Slashdot Mirror

Note that if Canada really wanted to export their oil overseas, they would have just built a pipeline to one of the Canadian ports.

They will.

Yes, the pacific Ocean is very large, but it also takes a very long time to to mix evenly.. "(hundreds or thousand+ years.)" Thus a large portion of the contamination will remain in the surface layer for generations to come. These relatively hot isotopes also tend to bio-concentrate/bio-accumulate up the food chain.

Recommendation.. "Eat low on the food chain" and avoid Meat products, especially those that were caught, or were fed fish meal products from the Pacific ocean.

Heated potatoes create a class of toxins.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-07-05.html
GENEVA, Switzerland, March 7, 2005 (ENS) - The chemical acrylamide formed unintentionally when starchy foods such as potato chips are cooked may be of public heath concern since it has been shown to cause cancer in animals, an international expert panel said Friday.

"Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based,

Ricin anyone?

Several reasons:
    - Monsanto is American, and therefore are in a good position to influence US government
    - There have been several attempts to label stuff, but companies like Monsanto have been able to put a stop to it. - http://ens-newswire.com/2013/05/24/u-s-senate-bars-gmo-labels-as-march-against-monsanto-revs-up/
    - I am guessing that in other countries the population either cares more about their food or have more influence over their governments?

>Nuclear power makes Coal look like a clean air filtration system.
Yep, sure does, doesn't, does, uh

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-21-092.asp

"WASHINGTON, DC, November 21, 2008 (ENS) - The top 50 most-polluting coal-burning power plants in the United States emitted 20 tons of toxic mercury into the air in 2007, finds a new report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. Of the top 10 mercury emitting power plants, all but one reported an increase as compared to 2006. "

Ever calculate the costs of driving faster? For example, driving 55 mph instead of 65 saves about 10% on fuel.

I don't know if that's true... supporting citations, anyone? I think the original 1973 law may have *intended* to save fuel, but my brief search yielded a few citations that would seem to cast some doubt on limits actually having that effect:

• A 1986 paper (a pdf, booh, sorrry) stating total fuel savings to be 1% and that independent studies found a 0.5% savings.
• In 2009 The American Trucking Associations called for raising the limit to 65 mph and also national fuel economy standards claiming that the lower speed limit was not effective at saving fuel.
• Observations supporting the idea that municipal governments benefit substantially from speeding tickets as a source of revenue (one striking example: Westlake, TX took in $42,000 per citizen over nine years for its speed traps).

The real shame is that while they've been preaching, real issues are being ignored. Mountain top mining goes on. Coal ash fallout continues. The irony is that if they addressed these real and obvious concerns about which few disagree, then carbon emissions would be reduced as a side effect.

Yeah, nobody in the climate change community talks about mining http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2009/2009-06-23-01.asp

Well coal plants do contaminate large areas: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-19-06.asp - Utility Buys Out Contaminated Ohio Town. This has happened in multiple locations as well.

Also "holy grail of sustainable power-producing nuclear fusion" could help getting rid of air pollution and save 2 million people every year[1].

1) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-06-01.html

Yeah, that's just what we need, an extra 2 million people around every year consuming resources and multiplying. The earth is still a ways away from not being able to sustain the living but I don't want to get there any faster.

Because of science like this, we had knowledge about quantum physics and we knew what electrons are and how they work. Because of that we have transistors and computers. Because of computers we have modern medical equipment and Folding@Home.

Also "holy grail of sustainable power-producing nuclear fusion" could help getting rid of air pollution and save 2 million people every year[1].

1) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-06-01.html

I'm not going make a statement one way or the other on fudged data. If his actions were clearly inappropriate there are plenty of scientific bodies whose only reason for existence is managing scientific professional integrity. If he has done something truly inappropriate, he will be dealt with.

What I will respond to is THE VAST body of work pointing to dramatic changes in global climate. I ask those with an ideological position to defend, to stop for just a moment look at the remarkable amount of indisputable evidence that is now available. Its positively mind numbing.

Your comment about temperature is both uninformed and ludicrous. Scientists have taken wood samples from redwoods and bristlecone pines and with that information they can give you precise climatic information for specific areas including annual rainfall, temperature, and occurrence of catastrophic events. By analyzing human dwelling all over the world we can accurately determine climate through fauna and flora for those regions, spores, seeds and pollen. They tell us precisely what grew, and tell what the climatic conditions were there and when. We have antarctic ice cores with trapped atmospheric samples, we have ocean cores with samples of everything from diatoms to volcanic ash, we have fossils and minerals with trapped air and water going back millions of years, we have rock cores which elegantly give us clear records of temperature over centuries. The body of evidence is overwhelming and rich. Thousands of different sources from hundred of different fields of study, all forming a clear and cohesive picture. Whatever you've been reading, its inaccurate, incomplete, and puts ideology before simple fact and truth. You can absolutely criticize one or two individuals for their poor performance, but that doesn't even begin to indict the work of tens of thousands of scientist all over the world who work in vastly different fields but have all come to the same inescapable conclusion.

The models and theories make specific predictions. Many of those predictions have come to pass. Here are just a few recent facts which are completely incontestable:

• The ice caps are melting: If you haven't read about the disappearing artic ice cap in summer try this source. While some would applaud the economic benefit of opening a new shipping lane, the loss of extinction of many vital species including the loss of arctic krill would produce a devastating crash in global fish stocks and the probable extinction of a variety of whales, seals, penguins, and polar bears.
• Glaciers everywhere are vanishing: Look here for a synopsis. The impact of this is that nearly half the worlds population uses glacial melt for drinking water and for agriculture. When they melt the economic cost (not to mention the cost in human suffering or destabilized governments) will be profound.
• The oceans are changing: Rising sea levels, dropping salinity, increased acidity due to CO2, increasing temperature, and changing currents are all occurring as we speak, and all predictable results of global climate change. The impacts will grow and be devastating. Some include loss of coastal land and cities, weather changes, crash in vital fish populations, crash in all marine life, The ocean are the engine behind climate. Disturbing its integrity has far reaching impact. Already, low lying islands in Polynesia are disappearing and their inhabitants are being displaced.
• Animal are migrating away from the heat: Research is now showing us how climate change is impacting animal migration and we are only now beginning to under

From 1999, Activists Destroy British Columbia Research Trees. This action destroyed several years of research, caused the startup company to fold financially and put over a dozen people out of work.

While that fact is interesting and unexpected, it only applies until something goes wrong.

While everything is going right, nuclear power is quite safe.

While everything is going right, coal power still kills 24,000 people in the USA alone every year. And that's not even mentioning things like the 48 tons of mercury released into the air and water every year by perfectly functioning coal plants in which nothing has gone wrong.

Even Greenpeace only puts the death toll from Chernobyl at 200,000 from 1990 to 2004, less than two thirds of what American Coal accomplished over the same time, and they didn't even have an accident to blame. That's just business as usual.

So, yeah, go Coal. Let's put an end to those dangerous nuclear plants and return to safe, clean power.

From the cooling pond which they've been pouring water all over. And from the small amounts that were airborne in the hydrogen when it detonated.

If you have *airborne* plutonium, you have *huge* problems. The boiling point of plutonium is nearly 6000 degrees Fahrenheit. And even if you're getting plutonium from water, it inherently means that the zirconium cladding has melted off the rods. Arguing that that this happened in the cooling ponds isn't exactly going to win you any brownie points in the "Nuclear power is safe" front.

And all of that said? Your claim is simply wrong. Again. Again.. Why on Earth do you think they reduced the rate of water flow into the core? Whatever they inject ends up in the basement after getting a hefty load of radionuclides. Not only is the water from the core, the evidence shows that it's from a core which has had re-criticality (multiple spikes in iodine production; iodine is a short-lived radionuclide)

Though, the only reason I'm defending this nuclear plant at all - despite the fact that everyone knew beforehand was a horribly outdated design and was due to be decommissioned

No -- only one reactor was (#1), and as usual with aging nuclear power plants (including our own), they got an extension to for ten years.

When what we really need to do is put the NIMBY and enviroweenies together on an island and let them starve because nothing ever gets done.

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you is someone who's only good as a target for name calling and has no proposed solutions of their own, correct? You realize you're talking about the same people who were accurately describing how serious this situation was while people like you were out there describing the plant's reaction to the earthquake and tsunami as a triumph of nuclear safety engineering.

I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll. The Bush adminstration closed a research lab for honeybees and canceled funding for projects that were focused on determining the cause of the mysterious honey bee deaths. It's tempting to say that the Bush administration canceled those projects because it already knew the truth about what was killing the honeybees, but I don't really see how they could have known that precisely was the cause, more than likely they just didn't care.

As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc. This was done intentionally in the belief that applying the following rules always works: "regulation = bad" "business interests = good". Stupid and short-sighted.... (And yet somehow the American people felt it was a good idea to let these guys back into control of congress? WTF? They're going to get what they deserve, the only problem is I'm going to get what they deserve it too since environmental problems affect everyone.)

And your argument conveniently fails (yet again) to produce any credible reason as to why scientists would fabricate results

Are you seriously suggesting that results are never fabricated? Or that it's not possible for Scientists to behave in a generally dishonest manner in order to advance their own agendas? Or that scientists do not have political opinions that are in direct conflict with the work they perform?

According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here.

Career pressure

Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding; and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.

To this category may also be added a paranoia that there are other scientists out there who are close to success in the same experiment, which puts extra pressure on being the first one. It is suggested as a cause of the fraud of Hwang Woo-Suk. A main source of detection comes when other research teams in fact fail or get different results.

Laziness

Even on the rare occasions when scientists do falsify data, they almost never do so with the active intent to introduce false information into the body of scientific knowledge. Rather, they intend to introduce a fact that they believe is true, without going to the trouble and difficulty of actually performing the experiments required.
Easiness of fabrication

In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it - or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" which are trained to fight scientific crimes, all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat. Finances

There is the additional incentive of money. If one has a promising proposal in an area in which federal or other grant money or funding is available, especially in a new technology in which there is no existing standard to compare it with, the submission of preliminary data cannot be confirmed until further research is done.

Ideology

While perhaps the least common incentive, it is still there. The classic example would be anti-abortionists claiming sonograms show the silent scream of an aborted fetus demonstrates the fetus is alive with feeling, while pro-abortionists would submit demographic studies showing that women who considered abortion but later decided against it are doomed to life of dependency on welfare, lower socioeconomic status, relationship abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, etc.

Scientists are Human and subject to all of the same frailties as the rest of us. If you want the political sphere, as Dwight said, "to be held captive" by them, then in my view that is a very naive viewpoint indeed. There are many cargo-cults in science. Its practitioners are no more suited to directing public policy than anyone else.

And in the US, tack on a few more acres for storing the waste indefinitely, as the Federal Government is unlikely to get it's act into gear and actually create a storage facility for it anytime soon.

The Department of Energy already did. Nevada didn't want it, so it's dead (gotta love state's rights). The search for options begins again with to a new Blue Ribbon Comission.

Um... no. No they would not.

Yes they would. Simple economics says that as the cost of something goes up people look for cheaper sources or reduces the amount needed. That has been proven throughout history, even if not by choice. And as today's conventional energy gets more expensive people will move to other sources.

Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone?

The only reason it is not big here, in the US, is because little has been done to develop it. And it is even used in New York City. I myself have proposed geothermal in Yellowstone, but you're right so called environmentalists even oppose offshore and onshore wind farms. "Not in my backyard!" Of course I'd want a Yellowstone geothermal power plant to be blended into the landscape and I'd love both solar panels and a wind turbine on my property.

Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist

Wow! Solar power got $62 million for R&D. That's dwarfed by coal's $3.302 Billion in 2007 alone or Nuclear Power's $145 Billion over the years. "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Wars are even started over oil.

There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective

Tell all those who build off the grid that it's not effective. Solar hot water has a payback period as short as 5 to 6 years, and the equipment lasts a lot longer. The payback for PV panels is much harder but estimates have been as low as 7 years and panels come with 20, 25, even 30 year warranties. Even pro-rated replacing equipment is cost competitive. Individually owned PVs aren't the only way to go solar either. The same publication you provide a link to your article, Science Daily, also has this article, Solar Power in Ontario Could Produce Almost as Much Power as All U.S. Nuclear Reactors, Studies Find. On large scales concentrated solar power may be more effective. Another article it has, Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Hurting Global Environment, Security, Study Finds.

Oh, and does he consider the subsidies conventional energy gets too in the study? Does he factor in the billions of dollars coal and nuclear power get? The only mention I see about them is where "he favors more state and federal funding for research and development." Personally I don't think government should be subsiding most of what it does, whether energy or farms or ...

Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?

I don't know how many tymes I commented, but I didn't find any, I posted about how Kennedy or that NIMBY environmentalists opposed wind farm o

US Coal mining deaths per exajoule electricity produced: 4.5

To make a more comprehensive and useful comparison, you should include all the deaths from radioactive coal ash and mercury.

Would we even be having this silly discussion if not for that blasted EPA? =P

FTFY. It's hard to know the facts, and be aware of what's currently offered by the (diesel) market, when you have the government agency tasked with emissions regulation spewing FUD.

lost the link - the "this article" that says 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed is here. Course, there are other typos, but meh ;)

What makes it clean? From what I've read, one solution is to burn coal in pure oxygen.

I should probably rephrase "we have the technology" to "promising technology is being investigated". The technology does require sequestering of the CO2 gas emitted, but of far more concern to me is ensuring the much worse toxins contained in coal aren't released.

Apparently, New York is building a pilot plant. Here's the story:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-12-094.asp

Essentially, we'll have to see how this technology pans out. The fact that they can build a pilot plan seems to indicate they have a pretty good grasp on how to, at least theoretically, solve this problem.

I submitted a story a while back about something very similar to this. It does however use water instead of molten salt to store the heat before it's used to turn the turbines:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-30-02.asp

The advantage of molten salt is its ability to hold a lot more energy in the same space when compared to water (especially when it's molten). There is the issue though of storing such stuff and then using it to turn a turbine or similar (which is why Spain's plant uses water, it was the easiest to get running). So whilst a few people here believe that it's not really feasible to get it up and running there are already examples of this technology being used today.

Just a few years ago a large football-sized hole was discovered in the Davis-Besse Nuclear power plant. The plant was closed for two years to undergo repairs. This seems to indicate that the safety issues are still a major concern, at least for those living near a nuclear plant :?)

A nuclear plant designed to be much safer and more efficient seems to be the answer, however, I for one am still convinced that nuclear energy is not the panacea that proponents claim it to be. Nuclear waste sticks around for quite a while and taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry (their is no nuclear industry without taxpayer subsidies). If we consider how long it takes to bring a new nuclear plant online (est. 5-10 years), then the prospects seem even more grim.

Bring into consideration the prospects of a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists and the prospects for expansion of the nuclear industry seem more and more gloomy...

With renewable energy coming into favor as fuel prices continue to rise it's just a matter of time before clean renewable energies from solar, biomass, wind, etc. are cost competitive with nuclear. What will happen when nuclear plants are made obsolete by new technology??? We can be assured that the nuclear industry won't be around when that happens. The US tax payers, who are subsidizing the industry in the first place, will be left with the bill...

We are at the cusp of a new generation of technology that people cannot imagine. Faith is needed to support the research in physics/chemistry/biology/mathematics/computer science/engineering that will make commercialization of this technology possible. Supporting known, antiquated technology of the past is the easy way out. Keep the faith and call you congress person and tell them to support the education of future scientist/engineers/mathematicians. The money it takes to empower the next Einstein is pennies compared to the cost of a single nuclear plant. Keep the faith...

Ok, what am I missing? The states want different (stricter) regulations regarding the greenhouse gas producers (autos and power plants). Why does the EPA have an issue with that

You had made a point of recent problems being non-existant other than at fuel processing plants, so I was pointing out that problems at Braidwood were recent: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-21-02.asp. Sounds like Indian Point has yet more troubles as well in that article. It is amazing to me that anyone would let tritium escape. Helium-3 is very valuable.

Containment mostly worked at Three Mile Island, but it needn't have. There was sufficient energy to breach containment in the hydrogen build up. There were noble gases (fision products) that vented 13 Mcuries but you are correct that solids were mostly contained. What we know for sure is that continued use of nuclear power will lead a major accident just as we know that continued use of jets will lead to mid-air collisions. This is what bothers me about comparing nuclear power to coal. People point to mining deaths and deaths from pollution, all problems, but one large accident, which will happen, evens the score and then some. With the behavior of Entergy, it may happen sooner, but even the most flawless operation can't avoid the eventual large accident. Both coal and nuclear power need to be phased out.

"If you have some inside knowledge of this, I'm sure people would love to know. That is a such a leap from your other statements it does not follow."

No inside knowledge is required. Look at the pollution, environmental destruction, and extinctions that humans have already caused, most of it in just the last couple hundred years. You really think the planet can withstand millions of years of such abuse?

"It is like so many people will cry in their milk if humanity survives. Sad."

It is indeed sad how humanity has f@cked up the planet for other species, and ultimately ourselves.

I'm not sure how practical that is.....34,000 square kilometers is 13,000 square miles which is half the size of lake Superior. Where are you going to make an algae lake like that?

In its Global 2000 report, the White House Council on Environmental Quality noted that "improvident grazing . . . has been the most potent desertification force, in terms of total acreage (351,562 square miles) within the United States."

Anyways, I think there will need to be greenhouses or tanks of some sort to get efficient production. Otherwise you'll have temperature variations, invasion by other plant species, etc, not to mention water waste through evaporation.

BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 20, 2004 (ENS) - The blood of ministers from 13 European Union countries is contaminated with dozens of industrial chemicals, including some that were banned decades ago. The officials have an average of 37 industrial chemicals in their blood, according to tests conducted in June and released Tuesday by the international conservation organization WWF.

The chemicals found in the European officials include those used in fire resistant sofas, non-stick pans, grease proof pizza boxes, flexible polyvinyl chloride, fragrances and pesticides.

-- http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2004/2004-10-20 -10.asp

And:

The results further show that the highest number of chemicals in one person was 54, while the median number of chemicals detected was 41. At least 13 of the same chemicals were found in every single person tested, including chemicals banned in Europe over 20 years ago as well as chemicals in widespread use today such as phthalates and perfluorinated compounds.

-- http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/t oxics/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=12622

Moyers' own "results" were the result of blood and urine tests. A combined total of 84 out of 150 they were looking for. And the details of what they are were not released, other than a few "eye popper" ones such as DDT. See http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden .html for details. Urine tests reveal chemicals leaving the body and do not necessarily represent a sustained level of toxicity. There are substances the body passes through without using ... like corn kernels. ;) Thus, the presence of a substance in a urine sample does not mean the substance had any effect on the body.

Many of the "industrial chemicals" listed include things like the paint or wood finish you buy at your local hardware store, or the weed killer you buy from the store. News articles tend to downplay those. Note the distinct lack of details (in teh news articles) beyond the headline grabbers such as DDT. Why is that? DDT gets attention due to the great DDT scare/hoax. But as even the above referenced studies state regarding DDT:

Thus far, there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to DDT and its breakdown products at the levels found in the environment, affects reproduction and development in humans. The possible association between exposure to DDT and various types of cancers in humans has been extensively studied, particularly breast cancer, but no link has yet been established.

This is like other chemicals/substances where you only read/hear about them saying things like "In high concentrations/doses...". Why? because small doses/exposure does not show the dramatic effects. News flash: Dihydrogen oxide in high doses/concentrations

In the early 1990s, the US listened to environmentalists who were concerned about the Northern Spotted Owl, and banned almost all logging in old-growth areas of national forests in the Pacific Northwest, which had been the cheap source of softwood lumber.

In Canada, the government ignored the environmentalists.

This is why softwood lumber from Canada is much cheaper than from the United States. It is also why the Spotted Owl is nearly extinct in Canada. Its numbers there decreased from about 200 in 1993, to about 22 in 2006.

Canadians are continually told about how poor the environmental protection is in the US, and how the government is doing great things to protect the environment in Canada. It's not true. Almost all environmental protections are stronger in the US than in Canada. Even in the area of greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is actually further from Kyoto compliance than the US. Not that the US is doing anything good in that area. In 2004, it was 16% above its 1990 baseline of emissions. Yet somehow Canada has managed to do even worse, with emissions at 27% above the 1990 baseline.

But then, this is one of those areas which defies the common wisdom. Even when confronted with the plain, well-documented facts, people simply refuse to believe it.

So, go on believing that Canada is in the right here. There's probably no amount of evidence that would convince the typical person anyway.

Your point about other animals using TOOLS is not interesting, it's changing those TOOLS into WEAPONS that is only an ape/chimp(/human) trait.

Hopefully not methane fluxes. If they do (and they exist in huge amounts under the Siberian permafrost, which is also melting, we're seriously screwed.

just ask this fellow at the H pump. He could not have figured out a better distraction for the American public.

"There is currently no other technique in naval architecture that can promise such savings."

I hate innacurate reporting. Adding Giant Kite-like sails to cargo ships is an alternative as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13325827/site/newsweek /

This is in use now and increases both speed and fuel efficiency far more than the 20% savings the air bubbles promise.

Imagine using both technologies together, or even adding solar panels to the sails for even more efficiency.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-06 -03.asp

Who knows? Maybe that's the reason he hasn't denied it.

The current administration does not deny anthropogenic global warming. Many other conservative think tanks do, but not the Bush administration.

Although Bush has done much to harm the environment, denying anthropogenic global warming is not in his toolbox. I mean, as much as I hate to defend the man, we should be clear about the few things he hasn't done wrong. :)

In case you haven't heard, dead zones (without oxygen) in the oceans are increasing rapidly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624359/
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/53803.html
http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/ocea nColor/dead_zones.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Dead _Zone.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-19 -03.asp
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.as px?linkid=59371
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/10/20/deadzone_ pla.html?category=earth&guid=20061020143030

If you assume "genetically modified" is always better than naturally existing, you are... an idiot. That is provably false assumption. Yet, many people share your nutty idea that genetically modified==better.

What is it with the supporters of GM-food? Why do you want to shove it down everyone's throat, even though they explicitly state they don't want it. There is hardly another way more effective in raising doubts about your agenda.

"Internal documents made public by a lawsuit reveal that the FDA's own scientists warned that GM foods could lead to unpredictable toxins, allergies, and new diseases," Smith said. "They insisted that each GM food be subject to long term safety testing before it was approved." http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2003/2003-09-04 -10.asp

One thing that we know about China is that (1) it has few laws ensuring product safety and (2) that Beijing rarely enforces those laws. As a result, many products from China are just dangerous.

Consider the recent case of lead contamination of children's toys. The toys had 5x the amount of lead that is considered safe.

Now, consider the case of a bracelet that was 99% lead. A Chinese company made the bracelets for Reebok. A child who accidentally ingested the bracelet died.

Now, consider Chinese honey that is contaminated with a dangerous antibiotic.

Here is the summary reduction. The price of a product imported from China is $X. The price of a product made in the USA is $Y. Generally, $X is much less than $Y. The difference in price represents the "cost" that you paying for tough, enforced regulations and for higher ethical standards. Most American consumers do not want to pay this cost directly, so Walmart (a.k.a. the clearinghouse for Chinese products) prospers. Still, most Americans do pay this cost indirectly via, e.g., higher medical bills.

KEYSER F---CKING SOZE!!!

The industry that keeps environmentalists up at night, the butcher of the environment. A peerless, psycho, butcher who lights flames at night, nonchalantly dumps thousands of litres of black death on the environment and has been known to buy out, sue, and even kill to maintain its dominance over the entire world.

Who is Keyser Soze? ... Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. - From the 1995 movie 'The Usual Suspects'

Note: This is from my highly speculative blog that no one reads or knows about.

It is basically the same issue as with organic food. National standards mean that companies can lobby Congress to get the concessions they want. For organic foods, it can mean anything from allowing synthetics, factory dairy farms for "organic" milk or worse.

I think this quote captures the issue well:

"Welcome to the wonderful world of government regulations, where good ideas and market forces wage war on the battleground of bureaucracy."

If you think this is going to help people like you and I very much, you would be very optimistic.

It's very political:

Secretary Condoleeza Rice, after consulting with the White House, "has made it clear that we will accept all offers of foreign assistance," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington.