Recent comments by: Susan
Archibald and John - The independents, unlike yourselves, see their duty to look after Australian matters in the longer term together with matters beyond our shores and the present generations. Your approach is like the reaction of some people in towns when water restrictions are in place - they say that the little bit of water I save will have no measurable effect on dam levels so I'm not going to cut back my usage. You would agree that those people are shirking their duty. In like manner you also want to shirk your duty re. gh gases - please realise every little bit counts
Oliver, your reference to food plants like Rio Red grapefruit developed by mutagenesis (irradiation +chemicals ) is timely.The US National Academy of Science states that such mutagenesis causes more alteration to the genes than the GM technology and that food plants developed that way should be safety checked like GM plants - google "GM Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may".That organic food and bodies like MADGE ignore this science and fail to consider the safety of Rio Red and other mutagenics shows they have another agenda . It is time they came clean.
NASAA is putting organic certified labels on some GMO foods and it is time that they stopped . Some 2000 food plants have been developed by mutagenesis – many are used here . That process uses irradiation ( gamma & x-rays) together with chemicals to produce mutants which form the breeding base . It does more harm to the genome than the transgenic technique - google " GM Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes" and "Why are Mutagenesis and Cell Fusion Acceptable". NASAA would know that no mutagenic GMO has ever been safety checked.
I have checked and found Helen to be absolutely right about non-GM canola being a GMO developed by mutagenesis.. My organic canola oil is going on to the garden now and I will not be getting anymore of it . It is worrying that organic farming bodies and bodies like the Safe Food Foundation do not seem to want to let people know about food GMOs that are developed using mutagenesis and I have just read that there are thousands of them out there . Can someone make a list of them ?
wtf, the survival of a species that has an 85% death rate due to cancer is easily explicable . It occurs because the animals reproduce before the cancer kills them - they can produce many litters . Terminal cancer will only wipe out a species if it strikes before the animals have the capacity to reproduce.
You seem Alice to be unduly worried about health problems with GM food. The studies done when looked at collectively show that harm from GM foods is no greater than from their non-gm counterparts. Scaremongers say untruthfully that only Monsanto has done the studies - there have been plenty of independent studies. You could look at it this way. Some 3 trillion human meals have been made with GM foods and no reports of harm have appeared. By contrast, produce from organic farms caused the German
E. coli 0157 outbreak ( 59 deaths, 4000 sick) and the recent US hepatitis A outbreak.
amicus curiae - you write that " Organic means NO GM content " .
This is what organic means to you ! - but not to most of the world's organic farmers. For example , in the European Union countries up to 0.9% of accidental GM material is permitted in organic farming systems and the organic farmers are happy that their produce is okay .
In this country It's time to start taking into account the needs of most farmers by adopting the definition of organic that is widely acceptable elsewhere.
Hi Darwin , I'm afraid you have misread my comment . I did not write or infer that there is a problem with the current temperature of the earth . I have no reason to believe that to be the case.
Max, finally nico has smoked you out - you reckon it is a great international conspiracy! Readers will now see your comments in their true perspective. No evidence is needed for one to go for a conspiracy theory and bluster can continue when one has no back-up evidence to support a statement.
Oh Max! All of your bluster just because you are unable to produce a back-up reference for your comment. Take it easy - nobody cares.
hi Bushie - the only point I want to make here is that claims that global warming has ceased are wrong . As long as global sea level continues to rise , as it has continued to do over the last 18 years , there must be global warming going on - no alternative explanation exists. Climate scientists are active in studying where in the ocean the extra heat is going - google "Mystery of Ocean Heat Deepens as Climate Changes".
Writers like like Benson, FB, Max & Mick can best be described as yesterday’s men -- unable to accept up- to- date data showing unequivocally that the planet is warming , Perhaps their political baggage places scientific constraints on them . Atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 continuously increases because CO2 production rate exceeds the capacity of the planet to handle it despite some increase in plant growth . The continuous and smooth global sea level rise (2mm /yr) due ocean expansion & glacial melt shows the warming effect -
see Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC)
hi Max - as many readers would have expected you continue to dodge the sea level issue . You know you can't fit the sea level info your current concept of global climate change and its bases . Hence you ignore and dodge the issue .
hi FB - I provided the google reference to sea level data in my earlier posts . Hence I cannot understand why you are asking me to provide it , I am giving it again - ' Sea-level Rise " CSIRO & ACECRC . Many readers would like you to think about this sea level info and write how you accommodate it with your scepticism on climate change.
Your partner was spot on Kath. Those here who are certain that anthropogenic CO2 does not contribute to global warming cannot present any evidence to support that stand. Dirty Old Redneck is a good example of this. In his comment he just dodges this issue and presents twaddle. His approach and that of his like-minded is a dogmatic approach not a scientific approach where dogma is defined as "an authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it".