http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

It's the fact the rest of us will suffer if people listen to them that
bothers me...

--
Tim Watts

Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

It's the fact the rest of us will suffer if people listen to them that
bothers me...


Since when has it made a difference what the public thought about *any*
issue ?

In article , Andy Cap
scribeth thus
Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

It's the fact the rest of us will suffer if people listen to them that
bothers me...


Since when has it made a difference what the public thought about *any*
issue ?

O dear!, we're well Doomed now .. to the dark and cold;-(((...
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:59:08 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

Simple enough to do with the "smart meters" that we are all supposed
to be getting. If you choose for an non-nuke tariff you also choose
to have your power cut at zero notice, for an indeterminate period
and no guaranteed "on" time. So a blustery day off for 5 mins on for
10 of again for 2 on for 3 off for 10 etc etc. Or a period of calm
for a few days, no power for a few days... I bet all but the hardiest
greenie would soon switch tariff.

Hopefully it's just a refelection of the knee jerk reaction and lack
of real knowledge about the enrgy supply by the general public.

It would be sensible to have a review of the plans to see if any of
the lessons learned from Fukushima are applicable to the UK and need
to be applied. Passive shutdown core cooling is the obvious one that
should be applied to any new plants.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:59:08 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

Simple enough to do with the "smart meters" that we are all supposed
to be getting. If you choose for an non-nuke tariff you also choose
to have your power cut at zero notice, for an indeterminate period
and no guaranteed "on" time. So a blustery day off for 5 mins on for
10 of again for 2 on for 3 off for 10 etc etc. Or a period of calm
for a few days, no power for a few days... I bet all but the hardiest
greenie would soon switch tariff.

Hopefully it's just a refelection of the knee jerk reaction and lack
of real knowledge about the enrgy supply by the general public.

It would be sensible to have a review of the plans to see if any of
the lessons learned from Fukushima are applicable to the UK and need
to be applied. Passive shutdown core cooling is the obvious one that
should be applied to any new plants.



Meanwhile the Chinese are developing a reactor -that- safe you can have
one in your backyard;!...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...itchard/839398
4/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:59:08 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12810867

Same story different spin. Mejia don't you just luv'em...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 22/03/2011 09:00, tony sayer wrote:
In articleHYWdnebl1bDS_BXQnZ2dnUVZ7rKdnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, Andy Cap
scribeth thus
Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

It's the fact the rest of us will suffer if people listen to them that
bothers me...


Since when has it made a difference what the public thought about *any*
issue ?

O dear!, we're well Doomed now .. to the dark and cold;-(((...
Only for about half the year. It's not winter all the time, apparently

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:52:25 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html

Good to see something in a mainstream newspaper. And not a complete load
of ******** (from the little I know about the subject) which is also nice
from a mainstream paper.



--
John Stumbles

On 22 Mar 2011 12:00:03 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...pritchard/8393
984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.
html

Good to see something in a mainstream newspaper. And not a complete load
of ********

It is an interesting article, and shows the influence of goverments
and big business has on the development of new ideas or processes
that don't fit in with the agendas of either.

I don't understand this bit though:

"Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium
must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. "There
is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the
photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own
accord," he said."

Since when have photons been neutrons?

(from the little I know about the subject)

I know sod all, which is probably why I don't understand the above
quote.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 22/03/2011 13:01, Dave Liquorice wrote:
Since when have photons been neutrons?

Protons not photons ;-) AIUI protons are produced in an accelerator,
then fired at a lead target which produces the neutrons which drive the
reaction.

Another Dave

On 22/03/2011 09:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Simple enough to do with the "smart meters" that we are all supposed
to be getting. If you choose for an non-nuke tariff you also choose
to have your power cut at zero notice, for an indeterminate period
and no guaranteed "on" time. So a blustery day off for 5 mins on for
10 of again for 2 on for 3 off for 10 etc etc. Or a period of calm
for a few days, no power for a few days... I bet all but the hardiest
greenie would soon switch tariff.


Ooh! I love that idea. Maybe we could extend it so that they paid three
times as much too.

Another Dave

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 22 Mar 2011 12:00:03 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...pritchard/8393
984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.
html

Good to see something in a mainstream newspaper. And not a complete load
of ********

It is an interesting article, and shows the influence of goverments
and big business has on the development of new ideas or processes
that don't fit in with the agendas of either.

I don't understand this bit though:

"Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium
must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. "There
is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the
photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own
accord," he said."

Since when have photons been neutrons?

OK, Now I am Not a Nuclear Physicist BUT what I think happens is that
high energy gamma rays - photons - or maybe its electrons or protons
alpha particles - bash into thorium. It is stable BUT if you smash it
hard enough you get slightly more out than you put in, and a few
neutrons too.

These an then be used to smash into other crap lying around - depleted
uranium works I think, and when that goes pop, it fission decays into a
smaller one if you hit it hard enough, with a net release of energy and
the heavier it is, the easier it is, up to uranium-235 which is the
heaviest naturally ocurring element. The rest we make.

Likewise in principle any element lighter than iron can be fusioned, to
make a heavier one and that also gives of energy. Iron is the most
nuclear stable of the lot.

Only uranium-235 as a natural element is capable of natural chain
reactions. The heavier stuff has decayed..

(Ok radon which is as by product of uranium decay is also around, but
only becasue teh uranim is)


BUT stuff that's nearly as heavy as uranium or uranium 238 (ordinary
depleted ****) will split quite easily IF you give it enough excess
energy, and then you do ALMOST get a chain reaction. Its like trying to
burn anthracite on a bonfire, with a bellows it works, but mostly it
goes out.

There's a lot more to it than that..moderators and coatings and stuff,
but in principle it's megawatts in, gigawatts out, and if the megawatts
fail the gigawatts stop almost instantly.

I'd say there would still be some decay products, just not as many.

Oddly enough, in a way its like fusion, in that you have to throw a lot
of energy at it to get it going, but unlike fusion you don't need the
immense pressures nor do o have the mmense temperatures sither.

here's what wiki says/ Protobns, not photons.

The energy amplifier uses a synchrotron or other appropriate accelerator
(e.g. cyclotron, fixed-field alternating-gradient) to produce a beam of
protons. These hit a heavy metal target such as lead, thorium or uranium
and produce neutrons through the process of spallation. It might be
possible to increase the neutron flux through the use of a neutron
amplifier, a thin film of fissile material surrounding the spallation
source; the use of neutron amplification in CANDU reactors has been
proposed. While CANDU is a critical design, many of the concepts can be
applied to a sub-critical system.[1][2] Thorium nuclei absorb neutrons,
thus breeding fissile uranium-233, an isotope of uranium which is not
found in nature. Moderated neutrons produce U-233 fission, releasing energy.

This design is entirely plausible with currently available technology,
but requires more study before it can be declared both practical and
economical.


(from the little I know about the subject)

I know sod all, which is probably why I don't understand the above
quote.

Another Dave wrote:
On 22/03/2011 09:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Simple enough to do with the "smart meters" that we are all supposed
to be getting. If you choose for an non-nuke tariff you also choose
to have your power cut at zero notice, for an indeterminate period
and no guaranteed "on" time. So a blustery day off for 5 mins on for
10 of again for 2 on for 3 off for 10 etc etc. Or a period of calm
for a few days, no power for a few days... I bet all but the hardiest
greenie would soon switch tariff.


Ooh! I love that idea. Maybe we could extend it so that they paid three
times as much too.

Id sign up to an 'all nuclear tarriff like a shot

Another Dave

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:59:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Another Dave wrote:
On 22/03/2011 09:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Simple enough to do with the "smart meters" that we are all supposed
to be getting. If you choose for an non-nuke tariff you also choose
to have your power cut at zero notice, for an indeterminate period
and no guaranteed "on" time. So a blustery day off for 5 mins on for
10 of again for 2 on for 3 off for 10 etc etc. Or a period of calm
for a few days, no power for a few days... I bet all but the hardiest
greenie would soon switch tariff.


Ooh! I love that idea. Maybe we could extend it so that they paid three
times as much too.

Id sign up to an 'all nuclear tarriff like a shot

Another Dave


+ with knobs on
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

Tim Streater wrote:
In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On 22 Mar 2011 12:00:03 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...pritchard/8393
984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.
html

Good to see something in a mainstream newspaper. And not a complete
load of ********
It is an interesting article, and shows the influence of goverments
and big business has on the development of new ideas or processes
that don't fit in with the agendas of either.

I don't understand this bit though:

"Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium
must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. "There
is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the
photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own
accord," he said."

Protons. And they would be sent into e.g. a lead target to generate
neutrons.

In fact the Indians are proposing to use a plutonium core in their
reactors, which will produce the neutrons directly.

That should astonish the Greenies' weak nerves.

"You get a pot boiler and fill it with thorium and light it with a poker
made of old bomb material

Gets hot, and the punka wallah fans it into the boiler"

"Then you open the regulator and off goes the train."

On Mar 22, 1:01*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On 22 Mar 2011 12:00:03 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...pritchard/8393
984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.
html

Good to see something in a mainstream newspaper. And not a complete load
of ********

It is an interesting article, and shows the influence of goverments
and big business has on the development of new ideas or processes
that don't fit in with the agendas of either.

I don't understand this bit though:

"Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium
must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. "There
is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the
photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own
accord," he said."

Since when have photons been neutrons?

(from the little I know about the subject)

I know sod all, which is probably why I don't understand the above
quote.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Bit on the Thorium reactor here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On 22 Mar 2011 12:00:03 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...pritchard/8393
984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.
html

Good to see something in a mainstream newspaper. And not a complete load
of ********

It is an interesting article, and shows the influence of goverments
and big business has on the development of new ideas or processes
that don't fit in with the agendas of either.

I don't understand this bit though:

"Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium
must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. "There
is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the
photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own
accord," he said."

Since when have photons been neutrons?

You get old, you put on a bit of weight ...

Something like that


--
geoff

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:29:09 +0000, Another Dave wrote:

Since when have photons been neutrons?

Protons not photons ;-)

If you and Mr Streater say so but that isn't what the article said.

Dumb ass journalists, what ever happened to proof reading? Or
clarifying apparent inconsistencies in quotes.



--
Cheers
Dave.

On 22/03/2011 09:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:59:08 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.
....
Hopefully it's just a refelection of the knee jerk reaction and lack
of real knowledge about the enrgy supply by the general public.

I saw a story today of skiers in Europe wearing face masks, because of
the risk of fallout from Japan.

It would be sensible to have a review of the plans to see if any of
the lessons learned from Fukushima are applicable to the UK and need
to be applied. Passive shutdown core cooling is the obvious one that
should be applied to any new plants.

I think you will find that passively safe design has been a feature of
new nuclear power plants for some time now.

Colin Bignell

On 22/03/2011 07:59, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

It's the fact the rest of us will suffer if people listen to them that
bothers me...

I think that the press must carry blame for the opposition. After the
events in Japan, countries would be mad not to 'review' their reactors.
Some of the media are using this word to mean 'think again' instead of
its correct meaning of 'make sure we're OK'.

This really couldn't have come at a better time. We need, at the least,
some new reactors, and this will force the ones ordering them to make
sure the designs that they are ordering are up to it, with respect to
safety.

Peter Scott wrote:
On 22/03/2011 07:59, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-cold-on-new-
plants-in-fukushimas-wake-2248937.html

Well, I hope the 37% like being cold and dark.

It's the fact the rest of us will suffer if people listen to them that
bothers me...

I think that the press must carry blame for the opposition. After the
events in Japan, countries would be mad not to 'review' their reactors.
Some of the media are using this word to mean 'think again' instead of
its correct meaning of 'make sure we're OK'.

This really couldn't have come at a better time. We need, at the least,
some new reactors, and this will force the ones ordering them to make
sure the designs that they are ordering are up to it, with respect to
safety.

+1

As long is its a balanced intelligent review, I am all for it.

'balanced and intelligent' and 'environmental lobby' don't however fit
in the same sentence.

Not sure where she got it from but my wife was peering at a blog and
muttering 'if they had educated the kids to do basic cost benefit
analysis and science, instead of climate changes studies and teaching
them how to screw in a CFL...'

As long is its a balanced intelligent review, I am all for it.

'balanced and intelligent' and 'environmental lobby' don't however fit
in the same sentence.

I'm afraid you are right. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the poor
quality of much science training. I should know as I have worked in that
area and seen how poor it has become. Or perhaps under-educated people
have always had a problem with rigorous logic but now have a chance to
spout their ill-thought-out ideas through the variety of mass-media
available to them.

If things were different, I would call myself an environmentalist, but I
get depressed at the poverty of many of the opinions that are touted.
One such area is genetic modification. Instinctively I am against it
until proven safe. However GM soya, tomatoes and maize have now been
eaten for a couple of decades without any apparent problems arising. I
am happy to change my mind, as we certainly need speedy evolution of
more hardy crops if we are not to starve.



Not sure where she got it from but my wife was peering at a blog and
muttering 'if they had educated the kids to do basic cost benefit
analysis and science, instead of climate changes studies and teaching
them how to screw in a CFL...'

How very very true!

Peter Scott wrote:


As long is its a balanced intelligent review, I am all for it.

'balanced and intelligent' and 'environmental lobby' don't however fit
in the same sentence.

I'm afraid you are right. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the poor
quality of much science training. I should know as I have worked in that
area and seen how poor it has become. Or perhaps under-educated people
have always had a problem with rigorous logic but now have a chance to
spout their ill-thought-out ideas through the variety of mass-media
available to them.

If things were different, I would call myself an environmentalist, but I
get depressed at the poverty of many of the opinions that are touted.
One such area is genetic modification. Instinctively I am against it
until proven safe. However GM soya, tomatoes and maize have now been
eaten for a couple of decades without any apparent problems arising. I
am happy to change my mind, as we certainly need speedy evolution of
more hardy crops if we are not to starve.


I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

But what doesn't? Rabbits in Australia, then myxmatosis..

The whole use of pesticides n the 60's. leading to dead raptors..the
probable link between pesticides and falling bee populations.

Science is amoral. It needs to be *applied* morally if you want a moral
result.


Not sure where she got it from but my wife was peering at a blog and
muttering 'if they had educated the kids to do basic cost benefit
analysis and science, instead of climate changes studies and teaching
them how to screw in a CFL...'

How very very true!

I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

GM makes profound changes to the very fundamentals of life, the DNA. It
is a technology that has the potential for very dire consequences, as
well as great benefits. The widespread introduction of said GM crops,
before extensive testing as food on living beings, was a very dangerous
experiment. Luckily we seem to have got away with it. Like Mengele's
data, I don't approve of how it was done, but the data is priceless.

But what doesn't? Rabbits in Australia, then myxmatosis..

The whole use of pesticides n the 60's. leading to dead raptors..the
probable link between pesticides and falling bee populations.

Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, was an eye-opener in the 60s or was
it 50s? People were more trusting and ignorant then. We still make
mistakes of course, but I think we're more open and informed now.
Television has helped in bringing people's attention to these things,
for example the destruction of coral reefs.


Science is amoral. It needs to be *applied* morally if you want a moral
result.

The gathering and analysis of scientific knowledge is amoral I agree.
Scientists are not though. Most think about the consequences of what
they do. Many would like more say in decision-making and are disgusted
when irrational decisions are made against the evidence, for example
over recreational drugs.

On 23/03/2011 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Peter Scott wrote:

I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

GM makes profound changes to the very fundamentals of life, the DNA.

What is so profound about adding or replacing a gene in DNA? Bacteria do
it all the time.

It is a technology that has the potential for very dire
consequences, ...

This is very mealy-mouthed - you'll have to do better and list some of
the "dire consequences".



Mealy-mouthed! Hmmph. Not what I'm usually accused of.

Never before have we mixed genes from totally different organisms,
animals and plants for example, or viruses. Selective breeding in the
past has been on the basis of accelerated evolution of the genes of one
organism by breeding from those with desired qualities.

It is the DNA that determines the nature of the organism, so mixing
alien genes has the potential for highly dangerous variation. After all,
small changes in a virus changes its virulence. Adding alien genes is a
trial and error process. No-one could have had any idea what might
result. Yes, the experiments are done in a sealed environment with the
destruction of anything shown to be hazardous, but no-one knew what
would happen when apparently benign new gene forms inter-acted with
those in nature.

What consequences? New virulent diseases as a result of the mixing of
the viruses used. Cancers produced by toxic effects of digestion of
alien materials. Animal species being wiped out by variants of their
genes used in other GM organisms. The point is that these were unknown
unknowns. I am sure I could think of more, but you get the point. As I
said this was one of the most profound experiments ever done, and we are
lucky.

In article , peter@peter-
scott.org.uk says...
Never before have we mixed genes from totally different organisms,
animals and plants for example, or viruses.


However, they do it themselves all the time.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

You're just making this up as you go along, with no idea whether it
actually means anything. I find this kind of doomsaying absurd.


I think that you are just being narrow-minded, assuming that because
nothing bad did happen that it could not have done. Are you sure that
all of the people working on GM knew exactly where their researches
would lead? It wouldn't have been much use if they did. We have never in
the past deliberately combined genetic material from different
organisms. You must know that it is a definition of a species that it
can reproduce. Yes, there has been genetic mixing over time but most of
these mixes died out because they were non-viable or for reasons we can
know nothing about. Yes, a complex organism is the result of
combinations of many smaller organisms over aeons of time, but many many
will have died out as a result of natural selection. I am not
doom-saying at all. Simply pointing out that science has been conducting
an experiment with no real idea if it might go badly wrong. We have to
go on doing it for the sake of feeding the world but should not ignore
the possible consequences.

Peter Scott wrote:

I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

GM makes profound changes to the very fundamentals of life, the DNA. It
is a technology that has the potential for very dire consequences, as
well as great benefits. The widespread introduction of said GM crops,
before extensive testing as food on living beings, was a very dangerous
experiment. Luckily we seem to have got away with it. Like Mengele's
data, I don't approve of how it was done, but the data is priceless.


I am not so su it is after all merely weird cross breeding.

All domestic animals are genetically modified: we just do it faster
these days.

But what doesn't? Rabbits in Australia, then myxmatosis..

The whole use of pesticides n the 60's. leading to dead raptors..the
probable link between pesticides and falling bee populations.

Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, was an eye-opener in the 60s or was
it 50s? People were more trusting and ignorant then. We still make
mistakes of course, but I think we're more open and informed now.
Television has helped in bringing people's attention to these things,
for example the destruction of coral reefs.


The Internet has been the single biggest thing after TV and radio, in
terms of speeding up the spread of ideas, good or bad.


Science is amoral. It needs to be *applied* morally if you want a moral
result.

The gathering and analysis of scientific knowledge is amoral I agree.
Scientists are not though. Most think about the consequences of what
they do. Many would like more say in decision-making and are disgusted
when irrational decisions are made against the evidence, for example
over recreational drugs.

Indeed.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Peter Scott wrote:

If things were different, I would call myself an environmentalist, but
I get depressed at the poverty of many of the opinions that are
touted. One such area is genetic modification. Instinctively I am
against it until proven safe. However GM soya, tomatoes and maize have
now been eaten for a couple of decades without any apparent problems
arising. I am happy to change my mind, as we certainly need speedy
evolution of more hardy crops if we are not to starve.

Indeed, but I'm not aware that anyone against GM ever came up with a
sound reason that it might be bad for you.

The tow arguments that I thought were valid were that it might go mad
and breakout and take over habitats, and the exact reverse, it would be
essentially sterile, and thereby leave people addicted to more GM seeds
for their crops.

Peter Scott wrote:
On 23/03/2011 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Peter Scott wrote:

I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

GM makes profound changes to the very fundamentals of life, the DNA.

What is so profound about adding or replacing a gene in DNA? Bacteria do
it all the time.

It is a technology that has the potential for very dire
consequences, ...

This is very mealy-mouthed - you'll have to do better and list some of
the "dire consequences".



Mealy-mouthed! Hmmph. Not what I'm usually accused of.

Never before have we mixed genes from totally different organisms,
animals and plants for example, or viruses.

Of course we have.

every time you catch a cold its DNA mingles with yours..


Selective breeding in the
past has been on the basis of accelerated evolution of the genes of one
organism by breeding from those with desired qualities.

It is the DNA that determines the nature of the organism, so mixing
alien genes has the potential for highly dangerous variation. After all,
small changes in a virus changes its virulence. Adding alien genes is a
trial and error process. No-one could have had any idea what might
result. Yes, the experiments are done in a sealed environment with the
destruction of anything shown to be hazardous, but no-one knew what
would happen when apparently benign new gene forms inter-acted with
those in nature.

Yep. don't shag any sheep, you get rampant were rabbits! Teeth like Jaws.



What consequences? New virulent diseases as a result of the mixing of
the viruses used. Cancers produced by toxic effects of digestion of
alien materials. Animal species being wiped out by variants of their
genes used in other GM organisms. The point is that these were unknown
unknowns. I am sure I could think of more, but you get the point. As I
said this was one of the most profound experiments ever done, and we are
lucky.


I think the long and the short of it, is that pretty much this
experiment was done a billion years ago. And we are the result.

Peter Scott wrote:


You're just making this up as you go along, with no idea whether it
actually means anything. I find this kind of doomsaying absurd.


I think that you are just being narrow-minded, assuming that because
nothing bad did happen that it could not have done.


If that were a reason not to do something, we might as well paralyse
ourselves now.



Are you sure that
all of the people working on GM knew exactly where their researches
would lead? It wouldn't have been much use if they did. We have never in
the past deliberately combined genetic material from different
organisms. You must know that it is a definition of a species that it
can reproduce. Yes, there has been genetic mixing over time but most of
these mixes died out because they were non-viable or for reasons we can
know nothing about. Yes, a complex organism is the result of
combinations of many smaller organisms over aeons of time, but many many
will have died out as a result of natural selection. I am not
doom-saying at all. Simply pointing out that science has been conducting
an experiment with no real idea if it might go badly wrong. We have to
go on doing it for the sake of feeding the world but should not ignore
the possible consequences.


You remind me of the story about the young prince and the lion: An old
woman cursed him because he was a snotty little brat, and sad 'you will
die when you meet a lion'

Hid parents were so scared, they never let him out of the palace
grounds, and he grew up isolated.

One day, while exploring an old disused part of the palace, he came
across a picture of a Lion. He was furious "WHO left this picture here?"
he screamed and banged his fists on the wall, where an old rusty nail
from another picture, cut his hand, and he died of septicaemia three
days later...

:-)

On 23/03/2011 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


You're just making this up as you go along, with no idea whether it
actually means anything. I find this kind of doomsaying absurd.


I think that you are just being narrow-minded, assuming that because
nothing bad did happen that it could not have done.


If that were a reason not to do something, we might as well paralyse
ourselves now.



Are you sure that
all of the people working on GM knew exactly where their researches
would lead? It wouldn't have been much use if they did. We have never
in the past deliberately combined genetic material from different
organisms. You must know that it is a definition of a species that it
can reproduce. Yes, there has been genetic mixing over time but most
of these mixes died out because they were non-viable or for reasons we
can know nothing about. Yes, a complex organism is the result of
combinations of many smaller organisms over aeons of time, but many
many will have died out as a result of natural selection. I am not
doom-saying at all. Simply pointing out that science has been
conducting an experiment with no real idea if it might go badly wrong.
We have to go on doing it for the sake of feeding the world but should
not ignore the possible consequences.


You remind me of the story about the young prince and the lion: An old
woman cursed him because he was a snotty little brat, and sad 'you will
die when you meet a lion'

Hid parents were so scared, they never let him out of the palace
grounds, and he grew up isolated.

One day, while exploring an old disused part of the palace, he came
across a picture of a Lion. He was furious "WHO left this picture here?"
he screamed and banged his fists on the wall, where an old rusty nail
from another picture, cut his hand, and he died of septicaemia three
days later...

:-)


As we are now leaving rational argument behind and getting into the ad
hominem fallacy, its time for me to stop. Just as mention of Hitler
brings a thread to an end, so should the unfortunately fashionable one
of Aristotle's logical fallacies. Mind you it brings on some wonderfully
funny and creative threads in this ng, that is until the insults start
to repeat.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:52:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
teaching them how to screw in a CFL...'

do they make CFLs that big?

Peter Scott wrote:
On 23/03/2011 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:


You're just making this up as you go along, with no idea whether it
actually means anything. I find this kind of doomsaying absurd.


I think that you are just being narrow-minded, assuming that because
nothing bad did happen that it could not have done.


If that were a reason not to do something, we might as well paralyse
ourselves now.



Are you sure that
all of the people working on GM knew exactly where their researches
would lead? It wouldn't have been much use if they did. We have never
in the past deliberately combined genetic material from different
organisms. You must know that it is a definition of a species that it
can reproduce. Yes, there has been genetic mixing over time but most
of these mixes died out because they were non-viable or for reasons we
can know nothing about. Yes, a complex organism is the result of
combinations of many smaller organisms over aeons of time, but many
many will have died out as a result of natural selection. I am not
doom-saying at all. Simply pointing out that science has been
conducting an experiment with no real idea if it might go badly wrong.
We have to go on doing it for the sake of feeding the world but should
not ignore the possible consequences.


You remind me of the story about the young prince and the lion: An old
woman cursed him because he was a snotty little brat, and sad 'you will
die when you meet a lion'

Hid parents were so scared, they never let him out of the palace
grounds, and he grew up isolated.

One day, while exploring an old disused part of the palace, he came
across a picture of a Lion. He was furious "WHO left this picture here?"
he screamed and banged his fists on the wall, where an old rusty nail
from another picture, cut his hand, and he died of septicaemia three
days later...

:-)


As we are now leaving rational argument behind

well that was the point I was making

You cannot predicate a course of action on the statistical probability
of an unkown unknown.

Because you don't know it. By definition.

The fact is that by definition also, there always will be unknown
unknowns: Ergo if you are not going to proceed on the grounds that there
are unknown unknowns, you are going to get precisely nowhere.

Which is what the Prince did, but as the story shows, even that didn't
ensure his safety..

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Peter Scott wrote:


You're just making this up as you go along, with no idea whether it
actually means anything. I find this kind of doomsaying absurd.

I think that you are just being narrow-minded, assuming that because
nothing bad did happen that it could not have done. Are you sure that
all of the people working on GM knew exactly where their researches
would lead? It wouldn't have been much use if they did. We have never
in the past deliberately combined genetic material from different
organisms. You must know that it is a definition of a species that it
can reproduce. Yes, there has been genetic mixing over time but most
of these mixes died out because they were non-viable or for reasons we
can know nothing about. Yes, a complex organism is the result of
combinations of many smaller organisms over aeons of time, but many
many will have died out as a result of natural selection. I am not
doom-saying at all. Simply pointing out that science has been
conducting an experiment with no real idea if it might go badly wrong.
We have to go on doing it for the sake of feeding the world but should
not ignore the possible consequences.

But you still haven't enumerated any known possible consequences:

1st Plymouth Brother: I think Sarah must be a witch - she's got a black
cat!

2nd PB: Better drown her then, she seems nice enough but you can't be
too careful! She might turn me into a turnip.

You're like those who stopped that postie in Wales (iirc) from doing his
round because it involved going over two styles and crossing a field.
You've identified a risk without quantifying it. After all, the postie
might fall on his face and drown in some cow-poo. Well, he *might*, eh?
And because no-one can say that it'll *never* happen, his round is cut.

It's the same with GM.

"WHY are you tearing up telephone books and throwing them out of the train?"
"Keeps the Elephants away"
"There aren't any Elephants in this country!".
"Shows how effective it is!"
"Are you a politician?"

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:52:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
teaching them how to screw in a CFL...'

do they make CFLs that big?

No, but ****ed teenagers will try it anywhere.

On 23/03/2011 16:51, Peter Scott wrote:

Mealy-mouthed! Hmmph. Not what I'm usually accused of.

Never before have we mixed genes from totally different organisms,
animals and plants for example, or viruses. Selective breeding in the
past has been on the basis of accelerated evolution of the genes of one
organism by breeding from those with desired qualities.

It is the DNA that determines the nature of the organism, so mixing
alien genes has the potential for highly dangerous variation. After all,
small changes in a virus changes its virulence. Adding alien genes is a
trial and error process. No-one could have had any idea what might
result. Yes, the experiments are done in a sealed environment with the
destruction of anything shown to be hazardous, but no-one knew what
would happen when apparently benign new gene forms inter-acted with
those in nature.

What consequences? New virulent diseases as a result of the mixing of
the viruses used. Cancers produced by toxic effects of digestion of
alien materials. Animal species being wiped out by variants of their
genes used in other GM organisms. The point is that these were unknown
unknowns. I am sure I could think of more, but you get the point. As I
said this was one of the most profound experiments ever done, and we are
lucky.

Umm.. mixing their DNA in with the host is exactly what retroviruses
(best known being HIV/AIDS) and there is a growing theory that eukaryote
organisms evolved from assemblies of prokaryotes working in symbiosis.
The separate inheritance of the partial DNA of mitochondria is why you
can track the maternal line - and it is only partial DNA.

Take this with caution, I am many years out of the field.

Andy

p.s. "Silent Spring" first published 1962 it says in my copy.

On 23/03/2011 18:29, Peter Scott wrote:
We have never in the past deliberately combined genetic material from
different organisms.

Ever hear of a mule?

Andy

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

As we are now leaving rational argument behind

well that was the point I was making

You cannot predicate a course of action on the statistical probability
of an unkown unknown.

Because you don't know it. By definition.

The fact is that by definition also, there always will be unknown
unknowns: Ergo if you are not going to proceed on the grounds that there
are unknown unknowns, you are going to get precisely nowhere.

Which is what the Prince did, but as the story shows, even that didn't
ensure his safety..

Mmm. There must be a proper name for the sort of argument based on the
"well the sky could fall down" approach, which cannot be countered
because, well, the sky *could* fall down.

A polite name, I mean. I can think of plenty of rude ones :-)

No disrespect to either party, but I'd call it Rumsfeldism

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-23, Peter Scott wrote:

I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

GM makes profound changes to the very fundamentals of life, the DNA.

Whoopdee ****ing doo.

So does selective breeding, and you eat that every day. You do know every ear
of wheat grown in this country is GM, don't you? You've been eating
that every day of your life.

All bananas, all Ginger, all melons, kiwifruit, potatoes, strawberrys,
sugar and lots more.

The widespread introduction of said GM crops,
before extensive testing as food on living beings, was a very dangerous
experiment.

Total codswallop.

Indeed but people don't think they just emote.