Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Rob,
The hottest topic of pesticide resistant GMO agricultural crops has to do with rounduyp ready crops- most of them cereal and other mechanically harvested crops. These crops have a genetic splicing that makes them resistant to large doses of glyphosate herbicide. The concept behind it is you can drench all the crops with large amounts of pesticide and that the "protected" (and patented) crops will be spared and the "weeds" will be killed by the pesticide. Hand labor is expensive so when managing thousands of acres it is easier and more cost effective for the farmer to just spray more pesticide.
Then there is the problem with pesticide residue on crops. As you are probably aware most government oversight agencies are limited in their use of actual science by the politicians who control the agencies' budgets. The politicians are beholden to the corporate interests who pay for their reelection campaigns, and it is always easy to find conflicting opinions on science expertise, particularly when large amounts of money are involved.
Long story short the agricultural oversight agencies have to compromise on "acceptable levels of pesticide residue" on crops and they tend to allow higher levels of acceptable because their thresholds are determined by toxicologists, not endocrinologists. Toxicologists are only interested in what dose will kill you immediately but not what consequences you might get over time (like cancer). So the crops have residual levels of pesticides that might not visually harm you today but that over time might trigger or cause chronic conditions like cancer, adhd, diabetis, obesity, etc.
There are even a whole batch of insecticides/ herbicides that are approved for Post-Harvest use, to help kill insects while in storage or for instance to help desiccate (dry out) crops that were harvested too soon due to approaching rains or other inclement weather.
Too many intelligent people have become convinced that many politicians, government agencies, and large corporations do not have their best interests in mind and this has led to the widespread acceptance of "organic foods" (otherwise known as pre-WW2 chemical agriculture) because ordinary intelligent people can not trust the corporations, politicians, and oversight agencies that are supposed to be protecting their interests.
Posts: 52
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2014
PA, sorry, your question is irrelevant to my concerns about the biotech industry. I'm feeling like fresh meat on the grill here, and would rather not chase diversions. Uncle.
This link article summarizes my focus:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the...fe/5324781
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
Hawnjigs,Your link is irrelevant to my original post.My post was about legislation to outlaw Fracking.
Why don't you research all of the previous posts about gmos or start your own post?
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Steve, I think that what you are missing is that "large amounts" is subjective. To the farmer it is an economic decision. The farmer will not spend more money than is necessary. If they do they risk going broke. The glyphosate is more benign then other previously favored herbicides. No farmer who wants to stay in business will spend $20,000 when $10,000 will do the job.
I don't say this as a fan of the Monsanto business model. I don't care for it. But the science of GMO is a separate issue from the business model and needs to be addressed, legislatively, separately.
My own farming experience was on an organic model on a 300 acre farm. Our family chose to not go the "no till" route. We lasted some years that way but like a lot of family small farms we eventually went under.
Also, when I use the term "benign" I refer to the affect the hericide has on other creatures besides weeds. Years ago the hericides were also toxic to the creatures of the fields - mice, rabbits, squirrels, foxes, woodchucks and birds. Glyphosate is a much gentler and targeted herbicide with fewer unintended casualties.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 52
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2014
O, "Wasting the taxpayers money" evolved by consensus to include multiple issues pursued by Senator Ruderman and other posters.
S1, thank you for the info on residual toxicology administration.
RT, can I ask if a more conventional agri-chem model would have been a more viable choice financially than the organic one your farm attempted?
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Hawnjigs,
From an economic standpoint the chemical model of farming was about the only choice. There was no longer the family manpower willing to work tirelessly 24/7 for little or no money. The 2nd generation had gone off to WWII and college and made more relaxed middle class lifestyles for themselves. Those left had to make up with the lack of manpower with dependance on increasingly more expensive gasoline. To offset the increased cost of gasoline and diesel the farmers turned to chemicals to reduce their costs.... all the while increasing their production.
That is the history in a nutshell.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
Hawnjigs wrote: "PA, sorry, your question is irrelevant to my concerns about the biotech industry."
You're entitled to your concerns, whatever they may be. What we are discussing here is the implementation of laws that have not only no rational basis (as we understand rationality as having a scientific basis in the 21st century), but will stifle or prevent progress in agriculture and energy development on the Big Island.
steve1 wrote: "...it is always easy to find conflicting opinions on science expertise"
Sure. A recent survey of climate scientists found that about 5% were anthropogenic climate change deniers. You can find outliers in any field. But some scientists (and non-scientists) somewhere having conflicting opinions is very different from much larger consensus conclusions by academic scientists that are not only based on "big data" but also by well understood causative mechanisms that provide a rational basis for the consensus.
Preventing Big Island farmers from growing GMO crops, making criminals of them, and stifling or preventing geothermal development by sloppy lawmaking are not reasonable actions and have even larger consequences than just "wasting the taxpayers money."
Finally, nothing above prevents new scientific principles and new conclusions from emerging. Michaelson and Morley in 1890 spun scientists' heads by finding no evidence for the "aether" as the medium carrying light waves (as water is the medium for ocean waves). Einstein made scientists' heads spin by proposing that space and time are flexible, not fixed. Schroedinger made Einstein's head spin by proposing quantum mechanics. But all these radical (at the time) proposals have stood up to numerous empirical tests over many decades. GMO and geothermal are both relatively recent developments, but they too have been subjected to numerous validated tests within the much more sophisticated scientific environment of today. There is no rational reason to simply ban either of them.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
I received this via email and it seems to fit within the parameters of this discussion.
Another formal complaint has been filed against Senator Ruderman, the other being discussed on another thread (and elsewhere, RE: SB2274*)
*Ref. here: http://punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18147&whichpage=5
Does this complaint hold weight? We shall see. JMO. Comments?
Complaint Filed Against Ruderman
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-H4BPTt...edit?pli=1
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
quote:
Originally posted by Russell
I'm waiting for someone here to explain specifically how I've wasted taxpayer money. I'm also waiting for pahoated, whomever he/she/it is, to say something accurate about me, but I won't be holding my breath. He obviously hasn't looked at my bills introduced (available here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/advreports/advreport.aspx?report=intro&year=2014&leg=Ruderman&rpt_type=first_pri) before slinging mud. Perhaps he/she/it can find another legislator with more original ideas introduced to justify his slander.
Russell
The last post made by me (above), Mr. "Russell" (if you're truly Ruderman) may shed some light on the position pahoated makes. What say you?
Oh, and incidentally, calling anyone an "it" (bold above) is quite juvenile and frankly, unbecoming of a Senator. Taking note.
Welcome a response, Sir. JMO.
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
It's just part of the dumbing down of America. When it is repeatedly pointed out to Ruderman that "fracking" is a slang word for a contraction of frac-ture crack-ing, and with reference to cracking of shale layers for oil and natural gas pockets, is strictly an oil industry term and not used at all for enhanced geothermal, and he stays clamped on like a rabid pit bull to his emotional belief system, then what else could it be. Couldn't be payoffs from the oil industry to stall, block, and obstruct geothermal development?
The funny part is even enhanced geothermal, using a small amount of fresh water for hydroshearing, may be put on the shelf of obsolete techniques, so that the entire issue of fracturing rock becomes irrelevant. The time spent by the state and county government on this ridiculously confused legislation was paid with our tax dollars. Being a local taxpayer, it was a total waste.
Why do we have this bunch of politicians like Ruderman, Ford, Wylie, Green, that want this island to be the forward battle line against mainland problems, hallucinating global fixes when they can't seem to get a pothole in Hilo fixed? What's next, the local state representatives and county council submit bills to bring about peace in Syria and driving the Russians out of the Ukraine? The worst part is they don't seem to have the most fundamental understanding of technical issues, usually relying on urban legends and old wives tales as "factual evidence". It is surreal watching the council on cable TV and it will probably just stay that way unless it just turns outright bizarre. Highly amusing, nonetheless.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
|
