UGH, Monsanto even worse now

You are looking at this from an idealistic definitions point of view. I get the "Scientific Method", Peer Review" etc etc etc. and the idealistic utopian way it's supposed to work, but it's only as good as the HUMANS that drive it and that has been mankind's problem.

I actually start out by talking about he and his revolutionary movement which probably began out of frustration with the Orthodoxy which ran things in the 1950s and 1960s

 

Actually, I've maintained a scientific definitional perspective all along. Nowhere in my replies did I ever propose an ideological and/or faith-based position. At least now we can see that we are coming to the concept from two differing perspectives.

Phew!

Hang on, that's not part of the deal. If you are of the opinion that the empirical components of any particular scientific knowledge are flawed, then it is up to you to prove it. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. Idealism, utopian or otherwise, does not factor into it.

I beg to differ. Scientific knowledge is neutral. It is human use (application) of scientific knowledge that leads to humankind's problems. Hence my constant references to the difference between scientific knowledge and scientific application.

Maybe .

Cheers, EI. It really has been great chatting with you. It's raining now, I'm going to bed to listen to it on the tin roof (and to catch up on my reading).

 

Are you two debating apples and oranges here?

The science behind Genetically Modified Organisms is basically sound, at least from what I've read. Monsanto's(and others) application of the science is dubious at best. Adding in nutrition is one thing, and beneficial if it works. There is still an awful lot of bickering about things such as calcium intake from veggies as opposed to dairy, butter vs margarine, etc. so nutritionists can keep on arguing if adding beta carotene to rice is a good thing or not(for the record, I prefer my calcium in all its forms and will use butter over margarine any day of the week).

I don't like the current crop of GMOs strictly because they only allow for a higher dosage of biocides to be sprayed without affecting the plant. It's not because the plants were genetically modified, but there is growing concern over glyphosate in general and resistance. It will be the same thing with Bt crops, when a relatively safe pesticide becomes useless because everything is now immune to it(not to mention issues with gut fauna, if any). Since money is now involved with the whole GMO question, it is becoming somewhat more difficult to divine truth from fiction(and yes, I do mean divine since it's becoming increasingly obvious that the internet should not be the sole basis of information gathering). Corporations can and will hire people to make websites just do discredit "real" science and to keep their profits up. I remember reading a story about one guy who puts up these websites(for a fee) and came in to notoriety during the whole high fructose corn syrup debate. The business world has taken a page from politics and has found that muddying the water works well enough to keep people buying their product.

Scientific theory is sound, and just about all scientists use this(there are always exceptions). Media does its best to create sensational stories, so they may run with a theory before it's proven. That's not the fault of science. Sometimes separating this can be a problem. In India, it rained red. Some people took this as a bad omen, while one man thought that it was life from outer space, and the official answer was red mud in the rain. This led him to a scientist that believed that life on earth came from outer space and did not begin on this planet. I'm not talking about a fully formed human coming from beyond the stars, but the building blocks of life itself a la evolution. While the theory may or may not be provable any time soon, it's still a theory worthwhile investigating and not a scientific fact even if newspapers reported it as such.

So for a layman, I just don't like eating chemicals because of their horrible track record. This even includes medicine to a degree. Medicine opens up another point in my line of thinking because it's another area where profits move far ahead of science. Which is better: aspirin, or chewing the bark from a willow? They will both cure a headache equally well, but there are also other natural chemicals that do other beneficial things in willow bark. And all you have to do is watch local TV(US) to see the lawsuits constantly being advertised against FDA approved drugs killing, maiming or making life intolerable for people that they were supposed to help. Yet we have vaccinations that can stamp out diseases(polio for instance), but because we haven't seen polio in the US in decades, some people decide to not give their children these vaccinations(there was a recent outbreak of mumps in England due to parents' concerns of autism from vaccinations).

Science found that we can replace N, P and K with chemical salts. This worked for a while until it was found out that the plants are nutritionally deficit of trace minerals. Which opened up the organic movement, which is under attack from the same type of profit seekers that keep hold of chemical fertilizers. This, again, is not a failure of science. I'd rather our scientific knowledge grow than return to the dark ages where superstition and religion where the main forms of human knowledge. Sometimes, however, I do think that science far outstrips wisdom.

What some people seem to not understand is that science has brought about many wonderful improvements to our lives and if we removed science, the human condition would be in a sorry state again. We'd think that solar and lunar eclipses were omens, blood letting to balance the humors would be back in vogue, human waste would be back in the street causing all kinds of problems and we'd be blaming sin for outbreaks of plague. We definitely wouldn't be discussing this on a "witchbox" which we call a computer that connects to other computers through the magic of the (a)ether(net).

 

No I think it's about two very opposing religious concepts or rather versions of Science, neither of which likes me. *smile*

Actually this is untrue. Science doesn't know enough about DNA to have made some of the lousy decisions they've made to justify GMO technologies. The problem is certain powerful corporations want product on the market yesterday with very little research of possible consequences. Unfortunately those consequences already are out in the wild. How does one change and remove Genetic pollution ? You don't, you can't. And still they want more product on the market.

The justifications they have used for their product have been half-truths and outright lies. For example the excuse that BT Toxin is natural and normal to the environment and has approval for spraying, but the BT Cry Toxin Gene Monsanto insists is found in the wild, is even more deadly and though it occurs naturally in the environment, it's usually isolated from soil, insects and plant surfaces. Here are some links:

Scientists Discover Bt Toxins Found In Monsanto Crops Damage Red Blood Cells

Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa,
Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice

Comments on the human health impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene product in genetically modified crops

Again, if the technology was on the level, there would be no reason to lie, blackball whistler blowers so they can never find work in the Genetics field again, their would be no reason for fraud or manipulating politicians by furthering their Careers and establishing privileged Laws for protection, etc, etc, etc. None of this crap would be necessary if it were honest Peer-Reviewed pure as the driven snow research. They would have to hire sleazy Journalists or Marketing Shills to promote their junk by damage control smear campaigns against opponents simply wanting the truth. Go against the prevailing Orthodoxy and you become labeled an Anti-Science Luddite. Those are the tactics and strategy of entities just wanting to help Mankind ?

Scientific Theory ????? Do you mean Scientific Method ?

Don't fall into the Anti-Science lie, this is not about getting rid of science. It never has been and never will be. When debates stagnate as this has, such off topic misinformation is generally employed when no answer can be found. This was NEVER about denigrating Science or getting rid of Science. This entire forum is continually updated by almost every member on some sort of News item exposing bad science, but press it to far and defenders will label you anti-science. This was and has always been about Science doing the right thing. Our planet is in a miserable state and the misuse and abuse of science by Corporations and world Governments has put us there.

More tomorrow - cheers

 

First off: Why yes, yes I did mean scientific method >.>

Secondly...I'm still rather confused as to what you two are debating. I thought that you were going anti-science, now it seems that you're against bad science used for financial gain? I can't disagree with you if that's your position(which makes for a dull debate).

Thirdly: I'm not talking about the current abuse of GMO technology, I'm talking about the fundamental technology that makes this abuse possible in the first place. I guess it may be difficult to distinguish the two, but insertion of a foreign gene is not necessarily "evil". Having said that, Monsanto's use of the technology is "evil" and destructive. It all depends on how the technology is used.

Fourthly: Yeah, I feel you on the whole bad news story thing. It disgusts me too. Besides people using the research in to aluminum immune plants to back up their weather control conspiracy theories, are there any other reasons to have an aluminum immune plant?

Lastly: The last bit was not directed at you personally. I like my debates to be free of emotion, or it just becomes an argument. There are, however, people that are anti-science, so I was speaking generally. I guess I need to practice my delivery.

 

Well, that's clearly how a couple of individuals wanted to spin it here. But I've been called Anti-Science because I don't care for the forcing of GMOs out the Natural World.

But never underestimate a good canard when you ultimately having nothing to contribute to the topic stated and to deflect from the real point of an O.P.

I never said it was evil, but it is irresponsible. They don't know enough about DNA to be making the decisions they are with GMOs. They've never actually considered the importance of genetic constraints or rather the barriers which are present within any organism. Canadian Geneticist David Suzuki put it best when he spoke about a single gene like the BT Cry Toxin gene which may code for a specific toxin protein was also in associate with other specific genes within that organism to guide and direct it's usage for a specific function or purpose. When inserted into another organism, those instructions are missing, there are no guidance instructions from the other organism, there are others which are entirely different.

You know, there is a great line of conversation from the film "Jurassic Park" where they are debating whether John Hammon should have done what he did without considering consequences.It was a great argument and especially so if you insert the words/terms for the subject of GMO instead of a debate about Dinosaurs. Take a look and in your mind, insert GMOs into the debate.

[video=youtube;ldD_4Puw6RM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM[/video]

The Aluminum subject is more important than everyone realizes. In large concentrations with regards soil contamination, plants (chaparral, Trees, etc) will withdraw intake of water and nutrients to prevent contamination within itself, mycorrhizae will not colonize. The trees become weaken as a result , then the Bark Beetles move in and of course everyone wants to blame bark beetles, who are not at fault. They just take advantage of a situation.

Earth's weather systems are breaking down and instead of fixing these mechanisms, Corporate Science will find another another Fix-it-Pill innovation to make money on the deal. That's why the U.S. Government approves the use of weather modification of aerosols off the coasts of both northern California and Oregon ahead of approaching Pacific storms. These storms are no longer bringing in the heavy amounts of rain and snow they once did and these Scientists know this. This is why Mount Shasta and the Sierra Nevada Mountains have higher than normal concentrations of these pollutants, specifically aluminum. And everyone wonder why forests are in decline.

 

- GMO Myths and Truths

An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety
and efficacy of genetically modified crops

 

G'day EI

That report is a very good example of scientific (mis)application, but not a very good example of scientific knowledge (my emphasis in bold):

Claims that no one has been made ill by a GM crop or food are scientifically unjustifiable, since no epidemiological studies have been carried out. (p. 50)

In other words, we simply don't know.

Personally, on the issue of GM foods, I am of the opinion that the precautionary principle should prevail. That is, if we don't know enough about it, don't grow/sell/eat it.

However, and as concerning as the issue of GM food safety may be, I am of the opinion that by far the greatest threat to the survival of humanity is climate change. As such, that's where the bulk of my efforts are directed. But, I applaud you in your efforts. All I ask is that you try to not get scientific knowledge (or lack of it) confused with scientific application (or misapplication). There is a difference between the two, and yes I know the line between them can sometimes become blurred. Nevertheless, if we look hard enough, we can (still) find it.

Kind regards, M

 

Actually they could know but refuse if it's contrary to their pursuit of profit. This is actually comparable to the endocrine disruption going on with fetuses as a result of chemical compounds like Bisphenol-A and other Nonylphenoals. It's causing sterility and homosexuality in Fish, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians and other mammals which is a major reason creatures are going extinct. They simply cannot reproduce, but no one wants to touch experimentation on humans. No one wants to touch on the subject of increased feminization of men. Of course I understand why. As Theo Colborn said, it's a touchy hot potato subject. As early as 1980, Colborn and fellow researchers on this were warning everyone on the dangers of these chemicals used in making almost indestructible plastics and the consequences on Nature. In 2009, many scientific articles were celebrating how normal and natural homosexuality was because it's found everywhere in Nature. The fact is it was never normal until Big Business Science, who has been given another free pass on this crap, invented their new formulas which caused this degenerate mess decades ago and now everyone is paying for it.

Google two documentaries, "Assault on the Male" and "The Disappearing Male"

Against, this has nothing to do with Gays, but again, no one wants to touch this subject unless they become labeled a Homo-phobe which is NOT what such studies would be about anyway. And it's killing this planet. But that's what defines this world.

This is why I've always used the terms Abused and Misused. As an example, I use the term misuse for Tobacco. Thee is no abuse when it comes to smoking, you can never over do it. One cigarette is misuse. Tobacco has many positive uses like antiseptic and even some varieties raw cooked like a vegetable, but it's misuse is that is most common. I suppose this won't make sense, but that's me.

While I understand what you mean by climate and and I also appreciate your fear, I'm a deal with the causes type of person. I always have been. This is how I have dealt with Habitat Restoration and Urban Landscape maintenance. Deal with the causes and you won't have as much problem with the effects. Now while the majority of Mankind's leadership deals with this Carbons & CO2 issues and other materialistic fixes, that's really not the problem. The real cause and problem is HUMAN personality traits. So I often will use the term, which admittedly has a repugnant term(so bear with me), it's a spiritual one. Now what does he mean by spiritual ? If we break down the word and it's meaning, the root word "spirit" is not physical, but invisible and I'm speaking about people's personality traits. In other words, how in the world can Science, Government, Business, Religion change people's hearts(figuratively speaking) to do the right thing ? Religions have failed miserably and are clearly on the way out. But how do you make people do the right thing or act properly as a husband or wife, employer or employee, neighbour, friend, citizen, business person, child, parent, etc etc etc ? Answer is you don't because you can't. And yet, it's the only logical thing to change for a better world.

 

Maybe, I wouldn't be surprised. But until I see evidence, I can not say, one way or the other.

Firstly, it is offensive in the extreme to refer to GLBTI people as 'degenerate'.

Secondly, there is no conclusive, epidemiological evidence to suggest that EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals) 'cause homosexuality'. See, for example: UN (2002) Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors, particularly Chapter 5.

My general complaint with your use of the terminology is that you often resort to broad-sweeping generalisations, such as:

And by doing so, you offend by far the majority of the scientific community that are ethical, professional, and generally concerned for the well being of Earth.

Not so much a 'fear', more so a great 'sadness'. On the issue of what's 'causing' climate change: We know, with 97% certainty, what this is. I agree with you, behaviour change is ultimately what we are seeking. After all, it is 'human-induced' climate change that we are concerned about. As for 'personality', 'religion', 'spirit', and all the other woo... it's all very interesting, but way too far off topic to pursue, here.

Once again, I very much appreciate you being here, EI. All that I ask is that you be mindful in your presence to the fact that not all scientists are 'evil'. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest, that by far the majority of us a very nice people, who genuinely care about the health of the planet, and it human and non-human inhabitants.

 

Do you think it's possible for you to please not insist or make up a story about something I did or did not say ? Seriously ?

I have work associates that I have worked with for years who are homosexual and I am disconnected from all the political ramblings one way or another that are going on in the world in this regard, so please dump the "you said this rabble", when I never said that. The feminization of males of all organism types are real and that was what I was pointing out. Theo Colborn said that none wants to touch the subject of human studies and she understood the political, social reason why they won't. Personally, I wouldn't want them to experiment on human embryos or fetuses and something go terribly wrong. The point was that the celebration of something increasingly abnormal in Nature that most likely the result of human Industrial error is not something to be excited about. Get a grip and actually read what I said and don't infer something bigoted on my part.

Again, same as above. No one wants to touch this hot potato Social time bomb. But go ahead and use this site for future reference. Should take several years. https://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm


[video=vimeo;15346778]https://vimeo.com/15346778[/video]



[video=youtube;LkxIJJI37bQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkxIJJI37bQ[/video]

If you don't think that Science isn't often times shackled by politics, big business interests and often times religious influence in various parts of the globe, then we must be communicating back and forth through some parallel universes, which as you know is also science fiction.

Every time a permaculture forum member here posts News on some horrific environmental policies which are damaging something somewhere on Earth, you can bet that they were backed by bad science influenced by any or all of the above. It is a testament to the imperfections, flaws and failings of Career-oriented people pursuing a discipline said or promoted to be above all that. This is NOT a general slam against science as you are fond of believing. It's a slam against being shackled to wearing rose coloured glasses which results in Nature and Human Society paying the price for it in the end.

Please please drop the slander. I have never said this. This is almost like speaking to a church going member of Christendom who resents having anything pointed out about their faith. Seriously, I'm not appreciated there either.

But this lying and putting words in my mouth is getting old and it was old a long time back. So please stop. I just finished a paper and emailed it to a colleague who is also a Scientist yesterday. I work with it all the time, but I am not so kool-aid intoxicated as to believe in it's infallibility. Again, this forum was created as a means to counter BAD SCIENCE. If it worked as you state, this place would not exist.


-

 

Not 'slander', merely citing direct quotations; my emphasis in bold:

Of course, if the above references were not being directed at, respectively, scientists and homosexual men, I apologise, unreservedly.

 

Astonishing. Your first reference you gave as an example of me being anti-science and calling science evil was where I illustratively made up some Sci-Fi flick of an indestructible Monster [like Alien] where I was speaking metaphorically about the seemingly indestructible nature of Monsanto as an Alien created by evil Mad Government scientists. Of course that wasn't real. That's why it's called Science-Fiction.

The second one where the use of "degenerate" was used is with reference to the now present unnatural condition of Nature which has been genetically fouled up by Industrial Corporate Science with their Earth destroying inventions, in this case the additives in plastics for which they insist is none of their fault and refuse to cooperate.

Neither of these point to me being a homophobe bigot or anti-science Luddite.

Unbelievable folks, you just can't make these things up.

The worst thing is you generally do this with an almost smiley face :angel: at the end of your text and of all people I would expect you to know better. Not that I really know you, but I can only judge things by the way you promote yourself here. :bow:

No problem I guess :y:


*sigh*

 

Thanks for the clarification, EI, and thanks for your patience.

For the information of all, the WHO & UN have recently released an updated, 250-page review of the science related to EDCs.

And just in case anyone was interested, there is no evidence to suggest that EDCs and human sexual orientation are in any way linked.

 

Read more: https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/al.htm#ixzz2YHqe1rRg




I figured I needed to point out the health and other risks to extra aluminum in the air, not just near smelting plants, but world wide levels have increased. Hence why I am concerned about what Monsanto is doing.
​

 

I couldn't agree more. I've seen the effects of aluminum on vegetation, It appears that this and other elements are what are breaking down the waxy coating of leaves of plants which is their protective layer against desiccation and barrier against many diseases which wouldn't otherwise penetrate. I've got some links , but will have to get back.

Cheers and thanks for this

 

Here is some News from a journal near Mount Shasta on the concerns of Aluminum contamination in Snow Pack and Rainfall due to Geo-engineering Ventures to increase rain and snow in the Sierras. California must be desperate to be pursuing this junk technology.

Citizens seeking answers to aluminum contamination concerns


https://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation.htm





The aluminum contamination inhibits proper root growth. It actually causes the trees and shrubs to shut down and take in less nutrients and water. This has caused the stress in trees for which Oak Borers can do their work without hindrance. It no doubt will have similar effects on Crop plants and hence the need for Monsanto to step in and make an aluminum resistant plant. The disturbing thing is it's business as usual. They won't correct the cause, it's all about a bypass fix-it solution and in the process, let's all make lots of money. But in the mean time the contamination continues and no doubt no real testing will be enough or done before it's approved. These Governments must be extremely desperate.

 

I hope someone important can do something with that study instead of just filing it away somewhere. Getting rid of glyphosate would probably ruin Monsanto since their entire business model revolves around it with a few small eggs elsewhere. They should have the money to withstand any lawsuits...because you know the gov't won't shut the business down.

Why do people run tests without showing a control group? I'd love to have seen cotton in aluminum free soil at those pH levels too...

Second thing I don't understand is that a fair amount of California's economy is from farming, so why would they push something with such a harmful ECONOMIC potential?

Society is insane.

 

Yep, give me Gemeinschaft (communal society) over Gesellschaft (associational society) any day.