Midnight Oil

Subject: Re: [powderworks] WHAT??!!!! PG has got to say something about this.......
From: Chris
Date: 23/07/2011, 6:14 pm
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au

Dear Kate,

This is a rather peculiar argument, because I actually agree with your concerns!

However, you've overlooked one aspect of this particular case: The research trial crop was engineered and grown by the CSIRO, not a commercial GM purveyor.

If Greenpeace wish to (peacefully) protest about the morally and ethically corrupt behaviour of corporations, they have my full support!

Regards,
Chris

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Kate Adams <kate@dnki.net> wrote:
�

To be more specific:
1. There is nothing scientific about the presumption of safety of new technology versus the presumption of possible harm. This is a burden of proof in society issue: philosophical and social and legal, not scientific, whichever presumption you proceed from
2. To ignore the way in which a technology us implemented is foolish. GM purveyors prevent seed saving by their customers AND SUE if NEIGHBORS save seed - even if those nearby farms did not purchase their product, they have been forced to pay royalties.�

As a career engineer and scientist, I see there is much to learn about the way the real world works here - both about what science can do and what issues are essentially scientific and which are social. Scientific value is not the only factor in decision-making for scientific and technological issues, nor should - or can - it be the only factor. To pretend otherwise is to either be in denisal or to be as simplistic and naive as climate "skeptics" and those who knee-jerk fear frankenberries.

- Kate (SB Materials Engineering, MIT,'89; ScD Epidemiology, '06)

Sent from my iPod

On Jul 23, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Chris <seeker42@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear Miron (and Stefan),

I'd just like to apologise for an offensively phrased remark - it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack on members of this list, but rather a comment on the extremist policies of Greenpeace.

However, I can see how my comment could be misconstrued, particularly by any Powderworkers who are also members of Greenpeace!

Perhaps I should explain my background on this one - whilst my education is in Electrical Engineering, my girlfriend will shortly graduate with a degree in Biotechnology.

For her, it's necessary good practice to remain abreast of her chosen field. For me, it's simply personal�curiosity. At any rate, I'm pretty familiar with the current state of GM technologies, and it's clear to me that the Greenpeace position is founded upon fear and ignorance, not education and rational examination. Frankly, it's immensely arrogant of Greenpeace to presume they know more about the dangers of GM than the people who study it!

If Greenpeace wish to demonstrate the dangers of GM technologies, they ought to design and run an experiment and publish their results. Not destroy the work of people with noble goals - people who aim to improve health or end famine.

Regards,
Chris

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Miron Mizrahi <mironmizrahi@yahoo.com> wrote:
�

Hi Chris,

PW is a pretty relaxed list but we could really do without the name calling. it adds nothing to our community
�
Miron

How could people get so unkind?
From: Chris <seeker42@gmail.com>
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [powderworks] WHAT??!!!! PG has got to say something about this.......

�
Greenpeace commit a crime, police seize evidence in investigation.

Whoah, what an injustice!

(anyone who believes GM crops are inherently evil is a moron. Greenpeace fall solidly within that category!)