Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The new fund is good news, heck any new funding for science is good news, but the devil will be in the details. Sorry for being cynical but...
The suggestion is that industry will have to be equal partners, what happens if they don't come up with equal money? Does that mean money will only go into research where there is a willing established industry? If that's the case then it's likely only late developmental stage research will be funded since that's really the only research industry is willing to fund.
Who will administer the fund?
If it's The Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) then we are likely to see yet another growth in the size of the FRST administration. And FRST have had a philosophy that they can pick which research will give the greatest economic benefit. Historically, directed funding like that is good for late stage development of products, but it fails miserably at generating new innovations and discoveries that can make large changes economically and socially.If you compare FRST to Marsden, the Marsden fund is administered by the Royal Society of NZ and funding almost completely based on science quality as determined by peer review. FRST "targets" funding to ensure greatest benefit to NZ and has almost abandoned peer review. However the research funded by Marsden is much more successful at generating scientific publications than FRST research and also more successful at generating patents! For the lay reader, research that generates patents is usually the research that allows new companies to be formed and gets new products developed.
So the question of who administers the fund is a very important one for the eventual success. My opinion is that any funding that is not seriously peer reviewed is less likely to result in real innovation and hence less likely to really benefit NZ.
I think the greatest benefit to NZ will come from funding the very best quality science.
Personally I'd rather see a $700 million fund simply given to the Royal Society and tell them to fund more Marsden research. If you want to do any targeting maybe tell them that plants and animals are important to NZ, but even then I'd rather see world class materials science or maths research funded than average plant science - and I work on plants!
But while I'd rather see more money go to Marsden this is better than what we had last week.
cheers
Bart -
Mikaere
The old I-don't-have-kids card only works if said kids are brought up to lead a life of ignorant (and/or wilful) consumerism, as opposed to making choices that promote sustainability.
Last post on this from me.
You characterised my eating of Tuna as something environmentally unsound. Yet you know nothing of my life nor my care for the environment.
Yes I have made the decision not to have children in part because I firmly believe that the single largest environmental disaster on this planet is too many human beings. No matter what kind of environmentally sound life your child leads they still have a massive impact on the planet. Do the math. But it's politically incorrect to suggest that having cute lovable babies is bad for the planet so it's never counted, fine by me.
As for pointing out that if you want to save the Tuna then you ought to address the large issues before you deal with the small ones (stop the Japanese killing all the fish and you might have a chance). New Zealanders could stop eating Tuna tomorrow and it would make NO difference at all. You might feel good about the choice but it's irrelevant to the problem. Unless you believe that the stand made will influence the world to protect the Tuna, and who knows you might be right.
As for me, I'm comfortable with the impact I have on the planet and that will continue to include the occasional seared Tuna. On balance I'm happy I've done pretty well with my life choices and my consumer choices.
Damn that shouldn't have made me so grumpy. Sorry folks ended up venting.
Better eat my pizza now - or is that bad for the planet too...
cheers
Bart -
Cos if you are eating Pacific Bluefin, then you are voting them off the planet - one mouthful at a time.
Do you buy anything Japanese? Do you have children?
The Japanese eat 90% of the worlds Tuna, support their economy and you support their fishing industry as well. Sure my Tuna eating contributes but ya know I've done my bit for the planet by not having children (see second question). I figure on balance I'm so far ahead of most folks by that one simple act that I can afford to lose a little Karma by eating some Tuna.
Sorry got a little pissed off at the self-righteous tone and couldn't really see what I'd said to deserve it.
have a great BBQ Russ
cheers
Bart -
Mmmmm Tuna
-
You're quite right Don. there clearly was NOT a patent on the formulation. Patents are public knowledge that is the whole point of a patent. What is was, was a trade secret. Jeez given the number of companies that sell Bt based insecticides you'd think they could have found one that made its formulation public.
big difference in the toxicity of pesticides between the time of application and the time of consumption
The term is withholding period. Heck you can find it on any pesticide/fungicide you buy at the garden centre. For Bt the withholding period should be 0 days unless the wetting agent or something else in the formulation is of risk. Seriously you can eat the stuff - heck you have eaten it.
most produce gets washed at the packing plants.
Which is a damn shame since it has a much chance of doing harm as good. Water on the surface of produce is terrible for its storage.
I have some sympathy for MAF. They were in a rush to try and control this pest and were trying hard to do the right thing at the time. They had to deal with the science involved and the commercial issues and the safety issues. And in all that they forgot to deal with the public concern. I think they could have done better but I don't think for a second they were doing anything other than what they believed was the best they could do for NZ.
cheers
Bart -
Illness caused by fear of spray- I can believe in that!
Absolutely. Heck witchdoctors kill folks using exactly that principle.
cheers
Bart (I'm sure I'm me now) -
It's Ok
Brent and Bart are almost exactly the same, starts with a B ends with a T has an R in it - ah close enough.
Our friends frequently call us by each others names :).
cheers
Brent no Bart no....arrggh -
Regarding "What's in the spray?"
One reason that the formulation is "commercially sensitive" is that spray formulations that use Bt are very common and all pretty much exactly the same in effectiveness. So the only way the company can differentiate its product as "better" is to have some secret ingredient, typically something utterly irrelevant to the activity and cheap eg chalk. In short I'd bet that far from the company hiding something dangerous they are hiding the fact that their spray could have been bought at half the price from some other supplier with exactly the same ingredients.
I don't doubt that some folks actually reacted to something in the spray formulation. Basically humans are diverse enough that if you spray enough people with anything someone will react to it.
What I will say is that the active insecticide, Bt, is a bacterium. Spray formulations are made by growing cultures of this bacterium in growth medium of some kind and then usually drying the bacterial soup down. This gives a powder made up of bacterial spores and leftover growth media. The growth media should be harmless.
The bacteria is also harmless as far as anyone can tell. Two parts to that statement:
First it's been tested very thoroughly and it is the active ingredient in almost every organic pesticide. If you eat organically farmed crops you will be eating Bt. And enough folks have eaten such food without harm to be pretty confident about it's safety. But feel free to start a campaign against organic food if you doubt the safety :).
The second part is that the bacteria kills insects (only a very narrow range of insects, not bees) because a protein made by the bacteria is broken down in the insect gut to release a smaller protein that binds to specific cells in the insect gut and causes those cells to become leaky and the insect dies. The receptors in those cells that bind the Bt toxin are not present in anything other than insects. In other words Bt toxin is not toxic unless you are an insect.
That's why the organic farmers love Bt as a spray and that's why it's universally supported.
My guess as to what folks are reacting to is it's probably some wetting agent (detergent) or something in the growth media used to grow the bacteria. Such growth medias are usually fairly undefined mixtures "Yeast Extract" for example is a typical media additive, similar to dried down Marmite. Marmite is pretty damn safe but I bet if we sprayed Auckland with Marmite someone would react. probably an evil Vegemite eater.
But it could be more complex and different people could be reacting to different compounds. Or people could react only if they've just been exposed to something else as well. I doubt anyone will ever be able to figure out exactly what the cause of every reaction is.
However, I think MAF could have done better and I think the media could have done better and I think the protesters could have done better. Hmmm guess they are all probably human then.
cheers
Bart -
Do NOT go to the toysinmotion web site if you occupy a shard office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
As you say, the All Blacks have played better. But there simply has never been a test half where one side has been so overwhelmingly dominant in all measures and yet somehow failed to procure a single penalty.
I'm sorry but I watched that game too. Yes our forwards played well and the lineout was great.
BUT
The backline was hopeless. Nobody in that backline had any clue what to do. They were each individually very talented but they had no fluidity and no cohesion. As a result they were simply not able to penetrate.
To me the backline in particular did not play like a team. That kind of teamwork only comes from practice, and in particular practice together and in particular practice together in real games.
Mr Henry chose not to play a consistent backline. It was a big call and the consequence was in that game (where yes the ref sucked, and yes the French played better than expected) the ABs played poorly.
And afterwards Mr Henry said he wouldn't have changed a thing?
If he had said
"we tried a new approach, that works well in other sports, but it clearly didn't work for us"
then I would happily have him for another 4 years.cheers
Bart