 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008There is no gas shortage
Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay US$4.00 for the gallon: http://tinyurl.com/6hl2p9 -- I am necromancer and I approved this poast. >Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay >US$4.00 for the gallon: http://tinyurl.com/6hl2p9 My bad. That link will put you onto page 3 of the article. Try this instead: http://tinyurl.com/3666dt -- I am necromancer and I approved this poast. On Apr 22, 7:58 pm, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO- WAY.com> wrote: > Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it > interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay > US$4.00 for the gallon:http://tinyurl.com/6hl2p9 > > -- > I am necromancer and I approved this poast. I heard an account of that in the local news. Some of the interviewees mentioned greed in the futures market as a big factor. I have been suspecting that since we first cracked $2. Also mentioned on the local news report was how investors were dumping other investments to jump into the oil market. No wonder my 401K dove into the $#itcan the past 3 months. I am MLOM and I endorse necromancer's post. > I am MLOM and I endorse necromancer's post. That's because neco is just another of your many aliases. You are such a loser. On Apr 22, 9:08 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > I am MLOM and I endorse necromancer's post. > > That's because neco is just another of your many aliases. You are such > a loser. You're just disappointed I'm not c@lrög. >On Apr 22, 9:08 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" ><beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> That's because neco is just another of your many aliases. You are such >> a loser. ROTFLMAO!!!!! >You're just disappointed I'm not c@lrög. Maybe SFB was thinking (hoping, maybe) that you were erika.... -- Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj >On Apr 22, 7:58 pm, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO- >WAY.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >interviewees mentioned greed in the futures market as a big factor. I >have been suspecting that since we first cracked $2. >Also mentioned on the local news report was how investors were dumping >other investments to jump into the oil market. No wonder my 401K dove >into the $#itcan the past 3 months. > >I am MLOM and I endorse necromancer's post. Gasoline and oil prices are more or less stable in silver and gold. oh yeah, that's right... it's only tin-foil-hatter nutters that money that private bankers and governments can't manipulate for their own benefit. On Apr 22, 9:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <9c46de47-52af-4279-bda0-1c6908026...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, MLOM wrote: > >On Apr 22, 7:58 pm, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO- [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Gasoline and oil prices are more or less stable in silver and gold. Not sure about silver and gold: both have been dropping (gold down from over $1,000/oz to just over $900, and silver down from $21 to around $18). I suspect that investors are now starting to dump silver and gold like they are dumping other stocks in order to continue jacking with oil. > oh yeah, that's right... it's only tin-foil-hatter nutters that money > that private bankers and governments can't manipulate for their own > benefit Tin as a hat may no longer be practical, as all metals are going up in cost. >On Apr 22, 9:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >and gold like they are dumping other stocks in order to continue >jacking with oil. There's some flux between them, but as of yesterday's close a 90% silver quarter had a silver melt value of $3.09 and a 90% silver dime $1.24. So gasoline is still less than 35 cents a gallon in US silver backed money. >Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay >US$4.00 for the gallon: http://tinyurl.com/6hl2p9 Newsweek is just figuring this out now? Those of us in the 'Tin Foil Hat' community have known about refinery supply manipulations for years, we've known about the cartel nature of the business where by forces like supply and demand don't mater much, and we've known about the federal reserve along with the bubbles it creates as it weakens the dollar. Oh yeah and the market interventions with the ethanol mandates end up distorting prices. Well.... just another instance of yesterday's tin foil hattery being today's mainstream news. And before I forget... remember when the big tin-foil-hat types announced the info they got with regards to what the bilderberg group wanted oil to be priced at? http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bilderberg_to_meet_in_canada.html (Issue #22, May 29, 2006) "Whether Bilderberg will call for still higher prices is unclear, but Henry Kissinger and others had gleefully anticipated ultimate prices at $150 a barrel a year ago. Bilderberg is certainly concerned about supply, which is related to the .Latin American problem,. as one insider said." >>Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >>interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > supply, which is related to the .Latin American problem,. as one insider > said." As for ethanol, even the granola munching crowd has started to figure out it's a bad deal, NPR was reporting today on the effect that ethanol subsidies have had on food prices, which sucks for us, but really, REALLY sucks for poor people. Now if we can just convince them that it isn't worth doing unless it's energy positive... nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >As for ethanol, even the granola munching crowd has started to figure >out it's a bad deal, NPR was reporting today on the effect that ethanol >subsidies have had on food prices, which sucks for us, but really, >REALLY sucks for poor people. Now if we can just convince them that it >isn't worth doing unless it's energy positive... Ethanol from corn and oil is just stupid. But it's the political process and ADM might as well be an oil company. I still believe ethanol made as a battery for solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc is a fine idea. But with the government involved it's never going to be done the right way. It will always be done some way that benefits a connected group over a non-connected one. >>As for ethanol, even the granola munching crowd has started to figure >>out it's a bad deal, NPR was reporting today on the effect that ethanol [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Ethanol from corn and oil is just stupid. But it's the political process >and ADM might as well be an oil company. >I still believe ethanol made as a battery for solar, wind, geo-thermal, >etc is a fine idea. Haven't heard of this concept. Please elaborate.... > But with the government involved it's never going to >be done the right way. It will always be done some way that benefits a >connected group over a non-connected one. Show mw something that government has done right besides start wars and screw over the average joe..... -- "I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin >>>As for ethanol, even the granola munching crowd has started to figure >>>out it's a bad deal, NPR was reporting today on the effect that ethanol [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Haven't heard of this concept. Please elaborate.... The problem with ethanol is that oil and other hydrocarbon fuels are used to power the process to make it. That's where ethanol becomes an energy loser. It would have been best just to make gasoline from the oil in the first place. However, if that process were powered by an energy source that is not workable in an automobile, say wind, the slight loss of energy is not as big of deal because ethanol overcomes the problems of electric cars. Although that just deals with the energy balance not the kind of crops and where to grow them. >> But with the government involved it's never going to >>be done the right way. It will always be done some way that benefits a >>connected group over a non-connected one. >Show mw something that government has done right besides start wars >and screw over the average joe..... You're repeating yourself. The wars screw over the average joe. On Apr 22, 11:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <fum6ia02...@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote: > >As for ethanol, even the granola munching crowd has started to figure [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > be done the right way. It will always be done some way that benefits a > connected group over a non-connected one. I read that the high food prices are eroding resistance to genetically engineered crops- Monsanto must be pleased that their plan, um, that circumstances are working out. Dave >I read that the high food prices are eroding resistance to genetically >engineered crops- Monsanto must be pleased that their plan, um, that >circumstances are working out. Of course. Environmentalists are concerning themselves over this CO2 nonsense when the real danger is GMO. Some of the 'side-effects' of GMO crops are pretty scary. As in the rats were force-fed (because they wouldn't touch it on their own) GMO food and died. (75% of US corn is now GMO BTW) The economic attack that GMO represents is bad enough. > In article > <6745f97a-bf6f-42d0-9fb5-a0fad88ad29e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is > now GMO BTW) The economic attack that GMO represents is bad enough. In the broadest definition of "GMO" 100% of corn grown in the US is genetically modified. I realize some of the modifications happened the old fashion way (crossbreeding) but why is that any more acceptable than inserting genes? Like it or not genes somehow get transferred in nature - witness the "natural" development of "Round-Up Ready" weeds. I don't think Monsanto is out there inserting the gene that confers resistance to Round-Up in pig weeds, but they got it anyhow. I wish you had told the rats in NC that they don't like to eat GMO corn. Seems they didn't get the message here. And I think you are not stating true facts when you say "the rats were force-fed .... GMO food and died." There are certainly internet stories that make similar claims, but are they truly verifiable? I've seen a couple of half baked preliminary studies regarding Round-Up Ready Soybeans and pregnant rats, but not anything conclusive. Round-up ready soybeans have been on the market for a decade. Feed lots and industrial chicken farms keep careful record. I suspect if Round-Up Ready beans and corn were affecting the growth of animals, there would be evidence available. I have also seen studies that claim that you cannot easily detect the difference between GMO beans and corn and corn and beans from plants developed with traditional breeding techniques. Who should I believe? What is the economic attack that GMO represents? For years I resisted planting Round-Up Ready Soybeans. Instead, I went with older chemicals to control weeds. For the last two years, I decided to go with the RR beans and couldn't be happier. The costs are significantly lower and the yields are just as good. The patent on Round-Up has expired, and there are cheaper "generic" versions available. I am not even sure why Monsanto continues to push Round-Up Ready crops. It seems like there is always some group crying the sky is falling about something. If you want to go after someone, you need to go after the FDA. They are charged with safeguarding the nations food supply. They do have programs in place. Perhaps you believe they are inadequate? Ed >In the broadest definition of "GMO" 100% of corn grown in the US is >genetically modified. I realize some of the modifications happened the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't think Monsanto is out there inserting the gene that confers >resistance to Round-Up in pig weeds, but they got it anyhow. Nice spin job there. Inserting genes is *NOTHING* like cross breeding unless you've learned to do things like cross breed an insect with a plant naturally. What it does is take geneticmaterial from entirely different species or even from animals to plants or insects to plants and then neglect the unknown changes in the food. Nobody knows what other things are being changed when they go in to make the desired change. Not a clue. There is little knowledge what even the desired changed does once the crop is eaten too. GMO also goes well beyond resistance to chemicals. In some cases the gene is inserted so that the plant makes the toxin that fends off the insects or whatever. This has some interesting results when eaten. It's sort of like eating pesticide. Then there is the problem of GMO perhaps altering bacteria in the digestive tract... nobody really has a clue about it, but it's fine to make the majority of our food crops GMO... just trust them that it is okay. Those who are concerned about it are just tin-foil-hat nutters. >I wish you had told the rats in NC that they don't like to eat GMO >corn. Seems they didn't get the message here. And I think you are not >stating true facts when you say "the rats were force-fed .... GMO food >and died." I didn't say it was corn. I don't remember which crop it was but it wasn't corn. >There are certainly internet stories that make similar >claims, but are they truly verifiable? I've seen a couple of half >baked preliminary studies regarding Round-Up Ready Soybeans and >pregnant rats, but not anything conclusive. Of course, it's all tin-foil-hat nonsense... we can trust our loving corporations and the government that serves them! All those other countries that resist GMO foods just don't know what they are doing. The corporations and government in the US have 'top men' working on GMO and it's good for you.... just trust them. So is flouride, agent orange, DU, radioactive fallout, and bunch of other things. Don't let the fact they really have no clue and we'll just see how it turns out scare you... afterall, where would be now if soliders weren't put out there and exposed to atomic bomb blasts. Maybe I just don't like being a science experiement against my will because our loving government not only won't mandate that foods indicate that they contain GMO crops but bans the practice of using labels to say that a food does NOT contain GMO. So much for the free market and free choice. > Round-up ready soybeans >have been on the market for a decade. Feed lots and industrial chicken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >from plants developed with traditional breeding techniques. Who should >I believe? Yes, let's randomly screw around with the food supply and hope that it doesn't turn toxic. Sounds like a great plan, especially when non-GMO crops no longer exist because the stuff got out and spread field to field. Humans have basically no clue what they are doing but they are doing it. Growth of the animals... well if that is all you care about... I care more about what toxins are being generated and passed on. What horizontal gene transfer might be going on. Just keeping the animals fat and happy isn't the scary part. >What is the economic attack that GMO represents? For years I resisted >planting Round-Up Ready Soybeans. Instead, I went with older chemicals [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >there are cheaper "generic" versions available. I am not even sure why >Monsanto continues to push Round-Up Ready crops. There are the farmers that that have been sued when GMO pollen infected their crops... That aside, I take it you buy seed each year instead of keeping some seed from your crop. The idea is to force the buying of seed each year. It's like the software model where you have to pay each year instead of buying the software once. >It seems like there is always some group crying the sky is falling >about something. I don't know.. considering what isn't known about the practice and what is known about it I don't much like being a lab rat. Do you? >If you want to go after someone, you need to go after the FDA. They >are charged with safeguarding the nations food supply. They do have >programs in place. Perhaps you believe they are inadequate? The FDA like much of government is there to serve whomever has ownership and influence of the government. Those who make the GMO have purchased the influence so the FDA has made it so we cannot even legally know if there is GMO in our food or not. The free market would do a better job at 'protecting' us than the FDA. >>In the broadest definition of "GMO" 100% of corn grown in the US is >>genetically modified. I realize some of the modifications happened the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > unless you've learned to do things like cross breed an insect with a > plant naturally. The main cereal grains are very different that their primitive ancestors. Genes were altered, maybe it took generations of carefully selecting mutations, but it is still gene manipulation. Canola is a good example of old fashion gene manipulation. It was developed from Rape Seed - which is poisonous to humans. By carefully selecting mutated plants, Canadian scientist were able to breed out the poisons and create a supposedly healthy oil crop. Do you ever worry when you eat something prepared with Canola oil? And there is evidence that genes move between species naturally. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1028.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220454.htm > What it does is take geneticmaterial from entirely > different species or even from animals to plants or insects to plants > and then neglect the unknown changes in the food. If you analyze the food and you can't tell the difference in the chemical composition, why do you worry there is a difference? > Nobody knows what > other things are being changed when they go in to make the desired > change. Not a clue. There is little knowledge what even the desired > changed does once the crop is eaten too. Maybe you trust Australian scientist - http://www.afaa.com.au/pdf/5_Animal_feed.pdf Honestly, I think you should worry more about the systemic insecticides applied to non-GMO crops than the changes to Round-up Ready or Bt crops. Check out what Thimet does to rats sometime. I always laugh at how stupid some people are. You would not believe the amounts of dangerous pesticides dumped on sweet corn because people freak out if they see a corn ear worm. People who demand completely insect free sweet corn are probably ingesting measurable amounts of highly toxic pesticides. I'd rather take my chances with Bt sweet corn. > GMO also goes well beyond resistance to chemicals. In some cases the > gene is inserted so that the plant makes the toxin that fends off the > insects or whatever. This has some interesting results when eaten. It's > sort of like eating pesticide. You are talking about Bt corn. Bt is a naturally occurring chemical that is toxic to a few insects (mostly European Corn Borers). Soil bacteria generate this chemical and everyone has been exposed to it for millions of years. It is virtually undetectable in the corn seed. > Then there is the problem of GMO > perhaps altering bacteria in the digestive tract... nobody really has a > clue about it, but it's fine to make the majority of our food crops > GMO... just trust them that it is okay. Those who are concerned about it > are just tin-foil-hat nutters. Pretty much. >>I wish you had told the rats in NC that they don't like to eat GMO >>corn. Seems they didn't get the message here. And I think you are not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I didn't say it was corn. I don't remember which crop it was but it > wasn't corn. So you are sort of remembering something that you read somewhere sometime, but you are sure it is proof that GMO crops are dangerous. I suspect it was the rat experiment that a Russian conducted. She published half baked results in an attempt to get more grant money to complete the study. >>There are certainly internet stories that make similar >>claims, but are they truly verifiable? I've seen a couple of half [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > afterall, where would be now if soliders weren't put out there and > exposed to atomic bomb blasts. GMO crops are so far down on my list of things to worry about that they don't register. Personally I worry a lot more about the crap that out gases from the plastic in Japanese cars than I do about GMO crops. > Maybe I just don't like being a science experiement against my will > because our loving government not only won't mandate that foods indicate > that they contain GMO crops but bans the practice of using labels to say > that a food does NOT contain GMO. So much for the free market and free > choice. Actually I am with you here. I think producers should have the right to label there products as GMO-free. You could look for "organic" crops. There are rules for these sorts of products and they don't include GMO crops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organic_Program >> Round-up ready soybeans >>have been on the market for a decade. Feed lots and industrial chicken [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > horizontal gene transfer might be going on. Just keeping the animals fat > and happy isn't the scary part. From your earlier comments, I thought you didn't believe there was "horizontal" gene transfer. >>What is the economic attack that GMO represents? For years I resisted >>planting Round-Up Ready Soybeans. Instead, I went with older chemicals [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's like the software model where you have to pay each year instead of > buying the software once. Few corn farmers keep seeds. Hybrid corn (and wheat) doesn't breed true. If you plant the seeds from your crop you get a mess. Soybeans do breed true, so in theory you could keep the seeds and plant them the next year. I've never done that, even with no-GMO soybeans, but many farmers have. Non-GMO beans are still available, so no one forces you to buy the GMO seeds. But most farmer chose to do so because the economic advantages of using less and cheaper herbicides out weighs the higher seed cost. >>It seems like there is always some group crying the sky is falling >>about something. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there is GMO in our food or not. The free market would do a better job > at 'protecting' us than the FDA. I suppose you could always grow your own food. Ed >>>In the broadest definition of "GMO" 100% of corn grown in the US is >>>genetically modified. I realize some of the modifications happened the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >scientist were able to breed out the poisons and create a supposedly healthy >oil crop. Do you ever worry when you eat something prepared with Canola oil? *sigh* I see you bought the spin job hook line and sinker. There is a world of difference between selective breeding and injecting the genes of a bacteria into a plant. The former usually has no more ill effect than a plant that doesn't make it, the later can create something very dangerous. >And there is evidence that genes move between species naturally. See: I covered horizontal gene transfer... rather rare in nature but once you start shooting genes in it seems to become more likely. >> What it does is take geneticmaterial from entirely >> different species or even from animals to plants or insects to plants >> and then neglect the unknown changes in the food. >If you analyze the food and you can't tell the difference in the chemical >composition, why do you worry there is a difference? You modify a food crop to create its own pesticide by injecting genes from a plant or bacteria or animal people don't eat (probably because it's poison). You're then eating pesticide. It can't be 'washed' off. it's in the food. >> Nobody knows what >> other things are being changed when they go in to make the desired >> change. Not a clue. There is little knowledge what even the desired >> changed does once the crop is eaten too. >Maybe you trust Australian scientist - >http://www.afaa.com.au/pdf/5_Animal_feed.pdf >Honestly, I think you should worry more about the systemic insecticides >applied to non-GMO crops than the changes to Round-up Ready or Bt crops. It's not just round-up-ready crops. duh. That's not all of GMO. You're telling me on one level I should be worried about insecticides that are sparayed more than the ones the plants have been genetically modified to make? That I should be concerned about consuming high doses of round up? Round-up resistance is genetically added with the gene gun so that massive amounts of that chemical could be sprayed without killing the crop! >Check out what Thimet does to rats sometime. I always laugh at how stupid >some people are. You would not believe the amounts of dangerous pesticides >dumped on sweet corn because people freak out if they see a corn ear worm. >People who demand completely insect free sweet corn are probably ingesting >measurable amounts of highly toxic pesticides. I'd rather take my chances >with Bt sweet corn. I am not saying the pesticides are good, but nice try. I'd rather not have 'corn' patented and controlled. >> perhaps altering bacteria in the digestive tract... nobody really has a >> clue about it, but it's fine to make the majority of our food crops >> GMO... just trust them that it is okay. Those who are concerned about it >> are just tin-foil-hat nutters. > >Pretty much. Yeah... it's nutters to be concerned about something being done to the food supply that nobody really has a clue what the long term effects are and gives ownership of the food supply to a few corporations. >>>I wish you had told the rats in NC that they don't like to eat GMO >>>corn. Seems they didn't get the message here. And I think you are not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> I didn't say it was corn. I don't remember which crop it was but it >> wasn't corn. >So you are sort of remembering something that you read somewhere sometime, >but you are sure it is proof that GMO crops are dangerous. I suspect it was >the rat experiment that a Russian conducted. She published half baked >results in an attempt to get more grant money to complete the study. I'm sorry... I haven't seen your list of cites for every last thing you've put down. But yeah, the usual thing, I am supposed to remember every last detail and be able to cite it. Because I'm the 'kook'. Of course when I do go dig up the cite that backs up my memory, it doesn't change a damn thing. So excuse me if I don't feel all that motivated to dig it up. One thing is funny though, when I point out that grants for climate research favor 'man made CO2 driven climate change' it's just kooky. But it's fine to say that's the motivation for studies that show GMO isn't the best thing since sliced bread. >>>There are certainly internet stories that make similar >>>claims, but are they truly verifiable? I've seen a couple of half [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> afterall, where would be now if soliders weren't put out there and >> exposed to atomic bomb blasts. >GMO crops are so far down on my list of things to worry about that they >don't register. Personally I worry a lot more about the crap that out gases >from the plastic in Japanese cars than I do about GMO crops. Good for you. >> Maybe I just don't like being a science experiement against my will >> because our loving government not only won't mandate that foods indicate >> that they contain GMO crops but bans the practice of using labels to say >> that a food does NOT contain GMO. So much for the free market and free >> choice. >Actually I am with you here. I think producers should have the right to >label there products as GMO-free. You could look for "organic" crops. There >are rules for these sorts of products and they don't include GMO crops. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organic_Program It's a somewhat effective work around. >> Growth of the animals... well if that is all you care about... I care >> more about what toxins are being generated and passed on. What >> horizontal gene transfer might be going on. Just keeping the animals fat >> and happy isn't the scary part. >From your earlier comments, I thought you didn't believe there was >"horizontal" gene transfer. Sigh... there is a world of difference between a very rare event in nature vs. man going in and doing it with a gene gun. And by doing it with a gene gun it doesn't seem so rare for the horizontal transfer to occur. Just one of those unexpected side-effects I guess. >>>If you want to go after someone, you need to go after the FDA. They >>>are charged with safeguarding the nations food supply. They do have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I suppose you could always grow your own food. Do it yourself seems to be about the only option left for quite a lot. But local governments, home owner associations, etc would put a stop to it. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb9912-e.htm#A.%20Human%20Hea lth(txt) http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html http://www.agbios.com/cstudies.php?book=COMM&ev=GMFEEDS&chapter=Conclusions&lang= http://www.bar.gov.ph/barchronicle/2002/apr02_1-15_allabout.asp http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd9609e.shtml http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/1352.pdf yada, yada, yada, >http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb9912-e.htm#A.%20Human%20Hea lth(txt) Pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, Health Canada requires prior notification of the sale or advertising of any "novel food" product in advance of its sale.(4) This applies to food products that have been genetically engineered or produced by other processes. This prior notification enables Health Canada to undertake a safety assessment of each novel food. The Guidelines for Safety Assessment of Novel Foods Volume II (Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants) were developed for novel plants and microorganisms.(5) At present, there are no guidelines in place for transgenic animals (including fish and other aquatic organisms) which might at some future time be considered for entry into the food chain. As of June 1999, Health Canada was working on updating the guidelines so that they would cover transgenic animals. Yet, in the USA, the companies pushing the GMO foods made it illegal for us to know if food was GMO or not. That doesn't add anything to the comfort level for what is going on in the USA. >http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html "There has been considerable recent comment on the lack of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the effect of GM food and feed on livestock, other animals and humans. " "Of the 42 publications, most examined the effects of feeding GM crop products to livestock including cattle, pigs and poultry. A smaller number examined effects on rats and mice with two on fish. As reported in the abstracts of the publications, 36 studies found no significant effect of GM crop products on the parameters measured or concluded GM and non-GM products were equivalent. " Somehow, that just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. >http://www.agbios.com/cstudies.php?book=COMM&ev=GMFEEDS&chapter=Conclusions&lang= "Protein and DNA contained in foods and feeds, whether obtained from non-GM or GM crops, are typically degraded upon consumption by the normal digestive processes. For those commercially available GM crops that are components of livestock feeds, there is no evidence of significantly altered nutritional composition, deleterious effects, or the occurrence of transgenic DNA or proteins in subsequent foods of animal origin. These data, together with the history of safe usage of the transgenic proteins in agriculture and/or their similarity to already occurring constituents, provide a substantial assurance of safety." So the short history of use and some testing.... sounds good if they selling cars or home appliances. I think what they are doing has a little more risk than making the next chevy vega. >http://www.bar.gov.ph/barchronicle/2002/apr02_1-15_allabout.asp Great.. reads like a package insert you'd find stapled to the bag of bt corn seed. Somehow, it just doesn't do the trick. >http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd9609e.shtml Determination of Environmental Safety of Event 176 Bt Corn (Zea mays L.) Developed by Ciba Seeds and Mycogen Corporation It meets government regulation for livestock feed. Great. Considering how well government regulation works and how it works this fails to give me a warm fuzzy feeling... although being from Canada it's a little better than having come from the FDA. >http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/80/5/1352.pdf Utilization of Bt corn residues by grazing beef steers and Bt corn silage and grain by growing beef cattle and lactating dairy cows "Data from these experiments suggest that the Bt trait had no effect on the preference for or performance of steers grazing Bt or non-Bt corn residue. Incorporation of the Bt gene into these two background genotypes resulted in different effects on the feeding value of the silage for growing steers, but no difference for lactating dairy cows." Great... it doesn't appear to hurt the performance and growth of cows. Of course we don't know about the humans that eat the bt corn or eat the cows that ate the bt corn. Not to mention the economical usefulness of a cow is a rather short compared to the life of a human being. Not feeling warm and fuzzy. >yada, yada, yada, Considering that yadda one would expect something much stronger. The level of testing seems to be good enough for buying a car or a major appliance. But somehow, I expect more for something that has consquences a lot greater than a broken down fridge. At least it broke up the boredom for a little bit. > Considering that yadda one would expect something much stronger. > The level of testing seems to be good enough for buying a car or a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At least it broke up the boredom for a little bit. Glad I could help. Life is risky. FrankenFoods are not something I spend a lot of time worrying about. GM Crops aren't even at the top of my food safety worries. Preservatives, colorants, chemicals leeched from containers, Teflon, poorly cooked meats, industrial contamination, bacterial contamination, cooks with hepatitis, etc. all have a much greater chance of causing me harm than Round-Up Ready / Bt Corn and Soybeans. You need to pick your worries. I have so many, GMO are off the radar. With any luck an asteroid will strike the earth before I die from the effects of GMOs. Or maybe the volcano under Yellowstone will finally go off - that should be fun. I'll probably be drowned when global warming melts the Greenland ice sheet. Of what the heck, I may get skin cancer because the Ozone layer is gone (or is it, not much on that topic recently). Fortunately I didn't get killed by the Ice Age we didn't have, or the lack of oxygen that proved to be wrong, or the super hurricanes that were supposed to devastate NC for the last two years. Heck, I haven't even been hit by lightening, shot by a gun, bitten by a snake, or hit by a car when I was on my bike. Life is good. Be happy, don't worry. Ed >Glad I could help. Life is risky. FrankenFoods are not something I >spend a lot of time worrying about. GM Crops aren't even at the top of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Corn and Soybeans. You need to pick your worries. I have so many, GMO >are off the radar. I see no reason why to avoid crops that are engineered to create pesticide or to be sprayed with a ton of herbicide is any different than the other food related concerns you mention. Round-up-ready crops are can be soaked in the herbicide just because they can survive it and the weeds don't. But our loving government has decided to make it illegal for food companies to sell their product as non-GMO. Free market my a.s. >>Glad I could help. Life is risky. FrankenFoods are not something I >>spend a lot of time worrying about. GM Crops aren't even at the top [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can be soaked in the herbicide just because they can survive it and > the weeds don't. I am not sure what "soaked" means. Usually one spraying of Round-Up is enough for RR soybeans. I spray a lot more stuff on peanuts. I usually spray peanuts with herbicides at least 4 times per year using one or more of the following chemicals - Gramoxome, Dual, Blazer, Bassagram, Poast. Non RR Corn gets that most evil of herbicides, Atrazine. Before RR Soybeans, I probably sprayed them at least tow times using one or more of the following chemicals - Command (evil stuff), Dual, Lasso, Poast, Python, or several others) > But our loving government has decided to make it illegal for food > companies to sell their product as non-GMO. Free market my a.s. I agree that this is wrong. However, I think part of the problem is the impracticality of identifying most GMO field crops from non-GMO field crops (where field crops are things like corn, wheat, soybeans, not tomatoes or other vegetables). It is my understanding that your cannot easily tell the difference between GMO corn and soybeans and the non-GMO varieties. Chemically they are essentially identical. Ed >>>I read that the high food prices are eroding resistance to >>>genetically engineered crops- Monsanto must be pleased that their >>>plan, um, that circumstances are working out. >> Of course. Environmentalists are concerning themselves over this >> CO2 nonsense when the real danger is GMO. Some of the >> 'side-effects' of GMO crops are pretty scary. As in the rats were >> force-fed (because they wouldn't touch it on their own) GMO food >> and died. (75% of US corn is now GMO BTW) The economic attack >> that GMO represents is bad enough. >In the broadest definition of "GMO" 100% of corn grown in the US is >genetically modified. I realize some of the modifications happened the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't think Monsanto is out there inserting the gene that confers >resistance to Round-Up in pig weeds, but they got it anyhow. The weeds thrive from accelerated natural selection, aided and abetted by poorly managed irradication procedures. This occurs especially when their environment is only lightly stressed by the agent, allowing more of the plants/animals to live and breed through the term of stress. Only the very-weakest are killed. Those with a light to moderate resistance multiply, filling out the gaps left behind by the killed stuff. When a heavier dose is applied, only the very few with a strong natural resistance survive. If the number of those is sufficiently low, then the pest is effectively irradicated because of insufficent breeding population. But it's unlikely that all (and their seeds) will be killed. If you really want to kill the pests, then you MUST remove the survivors by other means, following areal treatment, before they get the chance to breed. Commercial genetic modification can be used to force growers to keep buying seeds instead of reserving part of the normal harvest as seed crop. The modified crop yields no/few fertile seeds. Due to the high populations of plants in intense agriculture, it is however possible to leverage the "stressed environment" for the fertile-seed crops to become naturally injected by the GM, with the dominant characteristics for survival being selected in natural cross-breeds over a number of seasons. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Great minds discuss ideas; X against HTML mail | Average minds discuss events; / \ and postings | Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt On Apr 23, 9:11 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <6745f97a-bf6f-42d0-9fb5-a0fad88ad...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, spamTHIS...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wouldn't touch it on their own) GMO food and died. (75% of US corn is > now GMO BTW) The economic attack that GMO represents is bad enough. As big an issue, or bigger, is how so few companies control essentially the whole food supply, and their agenda is that every year farmers have to go to them, and only to them, to get seed for next years planting. Of course farmers aren't forced to go to Monsanto- not until all natural foodstuffs are accidently field cross-bred with patented plants, anyway. Then, Monsanto owns the world. Dave > On Apr 23, 9:11 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > until all natural foodstuffs are accidently field cross-bred with > patented plants, anyway. Well if the plant is "cross-bred" with patented plants, I don't think you can consider it the patented plant anymore. However, the case is murky if the plants include patented "genes." Before companies were allowed to patent "genes" farmers were legally entitled to retain seeds for their own use, even of patented varieties. However, most farmers who plant GMO crops are required to sign an agreement stating that they will not retain a portion of the crop to use for seeds. Hybrid corn, hybrid wheat, and hybrid rice have been the norm for farmers for many years. They don't breed true, so there is no point in keeping the seeds. The seeds will come up, but the resulting plants are a hodgepodge of the parents crossbred to produce the hybrid seeds. Creating hybrid seeds does not involve modern genetic engineering, just old fashion cross breeding. Soybeans, peanuts and some other crops do breed true. The USDA patented a terminator gene for GMO crops that should could have prevent farmers from retaining seeds for planting the next year. This was never implemented. Still it is illegal to retain GMO soybean seeds for replanting (although I know farmers who have done it). The first time I planted Round-Up Ready Soybeans I was asked to sign an agreement stating I would not retain the seeds. I know one farmer that got in hot water for selling GMO seeds, but I don't personally know anyone who got in trouble for replanting them on their own farm (although it is illegal). Non-GMO soybeans seeds are still readily available. So, farmers that don't like GMO beans have alternatives. In general I prefer to buy new seeds each year. This year there was a shortage of seeds oats, so I was forced to plant oats retained from a prior crop. I don't like to do this because I don't go to the extremes that seed farmer do when raising oats. My retained oats include some weed seeds and some seeds from other crops (principally wheat). If you keep replanting your retained seeds, these can build up to problematic levels. > Then, Monsanto owns the world. There is lots of competition for producing and marketing crop seeds. In fact, I'd say there are more companies producing seeds than 30 years ago.And Monsanto is not the only chemical company in the seed business - DuPont owns Pioneer, a major seed producer. Syngenta sells GMO seeds. Bayer sells seeds. Dow sells seeds. And there are many non-chemical companies producing seeds (Dekalb, Asgrow, Southern States,etc.). There are literally 100's of producers of corn seeds. Some license the Round-up Ready "gene" from Monsanto for inclusion in some varieties, but their are still varieties available that don't include this gene. And the patent on the gene will eventually expire. Ed > >>Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it > >>interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > REALLY sucks for poor people. Now if we can just convince them that it > isn't worth doing unless it's energy positive... In Europe the big deal with biofuels is mainly biodiesel using vegetable oil. The other day I saw that a litre of plain 'cheap cooking oil in the local supermarket had risen since January from 58p to 88p Apparently it's also been causing deforestation in Asia to plant plam trees too ! Oh the irony. All that CO2 absorbing forest lost. Graham On Apr 22, 10:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Those of us in the 'Tin Foil > Hat' community have known about refinery supply manipulations for years, Sure you have, you just don't understand it. It makes no sense to spend money to build something that will increase supply and devalue the product. That's just common sense, and common business sense, which is likely why you don't understand it. > we've known about the cartel nature of the business where by forces like > supply and demand don't mater much, What a f.cking moron. Supply and demand affect the price of everything of which the price is not regulated by government. Just because the demand for oil has risen, constantly, over the last 100 years doesn't suggest to you anything, does it? No viable replacement for oil on the horizon, and demand rising at at ever increasing rate... what do you think is gonna happen to the price? I hope you got your chinstrap tight. ----- - gpsman > Sure you have, you just don't understand it. > > It makes no sense to spend money to build something that will > increase supply and devalue the product. Of course there is. Your profit margin may decrease, but overall profits may increase. Which is why manufacturers make more than 1 of something. >> Sure you have, you just don't understand it. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >profits may increase. Which is why manufacturers make more than 1 of >something. What the oil companies did was bought up independent refiners and closed them down. This reduced competition and made the market smaller so they could increase margin. I've cited the documents before. Now in a free market that would not work for long. The resulting high prices would encourage others to enter the business. Government regulation in the gasoline business makes new competition highly unlikely. And if it starts it won't change things for a decade or more until the new competition jumps through all the hoops. Gasoline simply is not a free market. Not an entirely closed market, not necesscarily price fixed, but not free either. >>> Sure you have, you just don't understand it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > more > until the new competition jumps through all the hoops. A lot of refining has moved off shore. It certainly makes more sense to refine the product near the point of production and ship the finished product that shipping the unrefined crude. And off shore refineries don't have to meet the same regulatory requirements are refineries in the US. IF you were running an oil company, what would you do? > Gasoline simply is not a free market. Not an entirely closed market, > not > necessarily price fixed, but not free either. Almost nothing is a truly free market these days. One difference between the oil market and some other industries is that the raw material suppliers have monopolistic control of the price of their commodity. As the oil industry is structured today, it is easy to squeeze out middle men. Ed >>>> Sure you have, you just don't understand it. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >refineries in the US. IF you were running an oil company, what would >you do? Given the way things work today I would have to buy elected office holders to create strong environmental regulation to keep competition out of the market while finding ways to exempt, grandfather, or relocate my facilities. If I didn't do this, my competition would and I'd be forced out of business. The other option is to use those purchasedd office holders and compeitors I am friends with to form a cartel legally and then force those not in the cartel out of business by the same methods. Oddly, this is pretty much what we are seeing. >> Gasoline simply is not a free market. Not an entirely closed market, >> not >> necessarily price fixed, but not free either. >Almost nothing is a truly free market these days. The government interferes with practically everything to the favor of one group over another another. > One difference >between the oil market and some other industries is that the raw >material suppliers have monopolistic control of the price of their >commodity. As the oil industry is structured today, it is easy to >squeeze out middle men. And regulation will keep it that way. On Apr 24, 12:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > The government interferes with practically everything to the favor of > one group over another another. Tee hee... as if everyone might be made happy. > > One difference > >between the oil market and some other industries is that the raw [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And regulation will keep it that way. <gasp> Holygeezus holygeezus... <sigh> Which current regulation would that be...?! Offering opinions on subjects of which you obviously know absolutely nothing is a fine hobby, I guess, but I can't help but feel there's a better use of your, and your employer's (if any) time. ----- - gpsman > Offering opinions on subjects of which you obviously know absolutely > nothing is a fine hobby, I guess, You guess? You've been doing it for years. nate > > Offering opinions on subjects of which you obviously know absolutely > > nothing is a fine hobby, I guess, > > You guess? You've been doing it for years. Nice snip, Sparky. Really. Nothing left but unsupported ad hominem. In response to your expected "snappy comeback", I have previously stated in this thread that "Supply and demand affect the price of everything of which the price is not regulated by government." If you can come up with a cite of any governmental regulation that supports or sustains "that the raw material suppliers have monopolistic control of the price of their commodity <and/or> as the oil industry is structured today, it is easy to squeeze out middle men, trot it out. Otherwise,... well, you couldn't look any more stupid... Nevermind. ----- - gpsman > > Sure you have, you just don't understand it. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > profits may increase. Which is why manufacturers make more than 1 of > something. Eh. I think they make more than 2 to meet demand, existing or expected. In the case of fuel, demand is high, and obviously not expected to decrease since its exploding. Spending $1B or more to add a refinery (in the US) makes no sense, no way, no how. If the prospective ROI did make sense you can bet your a.s one would be under construction 24/7. You seem to think oil companies are clueless concerning the generation of profit. I think they know exactly what they're doing. We may just have to agree to disagree. ----- - gpsman >> > It makes no sense to spend money to build something that will >> > increase supply and devalue the product. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Eh. I think they make more than 2 to meet demand, existing or > expected. I'm just taking your theory to it's logical conclusion. If making more of something lowers its value, then there wouldn't ever be a reason to make more of 1 of something. So obviously, the specific value of a product is not the only factor when deciding the quantity of product to make. > In the case of fuel, demand is high, and obviously not expected > to decrease since its exploding. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > generation of profit. I think they know exactly what they're > doing. I'm not making any judgement on oil companies and their current business mode. I'm just responding to your generalization of devauling a product by pointing out to you that devaluing a product by 10% by selling 50$ more DOES make sense. Take it the other way: If oil companies cut production in half, and gas went to $50 a gallon, they would sell so little of it that their profits would plummet, even though their actions made their product more valuable. >>Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >>interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay >>US$4.00 for the gallon: http://tinyurl.com/6hl2p9 > >Newsweek is just figuring this out now? . Businessweek.... >Those of us in the 'Tin Foil >Hat' community have known about refinery supply manipulations for years, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >yeah and the market interventions with the ethanol mandates end up >distorting prices. Distorting prices and driving up the price of something more essential to us than energy: food. >Well.... just another instance of yesterday's tin foil hattery being >today's mainstream news. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >supply, which is related to the .Latin American problem,. as one insider >said." And what is the bilderberg group going to do if people just up and say we are not going to buy petroleum products (if our market economy works properly, this will happen eventually)? They going to pass a law mandating we buy gas? -- President (sic) George W Bush says something intelligent: >>>Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >>>interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Businessweek.... opps. same difference... >>Those of us in the 'Tin Foil >>Hat' community have known about refinery supply manipulations for years, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>yeah and the market interventions with the ethanol mandates end up >>distorting prices. >Distorting prices and driving up the price of something more essential >to us than energy: food. How the better to rule over us. >>Well.... just another instance of yesterday's tin foil hattery being >>today's mainstream news. >>And before I forget... remember when the big tin-foil-hat types >>announced the info they got with regards to what the bilderberg group [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >works properly, this will happen eventually)? They going to pass a law >mandating we buy gas? I only bring up Bilderberg to needle those who dismiss things as tin-foil-hat out of hand. However, oil isn't a free market system, it's more or less a cartel. If demand drops the oil companies start closing more refineries. What else are you going to use? Regulation covers so much already. Let's say people in mass move to electric cars... what's going to happen to electric rates, regulation, etc? Probably end up with rationing and a different cartel. On Apr 22, 10:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <ta2t04tmscamfqukd8cpo6hf5j2vajr...@4ax.com>, necromancer wrote: > >Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > supply, which is related to the .Latin American problem,. as one insider > said." It would be illegal to sanction* the members of the Bilderburg group, but it would certainly be a moral action. *I think we all knows what this word means in this context. Dave >Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay >US$4.00 for the gallon: http://tinyurl.com/6hl2p9 http://tinyurl.com/5hswo6 Mr. Wallace has more on on the recent run up in the price of gasoline and how it defies economics 101. -- "The record run in oil prices is related more to speculation and a weakening dollar than supply and demand in the market. In terms of fundamentals, fear of supply reliability is overblown." --Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson >>Saw this article in another ng, thought the drivers here would find it >>interesting and something to think about next time you fill up and pay [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Mr. Wallace has more on on the recent run up in the price of gasoline >and how it defies economics 101. 1) Oil is not a free market as I have been saying for some time and ridiculed for. 2) I find the whole system of a few traders setting the price of anything to not be a free market. This small group cannot really know everything or make the correct adjustment. They guess, they react emotionally. It is not really they don't represent the market as whole all that well. The first oil trade at/above $100/bbl was done by some trader who wanted his name in the record book for it. That's the reason he did it. On Apr 25, 4:31 am, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO- WAY.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:24 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > --Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson And not a damn thing we can do to change it, or even influence it in the slightest. No one we can vote for will change this, or even look into it. Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.