Posts made by dale

Have a shot at Kerkythea, it's free. http://www.kerkythea.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10661

@wo3dan said:

@dale said:

This is the kind of thing that is of concern.
U.S. investigating rogue GM wheat found in Oregon field
Monsanto abandoned work on strain more than a decade ago

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/05/science-gm-wheat-oregon.html

What is your concern? The invertigation? Japan's reaction to restrict import of wheat?
Or maybe this:

Actually my concern is the escape of rogue seed that are genetically modified. We have been told that all is safe and controlled, and as it has been stated in this thread several times, there can be no guarantees that the outcome of this research and development will not get, in one way or another, out of control.

I take part in another forum for the Digital recording software Logic. Thought I would link this piece by Ron Fuller, a fellow Canadian (what the hell, up his hits on YouTube a little)
A little Monsanto protest song.
http://youtu.be/2nLGtBwn5R0

I have been using Vectorworks, formerly MiniCAD, since the late 80's. The reason I liked it was that it has pretty much always had 3D capabilities via the extrusion tool, and their 3D wall and roof tools. So as such I was able to do 3D Cad well ahead of when it became mainstream.
But SketchUp changed that for me, because it was so user friendly, and a dream to do 3D in comparison to VW.
I still do a lot of my 2D work in it, but I'm on the conversion to Layout. The idea of modeling a building, and being able to extract all the views, sections, and data you need is, as far as I'm concerned, the only sensible workflow there is.

This is the kind of thing that is of concern.
U.S. investigating rogue GM wheat found in Oregon field
Monsanto abandoned work on strain more than a decade ago

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/05/science-gm-wheat-oregon.html

Hmmm.... the future is now!

http://youtu.be/usDzh7l5HZw

A good modeling challenge

That equation would surely change if someone were to introduce a "higher power", (and I'm not talking wattage).

Thanks Tomasz, both for your quick reply, and all your hard work.
Think I'll just hang on.

So Tomasz, would it be better to hold off on upgrading until Thea is fully functional on Mac?
I rely on Thea for work, and deadlines usually mean no time for screw ups.
Is there a timeframe on the Mac fix?

thomthom's "solid inspector" ruby is a great help in finding all those loose ends

Maybe someone can answer this question that has always been nagging at me.
If crops, genetically modified or not are capable of greater yields, does that mean that they would require more from the soils that they grow in?
If so, and we don't look at organic methods of supplementing the soil, does this mean more chemical fertilizers?
What is the fallout to this?

My experience with Roundup tells me quite a different story. I was, many years ago, convinced by some farmer neighbours to spray a patch of thistle with Roundup.
It wasn't until the fifth year after spraying that anything would grow on that patch of ground. Finally in the 5th year some chickweed moved in.
This is the event that piqued my interest in what we are discussing.

Sorry, but I can't see the saturation of soils with glyphosate fitting into that description.

This is just great. A lot of talent here.

Worth a look
http://www.liquiddropart.com/

@pbacot said:

For labeling I tend to think the non-GMO producers should just label theirs, and like organics, charge more!

Peter
The problem I see with this is, because there is no requirement for companies to have to reveal that the oats they offer for sale are genetically modified, those toasty oat flakes in your granola labelled "organic" might currently be GMO, and the final manufacturer, who may have only good intent in producing "organic" products would be unaware.

@mics_54 said:

for we laymen, could you explain the difference?

It's probably obvious that I would like to see labeling of GMO products, which is why something like the change in law status I mentioned above would catch my attention.
I'm not trying to posture as an expert, but I do follow this subject with great interest.
The original law in Europe was proof based. If no DNA detectable markers could be found in the final product, the product did not have to be labeled. Regardless of whether it used GMO components as part of the recipe. It put the responsibility of proving onto the end user.
In the new process based law, if any GMO products are used in the process of manufacturing, they must be identified.
Its also the process by which this can be tracked that I see as straight forward. If you are involved in the creation of genetically modified product offered for sale, that product is given an identification number, which must be passed on to any purchaser of that product, and identified by label on the final product.
To me this seems no more difficult than having to say that the product has 1 mg of monosodium glutemate.

If I'm not mistaken EU adpoted a process based labeling law in 2004, replacing their proof based system. I think the threshold may be slightly higher in at least the California proposition. I believe it is 0.5 vs EU's 0.9.
I guess what I am pointing out is somehow it was adopted and paid for.

A quotation from the Science 2.0 article.

"The AAAS says mandatory labeling is reserved for potential dangers, but genetic engineering is as safe as conventional breeding. Therefore, labels would falsely imply something wrong with GMO products."

This implies that genetic modification such as in the case of Roundup Safe crops which apply glyphosate are safe. I would say this is undetermined.
I also think we need to broaden the scope to include not just the potential detrimental effects on humans. There are some other beneficial creatures out there as well, particularly insects, and for sure bees.
There is a distinct crisis in the bee populations at the moment. I'm sure if I suggest that the application of chemicals to crops contributes to this, a barrage of experts can be quoted who beg to differ.
And then there is soil.
As for labeling. Whenever laws enforce labeling on an industry there is the argument of cost brought forward.
In all fairness, usually these regulations are phased in. I would suggest that the companies in question are printing labels anyway, and somehow the logic of the costs of this will be borne by the older, lower income segment of the population, sounds like good spin doctoring.

I am not sure that I believe that all genetic modification is necessarily bad. We have been genetically manipulating plants forever, our methodology has been selecting the traits we desire in plants that exhibit those traits, and developing and securing the seeds from these strains "organically". Placing our bias on natural selection.
I can see how the genetic modification of plants under certain circumstances could be quite beneficial, particularly in disease control.
But with Monsanto, their protectionist posture, and their history of litigation, has me believing that their motives are not working towards better plant species as such, but in obtaining control and profit.
Lets take labeling for example.
What could possibly be harmful about requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled as such?
I believe that they fully understand that many people would not purchase these products, seriously affecting the bottom line.
What is good about labeling? Simply, choice. A lot of folks take label reading seriously, trying to promote good health in the minefield of manufactured foods. If in fact there is nothing unhealthy about GM foods, then, fine, label them.
My real worries about Monsanto are more centered around Genetic Use Restriction Technology, GURT. It is also referred to as terminator seed. This, and its use of "Roundup ready" crops.
I keep hearing references to Monsanto's work in biodiversity.
Somehow I just can't see how taking a seed, which would normally be the mechanism by which the plant would reproduce, and manipulating it's genetic structure so that it can't, has anything to do with biodiversity. It seems to me to be about control.
And Roundup Ready crops. Manipulating a seeds genetics to not be affected by glyphosate, which just happens to kill virtually every other plant species in the field, that's sustainably biodiverse monoculture right? Does it increase yield? Absolutely. At what cost?
Particularly to the soil.
And those weed species. Weeds are so labelled because they are said to deter crop production. But to the soil, weeds can often be beneficial. There are plants that fix nitrogen, and plants that use nitrogen. They are also indicators of the soil itself. If you see horsetail in an area, there is surely a high silica content in the soil.
But who cares right?
I do.
I don't care if Monsanto continues working in the genetic modification of plants.
I do care that we have given them the right to sue me, if by natural pollination process, you know where the bee with pollen from their tomato lands on my heirloom variety, and I end up with the genetics of their seed. I don't want their seed.
And I don't want to eat food that contains genetically modified components.
Give me the choice not to, and you the choice to. How does that sound?