Frankenfoods Propagandists: Rogue's Gallery
Chive Mynde
Who's Spinning the Pro-GM Story?
From http://www.gmfoodnews.com/
Other pages -> Genetically Modified Food - UK and World News
People who promote GM food and/or denigrate Organic food
Avery, Alex (aav...@rica.net)
Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues
Son of Dennis Avery
Author of : The Organic Food Industry: Smearing The Competition - A paper
published (13 March 2000) on The Biotechnology Knowledge Center which
attempts to perpetuate the E.Coli contamination myth. For more information
about this myth see The myth of E.coli / Faecal Contamination in Organic
food.
Avery, Dennis (cg...@rica.net)
Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues
Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health
Author of :
Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic - The Environmental Triumph of
High-Yield Farming
The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food - Published (Fall 1998) on the Hudson
Institute website which tries to perpetuate the E.Coli contamination myth.
Another Dubious Link Between Pesticides and Cancer - Another article which
tries to perpetuate the E.Coli myth.
The Silent Killer in Organic Foods - Another article which tries to
perpetuate the E.Coli myth.
Cited in :
Fearing Food: Risk, Health and Environment, by Roger Bate and Julian Morris
Bate, Roger (rb...@iea.org.uk)
Institute of Economic Affairs
Executive Director, European Science and Environment Forum
Presenter of the BBC2 program Organic Food: The Modern Myth
Joint author, with Julian Morris of Fearing Food: Risk, Health and
Environment. The IEA website describes the book in the following way : "In
the latest ESEF book, Fearing Food, new agricultural and food technologies,
including genetic engineering, are shown to be generally beneficial both to
health and to the environment."
This book is also mentioned in an IEA Press Release (16 August 1999) which
includes phrases such as "Londoners demand regulation of potentially deadly
organic food". The Press Release is based on a misleading survey by the IEA
of only 121 people which used the phrase "carbon-based biological
technologies" instead of "organic" : "Farmers in EU and USA are adopting
carbon-based biological technologies to make novel foods to be sold at
premium prices in niche markets. Some proponents of these technologies are
demanding government subsidies to expand the areas cultivated under these
techniques claiming environmental benefits and better tasting foods."
Caton, Greg (ca...@ifu.net)
Owner of Lumen Foods, whose website hosts pro-GM articles by Dennis Avery
and Michael Fumento of the Hudson Institute.
Conko, Gregory (co...@cei.org)
Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Joint author, with Henry I. Miller of :
Cloudy horizons in a brave new world - An article on the European Science
and Economic Forum website which suggests that concerns about the safety of
GM food are only because of "trade protectionism" and "anti-science
fearmongering". Miller and Conko argue against the adoption of the
precautionary principle, which would insist on safety testing of GM foods
before they are released, on the grounds that "This erects an almost
insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved
totally safe - at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology
extremists.".
For Conko and Miller, it seems that bringing a product to market quickly is
more important than ensuring the safety of that product.
Quoted in Developing World Scientists Condemn Anti-Biotech Chefs (10 April
2000) on the CEI website. This press release also includes a quote from C.S.
Prakash.
DeGregori, Thomas R. (trde...@uh.edu)
Institute of Economic Affairs
American Council on Science and Health
Author of :
Can Organic Agriculture Feed the World? - An article published (16 July
1999) on drkoop.com which begins "Romantic notions about the environment and
technology are harmful, for their implementation can lower quality of life
and worsen the problems implementation was meant to solve." and concludes
incorrectly : "Organic agriculture does not pass the first test of
sustainability: It cannot sustain the existing population of the world."
Genetically Modified Nonsense - An article published on the Institute of
Economic Affairs website which includes sentiments such as : "It is ironic
that in seeking to prohibit genetic engineering, the environmentalist would
inhibit the process of creating more disease-resistant varieties of crops
that would facilitate their being grown with fewer pesticides.". In fact,
Genetically Modified crops in many cases require more pesticides than their
conventional or organic equivalents.
Dunwell, Jim (J.M.D...@reading.ac.uk)
Advisor to CropGen
Author of :
Is transgenic food dangerous? A personal view. Focus on BiopesticidesPLUS.
Nov. 1-2
How to engineer a crop plant. Pesticide Outlook 9: 29-33
Novel food products from genetically modified crop plants: methods and
future prospects. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 33: 205-213
Transgenic crop plants: the next generation or an example of 2020 vision.
Ann. Bot. 84:269-277.
Transgenic approaches to crop improvement. J. Exp. Bot.
Feldbaum, Carl (cfel...@bio.org)
President of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation
Quoted in a Washington Post article (15 August 1999) which discussed
labelling of GM foods. He stated : "...a label would be seen as a stigma,
like a skull and crossbones."
Fumento, Michael (mich...@hudson.org)
Member of the Hudson Institute
Author of :
City slickers off target in pesticide report - an article published (15
December 1998) in the Idaho Statesman which criticises "...the
environmentalists' never-ending campaign against pesticides" and suggests
that if pesticides were banned that "...we'll all be forced to eat
expensive, ugly, shriveled-looking organic produce...".
Gonsalves, Dennis (dg...@cornell.edu)
Cornell University
Developer of Genetically Modified Papaya, which has never been through
independent food safety testing.
Halford, Nigel (nigel....@bbsrc.ac.uk)
IACR-Long Ashton Research Station, University of Bristol
Advisor to CropGen
Author of :
Dr Frankenstein I presume? BBSRC Business, January 1999.
Genetically Modified Crops. University of Bristol Newsletter, June 1999.
Genetically modified crops - what are they and why are they used. Mendip and
North Somerset Magazine.
Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public
concerns. British Medical Bulletin, 56, in press.
The great GM debate. Biological Sciences Review, in press.
Hillman, John (J.Hi...@scri.sari.ac.uk)
Director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI)
Board member of the BioIndustry Association
Author of an article in the SCRI annual report which suggests that organic
farming poses risks to human health. For more information see here.
Contributor to Fearing Food: Risk, Health and Environment, by Roger Bate and
Julian Morris
Klurfeld, David (dkl...@lifesci.wayne.edu)
Scientific Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)
Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Wayne
State University
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition
Editor of Nutrition News Focus - A publication which has included a series
of ten pro-GM articles (December 1999-February 2000).
Author of Organic Food: Food for Thought? - An article published (17
February 2000) on the ACSH website which attempts to build on the ABC News
20/20 program produced by John Stossel. This biased program tried to
perpetuate the myth of E.Coli contamination in Organic food.
Krebs, John (John....@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk)
Chairman of the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA)
Despite his supposedly independent role in the FSA, Sir John Krebs claimed
on the BBC Countryfile program that organic food is no safer or more
nutritious than conventionally grown food. See here for the BBC News report.
John Krebs chaired the OECD conference on GM food, held in Edinburgh during
29 February to 2 March 2000. At this conference only one scientist sceptical
of GM food was invited, Dr. Arpad Pusztai. For more information on John
Krebs, see the NGIN website.
Lutman, Peter (Peter....@bbsrc.ac.uk)
Advisor to CropGen
Helen Millar
Advisor to CropGen
Former member of the UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
(ACNFP).
Miller, Henry I (mil...@hoover.stanford.edu)
Senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution
Joint author, with Gregory Conko of :
Cloudy horizons in a brave new world - An article on the European Science
and Economic Forum website which suggests that concerns about the safety of
GM food are only because of "trade protectionism" and "anti-science
fearmongering". Miller and Conko argue against the adoption of the
precautionary principle, which would insist on safety testing of GM foods
before they are released, on the grounds that "This erects an almost
insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved
totally safe - at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology
extremists.". For these men, it seems that bringing a product to market
quickly is more important than ensuring the safety of that product.
Morris, Julian (jmo...@iea.org.uk)
Institute of Economic Affairs
Appeared on the BBC2 program Organic Food: The Modern Myth
Joint author, with Roger Bate, of Fearing Food: Risk, Health and Environment
Moses, Vivian (V.M...@qmw.ac.uk)
University College London
Advisor to CropGen
Author of :
From Cells to Sales: Competition, selection and evolution in the marketing
of products and services, in Bio/Technology
Exploiting biotechnology. London and New York: Harwood Academic Press
Biotechnology: the science and the business. London, New York and Chur:
Harwood Academic Press.
Mottley, John (J.Mo...@uel.ac.uk)
University of East London
Signatory to the Consumer Alert pro-GM petition.
Quoted as saying : "It might sound a bit Goebbelian, but we need to win the
war of words, as well as the science war, if the public are to be persuaded
to accept GMOs."
Munkvold, Gary (munk...@iastate.edu)
Iowa State University
Author of :
The good news about Bt corn - A piece published on the Information Systems
for Biotechnology News Report, December 1999. This article suggests that Bt
corn is safer because it contains fewer mycotoxins. He suggests that
mycotoxins (produced by fungi) are carried by the European Corn Borer. This
suggestion is repeated in his article Genetically modified insect resistant
corn : implications for disease management published on APSnet (Plant
Pathology Online).
Poppy, Guy
Institute of Arable Crop Research, University of Bristol
Advisor to CropGen
Prakash, C.S. (pra...@tusk.edu)
Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research, Tuskegee University
Member of USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology
Quoted in Developing World Scientists Condemn Anti-Biotech Chefs (10 April
2000) on the CEI website. This press release also includes a quote from
Gregory Conko.
Rowe, Sylvia
President and CEO of the International Food Information Council, which
opposes labelling of Genetically Modified Foods.
Slater, Howard
School of Pure & Applied Biology, University of Wales
Advisor to CropGen
His department received funding from Zeneca (now AstraZeneca) in 1997.
Stott, Philip (sto...@compuserve.com)
Institute of Economic Affairs
Author of :
Adapt or Perish - an article published on the European Science and
Environment Forum website (originally in the WSJ on 7 October 1999)
reviewing Fearing Food: Risk, Health and Environment by Roger Bate and
Julian Morris of the Institute of Economic Affairs
Smith, Frances B. (fbs...@consumeralert.org)
Executive Director, Consumer Alert
Trewavas, Anthony (trew...@ed.ac.uk)
Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh
Author of :
Is Organic Food Really Safe? - published on the Monsanto UK website. This
article attempts to continue the myths of E.Coli contamination and allegedly
higher levels of mycotoxin in Organic food.
See also the following articles on gmfoodnews.com for information about the
successful libel case brought by Greenpeace against the Glasgow Herald,
which published a letter by Anthony Trewavas :
2 November 2001 - More on Anthony Trewavas and the Glasgow Herald (Private
Eye)
11 October 2001 - Pro-GM Royal Society Fellow named as source of libel case
allegations (ISIS)
6 October 2001 - Greenpeace victory over GM food claims (The Scotsman UK)
Trewavas is a fellow of the Royal Society and is recommended as a press
contact for stories relating to GM food and GM crops.
Tribe, David (d.t...@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au)
University of Melbourne, Department of Microbiology and Immunology
Waites, William (William...@nottingham.ac.uk)
University of Nottingham
Advisor to CropGen
Whelan, Elizabeth (whe...@acsh.org)
President of the American Council on Science and Health
Author of :
Toxic Terror : The Truth Behind the Cancer Scares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organisations which promote GM food and/or denigrate Organic food
American Council on Science and Health
Describes itself as a "consumer education consortium concerned with issues
related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the
environment and health."
Published the articles :
Consumers Should Dismiss Fearmongering About Genetically Engineered Foods -
Includes comments from Ruth Kava and Elizabeth Whelan.
Organic Food : Food for Thought?, by David Klurfeld, which attempts to
perpetuate the faecal contamination myth.
'Organic' Foods: Feeding the Frenzy, by Marilynn Larkin.
'Organic' Hype Comes Naturally to Swissair, by Jack Raso and Simona Kwon
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Mission : "The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) represents
biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers
and related organizations throughout the United States and in many other
countries."
Headed by Carl Feldbaum.
Members include :
AstraZeneca
AgrEvo
Monsanto
Novartis
BioIndustry Association
Mission : "Encouraging and promoting the biotechnology sector of the UK
economy."
Includes John Hillman on its board of directors.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Mission : "Advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited
government"
Staff includes Gregory Conko. Directors include members of the Hoover
Institution and Consumer Alert
Consumer Alert
Consumer Alert website includes articles by Henry I. Miller, Michael Fumento
and Frances B. Smith.
Published a "declaration of support" for agricultural biotechnology signed
by over 600 scientists including signatories from Monsanto (67 individuals),
Pioneer Hibred (22 individuals), Dow (21 individuals) and Amercian Council
on Science and Health (2 individuals)
CropGen
Mission : "CropGen's mission is to make the case for GM crops by helping to
achieve a greater measure of realism and better balance in the UK public
debate about crop biotechnology.
While ultimately funded by industry, CropGen's panel members are free to
express such views as they consider appropriate. The funding companies
cannot veto the panel's position on any issue."
These are the panel members of CropGen :
1 Vivian Moses - Biotechnology
2 Jim Dunwell - Plant Science
3 Nigel Halford - Plant Science
4 Peter Lutman - Plant Science
5 Helen Millar - Consumer Affairs
6 Guy Poppy - Ecology
7 Howard Slater - Microbiology
8 Will Waites - Food Microbiology
European Science and Environment Forum
Mission : "...to ensure that environmental debates are properly aired, and
that decisions which are taken, and action that is proposed, are founded on
sound scientific principles."
Includes in its Press Release section : "Hundreds of scientists appeal for
continued use of DDT to contain spread of malaria"
Food Standards Agency
Mission : "To protect public health from risks which may arise in connection
with the consumption of food, and otherwise to protect the interests of
consumers in relation to food."
A UK Government organisation, set up on 1 April 2000, chaired by GM advocate
Sir John Krebs.
Hoover Institution
Has published :
Global Food Fight by Henry I. Miller
Field of Genes - Genetically Modified Foods by Henry I. Miller, Walter
Anderson and Peggy Lemaux
Hudson Institute
Has published numerous articles by Dennis Avery and Michael Fumento
Funded by, amongst others :
AgrEvo
Dow AgroSciences
Monsanto Company
Novartis Crop Protection
Zeneca
Institute of Economic Affairs
Mission : "...to improve public understanding of the fundamental
institutions of a free society, with particular reference to the role of
markets in solving economic and social problems."
Personnel include Roger Bate and Julian Morris.
International Food Information Council
Mission : "...a nonprofit organization that communicates sound science-based
information on food safety and nutrition topics to health professionals,
journalists, government officials and consumers."
Includes an article titled What The Experts Say About Food Biotechnology on
its website (February 2000) stating "Foods from biotechnology are safe",
"Biotechnology offers benefits" and "Biotechnology has additional
supporters". This article includes quotes from Dennis Avery and Henry I.
Miller.
IFIC staff include :
Sylvia Rowe, President and CEO
David B. Schmidt, Senior Vice President
National Center for Public Policy Research
States on its website : "The environment is too important to leave in the
hands of political activists. Yet, this is precisely where the United States
has left most environmental decision-making in recent years. Political
activists -- not authentic environmental scholars, scientists and economists
-- have come to dominate both the headlines and Washington's legislative
agenda. Activists with little or no practical experience or scientific
training are frequently cited in the national news media as "experts" -- or
worse, as "scientists." The result: The federal government often spends
billions in taxpayer dollars regulating peoples' lives to solve questionable
environmental risks while ignoring real ones."
The truth is that the NCPPR's own "Environmental Policy Task Force" consists
of a list of 141 "real environmental scientists, economists and experts"
including Dennis Avery, Michael Fumento and Frances B. Smith. As can be seen
from the references to these people on this page, these members of the
pro-GM lobby people also have "little or no practical experience or
scientific training"...
National Consumer Coalition
Published (15 October 1999) the article World Food Day and Feeding the
World: The Threat Isn't Too Little Food; It's Too Much Government.
This article cites as NCC Food Group members :
Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Alex Avery, Hudson Institute
Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute
Ruth Kava, American Council on Science and Health
James Plummer, Consumer Alert
Novatero
Mission : "The NovaTero Foundation is a charitable not-for-profit
organization whose mission is to provide innovative scientific solutions to
meet priorty agricultural and medical needs in the Developing World through
the latest techiques of biochemistry and molecular biology"
An organisation trying to put a positive 'spin' on GM food by stating that
it's developing solutions for the developing world. In reality, GM foods are
not needed to solve world hunger and malnutrition. What's needed is the
political will and distribution mechanisms to get food to the people who
need it. This organisation includes a member of the Dow Chemical company on
its board.
Nutrition News Focus
Mission : "Now when nutrition news gets confusing, there IS a place to go to
get the real story.
Want to make sense of all the confusing nutrition news you're bombarded with
every day? Are you tired of hearing that some food is good for you on Monday
morning, only to hear that it's "poison" on Friday afternoon?"
Edited by David Klurfeld
Has published the following pro-GM articles :
8 Dec 1999 - Genetically Modified Food - Includes : "...the public needs to
get better educated about this issue. This is the object of the upcoming NNF
series."
15 Dec 1999 - What is a GM Food? - Includes : "Many GM foods have great
potential to reduce hunger and nutritional deficiencies around the world.
Just as indiscriminate adoption of this technology would be foolish,
complete opposition to this comes only from parts of the world that do not
worry about these problems."
22 Dec 1999 - GM Foods: Frankenstein Foods? - Includes : "The inadequate
response by authorities and the apparent attempt to cover up the link
between beef consumption and a form of fatal, neurologic disease has
generated tremendous mistrust that filters down to GM foods."
29 Dec 1999 - GM Hot Potatoes - Includes (criticising the study by Arpad
Pusztai) : "There are several fatal flaws in the design of the study. The
diet was severely protein deficient, containing one-third the usual amount;
this, by itself, was unacceptable. Although the authors talk about changes
in cell proliferation, they did not directly measure this, and the
measurements they made are very crude and subject to many artifacts. The
results are contradictory in different parts of the intestine, and may
simply represent normal responses to the potato starch."
5 Jan 2000 - Help, I'm Allergic to GM Foods! - Includes : "In the U.S., GM
crops such as corn and soybeans have been consumed by most people without
any harm.".
12 Jan 2000 - GM Foods are Everywhere - Includes : "You may not realize when
GM ingredients are in your food in the U.S. In Europe, there is legislation
to label such foods and that may greatly decrease the use of them because it
would mean having separate production lines for conventional and GM crops."
19 Jan 2000 - GM Foods: Butterflies are Free - Includes (criticising the
findings at Cornell University about Bt corn pollen killing Monarch
butterflies) : "Colleagues of the researchers at Cornell published a sharp
critique of the study in the September 1999 issue of Nature Biotechnology,
describing the original study as a preliminary lab experiment that had
little meaning for field conditions."
26 Jan 2000 - GM Crop Concerns - Includes : "There is natural resistance to
herbicides in some wild plants (that's how they survive spraying).
Scientists are debating the risk of such accidental crosses - most think the
risks have been greatly exaggerated but much more study is needed."
2 Feb 2000 - Will GM Food Just Make Companies Richer?" - Includes :
"Companies producing GM foods will get richer if the public accepts this
technology. Acceptance will result if the public is convinced that GM foods
pose no environmental danger. Acceptance will mean that nutrition should
improve and the environment should get cleaner when fewer chemicals are
used."
9 Feb 2000 - GM Food Attitudes - Cites a survey by the International Food
Information Council about GM food and labelling.
UK Government - GM Communications Unit
Mission : "This web site aims to provide you with an overview of Government
policy on GM crops and food, the development of biotechnology, and the use
of GM technology in human health issues."
This site shows that GM foods currently on sale in the UK have not been
through independent safety testing. Instead they are subject only to
"assessment", based on data provided by the manufacturer of the Genetically
Modified crop.
-
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Bob™
for this listing. This is an impressive list of highly qualified
scientists, and I feel much better about GM foods now. The
scare-tactics being used by anti-gm people are blowing this out of all
proportion, and I'm glad to see that responsible scientists are
speaking out in favor of GM foods.
Bob™
Bruce Burhans
"BobT" <bobs...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:c280e32c.02052...@posting.google.com...
> archive_...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
news:<d6ff33e3.02052...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
======================================================= Thank you
> for this listing. This is an impressive list of highly qualified
> scientists, and I feel much better about GM foods now. The
> scare-tactics being used by anti-gm people are blowing this out of all
> proportion, and I'm glad to see that responsible scientists are
> speaking out in favor of GM foods.
>
> BobT
The above statement has all the validity of a testimonial in an
infomercial.
Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence supporting your claim
that "responsible" scientists
support GM foods and irresposnible ones are against
them?
How do you define a "responsible" scientist? Or
an irresponsible one?
Or do you just mean that a "responsible" scientist is
one that tells you what you want to hear?
Your posting has about 1 1/10,000 of the credibility
that Chive's has...
Hot air, and no more than that..
Bruce<+>
Jim Webster
Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bhkG8.385$Pg....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> " > Hot air, and no more than that..
>
> Bruce<+>
and Bruce knows his hot air, one of the usenets leading suppliers
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
>
Paul Rogers
Paul R
Electric Walrus
Where does he say anything about irresponsible scientists?
Try reading before you respond.
--
electric walrus
Bruce Burhans
"Electric Walrus" <elfrijole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42ac4134.02052...@posting.google.com...
It's implied. Look it up. Get a grade-school education....
Bruce<+>
--
> electric walrus
>
blujuju
"Paul Rogers" <ecol...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3cea1fb1.127631832@news-server...
: You forgot Jukes and Borlaug . . . but perhaps my age is showing <g>.
Well, gawds! You were with Bad Company 30 years ago..
(I'm sure that joke's been played to death, but what the fuck? It's my first
time)
.b....
:
: Paul R
ant
"Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bhkG8.385$Pg....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> news:c280e32c.02052...@posting.google.com...
> > archive_...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
> news:<d6ff33e3.02052...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> [snip]
>
> ======================================================= Thank you
> > for this listing. This is an impressive list of highly qualified
> > scientists, and I feel much better about GM foods now. The
> > scare-tactics being used by anti-gm people are blowing this out of all
> > proportion, and I'm glad to see that responsible scientists are
> > speaking out in favor of GM foods.
> >
> > BobT
>
>
> The above statement has all the validity of a testimonial in an
> infomercial.
> Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence supporting your claim
> that "responsible" scientists
> support GM foods and irresposnible ones are against
> them?
> How do you define a "responsible" scientist? Or
> an irresponsible one?
it would appear that that decision is based on weather said scientist
supports the full scale unsupervised exploitation of transgenic food crops.
> Or do you just mean that a "responsible" scientist is
> one that tells you what you want to hear?
or one that parrots their corporate paymasters spin doctors latest gloss
ant
Bruce Burhans
"ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:GVRG8.1325$l62....@ozemail.com.au...
Yeh. It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent
people on this NG refuse to realize just how heavily in-
fluenced Science is by politics and economics.
The fact that Scientists can be found to validate
utterly juxtaposed views on almost any issue is a wee
fact that they just ignore.
Well said, Ant.
Bruce<+>
>
> ant
>
>
>
Electric Walrus
Implied? try reading what is there, not what isn't. It's simple logic.
--
electric walrus
Bruce Burhans
When am I going to learn that people who hide
behind stupid monickers and quote reams of posts before
making abbreviated responses that they *think* are
clever, are a total waste of time?
Take a hike, Fred.
The 9th Witch
"Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:229H8.581$AW3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Probably about the same time you learn to read without your add-a-word
glasses on.
T9W
Bruce Burhans
Sorry 9thBitch. Got your #. Be a cold day in America
before I download another of your useless postings.
(Useless to *me* . I'm sure they give you some relief
from your neurotic pressures)
Bruce<+>
Electric Walrus
Her posts are useless? You ever try reading what YOU write?
--
electric walrus
The 9th Witch
"Electric Walrus" <elfrijole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42ac4134.02052...@posting.google.com...
This is the fourth time he's told me this as well. Seems he's forgetful.
T9W
Bruce Burhans
"Electric Walrus" <elfrijole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42ac4134.02052...@posting.google.com...
Too bad that you are too stupid to realize that your
condemnation only raises my credibility in the eyes of
anyone intelligent and open-minded enough to benefit
from what I have to say.
Jim Webster
The 9th Witch <appalach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acn4l4$r9rtd$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de...
> This is the fourth time he's told me this as well. Seems he's
forgetful.
he's told me this a couple of times as well. I suspect he is just an
idiot
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> T9W
>
>
>
Oz
> Too bad that you are too stupid to realize that your
>condemnation only raises my credibility in the eyes of
>anyone intelligent and open-minded enough to benefit
>from what I have to say.
Oh that's hilarious!
Even better I think he believes it himself!
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
ant
not to mention the past abuses science and scientists have helped at least
temporarily in respectability, IIRC there were no shortage of scientists who
were willing to _prove_ hitlers deluded rantings about race. or how safe
tobacco smoke is, or the harmless nature of asbestos, leaded paints and
fuels, any industrial poison you can name.
another interesting bit of double think i have noticed in this group is the
number of people who claim that their preferd sources of opinion and theory
are in no way tainted by their funding sources yet at the same time decry
any scientist/theory with even a hint of green tinted funding as biased, if
the cash strings taint one they taint all IMO. a neat solution would be a
removal of corporate controle over research they fund, conglomerate _all_
corporate, state and private science funding into one big pool administered
by the scientists themselves and the comunity as a whole, with
representatives from industry, science, state, education and community
decideing how the funding is allocated, sort of a lucky dip, not all
research will be market oriented and not all will result in profits,
corporations the state and other funders can share the profits from any
successes based on their original percentage contributions to the funding
pot, it would never happen in the current world model, way to socialist.
ant
Oz
>
>not to mention the past abuses science and scientists have helped at least
>temporarily in respectability, IIRC there were no shortage of scientists who
>were willing to _prove_ hitlers deluded rantings about race.
I don;t think so. Sociology is hardly a science, even now.
>or how safe
>tobacco smoke is,
Not as soon as the trials were published.
>or the harmless nature of asbestos,
I don;t think so.
I can remember warnings in the 50's for blue asbestos in the (london)
geological museum.
>leaded paints and
>fuels,
Again, I don;t think so.
The danger of lead has been known for centuries, there is still a UK law
prohibiting using lead as a sweetener in beer.
>any industrial poison you can name.
>
>another interesting bit of double think i have noticed in this group is the
>number of people who claim that their preferd sources of opinion and theory
>are in no way tainted by their funding sources
Who are these people with funding sources you talk about?
>yet at the same time decry
>any scientist/theory with even a hint of green tinted funding as biased, if
>the cash strings taint one they taint all IMO. a neat solution would be a
>removal of corporate controle over research they fund, conglomerate _all_
>corporate, state and private science funding into one big pool administered
>by the scientists themselves and the comunity as a whole, with
>representatives from industry, science, state, education and community
>decideing how the funding is allocated, sort of a lucky dip, not all
>research will be market oriented and not all will result in profits,
>corporations the state and other funders can share the profits from any
>successes based on their original percentage contributions to the funding
>pot, it would never happen in the current world model, way to socialist.
There are procedures for corporates funding independant research.
They work very well.
Bruce Burhans
"ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
What you have failed to take into account, is that
in this culture the Corporations are *everything.*
Every single person in it makes their living by one
or both of the following, or is a dependent of someone
who does....
They work for a Corporation
Or a business that supplies or is dependent on a C.
They are invested in a Corporation
Pension funds, banks, insurance companies, personal
investment....
And everyone has a vested interest in keeping the
costs of Corporate goods and services down, and their
profits up, so that the Cs have money for charitable
donations and to expand into *their* community to make
jobs and pay municple taxes.
*Everyone* is a consumer of Corporate goods and
services and is therefore a critical part of the Corporations. No
consumers, no Corporations...
Even the government is really just a front organization for the
Corporations, because they create
all the wealth.
Communism has been tried, and it most surely does
not work any better than Capitalism.
No offense intended, and I like the way your mind
works, but you are still buying the illusion that this system
is a good one being mis-managed, when it is in fact,
rotten from its very foundations...
Bruce<+>
> ant
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dCSV9NEo...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> ant writes
> >
> >not to mention the past abuses science and scientists have helped at
least
> >temporarily in respectability, IIRC there were no shortage of scientists
who
> >were willing to _prove_ hitlers deluded rantings about race.
>
> I don;t think so. Sociology is hardly a science, even now.
>
That is not a logical response to what he said.
> >or how safe
> >tobacco smoke is,
>
> Not as soon as the trials were published.
>
Nor is that.
> >or the harmless nature of asbestos,
>
> I don;t think so.
> I can remember warnings in the 50's for blue asbestos in the (london)
> geological museum.
>
Nor that. We're on a roll here, as OZ in his desperation to disprove
the allegations of corruption
in the scientific world grasps at straws.
> >leaded paints and
> >fuels,
>
> Again, I don;t think so
"I don't think so" ? That's real scientific.....
.
> The danger of lead has been known for centuries, there is still a UK law
> prohibiting using lead as a sweetener in beer.
>
A lot of good that did the rest of the world, even if
one is stupid enough to believe that a law does away
with a crime......
> >any industrial poison you can name.
> >
> >another interesting bit of double think i have noticed in this group is
the
> >number of people who claim that their preferd sources of opinion and
theory
> >are in no way tainted by their funding sources
>
> Who are these people with funding sources you talk about?
>
Oh! We're supposed to take *your* word for
everything, but *we* have to come up with documentation?
> >yet at the same time decry
> >any scientist/theory with even a hint of green tinted funding as biased,
if
> >the cash strings taint one they taint all IMO. a neat solution would be a
> >removal of corporate controle over research they fund, conglomerate _all_
> >corporate, state and private science funding into one big pool
administered
> >by the scientists themselves and the comunity as a whole, with
> >representatives from industry, science, state, education and community
> >decideing how the funding is allocated, sort of a lucky dip, not all
> >research will be market oriented and not all will result in profits,
> >corporations the state and other funders can share the profits from any
> >successes based on their original percentage contributions to the funding
> >pot, it would never happen in the current world model, way to socialist.
>
> There are procedures for corporates funding independant research.
> They work very well.
>
> --
No they don't. You are either a fool or a liar.
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
You said it.....A fucking waste of time and bandwidth.
Fortunately your postings follow a very predictable
form, and a response can be ripped off in seconds,
neutralzation complete.
Bruce<+>
Gordon Couger
groups that have sci in their name try using facts. Anything else and we
will play with you until we get tired of it and ignore you.
Gordon
Jim Webster
> Oh! We're supposed to take *your* word for
> everything, but *we* have to come up with documentation?
>
going to come up with some evidence Bruce,
that will be a first.
Perhaps you could start by saying what you grow on your 1/10 of an acre,
sorry it was 1/20th of an acre according to the message quoted by Pan
Oz
>
>"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:dCSV9NEo...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> ant writes
>> >
>> >not to mention the past abuses science and scientists have helped at
>least
>> >temporarily in respectability, IIRC there were no shortage of scientists
>who
>> >were willing to _prove_ hitlers deluded rantings about race.
>>
>> I don;t think so. Sociology is hardly a science, even now.
>>
>
> That is not a logical response to what he said.
Eh? Sociologists are not scientists.
>> >or how safe
>> >tobacco smoke is,
>>
>> Not as soon as the trials were published.
>>
> Nor is that.
It certainly is.
You can't have a scientific view without scientific information.
Otherwise it's simply a viewpoint.
>> >or the harmless nature of asbestos,
>>
>> I don;t think so.
>> I can remember warnings in the 50's for blue asbestos in the (london)
>> geological museum.
>>
>
> Nor that. We're on a roll here, as OZ in his desperation to disprove
>the allegations of corruption
>in the scientific world grasps at straws.
Hardly. It's just I know science from opinion.
>> >leaded paints and
>> >fuels,
>>
>> Again, I don;t think so
>
> "I don't think so" ? That's real scientific.....
>.
>> The danger of lead has been known for centuries, there is still a UK law
>> prohibiting using lead as a sweetener in beer.
>
> A lot of good that did the rest of the world, even if
>one is stupid enough to believe that a law does away
>with a crime......
The point being that scientists did know, and laws got passed to limit
damage.
>> >any industrial poison you can name.
>> >
>> >another interesting bit of double think i have noticed in this group is
>the
>> >number of people who claim that their preferd sources of opinion and
>theory
>> >are in no way tainted by their funding sources
>>
>> Who are these people with funding sources you talk about?
>>
>
> Oh! We're supposed to take *your* word for
>everything, but *we* have to come up with documentation?
Who are these people with funding sources?
Simple enough question.
>> There are procedures for corporates funding independant research.
>> They work very well.
>
> No they don't. You are either a fool or a liar.
You are obviously unfamiliar with pesticide testing.
Actually your are pretty unfamiliar with anything to do with science,
now I think about it.
> Fortunately your postings follow a very predictable
>form, and a response can be ripped off in seconds,
>neutralzation complete.
Dream on.
--
Gordon Couger
open to the world. The big grain and cotton merchants that are private
operate with almost total anonymity.
Gordon
Bruce Burhans
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:k_lI8.31$5u5....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JEbI8.3196$J04....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
> open to the world. The big grain and cotton merchants that are private
> operate with almost total anonymity.
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
[snip]
Corporations have no morality. They're sole concern
is short-term survival and growth, regardless of the consequences to anyone
considered "not-them" and even
to their own long-term existence or health.
"Sin is its own punishment" as the old saying goes.
You reap what you sow.
And by "corporation" I mean *any* large business. If you want to quibble
about semantics, go elsewhere.
Bruce<+>
Parse Tree
>
> "Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> news:k_lI8.31$5u5....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:JEbI8.3196$J04....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
> > And what is so bad about a corporation? At least their books are some
what
> > open to the world. The big grain and cotton merchants that are private
> > operate with almost total anonymity.
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Corporations have no morality. They're sole concern
> is short-term survival and growth, regardless of the consequences to
anyone
> considered "not-them" and even
> to their own long-term existence or health.
> "Sin is its own punishment" as the old saying goes.
> You reap what you sow.
Their sole concern is to their share holders. It is a fault of humans that
they only desire short-term returns.
Bruce Burhans
"Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MhuI8.7060$mH5.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
that over 50% of all stocks and bonds are held by pen-
sion funds......
Bruce<+>
>
Gordon Couger
by profits and the governments by making sure that they win the next
election.
I corporations are bad what is a better alternative?
Gordon
Jim Webster
> Not all, but the majority, certainly. But don't forget
> that over 50% of all stocks and bonds are held by pen-
> sion funds......
>
so what, surely by your reckonning anyone who entrusts their money to a
corporation (and as you said "And by "corporation" I mean *any* large
business.") deserves to loose their money because as you again said
"Corporations have no morality" and to quote you again ""Sin is its own
punishment" as the old saying goes. You reap what you sow."
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
William Tucker
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
Employee owned businesses tend to be more thoughtful. Those
companies that have members of the working staff on their boards
of advisors or who are invited to the board meetings are more
thoughtful. There are corporations that limit the length of time
someone can be chairman. One of the weak points that businesses
have is that they don't always realize that community involvement
or support is to their benifit.
The most dangerous situations are where we are violating our
own environmental standards in other countries.
Or where the corporations have moved to other countries
with out dealing with the impact that that leaving has on the
home country...and the citizens of that country end up paying
for the medical/mental/unemployment issues that the corporation
dumps on the communities, through lack of communication and
because there isn't any thing constraining them to be responsible,
no one has visited that problem that I am aware of ....it is probably
solvable by methods other than large dollar amounts...money spent
in advance of a problem developing are usually in smaller amounts
than funds spent after a problem develops...
Co-ops are another alternative that can work well, many health
food stores started out that way or had that as an alternative....
Wm
> Gordon
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vpzI8.1596$K64...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Unfortunately, the IRS came down on a lot of the
real coops about 15 years ago, and now they aren't
actually coops at all, but buying clubs. *legally* they are
coops, but there's no real member participation...
Bruce<+>
> Wm
>
>
>
>
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Gordon Couger
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vpzI8.1596$K64...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Unfortuatly the US tax code makes it extreemly difficult for a business to
become employee owned. Time limits on the leadership is extreemly foolish.
Good leadership is hard to find. When you find it keep it. There is far too
much medeocer leadership paid as if they were top noch leadership.
>
> The most dangerous situations are where we are violating our
> own environmental standards in other countries.
> Or where the corporations have moved to other countries
> with out dealing with the impact that that leaving has on the
> home country...and the citizens of that country end up paying
> for the medical/mental/unemployment issues that the corporation
> dumps on the communities, through lack of communication and
> because there isn't any thing constraining them to be responsible,
> no one has visited that problem that I am aware of ....it is probably
> solvable by methods other than large dollar amounts...money spent
> in advance of a problem developing are usually in smaller amounts
> than funds spent after a problem develops...
I agree that big business does not have the local involvement that mom and
pop businesses had but mom and pop bussiness can't compete with big
business. A big store can make money on a 3% profit and turn the money 4
times a year. A small business can't turn enough money to make it work.
Being smaller their expenses per dollar sold are higher and their turn over
of capital is lower. So they end up having to have an 6 to 10% profit per
sale to stay in business.
If a company or indivigule is going to compete in a global economy with
nations with no ecoloical standards and low wages it has no choice but to
move some of it's operations to those countries or countries like them to
play on a level playing feild if they can't compete by using better
technolodgy and more capital investment.
The US has no textile industry any more. We cannot compete with India and
other low wage low beifit countries becaue we can't find a technological way
to compete. We have no garment or shoe industry to speak of because minimum
wage, child labor and sweat shop laws forced them out of business. It makes
our neighood look nicer but it just moves the problem some were else that is
glad to have the work.
The same is true with taxes. If your competeters are structured so they pay
less taxes and you are in a very competive market you have to move your
operation to a more tax freindly place. The goverment can only bleed a
business for so much money before it goes some where it can make more money.
The US is very bad about this they tax all a companies profit no matter
where it is made almost all other countries only tax the money that is made
inside its borderes.
It is an unfortuate fact when laws are passed that make it more expensive
for a company to operate they move to a more freindly envionment. With the
state of communications what they are today there is no reason that you
can't work world wide from home. One night I was woking with a fellow in New
Zealand and Egypt at the same time from Oklahoma. I had to stay up rather
late but everyone else was pretty close to working hours.
Tough envionment controls will work very well when they force all the
industries that cause the polution to contries with less strengint
requirments. Unfortunalty you loose your taxes and jobs those companies pay
for. Look at the US steel industry for an example they didn't move they just
closed up.
By making rules that improve local condition you just move the problem some
where out of sight. Generaly when the move they look for the least
restrictive place that they can so looking at it on a world wide basis the
rules probably made the situation worse insted of better.
There is a story about Phelps Dodge and Bruce Babbit when he was govener of
Arizona. Phelps Dodge wanted to build a copper smelter in Arizona with all
the most modern polution equipment. Babbit wouldn't let them. They built the
smelter accross the border in Mexico with no polution abatement equipment
and the wind blew the pollution into Arizona.
>
>
> Co-ops are another alternative that can work well, many health
> food stores started out that way or had that as an alternative....
>
I am a member of a number of farming related co ops almost without exception
they do worse in every regard than private business and most corporations. I
have tens of thousands of dollars of book credits, paper profits that I have
paid taxes on and never received the money and never will. Because the co op
could not operate on the money they took in and had to retain profits to pay
the notes and bills.
Gordon
William Tucker
simply say it doesn't work or won't....it takes a little
more effort to see how it will but it's worth it...if you
know more about a subject then invest your self a little
more fully into and say what it would take to make it
work
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:ALAI8.251$5u5.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
then change it...
>Time limits on the leadership is extreemly foolish.
> Good leadership is hard to find. When you find it keep it.
>There is far too
> much medeocer leadership paid as if they were top noch leadership.
this one is a matter of opinion...the idea was that there would be
a term of corporate office like the senators/representitives so that
there wouldn't be an establishment of a network or an overriding
policy kind of thing...both places that I saw it in were think tank,
scientific companies where stagnancy results from lack of flexibility
of ideas...
> > The most dangerous situations are where we are violating our
> > own environmental standards in other countries.
> > Or where the corporations have moved to other countries
> > with out dealing with the impact that that leaving has on the
> > home country...and the citizens of that country end up paying
> > for the medical/mental/unemployment issues that the corporation
> > dumps on the communities, through lack of communication and
> > because there isn't any thing constraining them to be responsible,
> > no one has visited that problem that I am aware of ....it is probably
> > solvable by methods other than large dollar amounts...money spent
> > in advance of a problem developing are usually in smaller amounts
> > than funds spent after a problem develops...
> =================
> I agree that big business does not have the local involvement that mom and
> pop businesses had but mom and pop bussiness can't compete with big
> business. A big store can make money on a 3% profit and turn the money 4
> times a year. A small business can't turn enough money to make it work.
> Being smaller their expenses per dollar sold are higher and their turn
over
> of capital is lower. So they end up having to have an 6 to 10% profit per
> sale to stay in business.
Sure, and the one thing that a local store can do is cater to the local
population or offer something different...unfortunately many US people
are TV programmed and they buy what they see on the tube...you don't
see this as much from those that have more dollars to spend....funnily
enough
> If a company or indivigule is going to compete in a global economy with
> nations with no ecoloical standards and low wages it has no choice but to
> move some of it's operations to those countries or countries like them to
> play on a level playing feild if they can't compete by using better
> technolodgy and more capital investment.
there are ways of leveling the playing field...Japan manages quite
well......even with very few resources
> The US has no textile industry any more. We cannot compete with India and
> other low wage low beifit countries becaue we can't find a technological
way
> to compete. We have no garment or shoe industry to speak of because
minimum
> wage, child labor and sweat shop laws forced them out of business. It
makes
> our neighood look nicer but it just moves the problem some were else that
is
> glad to have the work.
you have to think that someone is missing the boat here...we make the
cotton,
we pay transportation costs, we pay for unemployment, suicide, alcoholism,
unpaid medical bills, etc. as the result of the displaced jobs....some where
there is some bad accounting going on...just because it's not reported
doesn't
mean it doesn't exist...it is just that people are looking at a couple of
indicators
when system is more complex.
> The same is true with taxes. If your competeters are structured so they
pay
> less taxes and you are in a very competive market you have to move your
> operation to a more tax freindly place.
don't know about this one, sounds like a lack of responsibility or lack of
thought.....I feel like I dealing with a pea/shell game kinda thing and that
someone should call it what it is and finalize it
>The goverment can only bleed a
> business for so much money before it goes some where it can make more
money.
> The US is very bad about this they tax all a companies profit no matter
> where it is made almost all other countries only tax the money that is
made
> inside its borderes.
>
> It is an unfortuate fact when laws are passed that make it more expensive
> for a company to operate they move to a more freindly envionment. With the
> state of communications what they are today there is no reason that you
> can't work world wide from home.
got to point out the general reasons why it is good, conserve fuel,
diminish child care costs per household, and so on...got to make
a case for it and look at how it would or would not improve
work within the current system....I know a number of companies
that offer shorter or shared job positions to accomodate mothers...
> One night I was woking with a fellow in New
> Zealand and Egypt at the same time from Oklahoma. I had to stay up rather
> late but everyone else was pretty close to working hours.
>
> Tough envionment controls will work very well when they force all the
> industries that cause the polution to contries with less strengint
> requirments.
enforce the laws regardless of what country the companies are in
if they are US, if they try to move their operations to another
country don't let them sell here....we are the biggest consumer
of just about everything
>Unfortunalty you loose your taxes and jobs those companies pay
> for. Look at the US steel industry for an example they didn't move they
just
> closed up.
competing with the Japanese...probably could have been avoided or
ameliorated...just that no one is taking a systemic look at things...a
company exists within a community/county/state/country and affects
and is affected by those things at multiple levels....it should be
investigated...and reported on as such
> By making rules that improve local condition you just move the problem
some
> where out of sight. Generaly when the move they look for the least
> restrictive place that they can so looking at it on a world wide basis the
> rules probably made the situation worse insted of better.
no one is taking a systemic look at things...a
company exists within a community/county/state/country and affects
and is affected by those things at multiple levels....it should be
investigated...and reported on as such
> There is a story about Phelps Dodge and Bruce Babbit when he was govener
of
> Arizona. Phelps Dodge wanted to build a copper smelter in Arizona with all
> the most modern polution equipment. Babbit wouldn't let them. They built
the
> smelter accross the border in Mexico with no polution abatement equipment
> and the wind blew the pollution into Arizona.
> >
> >
> > Co-ops are another alternative that can work well, many health
> > food stores started out that way or had that as an alternative....
> >
> I am a member of a number of farming related co ops almost without
exception
> they do worse in every regard than private business and most corporations.
I
> have tens of thousands of dollars of book credits, paper profits that I
have
> paid taxes on and never received the money and never will. Because the co
op
> could not operate on the money they took in and had to retain profits to
pay
> the notes and bills.
wouldn't know about this, one of the problems with local things is that
when something happens locally like weather it affects all of the pieces
at one time....to be effective like big businesses you would have to form
co-ops with other farms groups around the country so that your losses
would be spread out and no single group would be pariticularly hard hit
by losses say in the pacific northwest....
that 's what they do in the mortgage market...they get a pool of mortgages
together representing a mortgages from around the country so that if one
area of the united states suffers job loss or catastrophe that the mortgage
pool doesn't get hit that hard because it contains a spread of mortgages
from all over the US....you'd have to be more specific about what your
problems were with your co-op for anyone to address it....a single instance
does not make a case...Native Americans could form a co-op or Savings
and Loan group or grocers or whatever...just got to think about how things
could work and not how they don't...
Wm
> Gordon
>
>
Oz
>
>The most dangerous situations are where we are violating our
>own environmental standards in other countries.
Pretty irrelevant. The local corporations will (and do) do it for you
and then sell us the proceeds. You probably have more effect if it is a
multinational because they would prefer not to have the bad publicity.
>Or where the corporations have moved to other countries
>with out dealing with the impact that that leaving has on the
>home country...and the citizens of that country end up paying
>for the medical/mental/unemployment issues that the corporation
>dumps on the communities,
That is a matter of local law.
You can hardly blame the corporations if local laws are weak.
>through lack of communication and
>because there isn't any thing constraining them to be responsible,
>no one has visited that problem that I am aware of ....it is probably
>solvable by methods other than large dollar amounts...money spent
>in advance of a problem developing are usually in smaller amounts
>than funds spent after a problem develops...
Indeed. Local laws.
However remember that local laws can, and do, result in local
corporations being uncompetitive and folding. A bankrupt company can
rarely pay anything for the sort of remedial actions you suggest.
Oz
>enforce the laws regardless of what country the companies are in
>if they are US, if they try to move their operations to another
>country don't let them sell here....we are the biggest consumer
>of just about everything
You may be astonished to learn that there are lots and lots of
corporations that are not owned by the US. Some are even very big.
You are going to cause a great deal of political trouble if you start
taxing differentially the products of foreign corporations sold into the
US.
Worse, it will increase your costs so business outside the US will be
even more competitive. This will move skilled jobs out of the US and
into more friendly countries.
Or do you propose taxing ALL imports?
Remember that many countries have a highly educated workforce and
readily take on skilled jobs. India, for example, is a very major player
in software writing and already operates call centres for quite a lot of
UK companies.
Jim Webster
> > Good leadership is hard to find. When you find it keep it.
> >There is far too
> > much medeocer leadership paid as if they were top noch leadership.
>
> this one is a matter of opinion...the idea was that there would be
> a term of corporate office like the senators/representitives so that
> there wouldn't be an establishment of a network or an overriding
> policy kind of thing...both places that I saw it in were think tank,
> scientific companies where stagnancy results from lack of flexibility
> of ideas...
except that good people who can actually run things, cope with the
bureacracy and hold things together are in pretty short supply. You
cannot afford to get rid of them after a couple of years.
You know what the man said, if the electorate gets it wrong, change your
electorate.
>
> > If a company or indivigule is going to compete in a global economy
with
> > nations with no ecoloical standards and low wages it has no choice
but to
> > move some of it's operations to those countries or countries like
them to
> > play on a level playing feild if they can't compete by using better
> > technolodgy and more capital investment.
>
> there are ways of leveling the playing field...Japan manages quite
> well......even with very few resources
currently the Japanese economy is not really a shining example to be
followed by the rest of us
yet interestingly the people who pay for all those things through their
taxation are the ones who buy the cheap imports. This is perhaps because
people feel they cannot control their tax burden but can pay less when
they go into the shop.
> > The same is true with taxes. If your competeters are structured so
they
> pay
> > less taxes and you are in a very competive market you have to move
your
> > operation to a more tax freindly place.
>
> don't know about this one, sounds like a lack of responsibility or
lack of
> thought.....I feel like I dealing with a pea/shell game kinda thing
and that
> someone should call it what it is and finalize it
>
no, it is a company desperately trying to survive in a difficult
economy. In spite of the various green and social organisations talking
about social conscience matters, the consumer is only going to pay as
little as possible for the items they want.
> >The goverment can only bleed a
> > business for so much money before it goes some where it can make
more
> money.
> > The US is very bad about this they tax all a companies profit no
matter
> > where it is made almost all other countries only tax the money that
is
> made
> > inside its borderes.
> >
> > It is an unfortuate fact when laws are passed that make it more
expensive
> > for a company to operate they move to a more freindly envionment.
With the
> > state of communications what they are today there is no reason that
you
> > can't work world wide from home.
Bit difficult to grow soya world wide from home, bit tricky to make
shoes or bread 0r clothes world wide from home.
>
> got to point out the general reasons why it is good, conserve fuel,
> diminish child care costs per household, and so on...got to make
> a case for it and look at how it would or would not improve
> work within the current system....I know a number of companies
> that offer shorter or shared job positions to accomodate mothers...
>
the problem with that can be the taxation/national insurance position
(which may not be a US issue)
> > One night I was woking with a fellow in New
> > Zealand and Egypt at the same time from Oklahoma. I had to stay up
rather
> > late but everyone else was pretty close to working hours.
> >
> > Tough envionment controls will work very well when they force all
the
> > industries that cause the polution to contries with less strengint
> > requirments.
>
> enforce the laws regardless of what country the companies are in
> if they are US, if they try to move their operations to another
> country don't let them sell here....we are the biggest consumer
> of just about everything
>
and funnily enough have legal obligations your government signed up to.
> >Unfortunalty you loose your taxes and jobs those companies pay
> > for. Look at the US steel industry for an example they didn't move
they
> just
> > closed up.
>
> competing with the Japanese...
no longer a problem, competing with the Russians or former Warsaw pact,
that is the problem.
probably could have been avoided or
> ameliorated...just that no one is taking a systemic look at things...a
> company exists within a community/county/state/country and affects
> and is affected by those things at multiple levels....it should be
> investigated...and reported on as such
perfectly simple. These people will take less money for their products
because they have a lower material standard of living. To compete with
them you will have to be far more efficient or drop your standard of
living.
>
> > By making rules that improve local condition you just move the
problem
> some
> > where out of sight. Generaly when the move they look for the least
> > restrictive place that they can so looking at it on a world wide
basis the
> > rules probably made the situation worse insted of better.
>
> no one is taking a systemic look at things...a
> company exists within a community/county/state/country and affects
> and is affected by those things at multiple levels....it should be
> investigated...and reported on as such
who do you report to? Independant countries are just that, independent.
They can tell you to go play with yourself.
Gordon Couger
>
> >Or where the corporations have moved to other countries
> >with out dealing with the impact that that leaving has on the
> >home country...and the citizens of that country end up paying
> >for the medical/mental/unemployment issues that the corporation
> >dumps on the communities,
>
> That is a matter of local law.
> You can hardly blame the corporations if local laws are weak.
>
Gordon
Oz
Maybe.
That's an added cost that must be factored in, though .....
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
> >"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> >Or where the corporations have moved to other countries
> >> >with out dealing with the impact that that leaving has on the
> >> >home country...and the citizens of that country end up paying
> >> >for the medical/mental/unemployment issues that the corporation
> >> >dumps on the communities,
> >>
> >> That is a matter of local law.
> >> You can hardly blame the corporations if local laws are weak.
> >>
> >Or the law enforcement and judiciary can be rented economically.
>
> Maybe.
>
> That's an added cost that must be factored in, though .....
>
place else or they could have an accident.
Gordon
Bruce Burhans
I remember the last time science had this incredible
discovery to make agriculture more effective.
It was called "The Green Revolution" and it was
going to end hunger on Earth.
It didn't, and the end result was a form of agriculture that
destroys land at an alarming rate and uses
and incredible amount of energy per unit yield.
This GM food business is just that- Business. With
all the hype and PR and it will end up doing more harm
than good, as have most of the Great Inventions of science.
Then all the scientists will moan and wring their hands and say that
it wasn't their fault, that their work was corrupted by someone or another.
And in a few years they will have another Great In-
vention to sucker the public with.....
Scientists are snake-oil salesman of the highest order.....
"Just give us billions of dollars in tax-payer money and 10-20
years, and we will SAVE THE WORLD with our amazing Process/Drug/Machine"
they say. But it
never works out, does it?
Yet we fall for the rap, over and over, like fools
at a carnival.
Bruce<+>
Parse Tree
Since when is the world in danger?
Bruce Burhans
Gee! I don't know! Half the world's wetlands and
forests have been destroyed in the last 50 years, and
dead spots are showing up in the oceans. Half the arable
land in industrialized nations has been rendered unusable
by one means or another. Freshwater shortages are already becoming a problem
and predicted to get worse
Non-renewable resources are growing scarce in
areas that are economically feasible to exploit.
More and more countries are becoming industrialized and will this
will exacerbate every one of these conditions, radically.
There's a very short list for starters, and they are
irrefutable. As we speak, each of the above problems
is worsening, with no effective solutions on the horizon.
These are irrefutable facts. Anyone who tries to
rationalize them away will be ignored by me.
Bruce<+>
Parse Tree
I won't believe the 'half of the arable land' thing. In Canada I know that
that figure is far less than half.
An increase in the scarcity of a resource will just drive the price up.
When the price becomes higher than that of substitutes, then we will use the
substitutes.
None of these things are actually dangerous at all.
Jim Webster
Bruce Burhans <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:mJTI8.1020$
cutting the hysterical rant, place give three examples of people going
hungry in areas where the main problem isn't war, civil unrest or
political corruption.
Jim Webster
> I won't believe the 'half of the arable land' thing. In Canada I
know that
> that figure is far less than half.
you are right to believe it, Bruce is a known hysteric who invents
figures as he goes along.
"Half the arable land in industrialized nations has been rendered
unusable by one means or another" merely joins "10s of millions of
people become vegans every year" and "I produce all my own food of
1/20th of an acre (I apologise for accusing him of claiming that he
could support himself of 1/10th of an acre) as Bruceisms.
Gordon Couger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.environment,talk.environment,sci.agriculture,alt.religion.wicca
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Frankenfoods Propagandists: Rogue's Gallery
:
: "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
:
As I recall Dr Bolong said the green revolution would buy use 30 years. It
is doing a little better than that. It was never promised as a cure for the
worlds ills just a treatment while we found better methods. We have better
methods and folks like you would rather see people starve the look beyond
your back door.
Get out in the field and see what is really happening not what someone with
no experiance is telling you is happening.
The likes of you nearly banned DDT and in the process millions were killed
by malarial and other mosquito born diseases. Just because you over used it
and now it was all bad.Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Bruce Burhans
You are wrong. But I have learned the folly of
debating with bigots, so have a nice day.
We'll talk about this in a decade. If you are alive.
Stupid people have a tendency to die young, but you'll
deny that too, no doubt about it....
Bruce<+>
>
Bruce Burhans
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
Since I've never even implied such a perspective,
you made it up out of whole cloth.
Which means that nothing remotely reasonable can
possibly follow, and I will spare myself the pain of reading
your foolishness.
And you are wrong about the Green Revolution too.
But I have learned to expect utterly unreasonable
posts from the fanatical devotees of science, which is an
irony that proves my point, isn't it?
Bruce<+>
Oz
> Since I've never even implied such a perspective,
>you made it up out of whole cloth.
> Which means that nothing remotely reasonable can
>possibly follow, and I will spare myself the pain of reading
>your foolishness.
> And you are wrong about the Green Revolution too.
> But I have learned to expect utterly unreasonable
>posts from the fanatical devotees of science, which is an
>irony that proves my point, isn't it?
Hey, I've come across kookies before but bruce really does it big time.
Which group does he normally inhabit?
I do hope all of you there have more brain.
Parse Tree
So you're giving a time frame for when these will be actual issues? I'll
bring it up again in ten years and show you that you're still wrong.
Parse Tree
> Bruce Burhans writes
> > Since I've never even implied such a perspective,
> >you made it up out of whole cloth.
> > Which means that nothing remotely reasonable can
> >possibly follow, and I will spare myself the pain of reading
> >your foolishness.
> > And you are wrong about the Green Revolution too.
> > But I have learned to expect utterly unreasonable
> >posts from the fanatical devotees of science, which is an
> >irony that proves my point, isn't it?
>
> Hey, I've come across kookies before but bruce really does it big time.
>
> Which group does he normally inhabit?
>
> I do hope all of you there have more brain.
He's not from ARW. See, if you mentioned what group you were from, another
one could have been eliminated.
Jim Webster
> Stupid people have a tendency to die young, but you'll
> deny that too, no doubt about it....
>
how old did you say you were?
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
Jim Webster
> And you are wrong about the Green Revolution too.
good of you to supply so much evidence
Jim Webster
> He's not from ARW. See, if you mentioned what group you were from,
another
> one could have been eliminated.
I think he now haunts sci.agric unfortunately. He is on a thread which
includes alt.save.the.earth,uk.environment,sci.agriculture and while he
could pollute a couple of groups, it is probable that sci.agric is
responsible for his presence here.
Note how he does cross post to a similar selection of ngs as little
chivey and chivey seems to have faded (he went off to troll some womens
groups but I think they saw through him very quickly) so whether it is
chivey under another name?
Bruce Burhans
They are actual issues right now, which you would know if you
did the homework you pretend to
have done. Just reading some of the recent posts on
this NG would be enough.
But ignorance is bliss, as they say, and you must
be in 7th heaven.
But talking to you is a waste of time, and I ask
you kindly to go away and bother someone else who is
stupid enough to mistake their wishful thinking for reality.
Bruce<+>
>
Bruce Burhans
> > Since I've never even implied such a perspective,
> >you made it up out of whole cloth.
> > Which means that nothing remotely reasonable can
> >possibly follow, and I will spare myself the pain of reading
> >your foolishness.
> > And you are wrong about the Green Revolution too.
> > But I have learned to expect utterly unreasonable
> >posts from the fanatical devotees of science, which is an
> >irony that proves my point, isn't it?
>
> Hey, I've come across kookies before but bruce really does it big time.
>
> Which group does he normally inhabit?
>
> I do hope all of you there have more brain.
>
>
Hey Oz! Do you actually think that people
believe something because you post it?
Can anyone actually be that stupid?
Yes. *You* can.
So in the process of attempting to discredit me,
you discredit yourself.
Pretty funny, moron.....
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
> > Since I've never even implied such a perspective,
People like you and Parse Tree have one purpose
here- To prevent people from rationally discussing the
environmental issues.
I will be ignoring both of your posts, henceforth.
We are going to discuss one of the most vital issues of
the times, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Get a fucking life..
Bruce<+>
Parse Tree
news:ad3jok$glm$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%wbJ8.7987$Ed1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > He's not from ARW. See, if you mentioned what group you were from,
> another
> > one could have been eliminated.
>
> I think he now haunts sci.agric unfortunately. He is on a thread which
> includes alt.save.the.earth,uk.environment,sci.agriculture and while he
> could pollute a couple of groups, it is probable that sci.agric is
> responsible for his presence here.
>
> Note how he does cross post to a similar selection of ngs as little
> chivey and chivey seems to have faded (he went off to troll some womens
> groups but I think they saw through him very quickly) so whether it is
> chivey under another name?
No, he's not Chive. Chive posts to both these environmental groups and the
feminist/women's issues groups.
Parse Tree
Economics disproves your entire point. Take a course.
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:ad3jok$glm$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> news:%wbJ8.7987$Ed1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > He's not from ARW. See, if you mentioned what group you were from,
> another
> > one could have been eliminated.
>
> I think he now haunts sci.agric unfortunately. He is on a thread which
> includes alt.save.the.earth,uk.environment,sci.agriculture and while he
> could pollute a couple of groups, it is probable that sci.agric is
> responsible for his presence here.
>
> Note how he does cross post to a similar selection of ngs as little
> chivey and chivey seems to have faded (he went off to troll some womens
> groups but I think they saw through him very quickly) so whether it is
> chivey under another name?
Naw, Chivey is smarter than that.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
>
> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:yykeRgD3...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Bruce Burhans writes
> > > Since I've never even implied such a perspective,
> > >you made it up out of whole cloth.
> > > Which means that nothing remotely reasonable can
> > >possibly follow, and I will spare myself the pain of reading
> > >your foolishness.
> > > And you are wrong about the Green Revolution too.
> > > But I have learned to expect utterly unreasonable
> > >posts from the fanatical devotees of science, which is an
> > >irony that proves my point, isn't it?
> >
> > Hey, I've come across kookies before but bruce really does it big time.
> >
> > Which group does he normally inhabit?
> >
> > I do hope all of you there have more brain.
> >
> >
>
>
> Hey Oz! Do you actually think that people
> believe something because you post it?
> Can anyone actually be that stupid?
> Yes. *You* can.
>
> So in the process of attempting to discredit me,
> you discredit yourself.
>
>
Mine are online and you can find everyone else that seriously posts to the
group at www.dejanews.com yours are strangely missing.
--
Bruce Burhans
>
> We need to take care of the Nature that sustains our
> lives and the quality of our lives.
> That means we have to quit harming the planet .
> Whatever we are doing that harms the planet must be
> abandoned.
> But what is that, exactly?
> It isn't one thing, but the cumulative effect of many
> different things.
> It isn't one person, but the cumulative effect of many
> people.
> Take a forest. Here one day and gone the next.
> But why? Because a lot of people wanted lumber and
> paper; wanted jobs at the mills, wanted jobs selling that
> lumber and paper. Or shipping it.
> Because a lot of retirees' pension funds were invested
> in one or all of the companies involved in the whole process. Because a
lot
> of people had policies from ins-
> urance companies invested in those businesses.
> Because the local school district needed the taxes that
> they gained from the sale of the publicly owned timberstand.
> And so on.
> The problem is systemic. It is not a matter of some
> "evil corporation" ( what corporation could exist for a
> millisecond without customers?) or some "evil government" (who okayed the
> sale due to pressure from
> all of the above-mentioned interest groups).
> It is, I repeat, systemic. Money comes from natural
> resources which are turned into saleable goods by labor.
> The cost of something is directly proportional to its
> environmental impact.
> What this culture *does* is trash the planet.
>
> And that's why we need to walk away from it and
> build a better one.
>
> The Mayans did it, in about 1000 AD. They just up
> and walked away from a very sophisticated civilization.
> Went back to living in little villages surrounded by gardens.
>
> When a path is obviously the wrong one, then it's time
> to take another.
>
> Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
>
Oz
>
>Naw, Chivey is smarter than that.
I bet you never thought you would be saying that!
Oz
>He's not from ARW. See, if you mentioned what group you were from, another
>one could have been eliminated.
Didn't think he was. sci.ag
I suspect he comes from (mindless)talk.env
Chive Mynde
Parse, don't waste your time with Webster. "Jim Webster" is a notorious
agribusiness shill from sci.agriculture. His sole reason to post to
sci.environment is to dishonestly debunk any and all scientific
evidence which demonstrates the efficacy of organic farming. He is
after all, paid to do this by the chemical companies, who feel threatened
by farmers who grow WITHOUT pesticides or conventional applications.
-=Chive
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YnXI8.7061$t97.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Large sections of Australia have been turned into wasteland. You can fly for hours and see nothing
but fields of salt in western New South Wales. We are a big country and that would be a substantial
part of arable land in the industrialised world.
> An increase in the scarcity of a resource will just drive the price up.
> When the price becomes higher than that of substitutes, then we will use the
> substitutes.
>
> None of these things are actually dangerous at all.
It is if all resources run out.
Oz
>
>Large sections of Australia have been turned into wasteland. You can fly for
>hours and see nothing
>but fields of salt in western New South Wales.
My understanding is that this is due to the reduction in irrigation
volumes required due to the URBAN populations profligate use of water.
>We are a big country and that
>would be a substantial
>part of arable land in the industrialised world.
But yield sod all per acre most years.
Parse Tree
news:Ci5L8.246182$o66.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That doesn't really matter. I'd estimate that the vast majority of arable
land in Canada is still quite available (excluding areas which are subject
to permafrost). Also, the United states has quite a bit too. That's a HUGE
chunk of land that's still available.
> > An increase in the scarcity of a resource will just drive the price up.
> > When the price becomes higher than that of substitutes, then we will use
the
> > substitutes.
> >
> > None of these things are actually dangerous at all.
>
> It is if all resources run out.
That's entropy. That won't happen for quite some time. Also, it's not
preventable.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ds8L8.14407$Av5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
So? How does that disprove the figure of 50%?
> > > An increase in the scarcity of a resource will just drive the price up.
> > > When the price becomes higher than that of substitutes, then we will use
> the
> > > substitutes.
> > >
> > > None of these things are actually dangerous at all.
> >
> > It is if all resources run out.
>
> That's entropy. That won't happen for quite some time. Also, it's not
> preventable.
Of course it's preventable.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:CftCKGBYfO$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Lush writes
> >
> >Large sections of Australia have been turned into wasteland. You can fly for
> >hours and see nothing
> >but fields of salt in western New South Wales.
>
>
> My understanding is that this is due to the reduction in irrigation
> volumes required due to the URBAN populations profligate use of water.
Its cause is of no consequence to this discussion. However you are wrong. Salination in southern
Australia is caused by deforestation and too _much_ irrigation.
> >We are a big country and that
> >would be a substantial
> >part of arable land in the industrialised world.
>
> But yield sod all per acre most years.
Substantial amounts of prime agricultural land has been lost in Victoria and Western Australia to
salination. Very large amounts of marginal agricultural land has been lost in New South Wales. Large
amounts of prime and marginal land in all the states has been degraded by erosion. All of this land
is arable. The point under discussion does not refer to degrees of arability.
Parse Tree
>
> Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ds8L8.14407$Av5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "Lush" <jm...@nospambigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:Ci5L8.246182$o66.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:YnXI8.7061$t97.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:mJTI8.1020$_U....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > >
Canada is quite a bit larger than Australia. It disproves it as much as
your information supports it.
Incidentally, the majority of the forests that were removed resulted in more
arable land.
> > > > An increase in the scarcity of a resource will just drive the price
up.
> > > > When the price becomes higher than that of substitutes, then we will
use
> > the
> > > > substitutes.
> > > >
> > > > None of these things are actually dangerous at all.
> > >
> > > It is if all resources run out.
> >
> > That's entropy. That won't happen for quite some time. Also, it's not
> > preventable.
>
> Of course it's preventable.
Actually, it's not. The loss of all resources is only possible with the
eventual heat-death of the universe.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mPfL8.16231$Av5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I'm sick of hearing scientific mumbo jumbo used to discredit environmentalism.
Jim Webster
>
> > Actually, it's not. The loss of all resources is only possible
with the
> > eventual heat-death of the universe.
>
> I'm sick of hearing scientific mumbo jumbo used to discredit
environmentalism.
>
first time I have heard the laws of thermodynamics described as
scientific mumbo jumbo
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Lush <jm...@nospambigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:bgjL8.260502$o66.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > > Actually, it's not. The loss of all resources is only possible
> with the
> > > eventual heat-death of the universe.
> >
> > I'm sick of hearing scientific mumbo jumbo used to discredit
> environmentalism.
> >
>
> first time I have heard the laws of thermodynamics described as
> scientific mumbo jumbo
>
that spend our lives actually taking care of the land. They know that the
know what is best for us even though most of them have no practical
knowledge of land or water use.
Oz
>Its cause is of no consequence to this discussion. However you are wrong.
>Salination in southern
>Australia is caused by deforestation and too _much_ irrigation.
You are technically incorrect. You do not get salination where enough
irrigation is available to wash salts below rooting depth. The existence
of 5000+years of egyptian floodplain irrigation proves this (as if it
wasn't already well known).
>Substantial amounts of prime agricultural land has been lost in Victoria and
>Western Australia to
>salination. Very large amounts of marginal agricultural land has been lost in
>New South Wales.
Mostly due lack of water according to my brother in law, an australian
agricultural economist.
>Large
>amounts of prime and marginal land in all the states has been degraded by
>erosion.
Maybe, I'll ask him next time I see him.
My understanding is that most has been abandoned due to low world prices
for grains and meat.
>All of this land
>is arable. The point under discussion does not refer to degrees of arability.
One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
Oz
>
>I'm sick of hearing scientific mumbo jumbo used to discredit environmentalism.
>
Absolutely, can't let the facts get in the way of political correctness
now can we?
If the enviro-truth is not supported by the facts then the facts must be
destroyed!
I haven't laughed so much in a thread for ages.
Gordon Couger
A great deal of salt-alkli problems are cause by the water table being very
close to the surface. When you plow the ground and get rid of the cover the
evaporation rate increases leaving a salt crust on the top of the ground.
These lands are often great farm land because they are naturally irrigated
with water 3 or 4 feet down. The water is good enough quality to irrigate
but since it only has a short way to go and most of the moisture is lost to
evaporation it leaves salt in the root zone.
If he water will grow alfalfa it is one of the better crops to use because
it can use so much water but it now very tolerating of salt so it takes a
special case.
Reclaiming lands that have become salt flats is difficult. One method that
has worked some place it to raise a salt tolerant grass and let it go to
seed and bale it. Give the ground a good dose of gypsum then cover the
ground with flakes of the hay. It greatly reduces the evaporation. The gyp
helps move the salt down in the soil when it rains and with some luck you
can get soil cover. However there are precious few productive crops that
will grow on salty ground. On alkali ground some grasses will do very well.
Bermuda grass will do very well up to a pH of nearly 9.
The best hope for salty land are the GM crops that are tolerant to salt. But
I expect that it will require enough energy to transport the salt to a safe
place that the yields will be poor.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:ufrJqnEBrf$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Lush writes
> >
> >I'm sick of hearing scientific mumbo jumbo used to discredit environmentalism.
Who said anything about the facts. Do not confuse the words 'scientific' and 'factual'.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:p+cYSSDfRf$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Lush writes
> >Its cause is of no consequence to this discussion. However you are wrong.
> >Salination in southern
> >Australia is caused by deforestation and too _much_ irrigation.
>
> You are technically incorrect. You do not get salination where enough
> irrigation is available to wash salts below rooting depth. The existence
> of 5000+years of egyptian floodplain irrigation proves this (as if it
> wasn't already well known).
The issue is that the deforestation and irrigation has caused the water table to rise.
> >Substantial amounts of prime agricultural land has been lost in Victoria and
> >Western Australia to
> >salination. Very large amounts of marginal agricultural land has been lost in
> >New South Wales.
>
> Mostly due lack of water according to my brother in law, an australian
> agricultural economist.
There is more water now rather than less before widespread european settlement because of the Snowy
Mountains scheme.
> >Large
> >amounts of prime and marginal land in all the states has been degraded by
> >erosion.
>
> Maybe, I'll ask him next time I see him.
> My understanding is that most has been abandoned due to low world prices
> for grains and meat.
Degraded land is not necessarily abandoned.
> >All of this land
> >is arable. The point under discussion does not refer to degrees of arability.
>
> One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
Are we talking about arabale or arid land?
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:yCkL8.10$4d1....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
What?
Parse Tree
>
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ufrJqnEBrf$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Lush writes
> > >
> > >I'm sick of hearing scientific mumbo jumbo used to discredit
environmentalism.
>
> Who said anything about the facts. Do not confuse the words 'scientific'
and 'factual'.
Entropy is one of the strongest theories in Science. One cannot run out of
resources. There are always resources of some type or another.
Oz
>on.co.uk...
>> Lush writes
>> >Its cause is of no consequence to this discussion. However you are wrong.
>> >Salination in southern
>> >Australia is caused by deforestation and too _much_ irrigation.
>>
>> You are technically incorrect. You do not get salination where enough
>> irrigation is available to wash salts below rooting depth. The existence
>> of 5000+years of egyptian floodplain irrigation proves this (as if it
>> wasn't already well known).
>
>The issue is that the deforestation and irrigation has caused the water table to
>rise.
Then that's a problem for your australian farming ministry.
You do have one.
>There is more water now rather than less before widespread european settlement
>because of the Snowy
>Mountains scheme.
Good. Australia isn't exactly the wettest place on earth.
>> Maybe, I'll ask him next time I see him.
>> My understanding is that most has been abandoned due to low world prices
>> for grains and meat.
>
>Degraded land is not necessarily abandoned.
Given the difficult (to put it mildly) situation of aus agriculture it
can't be very degraded then.
>> >All of this land
>> >is arable. The point under discussion does not refer to degrees of arability.
>>
>> One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
>
>Are we talking about arabale or arid land?
1) One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
2) You were talking about irrigated land, remember?
Gordon Couger
> >
> >Are we talking about arabale or arid land?
>
> 1) One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
Actually there is a good deal of irrigation in areas that are non arid areas
in the US. Look at as insurance against dry weather or as a suppment to rain
in the summer. Cotton can by severly hurt by running out of water while
setting fruit. If it gets too dry when it rains the cotton throws off all
the small bolls, squares and blooms that it has set in the last 3 or 4 weeks
and starts over. As much as a bale of cotton can be thrown off like this.
If the land it flat enough to flood irrigate and the water shallow enough so
pumping isn't too expnesive a good well can make a lot of money every
summer even in 50-70 inch per inch rainfall areas.
The biggest area of irrigation in the US is the great plains that is classed
as simi arid land.
The most productive irrigated land is generaly arid land because it is
richer in minearals and there is no rain to water log the soil and interfer
with activities at inconvinent times.
Doing research on drip irrigation in west Texas I found that on cotton if
you had all the water you could use if you furrow irrigated 2 to 2 1/2
bales was the best it got, using a sprinkler 2/12 to a little over 3 bales
was about as good as it got and with drip the yeild when as high as 4 bales
per acre. Everyone the yield decrease was from water logged ground.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:2Ug$YBCQaF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> >Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:p+cYSSDfRf$8E...@upthorpe.dem
> >on.co.uk...
> >> Lush writes
> >> >Its cause is of no consequence to this discussion. However you are wrong.
> >> >Salination in southern
> >> >Australia is caused by deforestation and too _much_ irrigation.
> >>
> >> You are technically incorrect. You do not get salination where enough
> >> irrigation is available to wash salts below rooting depth. The existence
> >> of 5000+years of egyptian floodplain irrigation proves this (as if it
> >> wasn't already well known).
> >
> >The issue is that the deforestation and irrigation has caused the water table to
> >rise.
>
> Then that's a problem for your australian farming ministry.
> You do have one.
And what is your point?
> >There is more water now rather than less before widespread european settlement
> >because of the Snowy
> >Mountains scheme.
>
> Good. Australia isn't exactly the wettest place on earth.
>
> >> Maybe, I'll ask him next time I see him.
> >> My understanding is that most has been abandoned due to low world prices
> >> for grains and meat.
> >
> >Degraded land is not necessarily abandoned.
>
> Given the difficult (to put it mildly) situation of aus agriculture it
> can't be very degraded then.
What is your point?
> >> >All of this land
> >> >is arable. The point under discussion does not refer to degrees of arability.
> >>
> >> One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
> >
> >Are we talking about arabale or arid land?
>
> 1) One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
> 2) You were talking about irrigated land, remember?
You made a statement about arable land which I corrected. Then you cut in with some completely
irrelevant point about 'one hardly irrigates non-arid land'.
Oz
>> >The issue is that the deforestation and irrigation has caused the water table
>to
>> >rise.
>>
>> Then that's a problem for your australian farming ministry.
>> You do have one.
>
>And what is your point?
That damage to a countries soils is one for government.
Now as it happens I have my brother-in-law's daughter (and husband who I
haven't met before) from australia here for one day passing through to
Tadgikistan. He is an ag consultant with particular experience of
advising in areas west of the snowy. I discussed what we have been
saying last night.
Firstly it is a large area with all of the soil and moisture types that
have been discussed here. The real problem areas are quite small in size
in australian terms, although quite large in Ha terms. The australians
used similar methods to ones that have been used elsewhere in the world
(quite a few of the farmers are american) without problem for decades
(and longer) and in most areas these worked, and still work, well.
Unfortunately inland australia can be very salty in areas, and has a
very complex system of aquifers and salt domes and soil horizons which
derives from the fact that much of inland australia was below the sea
and emerged into a desert climate where leaching of the salts to the sea
was patchy. Further the inland rivers feed valuable fresh water at
rather low flows to users further down the continent. Correcting surface
salinity by flood irrigation is thus not permitted on water quality
grounds.
This is very different from most of asia and america, and unlike africa
which hasn't been significantly below sea level for many 10's of
millions of years.
As cougar has pointed out the worst areas are ones with a modestly salty
and relatively high water table causing surface salinity. These were
originally "forested" but not mostly with trees but with what we (UK,
US) would call sparse scrubby saltbush (a range of species) that was
used for quality extensive sheep grazing. Much of this area is being
reverted to the original ground cover and used for sheep again, which
will fix the problem in time.
Some areas had surface salt when europeans arrived, and still does. Not
all the salininsed areas are man-made.
Other areas are continuing very successfully with irrigated arable.
The problems are well known to australian farmers and their government
(and have been for a long time) and a range of measures are being used
to mitigate or remove the problems that have been encountered.
Considerable govt sums are being used to examine the hydrology of the
area which is not at all simple and certainly not repairable by naive
global statements from naive people thousands of miles away. Many (most)
of the soils and topography are being farmed very successfully without
any problems.
His general reaction was some astonishment that people should still be
discussing this as a new problem, when it's been known about and
measures taken for many many years. That this should be used as a model
for irrigated areas elsewhere in the world resulted in a snort.
Another comment he made was that bringing science into these areas to
identify the problems, causes and remedies was the key to handling them.
It's people like him who did this, when the rest of the world knew
nothing about it and was well on to a solution before the rest of the
world knew there was even a problem. A further comment is that there
are political effects, you can't just switch off water to an area
without recompensing those that went their on the promise of irrigation
and invested very large amounts of money in it. He wondered if the eco-
movement would be prepared to pay the $$$ required for resettlement and
if not then they could hardly complain if the australian government did
it as rapidly as could be afforded by a population of about 15M people.
Gordon Couger
> Lush writes
> >> >The issue is that the deforestation and irrigation has caused the
water table
> >to
> >> >rise.
> >>
> >> Then that's a problem for your australian farming ministry.
> >> You do have one.
> >
> >And what is your point?
>
What seems like a terrible problem today will take care of itself given
enough time. In 1920 there was a fire that burned about 2,000 acres on the
north bank of Red River near where I was raised. They tell me it took ten
years for sand to stop blowing and grass to get a start. The dunes are 40
foot high in places. When I was a kid the ground was still very soft and
sandy. The last time I was there the ground was much firmer and the grass
much denser and a more productive species. I know the fellow that owns it
and he has done nothing be let nature take her course.
There are also many beautiful flat field near the river that when they first
came to that country they planted to cotton but they turned salty because
the water table was too close to the top of the ground. The make great
pastures now.
They solved the salt problems on Red River 70 years ago with a lot less
science than the guy's in Oz have. The problem here is a lot simper than
theirs but science and time will get a good handle on the problem. From what
I have read they have already done a lot.
There are also some fantastic hydrological time bombs out there as well.
Possibly one of the biggest ones is the Old River Structure on the
Mississippi http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/oldriver/oldriver.htm
that keeps the Mississippi River in its present channel instead of switching
to and old channel called Atchafalaya River.
Probably every hydrological structure that is built will fail someday. For
most may be a long time in the future but an earthquake can happen on almost
any where some time or the other and 500 year floods seem to come around a
lot more often than every 500 years in some places.
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:JBUgdQBC...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
To the best of my knowledge nobody here was presenting this as a new problem.
ant
> Lush writes
> >Its cause is of no consequence to this discussion. However you are wrong.
> >Salination in southern
> >Australia is caused by deforestation and too _much_ irrigation.
>
> You are technically incorrect. You do not get salination where enough
> irrigation is available to wash salts below rooting depth. The existence
> of 5000+years of egyptian floodplain irrigation proves this (as if it
> wasn't already well known).
>
> >Substantial amounts of prime agricultural land has been lost in Victoria
and
> >Western Australia to
> >salination. Very large amounts of marginal agricultural land has been
lost in
> >New South Wales.
>
> Mostly due lack of water according to my brother in law, an australian
> agricultural economist.
>
well he is not studying the published research, the primary cause of
alsinity in australia is the conversion of native vegetation into irrigated
farmlands, removeing the mature trees raises the water table as does
irrigation, that salted water evaporates and the salt is concentrated at the
surface. flushing the fields every year may work in egypt but it wont in
australia, wrong soil types, lack of the fertiliseing silt deposits that
nile leaves behind.
adding more water will not fix australias soil salinity problems, thats
whats caused it in the first place.
> >Large
> >amounts of prime and marginal land in all the states has been degraded by
> >erosion.
>
> Maybe, I'll ask him next time I see him.
> My understanding is that most has been abandoned due to low world prices
> for grains and meat.
>
yeah right, try looking at the published research, soil erosion is a
signifigant problem, the land is abandoned because there is no topsil left
to grow crops or grass on, australia has old and shallow soils with very few
areas showing signifigant soil creation. mechinised agricultural practices
and hoofed animals deplete the surface vegetation cover and break the
fragile algal skin that prevents native soils from being rapidly eroded.
> >All of this land
> >is arable. The point under discussion does not refer to degrees of
arability.
>
> One hardly irrigates non-arid land.
>
hmm, lest see, rice requires irrigation even in high rainfall areas.
ant
Gordon Couger
"ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:zeFN8.274$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au...
You aren't reading all the research either. The salt/alkali problem in Oz is
one of the most complex in the world. Some are the regular run of the mill
problems but some are the most complex salt problems hydrologist have ever
attempted to address. What they learn will benefit the whole world does not
put a lot of research into salt problems.
Reading the literature Australia and the US make up almost all the published
ag research in the world for temperate countries.
Oz
You have not remotely the knowledge of my nephew in law, who was an
advisor in these areas for several years. I will happily take his
reasoned and knowledgeable view over your ravings.
Ian St. John
I don't care if he's your lover, either he's clueless, or you are.
Ant has presented the real data. I can only assume you are mistaken in
his postion, or he is trying to hide the problem due to competition
between farmers and trees for water resource. THe problem is you can't
win, because without the trees to reduce the water table, the fields
will die from the salinity
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/salinity/default.htm
http://bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/bcota/abstracts/33/z100.pdf
http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/5/b/cluff.htm
Oz
>Ant has presented the real data. I can only assume you are mistaken in
>his postion, or he is trying to hide the problem due to competition
>between farmers and trees for water resource. THe problem is you can't
>win, because without the trees to reduce the water table, the fields
>will die from the salinity
Try reading what I originally wrote and look out for 'saltbush'.
Then you won;t look as much of a plonker.
Ian St. John
> ant writes
> >
<snip>
> >
> >well he is not studying the published research, the primary cause of
> >alsinity in australia is the conversion of native vegetation into irrigated
> >farmlands, removeing the mature trees raises the water table as does
> >irrigation, that salted water evaporates and the salt is concentrated at the
> >surface. flushing the fields every year may work in egypt but it wont in
> >australia, wrong soil types, lack of the fertiliseing silt deposits that
> >nile leaves behind.
>
> You have not remotely the knowledge of my nephew in law, who was an
> advisor in these areas for several years. I will happily take his
> reasoned and knowledgeable view over your ravings.
I don't care if he's your lover, either he's clueless, or you are.
Ant has presented the real data. I can only assume you are mistaken in
his position, or he is trying to hide the problem due to competition
between farmers and trees for water resource. THe problem is you can't
win, because without the trees to reduce the water table, the fields
will die from the salinity
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/salinity/default.htm
http://bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/bcota/abstracts/33/z100.pdf
http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/5/b/cluff.htm
Lush
--
Lush
Lush-O-Mint: Double Yer Pleasure, Double Yer Fun
Ian St. John <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:211be79f.02061...@posting.google.com...
Gordon Couger
It's amazing how much more folk that have never been there know about a
subject than the professionals working on the problem.
Gordon
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John writes
>
> >Ant has presented the real data. I can only assume you are mistaken in
> >his postion, or he is trying to hide the problem due to competition
> >between farmers and trees for water resource. THe problem is you can't
> >win, because without the trees to reduce the water table, the fields
> >will die from the salinity
>
> Try reading what I originally wrote and look out for 'saltbush'.
>
> Then you won;t look as much of a plonker.
A search with google on the term bring up only the post that I am
responding to.
Not that it matters. A survey of your posts shows a decided ignorance
of both the science and practical farming knowledge. A number of
posters have tried to educate you on the matter, but you manage to
remain ignorant.
In short, I think the evidence shows that you are the plonker (british
slang for idiot).
Oz
>A search with google on the term bring up only the post that I am
>responding to.
Then you can't read what's written
>Not that it matters. A survey of your posts shows a decided ignorance
>of both the science and practical farming knowledge.
That's a laugh.
>A number of
>posters have tried to educate you on the matter, but you manage to
>remain ignorant.
Hardly.