Slashdot Mirror

please read here for the 25% figure

Also diesel has problems with cold weather starts. The last thing I want to do is to burn extra electricity on block heating for a very minor increase in fuel economy.

Diesel does have its place though. Heavy machinery would not b e able to function on gasoline. But for consumer vehicles, gas is the better option.

Diesel is much cleaner than it was, but it is still no gas. link. Basically, you get more total suspended particulate (TSP) from diesel, and we know that TSP is associated with increased infant mortality, and probably many other bad things for everyone else.

The link also says that it take 20% more energy to produce diesel (I think this is my 20% more carbon figure).

Buy a TDI from VW and you get forty plus for around 22k.

Too bad that diesel is way worse for pollution...

Though I don't think there is conclusive evidence yet, there are some studies that suggest organic food does have more nutrients:
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/12-27/health-benefits-of-organic-food-article.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/polyphenolics031203.cfm

The fact is, we don't fully understand nutrition yet (either for plants or humans). Reductionist explanations have repeatedly turned out to be wrong -- first we figured out fats, carbohydrates, and protein, and thought we had it solved. Then it turned out there were these things called vitamins, and they were important too -- but clearly that was the whole picture. Now we're finding out about things like antioxidants that are also important to health. It seems reasonable at this point to assume that there is still more going on that we haven't figured out yet.

The chemical composition of healthy soil is incredibly complex, and to assert that it's just a matter of nitrogen and carbon is absurd. We don't understand that whole picture yet, and it's certainly plausible (though not yet proven) that organic foods have certain health benefits.

Personally, what I think is dangerous is the idea that we can keep dumping poison (pesticides and chemical fertilizer) into the environment in massive quantities without consequences. Fertilizer and pesticides can increase yields, and in the long run we may need to employ them judiciously to feed a growing world population. But right now, yields aren't the problem. The first world has more food than it can eat, while people in the third world are starving mostly for political and economic reasons.

How long is long? A few years, 10, or 50?

Well, by that logic we'd only be using technology that was developed in the 1960's.

There's a big difference between technologies like computers and Genetic Engineering. If a computer blows up, catches fire, or does something else the damage that may be caused is local. However if a deadly GE created organism escapes into the wild it potentially has repercussions for the entire planet. Is it reall that hard to understand? If my Mac burns up it may burn down the building but if for instance a terminator gene gets out it could sterile other plants. A sterile tomato, if it works, could conceivably sterilize other tomatoes as well, so long for tomatoes.

I know the tomato example was extreme but it serves to get my point across.

Drugs help save lives, GE corn on the other hand only lines the pockets of Monsanto or whoever created the seed.

You can live with most diseases, you can't live without eating.

But you don't need GE corn to eat. Corn has lasted for centuries but Genetic Engineering is new. Not only that but there are plenty of other things besides corn to eat and most corn in the US is used for cattle fodder, and maybe soon ethanol production. Actually I rarely ever eat corn myself, peppers now, I love. For seasoning, stuffed, and picked right off one of my pepper plants in my garden. Other vegetables I have growing are acorn squash, broccoli, cauiflower, onions, tomatoes, and tomatillos. None of them are GMOs. Now if you have any evidence where GMOs and GE seeds are needed please share.

But the average citizen from an advance industrial country can't be sustained without embracing new technology.

Selective use of technology. After all nobody has a nuclear reactor in their basement yet they have existed more than 50 years. Meantime while California had those rolling blackouts several years ago and the Northeast US and south east Canada lost the power grid there were still people in those areas who had power as they used solar or other alternative energy sources.

In the case of GMOs, food prices would go up, which the poor might find troublesome.

Because the GE companies want to keep the money rolling in they want to charge farmers for seed every year instead of allowing farmers to do what they have done since the start of agriculture, save seeds. These businesses want farmers to be dependent on them, which raises prices. If farmers can save seeds it cheaper for people to eat, so in a since Monsanto and others want the world to depend on them.

if you're scared of GMOs then, by all means, buy organic. Well, it's determined that GMOs can be labeled organic (something some people are pushing for).

I am not scared of GE as I said before, what I am is I am concerned about possible side effects of escaped GMOs and about the possibility of vender lockin, in order to continue growing corn a farmer has to buy Monsanto seed every year when they used to be able to save seeds. And no it has not been determined GMOs can be labled organic. The EU split over labeling of GMO contaminated organic food. Contaminated produce not GMO grown produce. Meanwhile in the US GMOs are specifically excluded from certified-organic products.

It would be foolish for a company to release a dangerous product and get itself sued out of existence.

Are either Exxon or Union Carbide out of business? Last I heard they are still in business even if Exxon is on Exxon-Mobile and Union Carbide is now owned by Dow Chemical.

Even if it somehow survived the legal onslaught, the popularity/legality of GMOs would plummet

It is loosing popularity, That's why GE, GMO, companies do everything they can to fight labeling law

Maybe because your "valid concern" isn't actually all that valid. This issue gets raised repeatedly by a certain vocal minority who hate hybrids / electric vehicles. People who stick their fingers in their ears and say "La la la!" loudly every time the obvious rebuttal is brought up: recycling. Toyota and Honda have good battery recycling programs in place for their hybrid vehicles, and my understanding is that the batteries are specifically engineered to be completely recycled in order to reduce environmental impact.

Compare the toxicity of NiMH to conventional lead-acid batteries, and you'll see that the worst offenders are lead, cadmium, and mercury. Nickel is not nearly as toxic (though recycling is obviously still recommended). The next generation Prius will use Lithium-based batteries, which is also what the Chevy Volt is supposed to use. Lithium is one of the least toxic elements you can make batteries with.

When you compare the measures Toyota is taking to keep hybrid batteries out of landfills with the very real problem that over 40,000 metric tons of lead are lost to landfills every year (because it's impossible to recapture and recycle every single lead-acid car battery), you can see the field of "green" battery choices is heavily in favor of the kinds of technology that hybrid manufacturers are already embracing. Even if Toyota didn't bend over backwards to keep NiMH batteries out of landfills, the nickel would still be far less of an environmental problem than lead already is.

You do realize that 200,000mg of Hg => 200g of Hg

Mercury density according to Google is 5.427g/ml (or cm^3 for the metric impaired). So, 200g = <37ml of Hg. That's just over 2 tablespoons of mercury from 40,000 bulbs. Not much if you ask me.

If this leaches into water it is still nothing. You probably get more from the "silver" fillings over lifetime than from this source. Now, there are other sources of mercury including tuna (from coal power plants contaminating oceans then into tuna and stuff).

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/08-10/mercury-i n-fish-article.htm

And methylmercury is much more nasty than elemental Hg. Elemental (or metalic form) can be excreted from the body. The organic type just binds with your vital organs until you die (from Hg or unrelated reasons!).

Faulty argument, but conclusion is true. This article states that the US electricity is 2% by oil and this article states that 2/3 of all oil is used in cars. We can assume that the other 1/3 is for electricity (with trivial amounts going to other petroleum products). We can also note that the oil percentage has gone up greatly since California had its energy crisis (and decided to make tons of oil fired plants). You can do the math, but your conclusion appears to be true. If we lost the 20% of power being made by nuclear, our dependance on foreign oil might be very scary. I've seen manufacturing companies go out of business because of a couple of percent rise in energy prices. If energy prices fluctuated by 50% (like they do for gas at the pump), manufacturing companies would have a very hard time.