Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans if used correctly. You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human health. I am not. Then state the things you think are bad about it or shut up. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do with effects similar to those we already see with increased intensification of farming. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. Where are those links, man? You are a waste of time and an idiot. Two seconds on google will get you loads of links. "The RSPB are particularly concerned that the introduction of GM crops could exacerbate the serious declines in farmland wildlife and have a major impact on biodiversity. This is because the use of GM crops could radically change agricultural practice, and in the past the use of pesticides and the use of new types of crops have led to damaging impacts on wildlife." http://www.rspb.org.uk/countryside/f...s/concerns.asp |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"bigboard" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: "bigboard" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: [Snip] I don't know why you are shy of indicating who you are, but what I do know is that Mother Nature has been modifying the genes of all living objects since the beginning of life, and Homo sapiens has been doing the same at a vastly increased rate for the past three thousand years or so. Franz Bully for you. What has that got to do with it? It appears to have escaped your attention that this thread has to do with the genetic modification of plants. Read before you write. Franz It appears your comprehension skills are non-existant. Please practice before you write. I suppose I'll have to spell it out for you. Natural and non-natural evolution also produce non-desirable effects. Yes These effects cannot always be predicted. They are somewhat more predictable in the case of modifications produced by human intervention, both in the case of breeding by selection and by direct modification of the genome. Genetic modification of any kind *can* be dangerous, Yes. The correct procedure adopted by nature is to allow such modifications to die out by natural selection. The correct procedure adopted by humans is to discard such modifications at or before the testing stage if they are deleterious. and we should be careful before releasing any GM organisms into the wild. *Very* careful. Yes. So?? Franz |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans if used correctly. You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human health. I am not. Then state the things you think are bad about it or shut up. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do with effects similar to those we already see with increased intensification of farming. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. Where are those links, man? You are a waste of time and an idiot. Two seconds on google will get you loads of links. "The RSPB are particularly concerned that the introduction of GM crops could exacerbate the serious declines in farmland wildlife and have a major impact on biodiversity. This is because the use of GM crops could radically change agricultural practice, and in the past the use of pesticides and the use of new types of crops have led to damaging impacts on wildlife." Those are all suppositions. They might be right and they might be wrong. Where is the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed professional journals? By the way, agricultural practice has been changed radically on countless occasions for the past 30 or 40 centuries, as a result of genetic modifications introduced by natural mutations or by selective breeding practiced by humans. http://www.rspb.org.uk/countryside/f...s/concerns.asp Franz |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It must be a sad, weedy lot. Strange attitude. Theres all sorts of strange things growing in my garden. No doubt you'd hate the wasp farm at the bottom of my garden too. ie. more extreme control and more extreme monoculture. Why bring monoculture into the argument? The use of glyphosate and pursuing a practice of monoculture are separate questions. By no means. Most of the real arguments about GM are about how we are led further down the garden path in that respect. And WTF are you doing growing glyphosate resistant plants if you do not want a savage monoculture? You have no idea of what constitutes a monoculture. My country of birth produces a very wide range of vegetable foodstuffs. Most of those farms would be more productive if glyphosate resistant varietes of plants were available. So you are now making no claims about it being bad for the environment. I have never made any claims about glyphosate being bad for the environment, since I sincerely doubt whether it is in fact bad for the environment. You are simply talking about how good it is for industrialised farming. Farming in South Africa is not a particularly highly industrialised activity, except for pockets here and there. Franz |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"bigboard" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: Yes. So?? I think we are probably in complete agreement on this Franz, just arguing at cross purposes! My view, and I think probably yours, is that genetic modification isn't intrinsically bad, but the implementation of it's results can have deleterious effects. I agree entirely with that. I am extremely worried however, that the current regime of testing and certification is far too lax. I agree that it is not a very well thought out procedure. {:-)) Franz |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... Those are all suppositions. They might be right and they might be wrong. Where is the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed professional journals? As we have not done the experiments of farming with GM throughout the UK you won't have genuine scientific articles. However, the mechanisms are all well proved (and there are plenty of articles), and the descriptions of how it would happen are not outlandish in any way. These are real, and sensible concerns. Perhaps you would like to swallow the fairy tales about GM. I've been there and done that - I remember the fairy tales that came from the "green revolution" era, and how they turned out. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... Those are all suppositions. They might be right and they might be wrong. Where is the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed professional journals? As we have not done the experiments of farming with GM throughout the UK you won't have genuine scientific articles. However, the mechanisms are all well proved (and there are plenty of articles), and the descriptions of how it would happen are not outlandish in any way. These are real, and sensible concerns. Perhaps you would like to swallow the fairy tales about GM. I've been there and done that - I remember the fairy tales that came from the "green revolution" era, and how they turned out. You take the cake for waffling in the breeze. Since you appear to be unable to actually muster an argument, I propose not to waste any more time discussing sweet nothings with you. Franz |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"bigboard" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: "bigboard" wrote in message I think we are probably in complete agreement on this Franz, just arguing at cross purposes! My view, and I think probably yours, is that genetic modification isn't intrinsically bad, but the implementation of it's results can have deleterious effects. I agree entirely with that. I am extremely worried however, that the current regime of testing and certification is far too lax. I agree that it is not a very well thought out procedure. Good! Let's get back to the gardening. I'll drink a toast at lunch to that rarity: A satisfactorily concluded argument. Franz |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... Those are all suppositions. They might be right and they might be wrong. Where is the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed professional journals? As we have not done the experiments of farming with GM throughout the UK you won't have genuine scientific articles. However, the mechanisms are all well proved (and there are plenty of articles), and the descriptions of how it would happen are not outlandish in any way. These are real, and sensible concerns. Perhaps you would like to swallow the fairy tales about GM. I've been there and done that - I remember the fairy tales that came from the "green revolution" era, and how they turned out. You take the cake for waffling in the breeze. Since you appear to be unable to actually muster an argument, I propose not to waste any more time discussing sweet nothings with you. So you haven't read the concerns of one of the biggest and often middle of the road organisations in the UK. I suggest you don't bother trying to debate if you are not interested in such moderate arguments. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans if used correctly. You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human health. I am not. Then state the things you think are bad about it or shut up. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do with effects similar to those we already see with increased intensification of farming. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. Where are those links, man? You are a waste of time and an idiot. Two seconds on google will get you loads of links. "The RSPB are particularly concerned that the introduction of GM crops could exacerbate the serious declines in farmland wildlife and have a major impact on biodiversity. This is because the use of GM crops could radically change agricultural practice, and in the past the use of pesticides and the use of new types of crops have led to damaging impacts on wildlife." Those are all suppositions. They might be right and they might be wrong. Where is the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed professional journals? By the way, agricultural practice has been changed radically on countless occasions for the past 30 or 40 centuries, as a result of genetic modifications introduced by natural mutations or by selective breeding practiced by humans. Indeed and what proportion of those changes were proceeded by peer reviewed scientific publications describing well conducted scientific study? It's not just agriculture that has generally taken the informal route from lab to reality either. The motor car, mobile phone, natural gas central heating, synthetic fabrics, jet aircraft, political movements, etc. and indeed much of the advances of the modern age except for pharmaceuticals are not studied for likely long term effects on individuals or societies. Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. The public should not expect to be protected from harm by scientific peer review, and scientists shouldn't claim that they can achieve such an effect by that means. Michael Saunby |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
martin wrote in
: But we produce newly genetically modified potatoes every year or so and have done so since time immemorial.. My neighbour even won a large prize for doing this. Well yes OK. But those modifications are not designed specifically to allow him to chuck on piles of stuff that is damaging to the surrounding area, nor does he interbreed his potatoes with, say, gerbils. I am prepared to believe those that know more about it than me, that no harm would come, at least of the latter, and indeed that the area will probably manage to bounce back from the former too, over time. But as there seem to be ample test areas for checking this sort of thing elsewhere, I still don't see why they need to be done here and now. When they invent a strawberry-flavoured GM swede that cures the common cold and will grow only in Norfolk, then I shall be all for it, but 'slightly better maize'? Hardly a warcry, is it? Victoria |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:24:00 +0100, Victoria Clare
wrote: martin wrote in : But we produce newly genetically modified potatoes every year or so and have done so since time immemorial.. My neighbour even won a large prize for doing this. Well yes OK. But those modifications are not designed specifically to allow him to chuck on piles of stuff that is damaging to the surrounding area, nor does he interbreed his potatoes with, say, gerbils. I am prepared to believe those that know more about it than me, that no harm would come, at least of the latter, and indeed that the area will probably manage to bounce back from the former too, over time. But as there seem to be ample test areas for checking this sort of thing elsewhere, I still don't see why they need to be done here and now. When they invent a strawberry-flavoured GM swede that cures the common cold and will grow only in Norfolk, then I shall be all for it, but 'slightly better maize'? Hardly a warcry, is it? If the GM tomatoes are anything to go by, it'll look great, feel great, grow really well, but be completely tasteless anyway. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:24:00 +0100, Victoria Clare
wrote: martin wrote in : But we produce newly genetically modified potatoes every year or so and have done so since time immemorial.. My neighbour even won a large prize for doing this. Well yes OK. But those modifications are not designed specifically to allow him to chuck on piles of stuff that is damaging to the surrounding area, nor does he interbreed his potatoes with, say, gerbils. AFAIR he GM'd potatoes in a lab getting on for 10 years ago. I can't say if gerbils were involved. Although mayonnaise flavoured bintje shaped ferral gerbils have been spotted in the Haarlemermeer polder. -- Martin |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in a 'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on producing a flow of such published articles. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in a 'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on producing a flow of such published articles. Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend on many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also the trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the case, peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as far as technology is concerned. Michael Saunby |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 19 Jul 2003 to 20 Jul 2003 (#2003-202) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 27 May 2003 to 28 May 2003 (#2003-149) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 15 May 2003 to 16 May 2003 (#2003-137) | Bonsai |