Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. If someone only votes because of the law, should they have a vote in the first place? :-)) 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. 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 Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 2 Aug 2003 03:25:14 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: 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. So you are busting your boiler to sway WHOM? 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. How can this be done? I've changed my screen name whenever the mood takes me. Usually when I have to set up another newsreader or ISP. How can this possibly affect the weight of a case? I've never used two at once. Does anybody really take newsgroups seriously? Such a tiny proportion of the World participate for a start, and how does anyone know the real name of anyone here? I really don't know (or care) if you are Brian Sandle, or Fred Nurk. I've heard of some folks who use one name on one group, and another on another group. I've never seen the point. I believe anonymity is wise here, as I've seen good folk persecuted because they used their real identity. The name Moosh:) appeared on Feb 11 What about M00$H :] and all the other variants I've used trying to foils some little troll or other? :) And then there was Sandie and Jo and variants, I believe. with some 8 articles, after John Riley had been having a gap in posting, following several to the microsoft groups. How fascinating. I've been posting to, and reading many different groups under many different screen names. 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 Wow, can I do a chart of you and some other poster? It's wet and miserable here :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 07:04:30 +0100, Oz
posted: 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. That's the famous Australian salute :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 2 Aug 2003 07:19:44 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: 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. Yes, but is this general comment on life appropriate just here? Moosh:] has been relating about varied diets being more healthy for humans. And varied life on earth seems more healthy. The first sentence, though awkardly put, is roughly accurate. The second sentence is meaningless to me. Currently we have powerful technology and can change the earth in a large region for the current whim. How can we do that? I think you exaggerate wildly man's abilities. 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. Doing what? Our state govt has been doing "cool burn" fires for decades. 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. Not sure what you mean by this exactly, but I see no similarity at all with GM. GM is just like plant breeding that has been going on for thousands of years. Just more accurate and quicker. 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?). 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. Organics can be more intense farming. Do you mean "intense" or "intensive"? Organic growing can only be intensive if it "steals" the nutirients from other land. 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. No, feeding 10 billion humans or more. 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. Even less for land plants? The first surface to intercept solar rays blocks it from anything else. Land or sea. 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. So feeding the world is not a worthwhile goal? Rather than put RR or Bt &c genes in several cotton types and say you have increased diversity, Who says that? increased profit for the mean time or whatever, Without profit, nothing much will be achieved in this area of endeavour. find out about companion planting, closed ecosystems like marvelously diverse forests, and long duration success. Interesting, but if you stop all technological advances in the furthering of agricultural efficiency, you will have ALL wild reserves planted with old fashioned crops. Your call. 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? Dunes aren't created my marram grass. Marram grass "stabilises " dunes so they don't encroach onto productive land. Then you have a greater area of land to some extent. And on the more shaded side of the dunes different plants could grow. Which food plants would these be? 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). The govt is the will of the people, for better or worse. You must change the govt by democratic means. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:26 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "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. Tell me ONE natural food product that has undergone as much toxicological studies as GE products. It is a man-made substance and is not made in living organisms. A GM event is also man-made, so there. How about information about tomato? What toxicological data was known about the tomato before human began consuming it? It's a very long time ago, I don't think that will ever be known. Because there weren't any. How about just giving me one example of a natural food product having to undergo toxicological studies. I will even accept an example of a product developed by chemical mutagenesis. All I want is one. With your fingers on the pulse on the scientific community, that should be an easy request. Dave Dave ----------- Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K., Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency, Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at "Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531, RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import, second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants (carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions of the European Commission were considered. TOXICOLOGY: In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect the extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each other are sometimes scattered over the dossier. Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather sporadically, most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier. Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments: - low toxicity of the gene product, - substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional counterparts, and - low exposure. Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the gene insertion are not considered in any case. Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise (GLP). GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or not at all verifiable. Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers. ALLERGOLOGY: No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and products derived therefrom was carried out. The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an either argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g., digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons). Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even suspected to be selectively quoted. The usual way of arguing is as follows: (i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced protein and known allergens, (ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low, (iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine, (iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic source, (v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely exhibit allergic properties, (vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties because it is not new. Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore, unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion, such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens through insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on the above described approaches is insufficient. SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE: Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the intended use of the GMP or GMP products. Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done. Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to justify substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary effects. In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects from back-crossing, climate conditions etc. Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage and preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of compound analysis are lacking in most cases. Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often fragmentary or even missing. On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial equivalence often cannot be verified. In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if the herbicide was applied during cultivation. As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation sites the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and might be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in changes in plant metabolism. Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not play a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in comparative composition analysis. Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not considered in any dossier." [End quote] |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:35:40 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:26 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "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. snip David's efforts to move the goal posts |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:35:40 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:26 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "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. 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. Dave snip David's efforts to move the goal posts |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Torsten Brinch writes
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. You claim there is? I'm intrigued, name me some. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. Nice try with the old tricks Torsten. Didn't work before and it wont work now. Dave |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. Exhibit: Carum carvi L., seeds: negative on Drosophila mutagenicity assay (48h) (Lachavechvanich 1997) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Torsten Brinch wrote:
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. Exhibit: Carum carvi L., seeds: negative on Drosophila mutagenicity assay (48h) (Lachavechvanich 1997) Sorry I am a bit short of time currently, but look up any nutrition text. Or a more specialist book, `Antinutrients and Natural Toxicants in Foods' Edited by Robert L.Ory, Southern Regional Research Center USDA -ARS Oil and Food Laboratory New Orleans, Louisiana. Food & Nutirtion Press, Inc. 1981 And while I remember, in addition to what I gave about RR produced corn for feed: Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing grain from roundup ready (NK603), YieldGard x roundup ready (MON810 x NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K, George B, Astwood JD POULTRY SCIENCE 82 (3): 443-453 MAR 2003 and the combined traits, insect-protected corn event MON 810 (YieldGard corn) x glyphosate-tolerant corn event NK603 (experiment 2) to their respective non-transgenic controls and to commercial reference corn, when fed to growing broilers. [...] Differences (P 0.05) were noted only for protein content of breast meat. [...] So what experiments should be done on humans eating the stuff, their brains &c? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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.... |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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". |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. :-) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter