Posted on 08/22/2019 9:47:46 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
The wild chestnuts around this leafy college town used to grow in such great numbers that locals collected the nuts by the bushel and shipped them off to New York City for a small fortune.
These days, though, it can be hard to find a single tree thanks to a devastating blight imported from Asia in the late 1800s.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I'm sorry, but no they are not. Look up "golden rice".
"Plants have many natural defenses and have those same chemicals in their fruit and fiber, we have introduced new chemicals that we may or may not be able to process internally and yes Monsanto is the largest of the companies to do so.
And many plants already have chemicals "we can't process" that occur naturally. They're called "toxic", or "carcinogenic". There are no "new" chemicals (as in "unknown to science") that result from the GMO process.
And what, precisely, does the size of Monsanto have to do with anything??
"Roundup may be harmless or it may be a real killer... "
Roundup has nothing whatsoever to do with GMO. It isn't produced as a result of gene splicing. It's produced in a chemical plant by standard chemical engineering production processes.
"I would choose to not be a guinea pig... IF I was given the choice..."
At what point does the amount of scientific proof of harmlessness overcome your desire "not to be a guinea pig"??? There is simply no evidence of harmful effect, and much evidence of benefit to be gained. When does scientific proof finally outweigh propagandistic speculation??
The green fanatic propagandists have used the exact same "it might produce something toxic" ("unique radiolytic products) to largely prevent the use of food irradiation, yet the chemistry that happens as a result of irradiation is known to science, both in mechanism and end result.
In both cases, the actual evidence of harmful effect is zero.
*** “When does scientific proof finally outweigh propagandistic speculation??” ***
When you agree with me?
Unless and until the scientific evidence changes, that ain't gonna happen.
You are so convinced that you’re right about all this that you refuse to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
Hubris. Scientists and churchmen.
Which comment shows you know zip about science and scientists. One of THE hardest parts of the "science job" is the constant consideration that "you might be wrong", especially when considering your own work. BUT we are specifically trained to do exactly that.
When 100% of the available data says one thing and one thing only, the likelihood is that the position the data supports is right. Not 100% likelihood...never, ever 100%, but certainly in the 99.9% range.
You have yet to show ONE SINGLE VALIDATED FACT that supports your position. Come back when you have at least one datum to support your case.
Well bless your heart. I'm just a stupid engineer. I work with scientists every day. Your arrogance mirrors that of the a$$holes that I deal with on a daily basis.
Enjoy the rest of your days shilling for monsanto, einstein.
I have been working for 25 years to help develop an “all American” chestnut from the existing blight resistant trees scattered around the country. The Plant Pathology department of Virginia Tech is lead on the efforts
I have 15 or so American Chestnut trees some of which bear nuts.
For info:
Hey WW. I really appreciate you sticking to your guns and arguing your side of this interesting issue.
While it is true that the left has surmounted the walls of academia for 80 years and much of what used to pass for science is propagandized, not all of it is so altered.
I have reservations and uneasiness about genetically modified life in general but it is interesting to see your point in crop development and related areas.
"If" you are an engineer, it is probably of the Sanitation Engineer variety, and the only contact you have with scientists is to empty their wastebaskets.
I repeat....show me ONE, just ONE piece of hard scientific evidence to back your position. Any REAL engineer knows how to prove his point.....with hard facts.
Thus far, I have yet to see an argument. One side has facts, the other has none. At some point, the weight of evidence has to overcome "reservations and uneasiness". There is nothing wrong with having reservations, but laws need to be based on hard facts, and currently they are not....just "feelings".
There are literally thousands of examples of “scientists” falsifying data in order to “prove” their thesis.
I’m sure a smart guy like you already knows that.
Spend five minutes looking at retractionwatch.
And just so you know... your insults mean as much to me as two squirts of sh!t from a pig’s @SS. They aren’t even clever. My four year old granddaughter can do better. lol
I didn't start the insults...you did. And insults are apparently the only thing you have, as you have certainly presented zero data to back up your assertions.
Grow up!
I opined that you must work for monsanto. You took offense.
Grow a set!
Yeah, that was your first insult. And you haven't stopped since. Try FACTS, they actually work.
You’re talking in circles, two-squirts.
You’re butthurt because I said you must work for monsanto, yet you defend their “science” as if it were gospel.
So you mean Rachel Carson didn’t limit her murder spree to hundreds of millions of humans?
LOL, I was embarrassed and I didn’t even want to re-enter this thread because I so completely missed in my hurried posting that it was the Chestnut Tree, and not the Elm (causing some, er...justified angst) but...yes.
The misery and death Rachel Carson has caused millions of people both here and abroad with her ideological enviromental-nazi role in the banning DDT makes the loss of many remaining Elm trees pale in comparison, but yes...her impact goes even beyond her negative impact on millions of people world wide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.