Slashdot Mirror

The map on the link is very interesting. Contrast it with this map of population density, notice how population density is almost inversely correlated with total solar irradiance (except for India and some parts of Africa). Also remember that the resistance of a wire increases with its length. This means that, barring millions of miles of superconducting cable, the transmission losses incurred by transferring PV generated power from sunny areas to populated areas will most likely swamp any advantage (other than generally reliable sunlight presence) of locating PV plants in sunny areas.

Additionally, consider that the population of the Earth is likely to grow, a little, and become more developed, a lot, which will increase energy needs by perhaps a full order of magnitude. The expected population of the Earth in 2100 using energy at the rate of the developed world corresponds to something like 100 TW continuous power usage by the world. Factoring all that in (even using the 40% uber-efficient PV cells), we would have to dedicate something like the equivalent of the area of India to PV arrays. And India is not such a small place...

I got it from the instruction manual of a microwave oven 20 years ago, which said something very similar to this USDA page.

I have always taken that to mean the microwave-induced molecular excitations take a while to thermalise (i.e. to settle into a thermal distribution of energy states, which would affect the measured temperature), but looking around the web there are many places which say that "standing time" is merely to redistribute the heat as you say. Both explanations are plausible on the face of it.

-- Jamie

Ham operators are allowed 1kw in transmitter power, the antenna is either up on the roof, or outside strung between trees or poles. I ran 35 watts in the '50's, and my transmitter's signal could reach Pakistan.
Popular broadcast frequencies included the 20 meter ham band, lots of high powered transmitters were there. Older band was 40 meters, surplus aircraft receivers could be had for a few bucks to cover that band. The 40 meter band was about 7 mhz, the 20 meter band was 14 mhz. There were others.
Lots of technically-minded people exposed to these frequencies, and no big revelations so far as to all of them getting sick, cancer, etc. from that.
As a matter of fact, the Titanic had a state-of-the-art spark gap transmitter, broadcasting that SOS, but only a few could listen back then. All ships since then have powerful transmitters, the passengers are more likely to get sick from viruses, food-bourn illnesses than radiation from the ship's transmitter.

Bullshit! Complexity is everywhere, even in our chemical factories. Chaotic non-linear systems abound. Again, Bullshit.

If we truly valued the 'complexity of naturally occurring systems' in our jewelry, then we'd wear glass spheres of soil. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/fw _soilhealth.html

Is that dirt on you jacket, sir?

From the original story post:

the products will likely not be branded as such and there is no way to know if we're currently consuming products from cloned animals

While this is unfortunately true, there are products branded in such a way that you know you are not consuming products from cloned animals. Whole Foods sells meats that will most certainly not be from cloned animals (FDA hasn't approved it yet, so the linked text doesn't refer to it). USDA Organic standards will also certainly be amended (or are currently written) to preclude any meat originating from cloned animals.

So, in short, if, as a consumer, you're interested or concerned about meat from cloned animals, or want to make a statement for ethical, moral, scientific, technical, or whatever concerns - you can write a letter AND speak with your wallet.

If meat or derivative products from cloned animals isn't a concern to you, its a free country!

Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated...

I wouldn't go that far. My understanding is that if there is less than 1 gram, but more than .5 grams of [fat, protein, saturated fat, etc...] it can be listed as <1. If there is less than .5 gram, it can be listed as zero (which I don't particularly like. If there is any, it should be listed appropriately, e.g. <1 gram). It seems a little shady, but it is just a matter of know the rules. And if you're that concerned about trans fats, just check the ingredient list for things like "shortening", "partially hydrogenated" oils, etc.... You're probably better off going that route than depending on some customer hotline operator 1) knowing the correct answer to your question; and 2) giving the correct answer.

Also, in reference to your previous comment "organic" on a food label has a very specific definition (press release).

I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science...

I'll agree with you there.

Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated...

I wouldn't go that far. My understanding is that if there is less than 1 gram, but more than .5 grams of [fat, protein, saturated fat, etc...] it can be listed as <1. If there is less than .5 gram, it can be listed as zero (which I don't particularly like. If there is any, it should be listed appropriately, e.g. <1 gram). It seems a little shady, but it is just a matter of know the rules. And if you're that concerned about trans fats, just check the ingredient list for things like "shortening", "partially hydrogenated" oils, etc.... You're probably better off going that route than depending on some customer hotline operator 1) knowing the correct answer to your question; and 2) giving the correct answer.

Also, in reference to your previous comment "organic" on a food label has a very specific definition (press release).

I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science...

I'll agree with you there.

First and oldy but a goody
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/speeches/19 330131.html

The Black Belt of Central Texas: This region, whose fame as a cotton-producing area is known to the ends of the world, once was a real black belt of highly productive black clay, rich in lime, humus and plant nutrients. Vast changes have come over the region since it was broken out of the prairie sod some 30 to 50 years ago. It is no longer an unbroken black belt, but a mixed black and white belt with countless areas scoured off to the underlying white chalk or marl.

Erosion in the Red Plains Region: A large part of the 36 million acres of predominantly red sandy lands extending from western Oklahoma far down into Texas has undergone terrific erosion during the past generation,

Effects in the Corn Belt: A tremendous amount of land has been severely impoverished in the rolling counties of northern Missouri, southern Iowa, eastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska, and many farms have been abandoned as the result.

These are from 1933.
Do you think it we have reclaimed any of that lost land?

More recently
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/cu rrent/lectures/land_deg/land_deg.html
The world's croplands are in decline due to the pressure of human activities. The figure shows the regional and global trends in the total available area of the world's croplands. ...
Worldwide the amount of cropland per capita has declined due to population growth. North America and the former USSR have substantially more cropland per capita than the rest of the world. ...
  The total loss of arable land can be summarized in the following figure. Of the total available (1500 million hectares, signifant components have been lost due to the combined effects of desertification, salinization, erosion, and development activities. ...
  Summary
# Degradation of land includes soil erosion, salinization, nutrient depletion, and desertification. The rate of degradation has increased dramatically with growth in human populations and technology.
# Severe land damage accompanies large scale agriculture. Restoration is very problematical.
# Continued loss of arable land will jeopardize our ability to feed the world population.
# Land degradation is worldwide - both developed and developing countries.

On the oceans...
http://agonist.org/20060803/the_dying_oceans
First global map reveals rapidly shrinking hotspots for tuna, marlin, swordfish - Diversity has declined by up to 50% over 50 years due to fishing

http://www.net.org/marine/fish.vtml
What's left behind is a dead zone, like a forest after being clearcut, except that it takes centuries rather than decades to grow back.

---
I'm not so pessimistic as these folks are. I think it could recover in a generation if we would stop killing everything. But as the human population increases- there are not any more real fish out there.

So what's more likely-- 9 billion or 3 billion? I'm thinking 9 billion and my investments in scarce resources and global luxury property (fidelity has a nice new fund just for this which I'm not in yet) are doing nicely.

I agree with you on the waste. We deal with it inefficiently because it's cheap. But again the root problem is too many people. If the world population was 50% lower, the trash would be less and there would be a lot more places to put it.

It's bad.
It's going to get worse.
And we can't or won't do anything about the fundamental problem-- too many people. Every exit scenario I see is very bad. I'm hoping I get to die comfortably before that point.

The other huge nomenclature problem is what is meant by "organic"?

It is actually specified specifically by the USDA, here is a brief description http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.htm l. Notice it says "most pesticides", contrary to popular belief, organic farmers still use pesticides and unnatural fertilizers! It is a ripoff targeting middle-class housewives... read my above post for more ranting, and info about how you can still find non-GM foods in any supermarket.

...it is obviously meant to imply that 10% of the US population is starving, which is patently untrue.

Bread for the World: 20% of children in New York City rely on food handouts to survive.

USDA: 11% of US households are food-insecure, meaning they do not have adequate food throughout a typical year.

This is actually a particularly timely topic, what with World Food Day USA coming soon.

The Guangduong Province Station definately shows action measured at 0141 UTC and it was quiet for most of the day. It also doesn't show the rapid vibration you'd expect from an earthquake, but instead a slow displacement I think would be expected from a single pulse of energy. The station is located at 19.03 N, 109.84 E. The 4.2 earthquake event was measured at 41.311N, 129.114E at 0135 UTC. Using a great circle calculation (which is an overestimation, since the energy travels under the Earth's surface--but not that bad since the distances are close) I get 3076 km. Using a rough estimate of 8 km/s for a P-wave I get a travel time of 384 s, or about 6.5 minutes. Since the earthquake was measured at 0141 UTC, the USGS report of 0135 UTC is consistent.

Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist, but I watched one on South Park.

This is government work. Nothing's being produced, only consumed.

So, while we do, in fact, have a large global consumer footprint, we still, as a nation of plenty, have to capacity to contribute back resources.

Grow them in those, "starving" countries where if they fuck up thier ecosystem it really doesn't matter given thier ecosystem aparently doesn't have the food they need

What a touching way to phrase the suffering of millions. Unless a particular gene bestows an INCREDIBLY advantageous attribute to a crop (like, say, the ability to fly), the gene's ecosystem penetration will remain minimal. If the advantage isn't powerful enough to make all other versions of the crop "obsolete", this "contamination" will increase biodiversity, not lower it.

I have yet to see such a a "doomsday" supermaize-quatrotriticale hybrid. Scientists appear to be focusing efforts on silly things like Vitamin A-enhanced rice to prevent childhood blindness in developing countries instead.

The big draw suposidly for these crops has been to help fend off world hunger, but what country are they being grown in? The grand ol' land of glut.

After you harvest food, you can move it. Notice how the grand ol' land of glut (forgive me for assuming you refer to the USA) was responsible for 61.8% of the world's food aid in 2002 (the most recent statistics I could find / are availble), donating more than the rest of the world combined.

Besides, what would it say if we refused to grow the crops that are supposed to be the salvation of the starving? If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

Besides, research like sub1a gene modification that allows rice to survive for weeks underwater addresses a problem the US lacks - namely, that of having the bulk of it's farmland flooded for weeks at a time.

Alergic to fish? Guess what? Damn good chance your alergic to said food contaminated with such genes

Now that's just silly.

Granted, soybeans with Brazil Nut genes have caused allergic reactions in those allergic to Brazil Nuts. Remember that the allergy is not caused by the nut itself, but by a single protein known as methionine. Also remember that DNA is nothing but a template for protein creation - every gene you have operates through protein manufacture. And, of all the genes in the Brazil Nut, only the one that synthesize methionine is responsible for the allergy.

In other words, you're not allergic to fish. You're allergic to parvalbumins, and only the genes directly responsible for creating these proteins have the chance to cause an allergic reaction.

we've been selecting from natural evolution what crop survived better (which would have happened anyways)

We haven't been breeding crops to find the ones that "survive" better. Presumably the ones we've been breeding through the millenia survived just fine before we started breeding the ones that were already surviving.

What we've actually been doing is breeding tobacco varieties that taste better and tomato plants with larger fruit and soybean with better nutritional value as livestock feed. Presumably cows would be unable to effect their own multivitamin-related desires on soybean evolution with direct human interation.

OK, I have to weigh in here.

It costs $16BN a year to keep NASA running

And it costs $129BN a year to run the Department of Agriculture.
And the US government spent $71BN for the Department of Education (mind you, the federal government operates ZERO schools)


One in five of their classmates go hungry at home or at school because their parents can't afford to give them enough food,

The National School Lunch Program spent $7.1 billion in FY 2003. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPF actSheet.htm According to the same source, "In Fiscal Year 2003, more than 28.4 million children each day got their lunch through the National School Lunch Program." There are about 60 million school age kids in the US (ages 3 to 17) http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cp s2004/tab01-01.xls. So already we provide lunch to half of them. It seems to me we could feed the other half for about $7BN. Now, which makes more sense - reduce the DoE budget by 10%, or elimate the space program? I know which way I would vote.

The "smoke" from the solid rocket engines contains huge amounts of hydrochloric acid.

Nice article. Did you read it? It's filled with lots of "maybes" and "could be's". Sure, huge amounts of HCL are released, and, according to your citation, some cars parked nearby could have their paintjobs pitted. And maybe if the wind blows right, and there are enough launches, the PH in nearby ponds could drop. The best example they have of environmental damage at a launch site was in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch site - not where 115 shuttles have launched from. Seriously, this is not a big issue.

As regards the ISS falling apart .. no big surprise. Big cross-government project ... most likely the pork is spread around not based on merit, but on political correctness.

When someone asks me why we have to spend so much money on space exploration, I should have them watch a launch with my daughters. It's all about the thrill of exploration, the daring of it, the wonder of fellow humans climbing up off this planet and touching the stars.

Um...not to be cynical, and Slashdotters hate being reminded of these things, but your daughters are in awe because they don't know that:

• It costs $16BN a year to keep NASA running of which $3BN is political pork, and a fair bit goes towards research which is primarily for the purposes of weapons and has nothing to do with the "quest for knowledge".
• The ISS, which this mission supports, is falling apart after just a few years in space. It was supposed to last JUST 10 years after final assembly, and it hasn't even been fully assembled. Failures have ranged from oxygen generators to basic handtools to attitude correction gyros. The price tag was $100BN; that money largely went to our nation's (and other nation's) defense contractors, which build the majority of the hardware NASA uses.
• The "smoke" from the solid rocket engines contains huge amounts of hydrochloric acid.
• One in five of their classmates go hungry at home or at school because their parents can't afford to give them enough food, and the government currently spends slightly more than NASA's budget to feed 7 million children a year a decent lunch. Let's not even get started about basic supply and book shortages. We're supposedly the most powerful nation in the world, but we can't but enough [food in the stomachs / textbooks in the hands] of our children so that they can recieve a sufficient education to support themselves later in life, instead of ending up working at Walmart for minimum wage.

Personally, I don't find any thrill in NASA's "exploration", which seems to consist mostly of "let's see what _______ does in space" and the nation's military and scientific elite (yes, military- many of the people you see up there are military officers) playing. There is no "daring" (save the small chance their shuttle will be destroyed) and they're not touching any stars.

I know, but Iowa production of corn and soybean is twice that of Minnesota and Iowa doesn't even grow things like potato and sugar beats. So, as I said you are mostly veg-land. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself.

Experimenting on primates in the US is legal under the Animal Welfare Act. It would seem that the most prudent course of action (if you are morally opposed to such experimentation) would be to make such activities illegal through the normal legal channels (ie congress) not through terrorist acts.

Arson, bombs, the communication of threats, and other terrorist acts are not cool no matter how high your moral high ground is.

As an aside, I watched the linked videos and, while some of them are unsettling, especially if you are unfamiliar with standard experimental methods or animal research in general, none the scenes in them appear to be overt violations of the law. Where, specifically, is the abuse which is implied from the burb?

Sometimes the desire to criticize evil profit-doers can lead to neglecting relevant evidence, such as the fact that the US does indeed provide quite a lot of food aid. Over 4000 metric tons in 2005 (pdf), for instance. Besides, it's a *surplus*.

as a result of mad cow disease. It is a serious health risk for many reasons; the big one is that it is untreatable. If you get it, you will die. The deadly human form can only be detected from post-mortem examination. Another reason is that it is spread by prions which can attach to surfaces (grills, utensils, surgical instruments) and cannot be removed by normal sterilization procedures. From the Wikipedia article: 'Unlike other pathogens, prions are not subject to denaturation by protease, HEAT, radiation, and formalin treatments.' (emphasis mine)

The US 80 billion$ beef industry is obviously concerned - but not about the health of beef consumers. They do massive damage control while continuing to duck inspections and responsibility.

The major media outlets have of course botched coverage by sensationalizing mad cow disease rather than educating the public in an objective manner. Fear brings in more viewers than facts. Mad cow disease is, unfortunatly, the real deal.

Enderandrew (866215) sez (out of order):

> We've thrown tens of billions of dollars on a pride issue,
> and what have we gotten in return?

NASA has a technology transfer system set up specifically to give the things it invents away.
See http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/guide.htm#NASA
It doesn't actually give away its patents and such for free. It is allowed to sell them for the cost of operating the technology transfer system.

If NASA were allowed to profit from its inventions, then on the developments it made in just 4 areas, microelectronics, cryogenics, medical telemetry and systems analysis software, it would have made $4.50 in the twenty years following Apollo for every dollar spent up to the end of Apollo. We know how much NASA would have made, because we know who picked up those balls and ran with them, and how much they made. And that's just 4 areas. NASA has contributed tens of thousands of inventions, developments and patents of all kinds, and someone has made something off of most of them. That's contributed far more to the economy than the taxes taken out to fund the program in the first place. As for you personally, I'd bet an inventory of your home would show a number of things that either wouldn't be there, wouldn't be as good, or would cost a lot more, if it weren't for the contributions of NASA. And when it comes to number of lives saved by the various technologies that NASA contributed to, we're well beyond talking about profit and loss.

> How much more do we know about the universe?

Aw geez, seriously? Don't you read any science news? We know tons more about the universe because of NASA programs and their participation with other programs. The Science and Discovery Channels are always running that stuff.

> I'm no expert but two of my best friends are a physicist and a
> mechanical engineer. Both follow the space program and both say
> that money and politics have firmly grounded NASA in 1960's
> science with little to no possibility to explore new options.

In large part your friends are correct. NASA has become a corporate welfare system for the aerospace industry. There have been many, many tried and proven technologies and even space transportation systems that were started by NASA, R&D funded by NASA to the aerospace companies, and cancelled when enough people had made enough money. There were also many spaceworthy systems developed by others that were far cheaper than what NASA had the aerospace companies crank out, and those never saw the inside of a hangar. It is only the large number of recently very rich people willing to gamble on space that have created visibility for the private space business upstarts. There have been many in the past that died on the vine. Read up on Robert Truax for example. People were so convinved he'd be the first person into space without a government program behind him that they even made a TV show based on him (Salvage I).

NASA and the aerospace industry it exists in symbiosis with (they live off NASA, but NASA lives off the money it gets to give them) do not stand to gain from the sort of massive forward movement such as we saw from 1960 to 1970. They stand to gain more by the same stepwise, incremental improvement such as has been happening in the consumer computer/electronics industry for years. This definitely slows the pace of progress, but not the amount of R&D done by NASA which gets passed into the US economy. That remains.

When engineers ran the space program, we got "Failure is not an option." (Apollo 13)
When bureaucrats ran the space program, we got "My God, Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April to launch?" (Challenger)

Frankly, regardless of the success or failure or sheer bullheaded political wrangling or welfare status of NASA and its corporate children, I'd throw in with the likes of Burt Rutan, and anyone else who tackles the job without any help from NASA. Those

It looks like I accepted you explaination too early. Further investigation dug up this article: http://www.nass.usda.gov/wi/crops/smallgra.pdf Which states that the US average bushels per acre for oats is 63.1

-Rick

It takes a small amount of certain key, limiting nutrients to increase productivity of the organisms that cause eutrophication (the technical term for reduction in oxygen due to an excess of biological activity). While it does happen from natural processes too -- even an ordinary river flood can introduce plenty of sediment into the marine environment and cause a nutrient increase -- the linkage with artificial fertilizers and land clearing activities is pretty strong. Fertilizer input makes the problem worse, even if it occasionally happened naturally before. There is a pretty good summary of anoxic zones in Wikipedia. Here are a few other links.

Not every child in poor nations is starving. Even the ones who suffer from some level of malnutrition can still benefit from education.

Not every child in poor nations is starving. Even the ones who suffer from some level of malnutrition can still benefit from education.

"Sure, $5.15/hr sucks compared to $25.15, but $5.15 can still buy a roof and constant nutrition."

I won't try to address the cost of housing. But, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/FoodSecurity/:

"The prevalence of food insecurity was 11.9 percent in 2004, up from 11.2 percent in 2003. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was 3.9 percent in 2004, up from 3.5 percent in 2003."

If we assume 300 million people in the US with an even distributed amongst its households, that's 35.7 million Americans who were on the brink of not being able to afford food, with 11.7 million literally going hungry.

Ethanol, or any biofuel, will be hard pressed to replace oil. Petroleum is essentially very old and dirty, but efficient biofuel, stockpiled underground. A year's worth of [insert favorite biofuel source plant(s) here] will be hard pressed to replace an eon's worth of petroleum.

Here is some back-of-the-napkin stuff - mostly unit conversions. Nothing fancy. If you trust my math skills, feel free to skip to the surprise ending.

My sources are just whatever came up first on Google.

So here goes:

According to this link, there were 598 million metric tons of corn produced globally in 2002. (That was the first year I came across. Let's assume it's typical.)

598 million metric tons * (2204.6 lbs/metric ton)
...converts to 1.3 billion lbs of corn.

A bushel of corn is currently defined as 56 lbs.

1.3 billion lbs * (1 bushel/56 lbs)
...converts to about 23.5 million bushels of corn.

According to this article, a bushel of corn can produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol.

23.5 million bushels * (2.7 gallons/bushel)
...tells us that 63.5 million gallons of ethanol could theoretically be made from all the corn grown globally in one year.

According to this, a barrel of petroleum has 42 gallons. After refining, it could be made into about 19.5 gallons of gasoline.

So if we say that 1 gallon of ethanol can replace one gallon of gasoline, then

63.5 million gallons * (1 barrel / 19.5 gallons)
...comes to 3.2 million barrels.

(The 1-to-1 ethanol-to-gasoline ratio is a falacy, as ethanol will only take your car 0.8 miles for every 1 mile gas will, but this is getting too complicated. Let's just say 1-to-1.)

According to this source, the United States currently uses 20 million barrels of oil per day.

3.2 million barrels * (1 day / 20 million barrels)
...amounts to 0.16 days.

So if we can stop using corn for livestock feed, corn starch, corn syrup, corn oil, corn chips, corn stoves, corn bread, popcorn, candy corn*, corn on the cob, corn dogs, creamed corn... er... sorry, I was channeling Forrest Gump for a second...

If we use all of the corn grown in one year for making ethanol, and production is still propped up by using current (petroleum-heavy) farming practices, it would keep the U.S. running for just about four hours. Or, if you prefer, Argentina could last almost a week. Or we could supply Togo with their fuel needs for the entire year.

"Your math is wrong!" you exclaim. Not unlikely. But show me where. Am I off by an order of magnitude? Let's take it from 4 hours to 40 hours. That's almost two days! Woohoo!

"Corn is the wrong source!" you shout. Let switch to sugar. Or switchgrass. Or anything you want. Let's imagine the Fubar tree, which is 100 times more efficient for making ethanol. So now we've gone from 3 hours to almost 17 days. Woohoo!

Let's dare to dream, and combine the last two! I'm off by an order of magnitude, and there's a massive switch to Fubar tree farming. The U.S. now has over 5 months of petroleum replacement. Sorry Argentina and Togo...

Feel free to check my math. I'm sure this must be due to rounding error.

--
* - I checked. Corn syrup is an ingredient in Candy Corn

But "you can't prove a negative" according to some.

Seriously, though, you are in fact wrong. Plants are limited in their ability to uptake CO2 by soil conditions. Numerous studies have been done on the estimated capacity of plants to sequester both CO2 and methane (actually it's microorganisms in the soil that do that, but they need plant waste to survive.)

"Results of the seven-year study, to be published in the May 24 issue of Nature, show that some forests will not increase the amount of carbon they sequester--at least not enough to compensate for increasing atmospheric CO2. Soil fertility is a key factor in determining the long-term growth response to elevated CO2, according to co-principal investigator David S. Ellsworth, assistant professor of plant physiological ecology in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/01052 4061936.htm

"Climate affects soil carbon sequestration in two ways. First is the production of organic material entering the soil. Warm, moist climates generally have greater plant productivity. Cooler climates limit plant production. Hot climates may limit production because of reduced water availability, making water the limiting factor. Climate also affects the rate of microbial decomposition of plant material and soil organic matter. As temperature increases, microbial activity generally increases."

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/jan02/feature_carbo n.html

"Although rising atmospheric carbon dioxide boosts photosynthesis and growth in many species, the increases in response to long-term exposure are often much less than predicted from short-term exposure. ARS researchers at Beltsville, Maryland, have noted large differences in the magnitude of yield enhancement in different lines of soybean when the plants are grown in open-top chambers at elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. The highest yielding varieties at ambient carbon dioxide were not always the ones with the largest response to carbon dioxide. Recent experiments identified the extent of branching at elevated carbon dioxide as a major source of this variation. These results suggest that genetic selection for specific traits may improve crop responses to carbon dioxide in the future."

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs .htm?np_code=204&docid=242 ...those are just a few. This is an extremely well studied area, in that it has ramifications for agri-business.

Farmers want a fair price for thier milk, the big supermarkets want cheap milk so you shop at their shops. So the big chains force the farmers into taking less money.

Milk prices are regulated by the federal government: http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/orders.htm

[I]t does, requires reading more at that link
[quote snipped]

Actually, that quote doesn't specify the actual standards at all -- just the names of two certification agencies, and the fact that such agencies are approved by the USDA. However, after a bit of searching on the USDA NOP website, I found a reference to the actual standards (over 500 pages in the PDF version!), which should put this argument to rest in your favor.

And if they can't get to the humans directly with RFID, they'll get to 'em through the back way, by starting with all the domesticated animals (http://usda.gov/nais/). Either way, you will be numbered, you will be cataloged, you will be tracked, and you will show your papers. Ineffectiveness notwithstanding, and inevitable ID theft be damned, to say nothing of basic liberty. The Pentagon's been hacked, the VA's been hacked, the credit companies have been hacked, the CIA can't keep track of all their laptops, etc., "But this time, we'll get it right!"
Feh. You're welcome to your handbasket, if you like, but leave me out of it, thanks...

http://nonais.org/
http://libertyark.net/
http://newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter91.htm

This has probably been posted already, but it's good...
http://news.com.com/Do+we+need+a+national+ID+card/ 2010-1029_3-6075218.html

Want more? Pay attention to Rep. Ron Paul...
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst052906.ht m

Why can't government just leave me alone? Damn the databases, bring on those FreeStaters. I just hope it's not too late...

What relaxed requirements are you talking about as far as what you listed?

To be certified as organic by the California Certified Organic Farmers, organic animals must eat 100% organic feed, whereas as far as the USDA is concerned, a dairy herd being converted over to organic milk producers may be fed a minimum of 80% organic feed for a portion of the conversion period (which is 1 year). And in general the USDA allows for several classes of labeling scheme that include the word organic. For example, "made with organic ingredients" means that the product is made with >= 70% organic ingredients. (Refs. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9355830/ http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-org anic-food-rules_x.htm )

Usually, something has to actually has to be linked to killing a bunch of people for it to be totally banned, not the other way around. Foods like corn syrup has been regarded to be generally safe by the FDA. That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however.

Off-topic. I never mentioned health aspects.

That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however. Why can't the consumer decide what is good or bad for themselves?

While I agree with you, the government hasn't been laissez-faire with this. Under the Foods Uniformity Act(s), the States cannot issue stricter standards regarding warnings on labels than provided for by the federal government. Thus a company need not have to design a new label for every state with the latter's own nuanced laws. While that is arguably easier on the companies, there is less choice for consumers.

Mandatory chipping is just a matter of time.

Mandatory chipping is just a matter of time.

We're playing with chemicals

eating toxic foods

...now, how about stopping attempts to require microchip implants (PDF link; sorry) in livestock which would render the few remaining family farms untenable and complete agritech's stranglehold on our food supply.

I'm surprised that no one here sees what really happened - U.S. government has REQUIRED the Chinese government to require that every machine that goes out of a factory door in China to have a licensed operating system installed. Things are still the same - pigs walk on four legs. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_ 1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/04/0125.xml

Look at this announcement, under the Intellectual Property Rights http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_ 1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/04/0125.xml I am sure Microsoft is behind this.

My point is that there are people in the rural U.S. who need educational help as well, and our infrastructure even in these poor areas is better set up to make good use of cheap laptops.

For example according to: worldhungeryear.org

"Poverty in Rural America: Special Challenges Facing Rural Communities

Rural America comprises over 2052 counties, contains 75% of the nation's land and is home to 17% (49 million) of the US population (USDA Economic Research Service). 11.6% or 2.4 million households experience hunger (Bread for the World 2004 Hunger Report). 3.8% American households have children living with hunger (USDA), while one out of five rural children are reported to live in poverty (Population Reference Bureau). At the same time the rural elderly face escalating rates of poverty. Rural workers have been statistically proven to earn less money and experience higher rates of poverty and unemployment than their metro counterparts. in a food insecure household (USDA), while three out of five rural children are reported to live in poverty (US Census 2000). At the same time the rural elderly face escalating rates of poverty. Rural workers have been statistically proven to earn less money and experience higher rates of poverty and unemployment than their metro counterparts."

http://www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc/ria_070.asp?se ction=14&click=1

That is serious poverty it's not JUST the third world that needs our help.

According to government figure over 25% of people in West Virginia are NOT even getting a high school education.

Education (Persons 25 and older)
            Rural * Urban * Total
Percent not completing high school
        1980 48.9 39.5 44.0
        1990 38.7 29.9 34.0
        2000 28.9 21.3 24.8

Percent completing high school only
        1980 34.0 37.1 35.6
        1990 36.6 36.6 36.6
        2000 40.3 38.7 39.4

Percent completing some college
        1980 8.7 11.1 10.0
        1990 15.1 18.7 17.0
        2000 19.1 22.5 21.0

Percent completing college
        1980 8.4 12.3 10.4
        1990 9.5 14.8 12.3
        2000 11.6 17.6 14.8

Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/WV.HTM

I'd say these people are far better candidates for a 100 dollar laptop than a sub Saharan Africa village, that needs war pumps, water filters, birth control, basic medicines, and help with agriculture, before they can start even THINKING about cheap lap tops.

If this is true, then please explain to me how the US manages to be one of the world's leading exporters of food.

U.S. agricultural exports have been larger than U.S. agricultural imports since 1960, generating a surplus in U.S. agricultural trade. USDA Agricultural Trade Balance

I would like to see some citations for this rather than just pulling some numbers out of your ass. Besides using questionable statistics, you do not take into account the fact that the combination of new breeds of plants and more advanced farming techniques will produce more food per acre in the future than was available in the past. We are not using the same farming techniques that we did fifty or a hundred years ago, and it is ridiculous to assume that the population will keep growing while our agricultural production stays the same.

If you would like to look at some more statistics, here is a good place to start. USDA Agricultural Trade Balance

If this is true, then please explain to me how the US manages to be one of the world's leading exporters of food.

U.S. agricultural exports have been larger than U.S. agricultural imports since 1960, generating a surplus in U.S. agricultural trade. USDA Agricultural Trade Balance

I would like to see some citations for this rather than just pulling some numbers out of your ass. Besides using questionable statistics, you do not take into account the fact that the combination of new breeds of plants and more advanced farming techniques will produce more food per acre in the future than was available in the past. We are not using the same farming techniques that we did fifty or a hundred years ago, and it is ridiculous to assume that the population will keep growing while our agricultural production stays the same.

If you would like to look at some more statistics, here is a good place to start. USDA Agricultural Trade Balance

Here's a link to a USDA report on hunger in the US. Unfortunatly, it is on the rise. 11.9% of US households suffer from food insecurity, while 3.9% suffer from hunger. That's about 11 million people. But go on thinking everyone here is fat and happy, if that helps you sleep easier at night.

They need to install mind probes in the brain of every one of us.

The centerpiece of the USDA's Is It Done Yet? campaign is Thermy(TM) the meat and poultry probe. Thermy(TM) says, "It's Safe to Bite When the Temperature is Right!"

"You can't tell by looking. Use a food thermometer to be sure."

Brainy the mind control probe?

Hey, you'll get no argument from me that our agro-industrial complex is messed up. We farm the wrong crops the wrong way. We create extremely dangerous monocultures and wipe out indigenous crops and economies -- not to mention the fact that we release untested artificial and modified genes into the wild and into our bodies.

I buy organic. That's a luxury I can afford because I'm in the top-middle tier of the top-tier country in the world. But that seems backwards to me because several studies have shown it's greatly more efficient (from a calories-in vs. calories-out standpoint) to farm organic crops than to run an industrial farm. The difference is that organic crops do not have as long a shelf life or as predictable a crop return, so they make for bad business. If the peak notion is right, though, we may not have much of a choice other than doing smaller-scale, local farms for food production. Which, incidentally, is why I belong to a CSA -- even though I live in a city, I have to take some responsibility for my food production too.

It may well be a much different world in a few decades from an agriculture perspective: for the most part only fruits and vegetables that are in season locally, free range ruminants and fowl, and food preservation by canning, drying, smoking, etc. rather than preservatives, pasteurization and other energy-intensive means. Or, famine and huge population drop off. Either way.

Among the enegry cost not included in the "Reports" is the cost of hauling the used paper from the widely spread first users.(IE: your house or work)to a "recyling center" (fuel not included in cost) Where it is put in storage(fuel to move) and then it is (full truckload) loaded (fuel not included in cost) shipped to a pulp mill (fuel not included in cost) Most of which are on the East Coast http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/data/mills/mill200 5p.gif (Not all but very few are located near the sorce of the waste paper, they STINK so no big city wants them) and unloaded (fuel not included in cost) and stored until used. As to the water it is not just used and dumped but is re-used over and over with more water added as needed

As of 2003, there were 111 million households in the US. And, as of 2002, 405 million acres of forest land, with another 402 million acres of unclassified Federal land.

So, that's 3.6 acres of forest per household, with possibly another 3.6 including Federal lands. But, keep in mind, Federal land is more than just forest, including desert, and is usually sub-par. And a large portion of US forest remaining is in Alaska -- not exactly near high population areas.

This could all be moot, of course, since heating costs vary with climate. But, at the least, it means the northeast, with the highest population density and high heating costs, is screwed (so much for New England self-sufficiency). The south will soon become overpopulated. Alaska is still the best $7.2 mil we've ever spent. And the midwest will be doing fine with grass pellets instead of wood :p

OK, but then your horse will need to show it's ID.

Take a look at the National Animal Identification System.

It's on the fast track to become mandatory by 2009 and may require you to register your horse and report it's every movement off your property.

But look at the citation for the data on that table: Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective Cutler J. Cleveland; Robert Costanza; Charles A. S. Hall; Robert Kaufmann Science, New Series, Vol. 225, No. 4665 (Aug. 31, 1984), 890-897.

Technology has advanced a long way since 1984, particularly in the area of enzymology to break down chemically resistant carbon in plant tissues, like cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Brazil's ethanol program relies heavily on conversion of sugar; to make ethanol economically competitive in the US, we would need to rely on conversion of cross-linked starch and long-chain polymers. The phenolics in lignin would be a feedstock for industrial chemistry. Here's some more general info.

The USDA's Crop Conversion Science and Engineering Research Unit is all about developing new tools to increase the efficiency of extracting usable energy from plant products. Here are a few examples:

Aqueous Enzymatic Extraction of Corn Oil and Value-Added Products from Corn Germ Produced in New Generation Dry-Grind Ethanol Processes

Economic Competitiveness of Renewable Fuels Derived from Grains and Related Biomass

Enzyme-Based Technologies for Milling Grains and Producing Biobased Products and Fuels

Full disclosure: I don't work for these guys, and I have no financial interest in bio-based fuels (other than the usual "No Blood For Oil" thing). I just think that what they're doing is cool.

But look at the citation for the data on that table: Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective Cutler J. Cleveland; Robert Costanza; Charles A. S. Hall; Robert Kaufmann Science, New Series, Vol. 225, No. 4665 (Aug. 31, 1984), 890-897.

Technology has advanced a long way since 1984, particularly in the area of enzymology to break down chemically resistant carbon in plant tissues, like cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Brazil's ethanol program relies heavily on conversion of sugar; to make ethanol economically competitive in the US, we would need to rely on conversion of cross-linked starch and long-chain polymers. The phenolics in lignin would be a feedstock for industrial chemistry. Here's some more general info.

The USDA's Crop Conversion Science and Engineering Research Unit is all about developing new tools to increase the efficiency of extracting usable energy from plant products. Here are a few examples:

Aqueous Enzymatic Extraction of Corn Oil and Value-Added Products from Corn Germ Produced in New Generation Dry-Grind Ethanol Processes

Economic Competitiveness of Renewable Fuels Derived from Grains and Related Biomass

Enzyme-Based Technologies for Milling Grains and Producing Biobased Products and Fuels

Full disclosure: I don't work for these guys, and I have no financial interest in bio-based fuels (other than the usual "No Blood For Oil" thing). I just think that what they're doing is cool.

But look at the citation for the data on that table: Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective Cutler J. Cleveland; Robert Costanza; Charles A. S. Hall; Robert Kaufmann Science, New Series, Vol. 225, No. 4665 (Aug. 31, 1984), 890-897.

Technology has advanced a long way since 1984, particularly in the area of enzymology to break down chemically resistant carbon in plant tissues, like cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Brazil's ethanol program relies heavily on conversion of sugar; to make ethanol economically competitive in the US, we would need to rely on conversion of cross-linked starch and long-chain polymers. The phenolics in lignin would be a feedstock for industrial chemistry. Here's some more general info.

The USDA's Crop Conversion Science and Engineering Research Unit is all about developing new tools to increase the efficiency of extracting usable energy from plant products. Here are a few examples:

Aqueous Enzymatic Extraction of Corn Oil and Value-Added Products from Corn Germ Produced in New Generation Dry-Grind Ethanol Processes

Economic Competitiveness of Renewable Fuels Derived from Grains and Related Biomass

Enzyme-Based Technologies for Milling Grains and Producing Biobased Products and Fuels

Full disclosure: I don't work for these guys, and I have no financial interest in bio-based fuels (other than the usual "No Blood For Oil" thing). I just think that what they're doing is cool.