China Third Country To Be Hit By 'Brown Tide'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Third Country To Be Hit By 'Brown Tide'

Posted by timothy on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @02:00AM from the can-we-find-a-way-to-make-it-edible dept.

ananyo writes "The species of alga that causes 'brown tides' in the United States and South Africa is also to blame for massive blooms along China's east coast on the Bohai Sea, researchers have found. The finding could be the first step to tackling the problem. It is the fourth consecutive year the country has been hit by the bloom (Slashdot's story on the 2010 bloom), with the situation worsening each time the bloom returns."

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

history repats itself by azalin · 2012-07-17 02:03 · Score: 1

First the red flood, now the brown tide...
1. Re:history repats itself by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  As long as we don't have the white froth...
2. Re:history repats itself by vlm · 2012-07-17 02:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  First the red flood, now the brown tide...
  Both are different algae species and/or the bacteria that accompany the algae decay so its not all that surprising.
  A surprise would be something totally different, like getting hit with "Tide with bleach alternative" or "2X Ultra Tide"
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3. Re:history repats itself by Talderas · 2012-07-17 02:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It sounds like you're describing a movement made by a woman....
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
4. Re:history repats itself by SailorSpork · 2012-07-17 02:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  All we need to do is hit the Brown Tide with Tide with Febreze. It'll get the brown out, *and* it will smell 10x fresher!
5. Re:history repats itself by Reez · 2012-07-17 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  next, the golden shower ...
6. Re:history repats itself by azalin · 2012-07-17 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  actually I was more along the lines of this red flood. But reds under the beds aren't to craze of the day anymore.
7. Re:history repats itself by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-07-17 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Not a Santorum campaigner, I presume?
8. Re:history repats itself by OldSport · 2012-07-17 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Already have it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Dust
9. Re:history repats itself by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  What is this "repat" of which you speak?
Sorry! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:11 · Score: 3, Funny

It's my fault; beer, pizza, and tacos when one has cholera is not advised. Sorry :(
GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 02:16 · Score: 0, Troll

There is research going on to allow various wheat and barley strains to fix their own nitrogen by implanting genes from peas and beans. If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops.
Unfortunately as usual the greenpeace and anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites are against it because ... well I've no idea really , best ask them. Perhaps they think nitrate poisoning of the sea is better than putting pea genes in a grass.
Oh wait , sorry , news coming in.... we all need to go organic! Presumably they've found a 2nd earth in which there is enough room to farm organically for the entire world but have yet to tell us. I await their announcemant.
1. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-17 02:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't think it's being a Luddite to be concerned with the safety of something that is engineered, whether it be organic or a high-speed train.
  Especially since in the U.S. there has been an awful lot of lobbying aimed to MAKE SURE that extensive long-term tests don't have to happen before these products go to market.
  Even regular hybridization can occasionally cause bad side-effects and we've even seen this lately.
  Being skeptical and wanting more information is scientific, not being a Luddite.
2. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  There is research going on to allow various wheat and barley strains to fix their own nitrogen by implanting genes from peas and beans. If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops.
  Unfortunately as usual the greenpeace and anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites are against it because ... well I've no idea really , best ask them. Perhaps they think nitrate poisoning of the sea is better than putting pea genes in a grass.
  Yeah, that or maybe they think GM wheat and barley will be as much of a disaster as GM corn has been. We should do neither...
3. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Organic works, but only if everyone substantially reduces their food intake and wastage. The issue isn't so much that there isn't room, it's that third world countries like the UK and America eat more than they should and waste enough for a small family - not claiming I'm a saint at all, mind.
  We're also in big time need of a population cull, I'm all for reversible sterilisation at birth, provided you pass a basic cognitive test you can have as many kids as you want.
4. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah, that or maybe they think GM wheat and barley will be as much of a disaster as GM corn has been. We should do neither..."
  Fine. Whats your solution then? A nobel prize awaits you...
5. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-07-17 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Here's a little advice, for free - when arguing your point, don't advocate for exterminating populations. . . . . It doesn't generally draw that many supporters.
6. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "I don't think it's being a Luddite to be concerned with the safety of something that is engineered,"
  There's being concerned the proper tests have been done and then there's dismissing something based on nothing more than dogma. Greenpeace et al are firmly in the latter category.
  "Even regular hybridization can occasionally cause bad side-effects and we've even seen this lately."
  Life isn't risk free, you mitigate as much as you can. You're just using the standard issue "It went bad once so never use it again" luddite argument. Sorry, but if everyone thought like that we'd still be living in mud huts and riding around on horses. ... Actually no , we'd be walking , because someone once fell off a horse and hurt themselves , best stay away from the dangerous beasts.
7. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-17 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In general fear of GM crops seem to parallel fear of cell phone radiation.
  
  Yeah, it's true that there's theoretical ways that either of them could hurt you, but most people who are afraid don't understand much about either topic. It's rare to find someone who even understands how regulators test that GMOs are safe for human consumption, and if you ask them how the testing process should be improved, they can't answer. Then if you ask them to do a cost/benefit analysis for GMO crops, they just stare at you like lost rabbits.
  
  Another similar topic is irradiated food. Blanket fear of radiation.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by gstoddart · 2012-07-17 03:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Unfortunately as usual the greenpeace and anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites are against it because ... well I've no idea really
  
  Because nobody has any idea about the long term implications of using GMOs, or what might be going wrong. They make them, decree they're safe, and then say unless there's evidence to the contrary, they must be.
  GMO crops can affect biodiversity, and in the case of Monsanto pollute other people's fields even when they aren't using it, and when it's sent for food aid the recipients are told they can't keep seed to plant next year because they're not "licensed" to grow corn.
  It's the law of unintended consequences, really. Except that people take the default position of "what could possibly go wrong?", until something does.
  If you think people are against GMO food because they're luddites, then you're an idiot.
  People are against it because there's no evidence it's safe either, and there's a lot that can go wrong with it. In fact, there's loads of examples where it has.
  Genetically modified pigs have ended up in the food supply and contaminated crops.
  It's like pharmaceuticals. The company who makes it has a vested interest in selling it, so if they take a few shortcuts, or leave out the evidence they don't like, or outright fabricate their evidence -- well, then we don't really know what we're getting, do we?
  I'm far from a luddite, but I see an awful lot to suggest that people are doing this, doing a piss poor job of actually keeping tabs on it, and not always being up front about it when it goes wrong. With some things (say, thalidomide) you only discover the disastrous consequences after literally years.
  Feel free to exercise your choice to eat those things. Me, I'd prefer to avoid it. There's just too many accidents and questions that I'm not convinced there are good enough answers yet.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by amorsen · 2012-07-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  There is research going on to allow various wheat and barley strains to fix their own nitrogen by implanting genes from peas and beans. If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops.
  If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that nitrogen fixating plants leak nitrogen into the soil and therefore eventually into the water. Just like nitrogen fertilizer, except you cannot easily control the amount being fixated.
  But then again, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't need to go on a rant against Greenpeace and "anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites".
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
10. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Entropius · 2012-07-17 03:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There's a fascinating story with Greenpeace and GM corn. The folks making the GM corn did a study where they got both their GM corn and conventional corn that was as similar as possible, and then fed both to lab rats. They weighed the rats every week, then took the rats apart after a while and assayed ... everything. Organ sizes, weights, chemistries, etc. They concluded that there were no significant differences.
  Greenpeace sued to get the raw data, something I think they have a right to (since that study was used as the basis for approval). They got some folks (grad students in Germany, I think) to do their own statistics, which concluded that GM corn caused a statistically significant increase in growth rate for male rats and a statistically significant decrease for female rats. I looked at what they did, and it turns out they made a sophomoric statistics error that I teach, well, sophomore undergrads not to make.
  What they did, essentially, was to neglect the fact that limited-sample-size uncertainties in "weight of rat at 6 weeks" and "weight of rat at 7 weeks" are correlated when they tested for statistical significance. Of course they're correlated -- they're the same damned rats! (In technical language, they calculated chi-squared based on the naive standard-errors-of-the-mean, rather than on the full covariance matrix which is required for [strongly] correlated data.)
  If Greenpeace can't even get undergrad stats right in one of the cases where they *have* shown their work (and it's wrong) then I see no reason to give them any credibility unless someone who's better at this than they are checks their work.
11. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Entropius · 2012-07-17 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  GM corn has been a disaster?
  Now, Monsanto's lawyers in combination with patent law have been a disaster -- I'll grant you that. But the technology itself is safe (see above, and see the safety tests on Bacillus thuringensis bacteria themselves, which farmers used to put directly on their corn) and has prevented tons and tons of insecticide from being sprayed on crops.
  I was a field hand in a study of Bt cotton vs. conventional cotton. The instructions to farmers were "farm both of these like you normally would, and ignore us -- we're going to come in and count bugs once in a while". The conventional field was a wasteland, since farmers had to spray to kill caterpillars, and then spray again to kill all the things that the predators who're now dead would have eaten.
  The Bt field had bugs (and other insects, but mostly bugs) all over it, happily eating each other and eating pests -- especially aphids. Aphids are a notable critter here, since they're resistant to most insecticides but are a tasty snack for all sorts of predators.
12. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  And if you knew anything about algea, you would know that nitrogen DOES NOT cause blooms.
13. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  "But then again, if you knew what you were talking about,"
  If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that leakage is a DAMN site less than the amount caused by fertlizer runoff plus it tends to stay locked in the soil. Ever heard of run off from legume farms? No, you won't have. Now back under your bridge you pathetic troll.
14. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 03:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  "If you think people are against GMO food because they're luddites, then you're an idiot."
  No, they're against it because its big scaring biotech and people are always against stuff they don't have a clue about.
  "People are against it because there's no evidence it's safe either,"
  Oh puh-lease! The attempting to prove a negative straw man argument. Let me guess - you want to keep testing until someone or something falls ill? No? But if no one falls ill how long do you wait until you think its safe? 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, forever? Moron.
  "enetically modified pigs have ended up in the food supply and contaminated crops."
  And has the world come to an end or have there been ANY biological consequences? No.
  "With some things (say, thalidomide) you only discover the disastrous consequences after literally years."
  Thats called life. Shit happens occasionally when you advance technology but if it didn't risk it we'd still be living in the dark ages. I'm sure there were people like you prophesising doom when someone came up with the idea of farming instead of just picking stuff from the woods.
  "Me, I'd prefer to avoid it."
  Be my guest. Though if you're really concerned about gene swapping you might want to worry about all the bacteria in your gut doing it 24/7 via plasmids.
15. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by erroneus · 2012-07-17 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  I dismiss GM foods because of the commercial interests and their behavior in the past and present. Controlling the food supply of the planet is inhuman and leads to inhuman behavior. Consider the ramifications of controlling the water supply or air supply. The results are much more terrifying but they are all quite necessary for survival and limiting and controlling the means of survival is where I draw certain lines.
16. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by vivian · 2012-07-17 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  While you are at it, test for basic empathy and compassion too.
17. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by mspohr · 2012-07-17 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Commercial food interests may be greedy and evil but GM food should be evaluated on its own merits.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
18. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Is making sure that people who can't raise kids don't have them not compassionate?
19. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-07-17 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  The answer? Why don't we look at The Problem. There are TOO FUCKING MANY PEOPLE. Too many people requires too much food, requiring too many ridiculously unsustainable mechanisms(enabled by CHEAP OIL) to bring this food to the table. Ridiculously unsustainable mechanisms, whether it's GMO, Nitrogen fertilizer, CHEAP OIL or whatever. There are sustainable ways of growing locally produced food to feed people, but not with the number of people there are on Earth now, hence the damage.
  
  I grew up in a town that has a strip mine nearby, and what is mined is used for fertilizer. I have seen over the years as the size of the denuded landscape, and the disgusting tailings pond has increased exponentially. I'm told with a straight face how good the mine is because of jobs, tax base etc; All I see is how ridiculously unsustainable it is, and how industrial agriculture is destroying the Amazon Basin, China, etc;
  
  We in the "First World" who have the luxury(for now) of driving to the store and buying a vast array of(mostly non-nutritional and horribly wasteful) food items aren't met with the spectre of starvation or food rationing. An unsustainable system keeps us fat and happy. However, people have and are waking up to the reality that we are going to have to take food production into our own hands as time goes one. Urban gardens, farmers markets, sustainable agriculture, etc; is going to be the norm as this century drags on. The problem causing the Ridiculously unsustainable mechanisms, overpopulation, will fix itself.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
20. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  You can neither prove something is safe nor dangerous ...
  The entirety of our medical knowledge consists of identifying things that kill you quickly, and gradually increasing the scope of "quickly." For example, it is fairly easy to prove lead is dangerous, just put enough in someone's food and watch them die from nasty heavy-metal poisoning.
  So you almost have a true statement in there that "no unwanted side effects for 30 years" is not proof either way about safety over longer periods, but you're still an idiot.
21. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-17 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That isn't entirely true. No doubt that there are a LOT of people think as you describe. My problem with GM crops is that they are patentable, and it isn't a criminal offense to put a kill gene in the crops. We have seen huge problems with food monoculture where a single disease wipes out enough of a countries food staples that there is wide spread famine. The kill genes mean that the corporations with the patents of the food can artificially create these kinds of situations.
  
  The situation with GM crops almost sounds like it is coming right out of a James Bond story. My problems with GM crops isn't that I believe they are inherently safe. Heck, I would love to be able to buy strawberries that were deliciously sweet, the size of a watermelon, and stayed fresh for a month without refrigeration. My problem with GM crops is that in our legal climate, I don't trust corporations not to manipulate food availability to increase profits. I also would not put it past them to engineer the food to induce greater consumption.
  
  It isn't the scientific issues that worry me. It is the legal ones.
22. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by findoutmoretoday · 2012-07-17 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  provided you pass a basic cognitive test you can ...
  There are cheaper and more effective ways to implement a survival of the fittest policy.
23. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by geekoid · 2012-07-17 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  GM crops are tested for safety, no other crop is.
  "If you think people are against GMO food because they're luddites"
  well, what else do you call people who don't understand the technology, don't understand the testing, haven't read any actual good study, but still don't want it done? It seems Luddites is accurate.
  "People are against it because there's no evidence it's safe either,"
  you mean besides millions and million of people eating every day without problem? besides the testing?
  So what if genetically modified pigs ended up in the food supply? DId you read the artical? someone stole it, and the used it. Genetic modification isn't the concern there this is:
  "with enough barbiturates and chemicals to kill a 500-pound pig, "
  Oh, and the genetic changes weren't about feed, they are about diabetes research.
  You're argument is so weak, you had to stoop to using a pig stolen from a lab, genetically changes fro diabetes as some sort of argument baout GM feed stock.
  Seriously, detach you're emotional position and think. Or at least use relevant examples.
  "I'm far from a luddite"
  Are you? have you read any good studies? or just what you echo chamber has spewed out? Have you tlaked to researched in the field? Have you read any comparative studies of safety vs. the current methods?
  Nothing in you post or opinion at all represent what is actually going on in the field, so I really thing you are, in fact, a Luddite regarding this technology.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
24. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by geekoid · 2012-07-17 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  A) he was pointing out you're ;logical fallacy.
  B) You're reason are made up crap and don't reflect the real world at all.
  C) Ah, another ad hom by you. That's what? 3? Plus your strawman. Not going well for you, is it?
  D) You have eaten GM foods. Just so you know.
  BY opinion is based on the evidences I have read in studies and talking to people in the field. Could new data change things? yes. Is it likely at this point? no.
  You know why people like you irritate me? Because in the 70's there was a new pesticide developed. IT had a half life of 3 days. No tests showed any ill effects for people. So we have a pesticide that will be completely gone before product gets to market. Saves money, and helps return larger yields.
  IT was killed by a bunch of people who only used FUD pulled from their own echo chamber. People who try to influences things without evidence piss me off.
  I can list a lot of shit removed based on FUD. DDT is another one. One opinion in one book based on correlation in the field. Meaning no controls, was why it got pulled.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
25. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-17 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Your advice is good, but it also points out why environmentalists really are not. The single biggest problem facing the planet is over population. Sterilization is the second kindest way to accomplish large scale population reduction. Promoting homosexuality is kindest.
26. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure your worries are any more realistic than anyone else's. Imagine some company tried to control the food market. Then all the farmers would have to use seeds from 20 years ago. How bad would that really be?
  
  Second, your worry about monoculture, which can be serious, is not related to GMO. It has been a problem long before GMO crops.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
27. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by rgbrenner · 2012-07-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Good for you. But..
  The invention of fertilizer allowed 6 billion people to be fed.
  GM is what will allow us to continue feeding the planet as the population grows.
  So if you're against it, I assume you will do your part, and restrict your eating (especially meat), and get a vasectomy to prevent yourself from contributing to the population problem.
28. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by geekoid · 2012-07-17 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  You owe the poster an apology:
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301091552.htm
  And Green Peace turned into an 'ANTI-anything from corporations and shit we don't understand' group in the 80. AS a former member, it's saddens me to have seen the go from "How can we do thins safely" to "Don't do anything new".
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
29. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by geekoid · 2012-07-17 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's a management issue, not a food issue. Cut the population in half, and it won't change a thing because it's a management issue.
  People where starving when we had 4 billion. Care to guess why? management issue.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
30. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  With nitrogen, you may have a point, because it can be generated in-situ from nitrogen fixation. But GM crops can't magically create phosphate and many other essential nutrients out of nothing. And even if they did somehow extract it from the soil in a new way, they would eventually deplete the soil as they were harvested, necessitating addition of fertilizer to maintain yields. There are ways to mitigate runoff of excess fertilizer. Regardless of GM advances, that's something that needs attention for all sorts of good reasons, including decreasing harmful algal blooms.
  And despite your dismissal of organic farming, there is a great deal of sense to returning as much organic material as possible to the fields from which it was extracted. Otherwise you're pretty much mining the soil in a non-renewable and unsustainable way.
31. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Oh course he's using strawmen and logical fallacies, you said it yourself - he's eaten GM foods! He can't help it! ~
32. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-07-17 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  Why don't we look at The Problem. There are TOO FUCKING MANY PEOPLE
  
  Right on. First shuttle to the sun will be at your place in 5; don't worry about packing anything.
  
  Your argument can be stated identically with this statement: "There are TOO FEW RESOURCES." You can't go culling wide swaths of people or magically increasing on-hand resources. Besides, as geekoid says below, it's a matter of logistics, which is something we *can* begin to address. We can also begin to address education in family planning and increases in resource acquisition, but this is a very long-term proposition. At least a generation; more probably several, if it even works. Regardless, yelling about how many people we have, or how few resources we have, is a "The barn door's already open." situation.
  
  The solution is 3 pronged: 1) Progressively waste less. 2) Progressively increase logistical efficiency. 3) Progressively develop and exploit high-yield and renewable resources. It's not all doom and gloom, because we are already doing this in a great many industries, and companies have even found it profitable in many cases. I think we should be focusing on business success in this area just as much as we focus on business failure, but I guess a news story on "ABC Corp increased efficiency of XYZ production by 400% this quarter" isn't as interesting as "BCA Corp used up ALL the whales."
  
  Your second and third paragraphs are spot on, though.
33. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by pnutjam · 2012-07-17 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  So you advocate a top down planned economy for everything, or just population?
  
  I'm sure you have heard the popular saying, "if you take away legal guns, only criminals will have guns", now imagine only criminals and most backward countries are having children...
  Is what you picture good for the human race or the planet?
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
34. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by radtea · 2012-07-17 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately as usual the greenpeace and anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites are against it because ... well I've no idea really
  So what you're saying is, you haven't paid one bit of attention to this debate over the past decade or so. Weird that you feel compelled to post about it just so say you know nothing at all about it.
  Just on the off chance you have some new-found ability to learn, here are the three major reasons people are against GM foods, in order of plausibility:
  1) Health and safety. This is the one that gets the most attention because only stupid people (there are a lot of them) believe it and pro-GM people find it easy to refute.
  2) Moral reasons. Ownership of seed grain, the slippery slope toward crops with the bio-terrorist "terminator gene", which will with certainty escape and contaminate entire crop systems, and so on, are legitimate concerns. Monstanto and other unequivocally evil organizations have spent quite a bit of money countering this through marketing and other lies.
  3) Bio-diversity reasons. This is by far the strongest concern, and why I don't want to eat GM foods: because it would be supporting a very fragile monoculture that progressively undermines food security for me and everyone else.
  Since you've told us all so clearly that you know nothing at all about GM foods and the controversy around them, I guess it's also reasonable to assume you know nothing about the well-documented effects of monocultures. The basic problem is that they are highly susceptible to parasites. Famous examples include the Irish potato famine and the world-wide collapse of the banana industry in the 1950's.
  You should use your favourite search engine and learn a bit about the biodiversity issue, as it would stop you from looking like the trollish little pillock you come across as here.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
35. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Mindcontrolled · 2012-07-17 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  In general, yes - but one can't help to look at the current practices in the application of GM crops. Those being vendor lock-in, massive monocultures and over-reliance on single pesticides making resistances shoot up. Can't beat evolution, guys. As soon as they stop pushing roundup-ready soy and corn and instead get nitrogen-fixating crops in a variety of cultivars on the market, I am ready to evaluate those on their own merit.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
36. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by gandhi_2 · 2012-07-17 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  air supply
  You know what? I can't fight this feeling any more. It makes me feel like screaming.
  I'm all out of love for these GM companies. Ain't it a shame that a few powerful people will call all the shots?
  If it was up to them, they would stop the rain. Mother said, "hopefully this is the end of the line for them". I hope it's not too late.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
37. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by amorsen · 2012-07-17 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  We do not grow legume in Denmark, but we do grow peas, and there is run-off off from those.
  Your name calling is pretty pathetic even for Slashdot. Go take lessons in how to insult people, or at least learn how to spell.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
38. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by amorsen · 2012-07-17 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  You owe the poster an apology:
  Most certainly not. Even your own link says it: "also leaves the soil enriched through the plant matter left after harvesting, creating a natural fertilizer for other crops, which is the basis for crop rotation". That is the positive spin on "puts nitrogen into the ground, where it will leak into waterways".
  Organic and natural are lovely positive words, but things are not harmless just because they are natural or organic.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
39. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by maugle · 2012-07-17 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure your worries are any more realistic than anyone else's. Imagine some company tried to control the food market. Then all the farmers would have to use seeds from 20 years ago. How bad would that really be?
  
  Then that company (*cough*Monsanto*cough*) would do what they usually do: pay someone under the table to fling a few GM seeds into the farmers' fields, and then sue the farmers into oblivion. So, to answer your question, it'd be pretty bad.
40. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-17 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's what they usually do, is it?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
41. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by LourensV · 2012-07-17 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  The invention of fertilizer allowed 6 billion people to be fed.
  GM is what will allow us to continue feeding the planet as the population grows.
  Well done to the people who invented fertiliser, and good luck to the genetic engineers. But it is, as we say in Dutch, mopping with the tap still running. Every time we engineer ourselves out of trouble, we procreate ourselves right back in*. At some point we'll have to figure out a way to limit the growth. We can then use our technology to improve quality rather than quantity. I'd have healthier, tastier, more varied and robust GM crops rather than just more of them and a larger population.
  * Question: How are these activities distributed among Slashdotters and non-Slashdotters, and why? Bonus points if your answer includes a car analogy!
42. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-07-17 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, lets blame other unpopular subject matter as the reason for an undesirable happenstance. Without any proof or facts lets connect GM crops to brown tide. There, anti-GM fanatics have another "fact" in their arsenal about why GM crops should be banned. Of course we all know that non-GM organic crops NEVER leak nutrients into the environment, they are perfect in every way. GM = bad, non-GM = good, I don't need no stinking facts!
  While we are at it I also blame abortions and and increase in human rights for brown tide, so lets squash those things too. And of course you know damn well Global warming is behind all this. We should all stay home, piss in buckets and use gray water it to wash ourselves because it might cause brown tide!
  This is why scientists cry, because people post shit on the web connecting something to another thing with limited basis in fact, only fear mongering and gross ignorance to support something they blindly believe in.
  
  --
  I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
43. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  One big difference being that if we one day find out there's a problem with cell phone radiation, we know we can stop the proliferation of harmful cell phones and within several years the number of harmful cell phones will be insignificant.
44. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by CAIMLAS · 2012-07-17 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Another similar topic is irradiated food. Blanket fear of radiation.
  Oh really? Russian scientists from the 1970s disagree with you. Something about it reducing the nutrient value of the food over 50% while turning "healthy" fats into "unhealthy" fats...
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
45. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by erroneus · 2012-07-17 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and let's not forget the other side-effects.... super-bugs.
  We don't seem to be learning our lessons in nature and biology do we? We introduce foreign plant and animal life to help cure some form of pest or another and the next thing you know, the whole eco system is messed up and you're up to your arm-pits in frogs. And what of the over-use of anti-biotics? Heard any MRSA horror stories lately? Heard of anyone infected by one of those and end up losing arms, legs and more? I have... lots. With biological monocultures, you risk whole food varieties by exposing them to the pygmy tribe effect.
  And these are things we, as a people on this planet, should all know about. It's not a surprise to anyone by now. And yet we still want to let private enterprise interests rule over something as important as food? Sorry, but no! Private enterprise and its limitless greed took down the global economy and it's still not recovered because they still don't want to stop doing what caused the problems. And yet people still want to trust private enterprise to control entire human food supplies? A global economic collapse caused enough damage... what do you think a global food crisis would cause?
46. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by erroneus · 2012-07-17 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Population growth needs control, not more feeding. Let's not get too much into that because you can't talk about the facts without being "racist." Screw that. But I am happy with my reasonable quota of children. I don't need a vasectomy to control birth. Thanks for the insult though.
  GM is NOT necessary. There is such a thing as "acceptable losses" when dealing with crops. Freezes and bugs and all sorts of things simply happen and it's a fact of nature. GM foods is about reducing those "productions problems" to zero which has all sorts of potential for unforseen consequences not to mention the whole "super-bug" race which, if you haven't been paying attention, has already started to occur as newer, stronger and harder to kill pest are being selectively bred.
  We are creating newer and harder to defeat problems. We should simply learn to deal with the problems we have instead of "defeating them."
47. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by erroneus · 2012-07-17 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  ...indeed. They would stop the rain to create scarcity so they can raise their profits. It's capitalism.
48. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Culture20 · 2012-07-17 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  You've heard about that herd of cattle that died of poisoning from eating drought-strained GM grass, right? The grass was fine until the drought hit. Also GM induced corn allergies? It's a lot more than "fear of radio waves". Something involved with food that does match that fear: irradiated food. People think it's radioactive instead of being benign (and barteria free).
49. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-17 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  The poisoned grass wasn't GM, go check it out. I haven't heard of the corn allergies, but I'm willing to bet the methodology of those studies showing it are questionable (if there actually are any studies; it's probably speculation).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
50. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-17 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Is there any reason that I should believe your sketchy reference to Russian scientists from the 70s?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
51. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-17 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  The comment about monoculture is to show that we already know what happens when a countries major food crops become unavailable, not to point out that GM food is a monoculture. If monoculture can be serious, having a single company with a kill switch on our food supply is at least as serious. The answer of "Just use 20 year old seeds" is no more helpful to a farmer today than it was during the The Irish Potato Famine.
52. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by umghhh · 2012-07-17 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  merits and possible risks of GM crops include not only the health and safety issues but also the results on the economy and farmers - having all IP 'protected' means that if you are a farmer you have to pay. In some places this is not as voluntary as it is imagined by proponents of so called free market. The actual benefits should also be evaluated - mono-cultures that are created by industry produced seed is an ideal spreading ground for adapted agents doing evil things to the plants themselves as these agents i.e. bacteria, fungi and insects adapt faster than monsanto can gather royalties for their produce. One thing is right - people that are so loudly outraged by GM crops usually completely miss the point why actual monopoly (thanx IP laws etc) on seed is evil for instance.
53. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by umghhh · 2012-07-17 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  to use 'seeds' from 20ya may not be legally possible - search Germany, Linda and potato to find out how that works. It is very much related to GMO as to any other cross-bred stuff these days - being industrial potato farmer means you rely on handlers to provide you seeds - this limits your chances. If license is withdrawn you cannot use the particular plant type commercially. You cannot go back to non-licensed seed either as it is not available. These situations happen in real world and to ignore them is evil - this is more dangerous to farmers than anything else.
54. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by azalin · 2012-07-17 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know a judge decided in that case, that the farmers were within their rights, to trade and plant the potato in question. Even though the original supplier did not renew the license for commercial use.
55. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by thsths · 2012-07-17 19:41 · Score: 2
  
  > Greenpeace sued to get the raw data, something I think they have a right to (since that study was used as the basis for approval).
  And that's where the problem starts. Greenpeace may be well meaning, but they usually can't deal with data. And this inability is based on dogma, because data is seen as something "evil corporations" use to boost their profit (which they do, to be honest).
  Working with data is not easy, and doing it from a dogmatic perspective (whether as a company or at Greenpeace) is never a good idea.
56. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by umghhh · 2012-07-17 19:45 · Score: 1
  I suppose you are right in most of these things. The humans do piss poor job at anything they touch so why this should be different. One must of course allow for mistakes being made - the thalidomide you mentioned is one o those - the interesting part is that this drug is successfully used to cure leprosy. This all may be considered but there is one interesting aspect of that. Quite frankly I do not care GM or not but I want the following to be true:
  
  there must be choice for farmers - search for Linda potato and Germany if you want to know what I mean, the legal cases where monsanto wins against farmers that had fields polluted with their crops unintentionally must stop. This includes also allowances for making the old species survive and be available commercially
  there must be a choice for customers - the simple label will suffice. It allows people to make choice however unreasonable and uneducated that may be.
  Current practice however is that labels are not done out of fear that people stop buying and farmers are put under pressure legally and practically (pollution with GM seeds, availability of old species for commercial production etc). To me it means that however GM crops are - fuck it I will not buy (consciously i.e. if I know) products based on them out of principle. Play fair and be handled fair - that is obviously asking for too much. I suppose I am a commie, luddite and secret agent of EAAAFF (European Assholes Association Against Frankenstein Foods - I am sick and tired of three letters abbreviations).
57. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  "or at least learn how to spell."
  If you're going to tell a native english speaker how to spell when its not your native language then I would suggest you make sure your english is perfect first starting with your grammer. It's "we do not grow legumeS". Plural. "Go AND take lessons".
  And I don't believe you about the run off. Post a link.
58. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  "You can neither prove something is safe nor dangerous "
  You can't prove something is dangerous? Seriously, is that your argument??? Man , you really need to get yourself an education.
  Tell you what, if you seriously believe that go eat some cyanide. I mean its only been 100% fatal to everyone who's ever done it but that doesn't prove its dangerous in the slightest does it? Get back to me with your results though you might have to wait until I've bought a wigi board.
  "So why don't you go back to swapping genes with your sister,"
  Oh dear, showing your rather young age with that silly comment arn't we.
59. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by amorsen · 2012-07-17 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't heard the word "legume" before, and I was not diligent enough in my quick Googling. The correct flame would be "peas ARE legumes". Fail again. And really, "its" and "grammer" in a grammar flame. Hilarious.
  Anyway, see e.g. Environmental effects of ecological agriculture, particularly this bit: "The remaining system may be classified as a type of ecological farming, but not typical: On half of the area nitrogen-fixating crops are grown, and no catch-crops are grown. Consequently, this is a kind of ecological farming with extraordinary large risks of nitrate leaching. The study showes that this system has about the same nitrate leaching as normal conventional arable systems."
  Yes, it's stupid to grow a nitrogen-fixating crop in such high rotation. Yet that is exactly the proposal offered by the genetically modified nitrogen-fixating crops -- just grow those and never need to fertilize. All lovely and natural and harmless.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
60. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-17 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  "The correct flame would be "peas ARE legumes"."
  Wow, you're flaming yourself. Thats impressive.
  "And really, "its" and "grammer" in a grammar flame"
  You're the one who used the tired old attack on spelling instead of a cogent argument, not me. I really don't care if I make a few mistakes but if you're going to have a go at people about it you really need to get it 100% correct yourself. And I'm really not going to take english lessons from someone who speaks a language that sounds like you're trying to throw up every 3rd word.
  "Environmental effects of ecological agriculture"
  Just post a damn link. I've got better things to do that search the entire internet for a phrase.
61. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by amorsen · 2012-07-17 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Environmental effects of ecological agriculture
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
62. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-18 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Once again, you sound like a person who hates GMO irrationally, and is looking for reasons to justify your belief.
  
  Remember, a good scientist attacks his own theories, have you tried that? A good scientist does not use data the was a drunk man uses a light post, for support rather than illumination. Don't do that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
63. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Viol8 · 2012-07-18 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some 20 year old student disseration? Is that it? Seriously?
  Here's something to think about - given that legumes have been grown by man for thousands of years do explain why nitrate poisoning of the rivers only started after artificial fertilizers came on the scene. You'd expect that large crops of legumes would already have caused it.
64. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by amorsen · 2012-07-18 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody sane grows legumes without crop rotation. Like I said. And if you knew what you were talking about, you would also know that until fertilizer appeared, soil was overall nitrogen deficient compared to what is needed for optimal production. If your aim is to produce wheat, it makes no sense to grow peas every other year just to make the wheat production optimal in the other years. It is better to have 2 out of 3 years with decent production rather than 1 out of 2 years with excellent production. Soil that is nitrogen deficient obviously does not suddenly start leaking massive amounts of nitrogen just because you grow legumes for one year.
  All this is completely unsurprising. It is also unsurprising that there are few studies of nitrogen pollution from legumes, since the areas covered by legumes are so small compared to the areas with maize or wheat. It is a non-problem today.
  Once EVERY crop becomes nitrogen-fixating, this sunny state of affairs will be over.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
65. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-18 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or, you have no response to the very rational concern, so you just call it irrational.
66. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-19 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  It might be rational.....what do you think the odds are of 'having a single company with a kill switch on our food supply'? What are the odds of that actually happening? Do you consider them higher, or lower, than a meteor strike destroying humanity?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
67. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-19 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Dramatically higher. GURT (known in the press at 'terminator seeds) is well within the capabilities of any company that creates GM crops. Even if the current CEO of Monsanto doesn't plan to produce sterile offspring seeds, what about the next one, or the one after that.
  
  The likelihood of Monsanto eventually using the money making tactic of implementing GURT should be compared to the likelihood of Comcast implementing faster connections to web sites that pay them not to throttle their users. Not to a meteor strike.
68. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-19 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't it be better if they made them as terminator seeds? That way we don't have to worry about GMO food tainting the normal food supply.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
69. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-19 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  That question shows that you are not listening to the arguments against GM foods.
70. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by phantomfive · 2012-07-20 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  The question was mocking you.
  
  Most people who oppose GMO don't understand the issues, they fear things like 'chemicals.' Conspiracy theories appeal to those who are more familiar with how Hollywood works than how the world works. It is not surprising that you come up with amusing scenarios where a single company holds the world ransom for $100 billion dollars.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
71. Re:GM crops are partially the answer by Belial6 · 2012-07-20 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  So, you agree that it is a problem then. Check.
Wait... by bughunter · 2012-07-17 02:22 · Score: 0

Is that like the Brown Note?
And TFS is unclear: Is the brown tide coming from China or heading to China? Because with 1.3 Billion people, you know they could create one hell of a brown tide if they wanted to... for certain definitions of brown tide. Hell, it's probably happening because they didn't take care not to.

--
I can see the fnords!
What My Opponent Will Say Is Easily Dismissed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

PROTIP: it turns out it's super easy to defeat your opponents when they don't exist and you put words in their imaginary mouths. Later, we'll show you how to have an entirely fair and balanced "debate" internally within your own post without ever having to worry about learning something new in the process -- but let's not get ahead of ourselves or you might accidentally learn something!
1. Re:What My Opponent Will Say Is Easily Dismissed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  AWESOMETIP: The poster above was correct, and you just validated it.
2. Re:What My Opponent Will Say Is Easily Dismissed by PPH · 2012-07-17 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes that's the only way to have a debate. Particularly when your opponents are to cowardly to come out and back their position when it doesn't suit them.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:What My Opponent Will Say Is Easily Dismissed by Entropius · 2012-07-17 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, these "anti-GM-anything-full-stop" morons are all over, and grandparent hasn't inaccurately characterized them.
It would probably help.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:31 · Score: 0

If they installed more port-a-potties along the beaches and required infants to be in swim diapers.
Biological Warfare- Do Not Want :'-( by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:32 · Score: 0

Because with 1.3 Billion people, you know they could create one hell of a brown tide if they wanted to... for certain definitions of brown tide.
Is this an unpleasant variation of the old "if all 1.3 billion Chinese jumped into the sea at the same time, they could create a tidal wave that would drown the entire US coast" thing?

Replacing "jumped" with, er... "dumped" and "tidal wave" with.... um... "brown tide". :-(
Never listen to people that put subject in replies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:32 · Score: 0

AMATEURTIP: it turns out you're not funny at all.
Nature healing itself by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's nature healing itself.
PH levels in the sea are rising. This a result of it. Let this bloom grow and it will eventually come in contact with a different PH level current or sea or ocean and disperse and die - the end result is a normal ph level.
1. Re:Nature healing itself by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-17 02:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's nature healing itself.
  PH levels in the sea are rising. This a result of it. Let this bloom grow and it will eventually come in contact with a different PH level current or sea or ocean and disperse and die - the end result is a normal ph level.
  No, the pH (note the way it's typed - stands for 'negative log of the Hydrogen ion concentration') is DROPPING (becoming more acid - look it up).
  "Nature" doesn't 'heal itself'. It goes along working against entropy. Whether or not that happens to help humans is another issue.
  And while you're hanging out on Wikipedia learning about acid - base reactions and buffers, check on the articles about ocean circulations and gyres.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Nature healing itself by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  AC got scienced!
Brown Tide in Corpus Christi, TX by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 02:40 · Score: 1

We had ongoing brown tide in Corpus Christi, TX. Lots of research was done. Run off from King Ranch, Chemical Industries, and city waste were all looked at. As I recall, the water had too much fertilizer in it (nitrates, phosphates).
By the way, if you are having problems with Geese pooping all over your lawn - stop fertilizing. That gets rid of another brown tide.
Baltic Sea still the worst? by G3ckoG33k · 2012-07-17 02:43 · Score: 4, Informative

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3007228.stm
'Half of the fish species in the Baltic are at levels below the critical biological level, while pregnant Swedish women are being warned not to eat herring - a staple diet - because of dioxins. There is little dispute that St Petersburg - Russia's second-biggest city - is the Baltic's single biggest polluter, and behind many of the problems.'
http://www.euronews.com/2010/02/10/baltic-nations-take-action-on-sea-pollution/
'Northern European nations have been discussing pollution in the Baltic Sea at a conference in Finland. The Baltic is considered one of the most polluted waterways in the world. [...] “Today some of the richest and most environmentally-conscious countries on earth live on the shore of one of the world’s most polluted seas. What a tragedy. It is clear that something has to be done and quickly.” [...] “Today we are also facing a historic international challenge, which I would like to point to as as the issue of chemical and conventional weapons dumped into the Baltic Sea.” [...] Almost enclosed, very shallow, and fed by numerous rivers, the Baltic is a vulnerable sea. 90 million people live around its shores, many of them depending on the sea in some way or other for their livelihoods, but waste from industry, agriculture and daily life ends up in the sea. One of the biggest resulting dangers is too much algae. Excess growth of it robs the water of oxygen suffocating other species.'
etc.
Maybe the Chinese still can change this tide, err, that brown tide.
1. Re:Baltic Sea still the worst? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  FUCK YOU.
  I want oil for my Hemmi.
2. Re:Baltic Sea still the worst? by gl4ss · 2012-07-17 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  FUCK YOU.
  I want oil for my Hemmi.
  seas getting polluted isn't about your hemi. it's about shit.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:Baltic Sea still the worst? by X0563511 · 2012-07-17 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Literally. You might want to specify that...
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
4. Re:Baltic Sea still the worst? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Why? Because of the seamen?
5. Re:Baltic Sea still the worst? by X0563511 · 2012-07-17 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  You know those moments where you say something you think is funny, and everyone just stares at you instead (in shock or utter disbelief)?
  This is one of those moments.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Not about KFC by coldsalmon · 2012-07-17 02:44 · Score: 1

I initially assumed this was about indigestion caused by all the fast food restaurants opening up in Shanghai.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/mcdonald-s-no-match-for-kfc-in-china-where-colonel-sanders-rules-fast-food.html
Did we jumped planet while I slept? by asdf7890 · 2012-07-17 02:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Observe the Razorbeak as it tends so carefully to the fungal blooms; just the right bit from the yellow, then a swatch from the pink. Follow the Glow Mites as they gather and organize the fallen spores. What higher order guides their work? Mark my words: someone or something is managing the ecology of this planet.

-- Lady Deirdre Skye, "Planet Dreams"
1. Re:Did we jumped planet while I slept? by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-07-17 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  What does a transforming cassette-tape ornithoid have to do with algae?
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
2. Re:Did we jumped planet while I slept? by Entropius · 2012-07-17 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  If I hadn't posted already you'd get mod points.
3. Re:Did we jumped planet while I slept? by d3ac0n · 2012-07-17 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Even Decepticons need a hobby.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
4. Re:Did we jumped planet while I slept? by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-07-17 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'll translate your post for you, using a quote from George Carlin:
  
  "The planet is fine, the people are fucked"
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Man, this is tough by davidbrit2 · 2012-07-17 02:56 · Score: 0

I have to decide whether to go with a scatological or racist joke. Hmm...
Okay, how about, "Sorry, took me a few flushes to get that one down."
False dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:03 · Score: 1

"If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops."
Well if the plant fixes the nitrogen instead, how are we using less nitrogen, and thus fixing the algae problem?? The only way that can be true is if the plant fixes *just* enough and no more nitrogen than it needs, making it more *efficient*. However the most likely outcome is that the GM crowd make one that over-fixes nitrogen because underfixing is a fail, and there's no evolutionary drive to the efficient balance, it's an economic one (speed to market something in particular is threatening).
So its not unreasonable for the anti-GM crowd to be suspicious, but they (and I) am more concerned that you splice stuff with barely a clue as to the complex interactions it causes.
Let me put it this way, do you think the fertilizer people thought that their fertilizer would cause posionous brown algae blooms in China? They just made artifical cow poop, yet didn't see the consequences, and you guys want to change the nature of plants by trial and error with far bigger risks.
The obvious fix is more efficient use of the fertilizer so it isn't wasted surely? But that will happen anyway as oil becomes scarce and fertilizer becomes hugely more expensive.
1. Re:False dichotomy by Entropius · 2012-07-17 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  "More efficient use" means "hey, instead of spewing nitrates all over the place, let's let the plants make their own right where they need it". There's basically no scenario where giving plants the ability to fix their own nitrogen will result in more wastage than the current strategy of "mix the stuff up with the dirt".
2. Re:False dichotomy by jonadab · 2012-07-17 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  One supposes that fixed nitrogen embedded in plant tissue might be slightly less likely to run straight off into the downstream water supply than loose nitrogen from fertilizer (especially if the fertilizer is sprayed on rather than tilled in; I'm not sure how common that is in practice).
  
  I'm not entirely convinced that the other poster's conclusion (that wider use of genetically modified crops would therefore reduce the incidence of harmful algal bloom) is necessarily correct, but I think I understand, at least partly, how he could have arrived at such a conclusion.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Appropriate video: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:06 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncKJIIHsz-Q
Long term effects? by AnotherAnonymousUser · 2012-07-17 03:15 · Score: 1

Ecologists in the crowd, what are some of the larger reaching effects of these kinds of blooms? I know it decreases available oxygen, but do we see an increase in food supply and booms in populations because of the newly available food source? Does it have any positive effects in the long haul to have these things turn up?
1. Re:Long term effects? by turtledawn · 2012-07-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  You end up with seacoasts covered in dead fish. The local birds are often fairly happy for a week or so, but since it's a one-time or only rarely and irregularly repeated thing there's no significant long term effect that I'm aware of.
  It probably also kills any corals and sponges in the area, so depending on how fully killed the reefs are you lose reef protection, resulting in stronger storm surges and faster beach erosion.
  
  --
  Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
Mind Worms! by fibonacci8 · 2012-07-17 03:18 · Score: 1

Maybe now Chairman Yang will listen to the Gaians about the benefits of a Green society instead of the wasteful Planned system.

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
1. Re:Mind Worms! by d3ac0n · 2012-07-17 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Heh.
  Except that the "Gaians" around here are pretty much 100% in the tank for a Planned system.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
2. Re:Mind Worms! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  I found an interesting unintended spiral in that game. If you can get your neccessary resources from the fungal blooms (Gaians had a headstart at this, don't remember what techs help), it suddenly becomes preferable to have significant "waste" spawning more fungal blooms. This creates a very interesting cycle of fungal spread and sea level rise, which AI players are not very capable of responding to. The remaining challenge is in making sure you have enough PSI bonus that you don't get overrun by the worms (again, Gaians have a head start) before you can hit one of the victory conditions.
So, we can't scoop the stuff up? by fustakrakich · 2012-07-17 03:35 · Score: 2

And make bio diesel out of it?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:So, we can't scoop the stuff up? by bjdevil66 · 2012-07-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just as soon as we produce enough biodiesel to power the ships that'll do all the scooping...
  In all seriousness, the people researching biodiesel aren't going to have any use for just any algae out there.
drag by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 03:40 · Score: 0

Oily drag shows aren't the worst polluters.
I thought we'd already figured this out by dotar · 2012-07-17 11:02 · Score: 1

It's over-fishing. You over-fish the fish that eat the phytoplankton that cause the build up of toxins. Then Some earthquake happens because of the level of toxins in the sea floor, which releases all the remaining toxins which kills all the fish... continuing the problem. I thought we were working on more aquaculture to provide solutions for this.
Re:Promoting homosexuality is kindest. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 18:04 · Score: 0

Right on sister!