentages in differences, when we don't have a
clue about the full ape genome ?? how can you compare something
known with something unknown and give percentages in differences?
and all this in additional full knowledge of the fact, that "HUGO"
is known to have about 60% errors (data from 2002, it MIGHT now
have been reduced to 40-50%??) and the data from celera are the
results of sequencing just 3 humans (venter himself being one of
them)


not even the argument of "anti-americanism of these luddites"
(that's us with the american computers and the high-tech hplc's,
MRS's and GC's and these paying patent-fees for thermo-cyclers
from american companies) does hold water. europeans run like mad
into cinemas with american films, they help making microsoft
getting fat, our yuppies buy gallo wine and we buy dell computers
like no other brand. we buy megagallons of coke concentrate and
million of tons of grain from you (but please, not these special
ones. where's the difference to films, computers, wine and the
choice between coke and pepsi ? we simply choose and refuse
brands and models) my opinion: your government is running wild
and is disliked (not the people, but these 5 or 6 "rambos" - as
we see them, because their only solution to problems are -
WEAPONS) it becomes a nice argument towards their voters, that
it's not them, who are disliked, but the american people. nice
excuse and and old and cheap trick.... but far off from truth.



klaus

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

Consider making a new thread for it,
though.

So Nuclear power plants cause more damage to humans and the
environment than an equal energy output from coal generation?

And I could have sworn I'd read so many articles showing the opposite.
But if you say so, we'll leave it there. There's not a lot I can do
about it, so I'm not all that interested. (apart from conserving
energy myself, and encouraging others to)

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:28:55 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:43:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

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

A test many years ago in Vienna found thousand fold delivery from
brown coal plants than from nuclear power plants. Since the research
was paid by anti-nuclear fanatics, the research was immediately made
top secret, but it escaped later to the public (somewhere I have a
shortened copy, but have been long time mislaid somewhere in some
bunches of papers, and I haven't bothered either to look for it.)


Must be an urban myth, Alf

"Moosh:}" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:28:55 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:43:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

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

A test many years ago in Vienna found thousand fold delivery from
brown coal plants than from nuclear power plants. Since the research
was paid by anti-nuclear fanatics, the research was immediately made
top secret, but it escaped later to the public (somewhere I have a
shortened copy, but have been long time mislaid somewhere in some
bunches of papers, and I haven't bothered either to look for it.)


Must be an urban myth, Alf

big problem with coal is Radon

Jim Webster

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

No worries, I'll just rephrase: I can't imagine as a possibility,
that it would do harm to your reputation, if you posted a comparison
here between Sellafield and a coal power plant.

Consider making a new thread for it,
though.

So Nuclear power plants cause more damage to humans and the
environment than an equal energy output from coal generation?
snip

I'm afraid you didn't understand the sentence "Consider making a new
thread for it," either. I'll rephrase that too: I suggest a comparison
between Sellafield and a coal power plant might better be placed under
a new Subject header than under the current Subject header, where it
might be considered off thread.

"Moosh:}" wrote:
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.

If you had bothered to read it you would have noticed it's not
simplistic at all.
So it's your position that Nature, Nature Biotechnology,
National Academy of Sciences, Molecular Genes and Genetics, etc
publish simplistic nonsense. Interesting.
Has it occurred to you that this kind of response tells us more
about you than it does about the facts in the indicated article?

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

No worries, I'll just rephrase: I can't imagine as a possibility,
that it would do harm to your reputation,

Ahh, reputation, thankyou. And "your posting".

if you posted a comparison
here between Sellafield and a coal power plant.

Consider making a new thread for it,
though.

So Nuclear power plants cause more damage to humans and the
environment than an equal energy output from coal generation?
snip

I'm afraid you didn't understand the sentence "Consider making a new
thread for it," either.

I understood that, and if you read what you snipped, you would
probably have understood my comment.

I'll rephrase that too: I suggest a comparison
between Sellafield and a coal power plant might better be placed under
a new Subject header than under the current Subject header, where it
might be considered off thread.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:11 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

No worries, I'll just rephrase: I can't imagine as a possibility,
that it would do harm to your reputation,

Ahh, reputation, thankyou.
And "your posting".

No, no. "you". Like in, "I can't see you doing harm to your rep."
It's irony.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:49 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Moosh:}" wrote:
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.

If you had bothered to read it you would have noticed it's not
simplistic at all.

Maybe not to you.

So it's your position that Nature, Nature Biotechnology,
National Academy of Sciences, Molecular Genes and Genetics, etc
publish simplistic nonsense. Interesting.

What are you talking about? It's written by:
"Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union
January, 2000 "

Has it occurred to you that this kind of response tells us more
about you than it does about the facts in the indicated article?

Well your delusion about who wrote it speaks volumes.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:11 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

No worries, I'll just rephrase: I can't imagine as a possibility,
that it would do harm to your reputation,

Ahh, reputation, thankyou.
And "your posting".

No, no. "you". Like in, "I can't see you doing harm to your rep."
It's irony.

No, no, it's confused English.
"Posting" is a gerund, and gerunds take the possessive case in
pronouns, when appropriate. Otherwise your sentence is confused.

For me, "rep" is not a usual abbreviation for "reputation". Its full
form just didn't occur to me.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:24:41 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:11 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

No worries, I'll just rephrase: I can't imagine as a possibility,
that it would do harm to your reputation,

Ahh, reputation, thankyou.
And "your posting".

No, no. "you". Like in, "I can't see you doing harm to your rep."
It's irony.

No, no, it's confused English.
"Posting" is a gerund, and gerunds take the possessive case in
pronouns, when appropriate. Otherwise your sentence is confused.

So, there's the source of your confusion: the assumption,
that "posting" in that sentence has the function of a gerund.
Who made that assumption?

For me, "rep" is not a usual abbreviation for "reputation".

It was with the knowledge that it would be unusual for
John Riley, that I chose it. :-)

Its full form just didn't occur to me.

:-) It likely wouldn't apparently occur to JR, and if it didn't,
he would be too lazy to look it up in the dictionary, too.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:24:56 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:24:41 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:11 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
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.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

No worries, I'll just rephrase: I can't imagine as a possibility,
that it would do harm to your reputation,

Ahh, reputation, thankyou.
And "your posting".

No, no. "you". Like in, "I can't see you doing harm to your rep."
It's irony.

No, no, it's confused English.
"Posting" is a gerund, and gerunds take the possessive case in
pronouns, when appropriate. Otherwise your sentence is confused.

So, there's the source of your confusion: the assumption,
that "posting" in that sentence has the function of a gerund.
Who made that assumption?

I did. Isn't that obvious?
If it's not used as a gerund, you've lost me.
Could you have made your meaning clear with a judicious comma,
perhaps? As you can't see me personally, you can only surely see "my
posting". You can't logically mean "imagine" for "see" coz you and I
don't know each other.

For me, "rep" is not a usual abbreviation for "reputation".

It was with the knowledge that it would be unusual for
John Riley, that I chose it. :-)

How strange. Do you often talk to folk in riddles?
Have you got a problem with this character? It sounds like it.

Its full form just didn't occur to me.

:-) It likely wouldn't apparently occur to JR, and if it didn't,
he would be too lazy to look it up in the dictionary, too.

If you say so. I just looked it up and see that it is US colloquial
use. If that's what you like to use, fine. I didn't learn my language
with so much American influence as so many here.
You used an unfamiliar (to me) expression, I asked what it meant, and
you told me. But yet you seem to have some cryptic ulterior motive.