Posts by dyan campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
but what happens if the iron you dump in the ocean acts as a heat-sink and cools currents, even slightly - that thermal conveyor belt about the planet is kinda crucial in myriad ways...
Exactly Ian.
-
"anyone who says they can predict the consequences of GM is either stupid or lying"
I am really struggling to understand your point here Dyan.That's not my quote Bart, it's David Suzuki's quote. And I think his point is pretty evident in his statement. I've used that quote and attributed it to him twice in this discussion. Take it up with him.
Dyan, did you link to that NRC fact sheet to shore up your point about cellphone towers? Because that's about ionising radiation, not the non-ionising sort that cellphone towers emit. There's a big difference.
I am aware that the first knocks an electron clear off an atom or molecule and the second does not. I once had a fascinating conversation with Linus Pauling about how little we really know about radiation, and how wrong the early - and many of the subsequent - assumptions turned out to be. And I am aware that any and all radiation - not necessarily ionising or mutagenic radiation, but even radiation from nature - is likely to have effects not yet known, much less catalogued. These may have been happening all around us for generations (like the example of blood pressure and slavery or aged fatherhood and sex-linked genetic diseases) but we do not know what it is we are seeing until we look for it, working backwards.
And - I'm quoting myself here -
I don't object to the application of this technology - cell phone towers - but I do object to people with a science background working in that field concluding for all other fields that they have this subject understood, defined and labeled.
Thalidomide and circadian rhythms, aged fatherhood and sex-linked genetic disorders, the omentem, cytokines and diseases we didn't know we could create in our bodies by disrupting that particular metabolic process - these are all examples of infinitesimally small causes that have previously unrecognised, massive effects.
We don't know what we don't know. Bart, how are you more qualified than David Suzuki to accurately gage the risks of all GE on the environment? He's a guy who knows a lot about genetics - you would have studied what he discovered - and he is deeply unsure what would affect what. For instance, he's not keen on the idea of releasing salmon into the wild that grow 3x faster than normal salmon, because he has some idea that will disrupt something we don't recognise even exists. It may have terrible consequences for the forests, for all we know, because, as it turns out, the forests and the salmon (and the bears and the flies) all depend on one another for their existence.
Where David Suzuki and I both hail there are much wider ecosystems to consider, and more of these incredibly unlikely relationships have been carefully mapped out. And the incredibly unlikeliness of the relationships between organisms - and their waste - and their apparently unrelated neighbours - has anyone who knows anything about these subjects quite alarmed at the prospect that there are ignoramuses out there who presume to know more than their own tiny little avenue of research.
-
but the evidence is mounting that low-dose exposure to cellphone signals is not carcinogenic.
A carcinogenic effect is only one facet of the damage radiation does. Some of us would like to know the effects on epigenetics, endocrinology and neurobiological development. Not all of us are paediatric oncologists... there are a few other points of view to consider before we call this "known".
I don't object to the application of this technology - cell phone towers - but I do object to people with a science background working in that field concluding for all other fields that they have this subject understood, defined and labeled. We don't know what we don't know yet - nor will we know this for a long time. Who could predict that slavery centuries ago would affect blood pressure in the 21st C? Who knew prosperity and the plentiful availability of food would have a deleterious effect on the maternal grandchildren of the nutritionally deficient? We figure these things out in hindsight.
As I say, I have no problem with cell phone towers, but I do have a problem with people who say a study like this concludes anything about public health in general.
US Regulatory Commission Fact Sheet on the effects of radiation
.The likelihood of cancer occurring after radiation exposure is about five times greater than a genetic effect (e.g., increased still births, congenital abnormalities, infant mortality, childhood mortality, and decreased birth weight). Genetic effects are the result of a mutation produced in the reproductive cells of an exposed individual that are passed on to their offspring.
These effects may appear in the exposed person's direct offspring, or may appear several generations later, depending on whether the altered genes are dominant or recessive.
-
And it wouldn't be so bad if the presumption of bias were applied to all parties in the discussion. You hardly ever see anyone point out that organic farmers have a financial interest in seeing GM banned.
Bart, not one person I've ever met (or read for that matter) who objects to the application of this technology in the environment is an organic farmer - most of them are scientists - really highly qualified ones.
And of course there are people who object to gene sequences - in medicine or food - being patented, but are not bothered by the application.
Also there are people who think that some sequences are best patented to protect them from exploitation by those with vested interests one way or the other.
I could go on with descriptions of who people who have a right to an opinion as to the application of this technology, but if you think about it absolutely everyone has a right to an opinion as to the application of this technology.
The science is neutral, but the application to technology affects us all.
-
But you also have to accept that it is both frustrating and somewhat insulting to be accused of bias.
Bart, no one is accusing you of bias. I was quoting from Lewis Wolpert's book that "science produces ideas and technology produces products".
I think it's also a symptom of people being educated in either the arts or science, with little crossover in between.
This may be evidence of poor education in general, but I have never met an actual scientist that was not incredibly well informed in many different subjects.
I have met several people working with technology who mistakenly considered themselves "scientists" who could afford to do a bit more reading in areas other than their own specialised, applied research.
But I have never met a scientist that thought we could possibly calculate the risk of introducing something novel into the ecosystem. As David Suzuki says (and he's a scientist - you would have studied his work as well as Lewis Wolpert's) "anyone who says they can predict the consequences of GM is either stupid or lying",
In physiology for instance - can you predict how any of the nutritional changes in GM products will affect the metabolisation of that food? Can a "scientist" working in GM on an agricultural product really understand the mechanisms of epigenetics? Of endocrinology? Of reproductive biology? Developmental biology? Bacteriology? Virology? Neurobiology? And what of effects on pathways we do not yet know exist?
Only a few years ago endocrinologists thought leptin explained a lot, but when did they know of ghrelin, adiponectin or preopiomelanomelacortin? Leptin is only one small part of that particular pathway. And that's only part of one tiny pathway in a system with an incalculable number of large pathways.
A "scientist" - and by "scientist" I mean someone with a background in science who works in the field of technology, thinking mistakenly they are a "real scientist" - is no more qualified to discuss the issues that arise from GM than anyone else with a decent education. And someone who is only educated in their miniscule field can not honestly claim to understand the impact their product will have on the environment.
-
If you can't work for the government, and you can't work for commercial interests, without being accused of being a pawn of either, then who can scientists work for without having to fend off presumptions of bias?
In both cases you are describing professionals with a scientific background working in the field of technology rather than scientists. Understand the particular job description and your relationship to your employer and there is no presumption of bias to fend off.
-
-
How could I miss THIS? David Slack come back and write for us...
I mean, thanks for all the writing, it's been great. Greetings from Paul as well.
-
Er, this is sarcasm, right? Because Oppenheimer built the atomic bomb.
Well, not by himself.
@Dyan Campbell
I happen to have met Lewis Wolpert and worked with and for two of his ex PhD students in fact. He would not disagree with anything I wrote in my previous post.Aw, big whoop. I've got a picture of myself he took of me at his talk... he's one of my dearest friends - I don't have to buy his books 'cause he sends 'em to me... AND he told me I reminded him tremendously of Richard Feynman. Plus he wanted introduce me to Watson and Crick - Dawkins,... everyone... but I never go to England, so... rats.
I'll resist the urge to say "so there" but only because I'm 53 so it's unbecoming and besides I wasn't disagreeing with you in the first place. I think you meant Bart.
What I was saying, is, Lewis would point out that GE as applied to agriculture... or anything for that matter... is not science but technology. It's pretty much the whole theme of the Unnatural Nature of Science.
And my point is, why do we as consumers have to embrace every part of technology as if it were some kind of double-dog-dare? And why should consumers who overwhelmingly don't want a product have that product foisted on them? Whether it does harm or not?
The argument that it's to "feed the poor" is offensive. I don't see OXFAM clamoring for the use of GE, do you? During the worst famines, huge quantities of food is destroyed... because markets collapse. Is GE good for developing countries? Because again, their farmers are really not clamoring for this product.
The patenting of food genes is terrifying because it is a commercial venture.
And the assumption that those wishing to apply any GE technology in a cavalier way, thinking we can predict much in nature is... silly. You can predict specific results for specific conditions. But you haven't really got a clue what the bears have to do with the flies, so to speak. A lot of things depend on a lot of things. It's a web of life, not a sequence of life.
-
So all those who claim the process of moving genes from one species to another is unnatural, you are unfortunately displaying
Peter, I couldn't find the quote where someone said GE was unnatural, but if you're referring to Lewis Wolpert's book, The Unnatural Nature of Science you must realise you'd have learned his research in school. He's
Lewis Wolpert is Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology of University College, London. His research interests are in the mechanisms involved in the development of the embryo. He was originally trained as a civil engineer in South Africa but changed to research in cell biology at King's College, London in 1955. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999. He has presented science on both radio and TV for five years, was Chairman of the Committee for the Public Understanding of Science.
I'm not complaining about the science. I'm complaining that the technology is being applied to a product that people don't necessarily want to purchase, yet it's being foisted on them all the same. There is a big difference between science and technology.