On 18 Aug 2003 23:01:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:


The spray is Bt.

Bt has been genetically engineered into cotton plants in an attempt to
resist the boll weevil, and they are quite widely planted.

So: do that with a few more plants (which no-one works with on a daily
basis or makes underpants out of), and we remove the need for
spraying, surely?

Would the lint from Bt cotton undergarments cause any people more lung/eye
irritation than non-Bt cotton?

I think we do get nutrition through our lungs. Some things are directly
absorbed and some broken down a bit?

If Bt cotton is in the lungs will there be byssinosis more frequently than
for non-Bt?

Occupational disease affecting cotton workers, characterised by
chronic bronchitis, to save anyone else the effort of looking it up.
Happens more often on Mondays, apparently. ("Yeah, right!" some rooted
cynics may respond.).

http://chorus.rad.mcw.edu/doc/00053.html

Seriously, I wonder whether there's a genuinely suggested cause for
this anomaly.

Has anyone other than you, Brian, suggested there is more byssinosis
from Bt resistant cotton? On a cursory scan I can see nothing
(unfortunately, there's someone called Butcher, BT, who seems to have
done a lot of work on byssinosis and cotton, but not as far as I can
see on Bt).

I'm sure you'll have a reference or two (URLs only, please).

Meanwhile, let the double-blind underpant trials commence. I'd be a
lot less nervous about taking part than I would about using unbleached
loo-paper and bringing my sensitive underparts in contact with the
proven carcinogens secreted by those nasty trees.

Steve B.