> > > > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:47:01 -0400
> > > > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: SOC/BIO: Rifkin's "worldwide moratorium" on genetically
> > > > modified organisms
> >Sellafield? Nothing.
> BNFL has paid out millions of pounds in compensation to its workers for a
> range of cancers, including leukemia, on a probability of just 20% that the
> cancers were caused by radiation.
> >TMI? Not one fatality. Chernobyl? A system purposely
> >overloaded with all safety systems turned off, as some sort of stupid
> 'test' by
> >your socialist buddies. The lesson of Chernobyl is that socialists can't be
> >trusted with nuclear power. The lesson of TMI is that US nuclear plants are
> >systems even under the worst failure conditions.
> If socialists/ 3rd world countries can't be trusted, then they shouldn't be
> built! Chernobyl affected quite a few (non-socialist) countries as well
> ..... there was a ban on consumption even of British lamb directly because
> of it for several years.
> Are you telling me that there are no stupid jerks/ human incompetents in the
> USA (no matter what their politics)?
The AEC does not allow the sort of 'tests' that caused Chernobyl, nor
did the communists have the sort of computer ability we have to simulate
all possible situations. Additionally, their plant construction, a
graphite core, gas cooled reactor, is far more dangerous than our light
water reactor designs. We don't allow graphite core designs in the west.
One of the reasons we were so adamant about the North Koreans giving up
their own nuclear program and buying light water reactors from us is
because they are just as, if not more, screwed up than the USSR was, and
if their plants failed, the fallout would fall on Japan, the US, and
> > So the safety of tests *can't* be guaranteed then?
> >Nothing in life is guaranteed. Get out of your cradle and give up the
> >blankee. Mommy ain't nursing you no more.
> Yes, am not disagreeing that the world is a dangerous place ..... but I
> don't want
> prats I don't even know making it *unnecessarily* more dangerous.
> The greens that you hate are just taking steps on their own behalf against
> what they feel is a direct
> threat to their survival ... not relying on some governmental nanny safety
Could have fooled me. Their idea of a safety blanket, though, is to
strangle the other kids in the nursery, like typical closet fascists.
> > >
> > > OK, so you question the motives of "greenies" who may have left-wing
> > > politics. But for sure the motives of Monsanto and the big
> > > pushing this GM thru as fast they can *ARE* motivated solely by
> > > self-interest and financial gain.
> > What is your reply to this point?
> >How do you know what their interests are? Their stockholders are interested
> >making money, surely, or else they would not be investing in those
> companies. I
> >fail to see why such an obviously obsolete socialist argument needs any
> >at least on this list.
> Obvious point ..... yes, even you seem to accept "stockholders are
> interested in making money."
> But only an *obsolete* argument if wrong ... are you claiming that Monsanto
> are acting out of altruism??
The news speaks for me. Since they just released the rights to vitamin A
enriched rice, the greens don't have much of a leg to stand on here, do
> >Which has shown tons of evidence that it is perfectly safe there. Humans
> >been introducing genetically modified agricultural species into the
> >for millennia. The only difference between then and now is then we were
> >the dice with the genes in our breeding programs, while now we have a very
> >idea of what we are getting. Its quite clear that GE programs are far safer
> >the hybridization programs humans have been running for thousands of years.
> >Anyone who knows ANYTHING about agriculture knows that.
> I think one danger of GM strains is it will lead to monoculture ... the new
> GM seeds might well replace the variety of (less efficient yielding)
> strains, and cut down on biodiversity.
Our agricultur is ALREADY a monoculture. What GM technology will
actually do is create a multiculture, because if Monsanto has the patent
on genome A to enrich rice with vitamin A, then Genex has to figure out
another way to accomplish the same thing with a different genome map, so
the free market will encourage diversity of varieties between companies
that produce them, so the concerns of 'monoculture' are not valid.
> >What is your answer to the question, though??? What is permaculture?
> From: http://csf.colorado.edu/perma/
> Permaculture values and validates traditional knowledge and experience.
> Permaculture incorporates sustainable agriculture practices and land
> management techniques and strategies from around the world. Permaculture is
> a bridge between traditional cultures and emergent earth-tuned cultures.
Which is semantically meaningless.
> Permaculture promotes organic agriculture which does not use pesticides to
> pollute the environment.
Since many plants produce their own pesticides (broccoli, etc..) I fear
that this irrational obsession about pesticide will result in plant
species being made extinct because they produce their own pesticides
naturally. Not a very tolerant point of view. Did you know that broccoli
> Permaculture aims to maximize symbiotic and synergistic relationships
> between site components.
So they beleive in crop rotation, just like any farmer does (even
corporate farmers). They just try to say it in that blathering
feel-good-speak I would actually expect to hear from a corporate
manager, or a Dilbert cartoon.
> Permaculture is urban planning as well as rural land design.
Zoning and landscaping, big freaking whooopeee doooo....
> Permaculture design is site specific, client specific, and culture specific.
In other words, politically correct floral fascism
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:40 MDT