Dang... trying to remember where I read in the past week or two about Organic Farming and its impact ON the California Drought...

It seems that OF has such low yields per acre and uses much more water to produce those crop yields that some folks HAVE done the math and figured out that CA's excessive water consumption by Organic Farmers has contributed to the shortage of water in the state.

Go figure... another unintended consequence of a cult movement.

Enjoy!

http://www.naturalnews.com/049958_EPA_Mo...
Further, Samsel says he now has documents he received from the EPA that are "trade secret" documents belonging to Monsanto which, allegedly, are safety studies regarding glyphosate from the late 1970s and early 1980s, as well as others beyond those dates.

The documents reference animal studies, according to Samsel, with short-term and long-term studies conducted on mice, rats, rabbits, and dogs. Monsanto allegedly asked the EPA to seal these documents as "trade secrets" so no one else could review the data from these studies.

That Would Be A Great Technology -- being able to
determine the long-term effects of GMO changes,
in a short time!!! -- j
.

Yes sir,
I bet LOTS of people felt normal at some point in their life and then ended up with cancer, heart attacks, stroke, etc... So what exactly does feeling normal, normal, normal nrl have to do with it?
Like I said in another post, when x-ray was first available it was played with like a toy - in fairs where people could walk in front of it to see their insides in real time. Shoe stores used them when sizing for shoes. And a long time later they started realizing that there was a correlation to increased rates of cancer. I'm sure at the time they felt normal, normal, normal too. I'm sure many of the people that were exposed in these ways never got cancer or had any symptoms. But in hind sight NOW we know better.

wellsir, I eat bread, and I feel completely normal,
normal, normal, normal, nrl..........................

Potentially, yes!
But, from what I gather, GMO has not really hit the direct produce you buy in the store to much, but more of an issue from where it is used on other stuff like the grains in bread, and such. But, they do have GMO options for things you'd buy in the produce isle. Like with corn, if these start getting mainstreamed, it will make it more and more difficult to get produce that does not have mix of GMO in it over time.

I like your response - well said :)

Thank You for educating me. . I had not paid enough
attention to this subject. . fascinating, and scary. -- j
.

so, with so much GMO stuff out there, we are
already in a who-knows-what stew (frankenstew?)
of stuff which will have consequences in our future.
how interesting! -- j
.

The difference between theory and practice. :)

Theory is derived from practice to get to generate principles. These principles are then used to inform improvements in practice;

However there are site specific circumstances that have to be taken into consideration, so you try to approach the economically achievable outcome while keeping the theory as an ideal.

PeterAsher - you've been busy ;)
Hehe, but ALL experts and ALL 'scientists' have come to consensus that these articles don't really exist! ;)
I will read them later - thanks!

Monsanto links

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/05/25/s...

http://www.naturalnews.com/049932_glypho...

https://www.laprogressive.com/monsanto-a...

http://www.livescience.com/40895-gmo-fac...

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunnin...
Excerpts
Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it.

The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on.

GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.
GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.

Look at the levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate IN the corn! The EPA standards for Glyphosate in water in America is .7ppm. European Tests showed organ damage to animals at .1ppb (.0001ppm) of Glyphosate in water. Our water levels allow glyphosate 7,000X higher than what has been shown to be toxic in animals. This corn has 13 ppm! 130,000 times higher than what is toxic in water!*

“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Scientists must literally ‘ASK’ these corporations for PERMISSION BEFORE publishing independent research on GMO crops.(Scientific Amerian, August 13, 2009.)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...

http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/article/is...

http://edgytruth.com/2015/04/25/are-gmos...

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/03/gmos-wo...
And this website

http://www.gmoevidence.com/

An interesting article, thanks!
It amazes me that people are so narrow minded on their criticisms. This is just an IT person... blah, blah, blah... so 'of course' their reason cannot be listened to as they are not a scientist!
What is a scientist? Someone who runs around in a white lab coat and wears glasses? No.
From our friend Merriam-Webster: "a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems"
Now, let’s take that further: Is 'trained' only acceptable if via an accredited college? What about self study? What about work experience? What about via mentoring? Trained is a vague area.
Anyway, as an IT (Computer Scientist) professional via self study and via college study and as someone who has worked for a company doing Alzheimer's Research - I found that the data that some of the PhD researchers wanted to use and how they wanted to collect and analyze their 'data' was quite ridiculous.
I would like to argue that they are not scientists in the science of data storage, data types, SQL query, database theory, etc... The IT person, especially if they do their job well, and from my experience in this type of environment, has much more qualification in how to utilize the data to produce statistics and reporting of the data collected than the scientists doing their studies. Getting these Dr.s to understand exactly what they needed to collect, what form the data needed to be in, how to make sure their data was comparable to ensure data integrity across multi-facility data collection, etc… was a completely foreign concept to them. And on top of that I was given restrictions that even as the Systems Administrator, Database Administrator, and Systems Analyst for the organization - was told that I could not question the Dr.s directly about their data so as to determine their needs for data storage and schemas. The reason… because it wasn’t proper for IT to directly deal with them! This from the COO and CIO of the organization (which was heavily government funded by the way).
IT is the data scientists. The systems they design allow for the proper ability to study the data it holds and in many cases have to write the complex queries to pull the data into patterns that even allow for further analysis. When this is done wrong, or different 'scientists' are plugging data into the database that don't correlate to the same methods and procedures - it is as the old adage goes: "garbage in, garbage out!" I have very little faith from what I have seen firsthand that all, or even most, 'scientists' are producing valid studies. This requires a group effort - utilizing the true data scientists - the IT people involved with the database systems. But when does that happen?
This article's commenters further show the dire lack of understanding that IT plays in proper data utilization and analysis in such systems. Simply dismissing the idea or what the person was saying because “they’re not scientist – they don’t know what they’re talking about”. What BS!
A Systems Analyst and/or Database Admin/Programmer must understand fairly thoroughly what the data is, what it means, how it correlates to related data etc… I feel confident in saying that IT in those positions have a VERY HIGH degree of understanding about the projects they are supporting. In more than a few cases when running my own IT company I often found that I had a better understanding of the overall operation of many of the client’s companies that I contracted with – because to do my job right, I had to study their business from the ground up, document how everything flowed in production and in data to be able to properly design their networks, servers, workstations, software, data storage and flows, and to implement their accounting and POS systems to help them catch errors in AR/AP/Payroll/etc…
People who dismiss what IT can bring to the table are truly uninformed about what they are capable of. But I see it all the time. Too bad that’s how people have reacted to the article you posted here…
I’m not directing this at you– just venting! It really frustrates me that people are so dismissive of people opinions without really having a clue about what they are even talking about.
:)

What Constitution ;)

That's pretty good. At least where I live the Federal Park is huge and manned very little - plenty of free access - but I suppose this could be different elsewhere. Can't say I've looked in to it really - just my gut reaction every time we fill out taxes and see how much we're paying in income taxes. Our property tax is really very low in comparison to most places, but they make up for it in state income taxes. Our home is in major need of major repairs and we've been sinking everything we have into it for years trying to fix it, yet we pay huge taxes for others the live in better housing than we do. That's what we get for buying what we could afford with plans to fix it ourselves I suppose.

No. If I want to accomplish a project on a critical system and the methods I consider have a very real potential consequences that it may cripple or destroy a working system, I would err on the side of safety and say we have something that is working and that the risk in bringing that system down for an untested and untestable new system is not worth the risk. Maybe if we knew the current working system was about to implode and something HAD to be done to replace it - tested or not, then I would agree to proceed - given as much testing that could be done was in fact flushed out. It just depends on the need, current systems in place, possible consequences, etc... War gaming per se. It is the scientists job to try to consider all the possibilities and weigh them and test them. In this particular case - there is not a dire need. All the potentials in my opinion have not be weighed out. The potential consequences could be severe. It's not a combination I would move forward with if it were my call - again - targeting transgenic organisms. Cisgenic organisms would still be on my radar as well. I don't know if I'd hold on that project or not. I'd like more knowledge on the details. But, considering the fact that many very good quality non-GMO hybrids have popped up in the last few decades - I just don't know that I see a justifiable need to take such potential unknown risks with something so important as our food supply.
I'd much prefer looking at improved farming methods - like bio nutrient systems - healthier products based on healthy biological systems remaining in tact via minimal tilling practices. Better water management systems. Multitier growing systems to get more per area. So on and so on. But, we don't like spraying pesticides on our food and eating the produce - so the solution is to embed pesticide into the plant? We like prettier food so we embed glowing bug DNA into them? We don't want to eat chemicals sprays on our corn, so we alter the plant so we can spray them with herbicides to kill everything else besides them? Even if the GMO aspect of that is found to be safe - is the herbicide traces on the food ok? What does that do the biological systems in the ground like the beneficial bacteria and fungi? What about the beneficial plants in the same area? For example - in a bio nutrient approach you could plant clover with the produce you're growing. The clover will fix nitrogen which the produce plant can then use. Both help maintain soil microbial quality and can be a ground cove to maintain the microbial systems when the produce crop is done - verses becoming a baron microbial system destroying zone until a future planting. Without the active microbial systems in place and a full mineral spectrum available, the produce collected will be lacking in proper nutrient value anyway.
Anyway, you see my point.

Basically, yes.
transgenic = material from another species is added to the host
cisgenic = genetic material from the same species or a species that can naturally breed with the host
With transgenic - we have no history to use as the basis for comparison or to see what the effects have been and thus no real ability to know what may happen in the long term.

transgenic = incompatible living things' genes introduced

cisgenic = compatible living things' genes introduced

right? . had to look them up. -- j
.

AM, I share your concern. . I read a ton of science
fiction, growing up, and went on to be a design
engineer responsible for public safety. . it's very
enticing to me that we can "force evolution" by
changing the DNA of living things. . yet, natural
selection takes "forever" and leaves the bad mutants
behind in the scrap heap. . ALL of the consequences
of a forced mutation can't be known in advance,
I am sure. . so, we take risks. . if I had invented
the Daisy Can Opener, I might not have considered
the fact that it could be used for human torture.
we just must take our best guess and go, don't
you think? -- j
.

Is MIT Science good enough for you?

https://www.laprogressive.com/monsanto-a...

More links to come tomorrow

The whole part of this discussion that I perceive is being missed is that this not a matter of federal jurisdiction. Jackson County, as a municipal subdivision of the State of Oregon has jurisdiction here, unless the State has already weighed in on the matter at the State Level.

There is no Constitutional basis for a federal court to even hear this.

Yeah - permanent rent. Deed of lease. Don't pay your property taxes and see how long it's 'yours'!
Makes me temped to quit everything, buy a motor home and move from free federal park to free federal park and keep my money - but then they'd get my fuel taxes :(