Achieve the Four Modernizations.

Aaaarrrggh
report this user
Aug 8 Aaaarrrggh commented on Neil deGrasse Tyson Talks GMOs.
@68 So you believe that Monsanto has the power to retract Seralini's paper? And you believe this - without question - because Seralini tells you this is what happened? Do you expect to be taken seriously?
Aug 8 Aaaarrrggh commented on Neil deGrasse Tyson Talks GMOs.
@64 - recombinant DNA techniques ("GM") are power tools for crop breeders - you can make the same products faster or you can do new things. Focusing on, and demonizing, the tool does not make sense, we need to be focusing on the products, on a case-by-case basis.

To give you an example of the self-parodying nature of the anti-GM movement check out what Chipolte is doing. To cater to the anti-GM crowd they have stopped sourcing their sunflower oil from Round-Up Ready sunflowers and are instead going with a BASF non-GM product. How stupid is this? First, sunflower oil is fucking oil so what type of sunflower it comes from is irrelevant. Second, the BASF product has been produced with radiation-induced mutatgenesis, a method that is significantly more unpredictable than rDNA. And thirdly, the mutation makes the sunflowers RESISTANT TO A MORE TOXIC HERBICIDE than round-up. So it's worse for the environment, worse for farm workers and makes absolutely no fucking difference to consumers. *headdesk*
Aug 7 Aaaarrrggh commented on Racism and Ebola, Capitalism and Ebola, God and Ebola.
"brilliant biologist Mae-Wan Ho"

bhhhaaahahahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahaaaaaa *gasp* bhaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha*gasp* *pant* aaahahhahaaaaahhhhhh

Ahhh Charles please stop writing about anything vaguely close to science, you just end up embarrassing yourself
Aug 6 Aaaarrrggh commented on Neil deGrasse Tyson Talks GMOs.
Look it is a real shame that “Fnarf” and “Dr Z” disagree with NdT but he is only communicating the scientific consensus from organizations as diverse as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), National Academy of Sciences, American Council on Science and Health,American Medical Association (AMA), World Health Organization (WHO), Royal Society of Medicine (UK), European Commision, American Society for Cell Biology American Society of Plant Sciences, American Society for Microbiology, International Seed Foundation, Crop Science Society of America, Federation of Animal Science Societies, Society for In Vitro Biology, International Society of African Scientists, Society for Toxicology, Institut de France Academie des Sciences, Union of German Academy of Sciences, International Council for Science and the Royal Society of London.

Maybe “Fnarf” and “dr Z” should consider where they are getting their information? Or do they know more than these diverse organizations? Do they realize that non-GM crop strains can be patented? That no farmer has ever been sued for accidental cross pollination? If you know of a case please list it. If you list “Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser” then go fuck yourself for being an ignorant tool of the anti-GM movement. oh and @44 - your comments were addressed at Grist in the series by Nathanael Johnson. Google “Genetically modified seed research: What’s locked and what isn’t”
More...
Nov 6, 2013 Aaaarrrggh commented on Money and the Democracy.
As one of those scientists who was against I522 I wouldn't turn up to a "party" like that because (a) they all suck and (b) I'm really not looking to rub anyone's nose in the loss.

Mind you, this result makes me even more proud of WA state - Obamax2, gay marriage, pot legalization, pro-science result on GMO labeling (unlike the Portland embarrassment over fluoride). Quite a rational, progressive state we have here.

Oh,and big thanks to ChefJoe and Solk512 - you saved me a lot of typing.
Oct 30, 2013 Aaaarrrggh commented on No on 522: Label GMOs, But Not This Way.
@65 - glyphosate is off patent now so your claim that Monsanto will profit is fairly weak.

Golden rice has been proven to be more nutritious and that uses GM techniques. And that is something that organic food has never been able to claim. So, sorry, but there are GM strains that are more nutritious - IF that is what they were designed to do. Glyphosate resistant crop are not intended to be more nutritious or increase yield so your point is a (very common) straw man. As for morality - please explain how it is moral for well-fed activists in developed nations to opposed Golden Rice which is very likely to reduce suffering in developing nations.

There are way more regulations around GM crop strains than organic crop strains. USDA Organic regulations allow crop strains that have been generated via radiation induced mutagenesis - a completely random method that is known to result in more unintended changes to the crop strain than GM - and no testing is required.

Oct 30, 2013 Aaaarrrggh commented on The Adverse Impacts of Genetically Engineered Foods—A Case for Labeling.
I realize the last time I added this link I fucked it up - this one should work:
http://files.vkk.me/images/cce3cffc1f201…

It's a good summary of the scientific consensus that the risks associated with GMO are no greater than the risks associated with other techniques. This is from actual scientific agencies, as opposed to activist groups.
Oct 29, 2013 Aaaarrrggh commented on The Adverse Impacts of Genetically Engineered Foods—A Case for Labeling.
I'm pressed for time right now and this article is such utter bullshit that I'm just going to cut and paste a previous comment I've made.

As a scientist the frustrating thing to me is that people are making some really weird choices in who to trust for their information on GM, choosing to trust obvious activist groups (Mercola, Jeffery Smith, Greenpeace, Natural News, PCC etc) while totally ignoring expert opinion (WHO, AAAS, NAS, AMA, The Royal Society of Medicine, The European Commission, The American Council on Science and Health, The American Society for Cell Biology, The American Society for Microbiology, The American Society of Plant Sciences, The International Seed Foundation, The International Society of African Scientists, The Federation of Animal Science Societies, The Society of Toxicology, The French Academy of Science, The Union of German Academies).http://files.vkk.me/images/cce3cffc1f201

The scientific opinion on GM technology is that there are no dangers from the technology per se, but it is a powerful tool and that the risks of any use of the technology must be examined on a case-by-case basis. That is, the final product needs to be reviewed, not the tool that was used to make it. This has been the opinion of the scientific community since the late 80s and it is still relevant today. And it means that a “contains GMO” label is utterly pointless and does not communicate anything of use to the consumer. And it will create more expensive food for consumers. And it will not save a single life or stop a single visit to hospital.

More...
Oct 26, 2013 Aaaarrrggh commented on Your Favorite Restaurant Wants You to Vote YES on 522.
@17 If you go back and read my comment you will notice I didn’t call anyone stupid (if you feel stupid after reading my comment, well, that’s on you). Then you say that I am being arrogant. Interesting. I’m a scientist. In the world of science the worst kind of arrogance is to have a strong and vocal opinion about a topic you know nothing about. It is fairly obvious from reading your comments that you do not understand GM technology (i.e recombinant DNA techniques). You do not understand molecular biology. OK, that’s fine, it’s a complex subject. Not understanding it does not make you stupid. But you are certainly vocal.

So let’s talk about trust. The fact that you do not understand recombinant DNA techniques means that you cannot make your own judgment about the technology based on your own critical analytical skills. Instead you have had to read articles written by others. And in doing so you have had to make decisions about which articles to read and believe, and which articles to read and not believe. In other words, who to trust. As a scientist the frustrating thing to me is that people are making some really weird choices in who to trust, choosing to trust obvious activist groups (Mercola, Jeffery Smith, Greenpeace, Natural News etc) while totally ignoring expert opinion (WHO, AAAS, NAS, AMA, The Royal Society of Medicine, The European Commission, The American Council on Science and Health, The American Society for Cell Biology, The American Society for Microbiology, The American Society of Plant Sciences, The International Seed Foundation, The International Society of African Scientists, The Federation of Animal Science Societies, The Society of Toxicology, The French Academy of Science, The Union of German Academies).http://files.vkk.me/images/cce3cffc1f201…

The scientific opinion on GM technology is that there are no dangers from the technology per se, but it is a powerful tool and that the risks of any use of the technology must be examined on a case-by-case basis. That is, the final product needs to be reviewed, not the tool that was used to make it. This has been the opinion of the scientific community since the late 80s and it is still relevant today. And it means that a “contains GMO” label is utterly pointless and does not communicate anything of use to the consumer. And it will create more expensive food for consumers. And it will not save a single life or stop a single visit to hospital.

More...
 
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy