"What stops somebody setting up a lab"

Medical regulations. Lots of them.

Stop being ignorant and go read your own damn link. Specifically the part where it says ' Terminator seeds have not been commercialized anywhere in the world ' Terminator genes are probably something worth opposing, but using them in an argument opposing current GM crops is wrong wrong wrong!

Then please do a bit of introspection and try and figure out why you said terminator genes are causing trouble. Like who lied to you, why you believed it, and why you didn't figure it out when you looked up that link.

T

True, to some extent. Banning something because the citizens don't want it is democratic, and democracy isn't stupid. Many of the reasons they don't want it are stupid. Not eating poison isn't stupid. Thinking current GM food is poisonous is.

You said GM food is 'often poisonous'. Current GM foods are not poisonous to anything that is supposed to be eating it. That is the point. And you can't get around that just by saying that isn't the point, 'cause it is the point I was making.

Which one? glyphosate resistance? The bt cry gene? Something else? Each of these has diferent answers. Please be specific. Also, what timeframes do you have in mind? A 90% chance it will take more than 1000 years is much different than a 90% chance in less than 10 years. And which specimens were you thinking of? Glyphosate resistance moving from a GM soybean variety to another non-GM soybean variety is of little concern to anyone who does not sell GM seeds and understands that glyphosate resistant soybeans are perfectly safe to eat or feed to animals. Glyphosate resistance in morning glory is another matter, although that is not due to genes hopping from GM crops.

GM opponents are often just that, opponents. Without any understanding of what genes have been modified, what they do, and how that affects biology, genetics, agriculture, or ecosystems. The details matter, and are very often ignored in an emotional panic.

Sadly, you are correct about this.

We obviously disagree on which problems are real and which are FUD. Without specifics I cannot fairly address this statement.

T

What would you have rated my computer literacy at if I had said my CPU here at work was made by HP? Or my physics knowledge if I said that electrons travel in circles around the center of the atom? Probably not much, even though you know what I would be saying.

What if I added that my keyboard lacked the any key, and that my CPU was defective because it only worked when plugged in? Or that I claimed to know what happened to an atom if the electrons stopped?

Words do matter. I wouldn't have said anything if citizenr had gotten things at least half right. If he had used 'herbicide' I wouldn't have called him a fool, because it would appear that he actually had some knowledge of the subject. It is likely that he used the word pesticide because he couldn't remember the word herbicide, and was rather hazy about the difference anyway.

'It is better to be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.'

He is ignorant because he knows nothing about GMOs, and a fool because he claimed things about them anyway.

T

P.S. It is a common mistake btw, one even I have been guilty of in the past...

If you plant a glyphosate resistant crop, you can use small amounts of roundup, instead of the larger amounts of something else to control weeds. That is how the less comes about. Of course you can use more roundup than you need, and some dumb farmers do that.... Or you could combine roundup with the other herbicide you would have used, and I am sure some farmers do that too. But you don't have to. And, to be clear, I am talking about the total tonnage of herbicide use, not total acreage that they are used on. The acreage can and probably does increase.

People and farm animals have been eating GMO's for over a decade now, in large numbers. 0 deaths, 0 illnesses and lots of FUD in articles on /. and elsewhere are all that has come of it. A basic understanding of how glyphosate works, and what was changed to make crops resistant to it tells you very clearly that there is exactly zero harm to humans from this change. Wikipedia is good enough. Go read it. The bt change is also a very simple change. Why it is harmless to all but insects is more complicated, but equally clear. Those two account for most GMO's in use today.

Yes, I think the EU bans GMO's because they are stupid. Read this. People are often stupid, and the GMO ban in the EU is just another example of it. I am not claiming that people in the EU are any more stupid than any others however. See the link.

Hybrids are a problem, but they are not a GMO problem. And GMO's are no worse in this regard than non GMO seeds anyhow. Pick your battles, and don't confuse issues.

T

Start your post with an insult, nice way to show your own arrogance.

I was trying to show my anger at his ignorant arrogance. Based on your sig, I am surprised you missed that.

If mixing up the words 'pesticide' and 'herbicide' was his only mistake, I'd have not posted. Even if he had not messed up pesticide/herbicide, he got the glyphosate resistant issue wrong on almost every point. And they were bad points.

And the 'buying seeds every year'? mostly wrong. Partly because it is the norm in the developed world, as you said. But mostly he is wrong because GMO crops are no less likely to produce viable seeds than any other commercial plant varieties. I addressed this in my post, blaming this on GMO is wrong. The only reason he was not completly wrong here is the fact that non-viable seeds of commercial plant varieties is a bit of a problem. But it is not a GMO problem.

If citizenr was referring to those suicides in India you linked to, he got that wrong also. Monsanto was not the primary cause of those, and to the extent they were responsible, it was due to legal, not genetic restrictions on their seeds. You can get that much just from the link you gave. This is a greedy corp problem, not a GMO one.

T

You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt, you are a fool.

Virtually all crop plants, GMO or not, are highly resistant to pesticides. Pesticides kill bugs, usually insects, not plants. You can't even get the basic terms correct. It is so bad I am wondering if I am feeding a troll...

You are confusing pesticides with herbicides - stuff used to kill weeds - and some GMO crops engineered to be resistant to roundup. Glyphosate (aka 'roundup') is one of the safest and cheapest herbicides available. GMO crops resistant to it let farmers use safer, cheaper, and LESS herbicide than they would otherwise use. Not more, as your ignorant rant claimed. How is that bad? Oh, and the US patent expired years ago. It isn't proprietary anymore - please keep up with the times.

There are actual problems with GMO crops today. They all have to do with patents, lawyers and big greedy corporations. There are potential problems with the safety of GMO crops, but so far they are just potential problems, all known GMO crops in production today have proven to be extremely safe for human consumption, and better - usually much better - for the environment.

Your concern about 'buying seeds every year' is extremely misguided and mostly wrong. Most farmers buy seed each year anyway, GMO or not. It is cheaper to let someone else deal with producing quality seeds and just get yield. There was some talk years ago about 'terminator' genes that would prevent GMO plants from producing viable seeds. DRM for plants if you will. This is one of those potential problems. It has never been used. Worry about it if it shows up, worry about it if Monsanto starts talking about it again. Don't worry about it in the fields today, 'cause it doesn't exist there. Lying and fear-mongering about it makes you no better than Monsanto.

T

T

'Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian'

That is the quote he uses to answer the question in The God Delusion.

T

I buy a box of bolts at the hardware store. They have no manufacturing defects, and no damage. They are still in the box. Are they functional?

Yes - If I take a nut and try to thread it on the bolt, it works, if I try to screw it into a hole, it works.

No - They are not currently holding any parts of any kind together, they don't form any part of any useful machine - they are not functional.

The ENCODE project is using the first definition. 80% of the DNA produces RNA, or has binding sites that bind to regulatory proteins, or some other function that can have a real impact on the cell. Whether or not the RNA is actually used, or if the regulatory sites actually regulate something, or if it actually has an effect on the cell was not considered - and is probably not known yet for most of that 80%.

Most people when they hear 'functional DNA' assume that it has an impact on the organism. The ENCODE project is working on a lower level, asking, 'Does this DNA do something on a molecular level?' not 'Does this DNA make a difference to the cell?'. That is of course the next question, but they are not there yet.

T

Well said. I would only like to add that even the existence of a god or a 'true' religion would not change what you have said by much. Human nature is what it is, how human nature came to be doesn't change that.

T

I live here in the western US too - you are not exaggerating the population density.

If you live in a place without any internet access, chances are that you have to drive farther to get to the school than you do to find internet access. And if you live there, it is because you chose to live away from society and wanted to be away from more than just the internet.

If you actually have a farm, ranch or other good reason to be there, then according to the map, the internet is already there for you. The only other reason to be out there is some kind of job, forest ranger or mining covers most of the job possibilities, and the company you work for would almost certainly have brought internet access to their location. (they need it too, and can afford it)

That said - too many of the black spots on that map follow straight borders and the like. Radio coverage does not do that, the map is not very accurate.

I am old enough that my first real internet access came when I got to college. I don't buy the 'drop a letter grade' bit. The internet is great (unparallelled?) for those who want to learn. For most people - learning resources on the internet are like cake decorating supplies for /.ers. We will probably find a use for some of it, but it probably wouldn't result in many decorated cakes. (and those would have xkcd comics on them, not flowers and bows...)

T

That spot happens to be an indian reservation - very poor people and possibly some weird legal reasons why they can't put coverage there. It is one of the few big black spots on the map that deserves coverage though.

Take for example that small black spot just south of the wyoming border in Utah (bottom of the 'notch' in the state map) That is the High Unitas Wildernes area. Backpackers and forest rangers only. - there are few roads, and no houses or farms, let alone cell phone towers.

How about that black spot just west of the great salt lake? Salt flats Those poor poor tourists and travelers that have to wait a few hours for their high-speed wireless internet access as they gawk at the barren desert, get back in their cars and drive on. (nobody lives there)

That map actually does a pretty good job of showing the most worthless parts of the US. (Oh, and national forests! places people aren't allowed to go live.)

T

Ummm, point me to where Japan has defaulted on it's government debt in the last decade or two.

The context of this discussion was government debt, and a default of the debt was what I was referring to as a 'crash and burn'. (it is over 200% of GDP, and their deficit is about 50% of the budget. Greece isn't that bad off even now. Default will be a big crash)

Perhaps I was not clear enough on just what I meant...

T

Two things are true, the majority of debt is held domestically.

This isn't really true anymore. U.S. debt is about a 50/50 split these days domestic/foreign. And that is worrying, as it makes the situation much more unstable - Japan has a much bigger debt/GDP ratio than just about anyone, but most of their debt has been domestically owned, and that is a large part of why they haven't crashed and burned yet.

T