|
Even without any GMO crops, they will still spray Roundup as a non-selective herbicide, because broadleaf weeds like Milkweed are considered pests even on highway medians and in uncultivated land. If you want to save Milkweed, then promote native plant habitat mitigation projects that preserve Milkweed. Roundup ready crops have nothing to do with the problem that Milkweed is unwanted and specifically targeted for eradication in a lot of places.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Even without any GMO crops, they will still spray Roundup as a non-selective herbicide, because broadleaf weeds like Milkweed are considered pests even on highway medians and in uncultivated land. If you want to save Milkweed, then promote native plant habitat mitigation projects that preserve Milkweed. Roundup ready crops have nothing to do with the problem that Milkweed is unwanted and specifically targeted for eradication in a lot of places. And, ironically, they have to spray LESS with GMOs
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not by anyone reputable, given that CCD has occurred in countries that don't use neonics and failed to occur in countries that use more neonics than anywhere else (Australia in particular.). The "science" you're almost certainly going to pull out to try to justify this statement is almost the equivalent of Seralini's studies - totally unrealistic initial conditions leading to overblown conclusions. Yep, it's all a a big conspiracy. You can compare those studies published in Nature, Science, and PLoS One with the amazing "research" done by Bayer's bee lab: http://beehealth.bayer.us/home
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Even without any GMO crops, they will still spray Roundup as a non-selective herbicide, because broadleaf weeds like Milkweed are considered pests even on highway medians and in uncultivated land. If you want to save Milkweed, then promote native plant habitat mitigation projects that preserve Milkweed. Roundup ready crops have nothing to do with the problem that Milkweed is unwanted and specifically targeted for eradication in a lot of places. Again, Roundup sprayed on highway medians isn't the problem - it's Roundup sprayed on HT GMOs. Here is estimated milkweed density. Non-agricultural milkweed density is a smaller percentage, and went down by 1/4 since 1999. Agricultural milkweed is the majority, and dropped by 2/3: 
Mofabio fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Cool. Bt isn't harmful to human health. I'm arguing that the use of HT GMOs is harmful to monarch butterfly health. Anything that kills milkweed (which is considered a weed) effectively is harmful to monarch butterfly health. GMOs indirectly contributed to the decline of milkweed by allowing the use of a more effective herbicide, that's all. That is a criticism of a policy to eradicate weeds in agriculture, not one against GMOs. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Again, Roundup sprayed on highway medians isn't the problem - it's Roundup sprayed on HT GMOs. Again, it is the usage of an herbicide to kill pest plants that is the problem. If you want to solve the problem of milkweed being considered a pest and being killed with herbicides you need to actually address that specifically. Perhaps there should be regulation on herbicide usage to mitigate these problems. But banning specific GMO crops won't actually solve the problem of people considering milkweed to be a pest plant. What exactly will prevent farmers from still spraying areas with lots of milkweed with glysophate if HT GMOs are banned? So my question that has been ignored remains, why would we ban the symptom rather than the cause?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Again, it is the usage of an herbicide to kill pest plants that is the problem. If you want to solve the problem of milkweed being considered a pest and being killed with herbicides you need to actually address that specifically. Perhaps there should be regulation on herbicide usage to mitigate these problems. But banning specific GMO crops won't actually solve the problem of people considering milkweed to be a pest plant. What exactly will prevent farmers from still spraying areas with lots of milkweed with glysophate if HT GMOs are banned? So my question that has been ignored remains, why would we ban the symptom rather than the cause? Sorry if I didn't get to your question. There's like 10 of you and I guess only one of me in this thread. I think we disagree on what the cause and symptom are. The butterfly population only began to fall when HT GMOs were introduced in the 90s: http://www.xerces.org/monarchs/mexican-overwintering-monarchs-graph/ To be clear, there are multiple ecological catastrophes affecting them at once: loss of milkweed, loss of Mexican forests, and climate change. But, from my reading, the primary driver of their decline has been loss of milkweed, which is due to high usage rates of Roundup, which is due to Roundup-ready GMOs. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Yep, it's all a a big conspiracy. "Indeed, in places where neonicotinoid pesticides have been banned, such as France, Italy and Germany, there’s no evidence that honeybee populations have rebounded. And in Australia, which has among the healthiest bee herds in the world and has never reported a case of CCD, neonicotinoids have been in widespread use for over a decade. Australian agriculture isn’t as industrialized " So, uh, the link kind of doesn't hold up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Mofabio, is your complaint primarily against pesticide usage driving down butterfly populations or is your complaint primarily against GMOs because genetic engineering is scary and/or bad? You seem to be arguing for the sake of two conflicting viewpoints without even realizing it: on one hand you dislike the use of glyophosate because it's too effective at killing weeds that other species rely on, and then on the other hand you dislike crops that produce their own Bt despite the fact that these crops are probably better for local insect populations than spraying Bt on everything. Would you prefer that we eliminate GMOs altogether and go back to using organic pesticides in copious amounts? I think that your concerns could be more accurately targeted at modern agricultural practices in general than genetic engineering specifically. Would you support the cultivation of GMO Soybeans that were engineered to not compete with Milkweed for resources, thereby eliminating the need for herbicide usage? If not, why not? Also, and I'm really interested in how you answer this, how do you feel about the Rainbow Papaya?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Sorry if I didn't get to your question. There's like 10 of you and I guess only one of me in this thread. I think we disagree on what the cause and symptom are. The butterfly population only began to fall when HT GMOs were introduced in the 90s: http://www.xerces.org/monarchs/mexican-overwintering-monarchs-graph/ It's good that you've identified that correlation is not causation and that there are a number of others things that correlate with declining monarch populations. Can you concisely summarize why you think that Roundup-ready GMOs specifically are the dominating factor in this issue? Are we really spraying Roundup on a majority of that region's former Milkweed habitats? That doesn't seem likely but I don't have any data with which to draw a conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Sorry if I didn't get to your question. There's like 10 of you and I guess only one of me in this thread. I think we disagree on what the cause and symptom are. The butterfly population only began to fall when HT GMOs were introduced in the 90s: http://www.xerces.org/monarchs/mexican-overwintering-monarchs-graph/ In the case of the study you cited, conservation areas have ten times the milkweed density of agricultural areas pre-Roundup Ready crops (and fifty times as dense as modern farms) , and roadsides have about twice the milkweed density. But in this study, for some reason, Iowa apparently has five times as much agricultural area as "native" area. Should we believe that 80% of the state is sprayed with Roundup to control weeds? And there is no undeveloped milkweed habitat that isn't specifically environmental conservation zones? In any case, 4 square miles of conservation area would create more milkweed habitat than the entirety of the farmland in the study (or the state?). Why would you stop farmers from farming effectively when the native habitat next door is ten to fifty times as productive? edit: some wikipedia reading indicates that Iowa is actually an environmental disaster (49th out of 50 in remaining natural area) and 60-90% of the state has been converted to human use. So I suppose it's possible that the numbers are accurate, but the problem is that the state is essentially 50,000 square miles of Manhattan as far as native species are concerned. Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Mofabio, is your complaint primarily against pesticide usage driving down butterfly populations or is your complaint primarily against GMOs because genetic engineering is scary and/or bad? You seem to be arguing for the sake of two conflicting viewpoints without even realizing it: on one hand you dislike the use of glyophosate because it's too effective at killing weeds that other species rely on, and then on the other hand you dislike crops that produce their own Bt despite the fact that these crops are probably better for local insect populations than spraying Bt on everything. Would you prefer that we eliminate GMOs altogether and go back to using organic pesticides in copious amounts? I think that your concerns could be more accurately targeted at modern agricultural practices in general than genetic engineering specifically. I've been pretty clear that increased herbicide usage, caused by Roundup-ready GMOs, has created an ecological nightmare for the monarch butterfly, and perhaps other species we'll discover in the coming years. I feel like I've also been pretty clear separating the different GMO technologies. Most of my posts were written within 20 feet of trillions and trillions of GMOs. I've done some rudimentary metabolic engineering work on e. coli to allow it to metabolize glycerol, and to enhance expression of threonine (all pathways on paper, admittedly). The difference is, my GMOs are not allowed into the environment, the environment isn't allowed in, and when they've outlived their usefulness, we kill them caustic and autoclave the survivors. I have similar feelings on GMOs we let into the wild. Bt isn't the same as replacing EPSP synthase, and is not the same as the hawaiian papaya project (of which I know little- sorry!). This is a critical point, though: because GMOs allow expression of nearly any protein in the kingdom of life, each GMO (if we decide to continue using them) needs to be evaluated for safety and ecological impact individually. Being "pro-GMO" isn't a useful position. Are you pro- all future marketable GMOs? All possible GMOs? How could one possibly know what we'll paint with our pallet of a million colors? I would prefer GMOs stay in labs and bioreactors and fermenters and enclosed hydroponic farms, and out of the fields. As to spraying pesticides, I'd prefer not to do that, either. I actually did some safety/environmental review work for a pesticide plant a few years back. They were dumping plant effluent in the nearby river. I'd always ask "at what concentration is this harmful?" and the joke was always "well we put it on food, right? HAR HAR HAR". Pro-tip: it's all horrible for you, every precursor, every reaction intermediate, everything. It's bad for the workers: at one point, 1000 lbs of chlorine gas just leaked the gently caress out. Two weeks later, 3000 lbs of carbon disulfide leaked out. Carbon disulfide is the most explosive chemical known to science. The minimum ignition energy is less than a finger snap. This same company has a GMO roster, too. It doesn't care if it's healthy or not, or what the ecological effects are. We got lucky with Bt. They don't give a gently caress if their next one sucks for us, or kills some critter. GMOs are loving powerful, and they're made by people who don't give a poo poo that the river behind their house is sterile. Why pick between pesticides and GMOs? We just need to loving stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Carbon disulfide is the most explosive chemical known to science. No, it isn't. (Unless Klapotke has done something newly terrifying I think the winner is still c2n14, which is so explosive that they literally cannot measure the shock threshold.) CS2 is chemically nasty but you have a bad habit of massively over exaggerating claims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Roundup and HT GMOs are a package deal. Roundup can be used independently of GMOs, but GMOs cannot be used independently of roundup. lmao, yeah I guess I should tell the boys in the lab to stop working on those protein medicines then...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:This is a critical point, though: because GMOs allow expression of nearly any protein in the kingdom of life, each GMO (if we decide to continue using them) needs to be evaluated for safety and ecological impact individually. I agree, that's exactly what we should continue doing. That's why "anti-GMO" isn't a useful position; it doesn't make sense to automatically oppose all GMOs. quote:Being "pro-GMO" isn't a useful position. Jinx! You owe me a coke! quote:Are you pro- all future marketable GMOs? All possible GMOs? How could one possibly know what we'll paint with our pallet of a million colors? I would prefer GMOs stay in labs and bioreactors and fermenters and enclosed hydroponic farms, and out of the fields. You continue to express contradictory opinions. What if we evaluate a GMO crop and determine that it's safe to go out in the field, aka the suggestion that you conveyed earlier in your post? I'm not "pro-GMO", as you say that is a worthless position. But "anti-GMO" is worthless for the same reasons. I'm in favor of using genetic engineering to improve crops in safe and useful ways. quote:As to spraying pesticides, I'd prefer not to do that, either. Well, okay. But what if I create a GMO that allows us to spray fewer or no pesticides? What if there is no significant negative ecological or health impact to doing this? Thus far, Bt Corn appears to be just such a crop; local insect populations aren't wiped out by regular spraying, the crops themselves don't seem to be just as good or bad for the environment as non-GMO corn, there aren't any health issues, etc. So if we have a crop that's healthy to eat and is ecologically slightly better than most equivalent varieties of the same crop, who gives a poo poo if it's a GMO? We've already vetted the poo poo out of it and found it to be ecologically superior and not any worse for human health, isn't that good enough? quote:not the same as the hawaiian papaya project (of which I know little- sorry!). The short of it is that ringspot virus was wiping out papayas throughout the state of Hawaii, and some scientists and farmers worked together to genetically engineer a new papaya that was resistant to this virus. It worked; the new papaya trees were immune, and after nearly twenty years of countless studies no one has found any negative ecological or human health impacts. And since farmers didn't have to worry about aphids giving their trees Papaya Ebola, pesticide usage also decreased. e: Since you don't know much about the rainbow papaya, do you know much about golden rice? What are your thoughts there? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, it isn't. Here you go, http://explosionsolutions.co.uk/110411020.pdf MIE is 0.009 mJ. That's a rat's fart. Your enthalpy of reaction don't matter if your steam traps never set it off. Autoignition temperature is 102 C, and the LEL/UEL range is loving fat to go with. These are the values you pay attention to in chemical safety, not enthalpy or if it can take a bump in a test tube. If you witness the reaction's enthalpy, you've already hosed up. edit: that poo poo's absolutely nasty, no doubt. And its MIE is probably rat-fart low, too. Might even be lower than CS2, but since they've never recorded a value, I feel safe saying CS2 has the lowest recorded MIE known. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Here you go, http://explosionsolutions.co.uk/110411020.pdf That wasn't your initial claim. You said it is "the most explosive chemical known to science." We know it is not. We know this because it's possible to measure things like its MIE, while other compounds explode when you try to measure things like MIE. Had you said "the most explosive industrial chemical commonly used" it'd be true. Had you said "an incredibly explosive chemical", again, true. But no - you wanted to make hyperbolic claims about it being the most explosive chemical known. You talked some bullshit and when called on it tried to change your claims. (Like you do with most things in this thread when called on massively overstating your evidence.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
What the hell do pesticides have to do with genetically modified organisms again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:What the hell do pesticides have to do with genetically modified organisms again? Basically Mofabios 's arguing that pesticide usage (specifically glyphosate) has increased due to Roundup-ready crops, which I agree is self-evident. This is bad because it reduces milkweed populations in fields, which I also think is less than ideal but which farmers think is great. To Mofabio's point about the potential dangers of new GM crops - I agree that we shouldn't just trust large agrochemical companies to care about environmental externalities! Why are you implying that because we're cool with current, proven safe crops we'd put a rubber stamp on any new crop? Things should absolutely be tested case by case, but the possibility of harm in the future does not outweigh the possibility of great good. Should we not let anything be developed new? Because otherwise your argument just seems like fear-mongering to me. Some proteins could be bad and that's a bad thing is a banal argument. There is potential for harm in anything new we do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Artificial breeding programs, almost by definition, create organisms that can't compete with the wildtypes (with the exception of pest resistance). By inserting the Bt protein (which came from soil bacteria), or creating C4 rice (which is a pathway from other grasses), we're affecting the earth's genetic stock in ways that can OUT-compete wildtypes. When they get out, they'll be in the plant kingdom permanently (and yes I know about terminator genes). Acting like this isn't a big loving deal is naive as hell. This isn't really true though and I think it's the main basis of your position. (And first off- are you saying wildtypes in the genetic sense or in the "grows in the wild" sense? I assume the latter.) None of those genes result in domesticated plants that are capable of doing well without human care. The Bt toxin gene requires careful management to prevent resistance from quickly evolving to make it completely useless. Once resistance occurs then you've just got a plant wasting resources making a protein that doesn't do anything. C4 photosynthesis already occurs in the plant kingdom so I don't think it escaping is going to be a problem. Not to mention the fact that it's not always more efficient than C3. Glyphosate resistance genes are at best irrelevant and more likely a liability if the plants aren't being sprayed with glyphosate. Domesticated crops are extremely ill suited to escaping into the wild no matter what transgenes they may contain. Anybody who could make one grow that well would be guaranteed a Nobel prize for their humanitarian contribution, ecological consequences be damned. If you meant better than the wild-type in a genetic sense then uh, yeah being better than what you started with is kind of the point of plant breeding of any kind. my kinda ape fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Buggalo posted:Basically Mofabios 's arguing that pesticide usage (specifically glyphosate) has increased due to Roundup-ready crops, which I agree is self-evident. This is bad because it reduces milkweed populations in fields, which I also think is less than ideal but which farmers think is great. Which is an argument against modifying the genetics of organisms exactly how? All the problems I've ever heard about GMO are specifically problems of the abuse of power by large corporations, and have absolutely nothing to do with the science of genetic modification. Which is annoying when idiots refuse to understand the distinction, and infuriating when retards attack research centers trying to develop aphid resistant wheat strains. When somebody is literally trying to burn down schools due to some ideological reasons, they're probably a flagrant loving retard idiot and shouldn't be debated by anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Buggalo posted:Basically Mofabios 's arguing that pesticide usage (specifically glyphosate) has increased due to Roundup-ready crops, which I agree is self-evident. I dunno about that: http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/ or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 At the same time, thanks to Roundup-Ready GMOs, we've seen a significant decrease in far more toxic and far more environmentally damaging herbicides and pesticides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Which is an argument against modifying the genetics of organisms exactly how? All the problems I've ever heard about GMO are specifically problems of the abuse of power by large corporations, and have absolutely nothing to do with the science of genetic modification. Which is annoying when idiots refuse to understand the distinction, and infuriating when retards attack research centers trying to develop aphid resistant wheat strains. When somebody is literally trying to burn down schools due to some ideological reasons, they're probably a flagrant loving retard idiot and shouldn't be debated by anyone. Which proves their demands for "more research" are complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I actually did some safety/environmental review work for a pesticide plant a few years back. They were dumping plant effluent in the nearby river. I'd always ask "at what concentration is this harmful?" and the joke was always "well we put it on food, right? HAR HAR HAR". Pro-tip: it's all horrible for you, every precursor, every reaction intermediate, everything. It's bad for the workers: at one point, 1000 lbs of chlorine gas just leaked the gently caress out. Two weeks later, 3000 lbs of carbon disulfide leaked out. Carbon disulfide is the most explosive chemical known to science. The minimum ignition energy is less than a finger snap. This same company has a GMO roster, too. It doesn't care if it's healthy or not, or what the ecological effects are. We got lucky with Bt. They don't give a gently caress if their next one sucks for us, or kills some critter. GMOs are loving powerful, and they're made by people who don't give a poo poo that the river behind their house is sterile. Why pick between pesticides and GMOs? We just need to loving stop. People have already called you out for being overly hyperbolic, so I'm just going to focus on the second part of this statement. Of course agribusinesses often don't care about the effects of what they're doing, they're businesses and will do whatever makes them more money. That's why we need effective regulation and enforcement of said regulation. You've correctly recognised that people humans are very good at loving up the environment. However, instead of actually considering how we will minimise human impacts on the environment under the constraints we face (more people, who are getting richer and want more stuff, especially in areas where there's still intact habitats left to protect), you just throw up your arms in despair and start a childish rant. "Thing bad. Other thing bad. Everything bad. Everything stop, so world get better!"  is technically correct, but unless you can convince billions of people to just kill themselves in the name of the environment it's a trivial and utterly useless point to make. Actually getting habitats protected means weighing costs and benefits of different approaches to dealing with overpopulation and increasing resource use. For instance, you need to consider whether to do land sparing or land sharing to protect biodiversity, and since land sparing is proving to be better for many types of ecosystems that means that high yields are good. This is still true if you kill the actual farmland dead but keep high biodiversity in larger reserves. GMOs can be used to increase yields, or to decrease the resources (land, fertiliser, pesticides) that go into producing a given yield and reduce effects on non-farmland. There will be different GMOs that will not help achieve these aims, so we pick and choose ones that do. Just stopping anything that may have side effects is myopic and has side effects itself.Mofabio posted:Re: Bt, most proteins are digested, including Bt. Some proteins are harmful when ingested - but these known, harmful proteins aren't going to end up in GMOs. The major effect of loving with the genetics of plants is ecological, as we're seeing now with the butterflies, and as we'll see in the future as new GMO technologies come online (there are a LOT of potential proteins that can be used in GMOs). I will say that it's pretty fantastic that, after the massive involuntary experiment that we all went through eating Bt products, it was discovered to be 100% safe. But let's not extrapolate that too far - every protein is unique. Yeah so what? Essentially: if you express something in the GMO, then the GMO will not be more dangerous to your health than eating the pure protein (unless it contains completely unrelated poisons that were present anyway). We have been able to test substances for toxicity for a very long time, and we can also do so for a mashed plant/protein mix if it will shut you up, so I don't see the problem. Mofabio posted:Artificial breeding programs, almost by definition, create organisms that can't compete with the wildtypes (with the exception of pest resistance). By inserting the Bt protein (which came from soil bacteria), or creating C4 rice (which is a pathway from other grasses), we're affecting the earth's genetic stock in ways that can OUT-compete wildtypes. When they get out, they'll be in the plant kingdom permanently (and yes I know about terminator genes). Acting like this isn't a big loving deal is naive as hell. You know ~*~natural~*~ GMOs from Agrobacterium mediated transformation (e.g. sweet potato) exist, right? Bacteria have been pooping random bits of DNA into plants forever. I don't really see having an additional gene or pathway getting out into other plants being an issue automatically - in your example, C4 photosynthesis has evolved over and over again, and putting it in yet another plant is a banal non-event. In addition, plants are really, really good at evolving just about any kind of protein - there are loads of animal protein analogues produced by plants as defense compounds already (e.g. to disrupt the endocrine system), so it's not like something like Cry toxins would not be expected to show up in plants over evolutionary time scales if it's useful anyway. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
CommieGIR posted:I dunno about that: http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/ or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 drat, that's what I get for posting early in the morning - I thought that I remembered some statistics showing glyphosate use increasing by 50% after the GM crop became available. Also I still don't think that his arguments have much to do with genetic modification so we're on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Here you go, http://explosionsolutions.co.uk/110411020.pdf As a chemist, this just makes me laugh and destroys all your credibility. I've worked with CS2. It's a useful solvent for some stuff, but not particularly noxious. It burns with a blue flame and makes lots of sulfur dioxide when it does so. I worked daily with stuff that was 100x nastier. Yes, it's vapors will explode, along with hundreds of other chemicals, which is why you use it in a hood. MIE is just the minimum amount of energy required to set it on fire. It has no other relevance to anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:As a chemist, this just makes me laugh and destroys all your credibility. I've worked with CS2. It's a useful solvent for some stuff, but not particularly noxious. It burns with a blue flame and makes lots of sulfur dioxide when it does so. I worked daily with stuff that was 100x nastier. "noxious", its solvent potential, the color of its flame, and its combustion products have nothing to do with explosivity. But sweet list of non-sequitur facts. Go on, find me a compound with a lower MIE. Especially find me one with a nearly 50% LEL/UEL range and an autoignition temperature of boiling pasta. Go look in your CRC Handbook. I'll wait. You're a chemist, not a chemical engineer. MIE actually does matter when you've got some contractor welding right by your flammable vapor cloud, or your level indicator wiring's old and sparking, or somebody starts a diesel truck inside of it. No seriously, go find a chemical with a lower measured MIE value than CS2. I'd actually be curious to know if there is one. And enjoy your fume hood! The workers at the pesticide plant don't have such luxuries. It's a goddamn miracle that the wind was blowing in the right direction that day and dozens of people (including me) didn't die. Do you know what management's response to leaking 3000lbs of CS2 was? "Well it didn't blow up, we must be doing something right". These are the people that make your GMOs. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:"noxious", its solvent potential, the color of its flame, and its combustion products have nothing to do with explosivity. But sweet list of non-sequitur facts. Go on, find me a compound with a lower MIE. Especially find me one with a nearly 50% LEL/UEL range and an autoignition temperature of boiling pasta. Go look in your CRC Handbook. I'll wait. This looks like a problem whose solution would be better regulation of these industries, through tougher enforcement measures. As you note, they seem to be very happy to court disaster regardless of GMO's, so I still don't understand why you think banning those specifically is a good idea. It's also misleading of you to say "these are the people that make your GMOs" when you're talking about a chemical plant creating pesticides. In what way is this related to the process for creating Bt corn or whatnot?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:"noxious", its solvent potential, the color of its flame, and its combustion products have nothing to do with explosivity. But sweet list of non-sequitur facts. Go on, find me a compound with a lower MIE. Especially find me one with a nearly 50% LEL/UEL range and an autoignition temperature of boiling pasta. Go look in your CRC Handbook. I'll wait. Why do you keep making non sequitur rants like this and then ending on some hyperbolic point? "A company accidentally released an explosive chemical ergo stop GMO research" is not a cogent point. "Sometimes people get sick in hospitals so we need to stop cancer research!" "These are the people that make your GMOs" isn't even accurate unless you're lumping together all researchers everywhere into a single group, it's just a big dumb statement QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's also misleading of you to say "these are the people that make your GMOs" when you're talking about a chemical plant creating pesticides. In what way is this related to the process for creating Bt corn or whatnot? The managers of these plants, and the scientists that design GMOs, have the same skip-level managers. I don't know who linked this, but it doesn't exactly hide the fact that glysophate lbs/acre rates went up 50% on soy after GMOs were introduced, and also completely dominated the market. That's what I've been saying all along. HT GMOs led to more glysophate use, which destroyed milkweeds, and now the monarch population is in steep decline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:The managers of these plants, and the scientists that design GMOs, have the same skip-level managers. Prove it. All the studies I'm finding are contrary to your claims. And let's be honest, you are not exactly arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:"noxious", its solvent potential, the color of its flame, and its combustion products have nothing to do with explosivity. But sweet list of non-sequitur facts. Go on, find me a compound with a lower MIE. Especially find me one with a nearly 50% LEL/UEL range and an autoignition temperature of boiling pasta. Go look in your CRC Handbook. I'll wait. Again, the MIE has no bearing whatsoever on how explosive something is, only on how easy it is to ignite. CS2 ignites easily because C=S bonds are relatively weak, C=O bonds are relatively strong, and the molecular orbitals of O2 and CS2 are of the proper energy and symmetry to make interaction easy, so very little energy is required to get the S atom to shift from the C to an O. You have no freaking idea as to what you're talking about. A leak of any volatile solvent is dangerous at a chemical plant, as a small spark is plenty of energy to ignite almost anything. There is nothing particularly special about CS2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:The managers of these plants, and the scientists that design GMOs, have the same skip-level managers. Lots of groups design GMOs you wacko, not just whatever specific company you're currently mad at
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:The managers of these plants, and the scientists that design GMOs, have the same skip-level managers. So they're different people working for the same company, under separate chains of command leading to the same upper-level managers (as in any diversified company). That seems to weaken your point as to them being "the same people".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Again, the MIE has no bearing whatsoever on how explosive something is, only on how easy it is to ignite. CS2 ignites easily because C=S bonds are relatively weak, C=O bonds are relatively strong, and the molecular orbitals of O2 and CS2 are of the proper energy and symmetry to make interaction easy, so very little energy is required to get the S atom to shift from the C to an O. "A leak of any volatile solvent is dangerous at a chemical plant" "A small spark is plenty of energy to ignite almost anything" Have you ever worked in a chemical plant before? I'm honestly curious. Because if you had, and you breathed through your nose, you'd know they leak volatile solvents all the time. And you might also know there were temperature differences between electrical sparks, abrasive sparks, and static sparks. Their risk profiles are all different. More facts that prove you took orgo, and more facts that prove you don't know much of anything about industrial chemical safety. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:The managers of these plants, and the scientists that design GMOs, have the same skip-level managers. Define this, or are you confused with a certain sort of internet fiction?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I've been pretty clear that increased herbicide usage, caused by Roundup-ready GMOs, has created an ecological nightmare for the monarch butterfly, and perhaps other species we'll discover in the coming years. That may be the case but the question is not if glyphosate is bad - it's if the herbicides we would have used in place of it would have been worse. Vaccines kill people every year so therefore... Context is everything. And being against pesti/herbicides is fine but it's unrelated to GM technology. Mofabio posted:Bt isn't the same as replacing EPSP synthase, and is not the same as the hawaiian papaya project (of which I know little- sorry!). This is a critical point, though: because GMOs allow expression of nearly any protein in the kingdom of life, each GMO (if we decide to continue using them) needs to be evaluated for safety and ecological impact individually. Being "pro-GMO" isn't a useful position. Are you pro- all future marketable GMOs? All possible GMOs? How could one possibly know what we'll paint with our pallet of a million colors? I would prefer GMOs stay in labs and bioreactors and fermenters and enclosed hydroponic farms, and out of the fields. As to spraying pesticides, I'd prefer not to do that, either. Pro/anti GM stances relate to the technology, not the products. A pro-GMO stance simply means one is in favour of the technology but not necessarily every, or any particular, organism that could potentially result from it. I'm pro-gene therapy but I'm not in favour of a gene-therapy regime that kills people. I favour life-extension medicine - but not if we have to kill babies to make it. It is not a contradiction. Conversely an anti-GMO stance is, in fact, nonsensical because you're in opposition to all GM products no matter how slight or trivial the change may be. You could take two strains of a thing and alter one to be identical to the other so you have two genetically identical things but only one is GM. It's a meaningless position. Mofabio posted:The minimum ignition energy is less than a finger snap. This same company has a GMO roster, too. It doesn't care if it's healthy or not, or what the ecological effects are. We got lucky with Bt. They don't give a gently caress if their next one sucks for us, or kills some critter. GMOs are loving powerful, and they're made by people who don't give a poo poo that the river behind their house is sterile. Why pick between pesticides and GMOs? We just need to loving stop. There are risks associated with all technologies and we should regulate companies. Currently some people are worried about killer-AI and others about robots, nano-machines or super-bugs. People worried the LHC would create a black hole - but we got lucky. Risk by itself is not important because we live in a world of calculated, managed risk. If you want to treat GM more like nuclear bomb research and less like any other technology you have to do more than point out that something could happen. We know that. We're researching and evaluating the technology just like we do with all other technologies. Without evidence that it's more dangerous it should not be regulated more harshly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:"A leak of any volatile solvent is dangerous at a chemical plant" I know Deteriorata personally. He's an actual chemist. You haven't proven a single one of your points and are depending more upon fear mongering and throwing around figures not supported by study.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I know Deteriorata personally. He's an actual chemist. I don't doubt he's a chemist, I doubt he knows anything about industrial process safety.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Mofabio posted:I don't doubt he's a chemist, I doubt he knows anything about industrial process safety. If you knew anything, you'd know that vapor pressure, temperature, and LEL are all factors that are equally, if not more, important than straight MIE.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:57
|
|