All posts in the topic Epigenetics, not very new, and purposefully ignored by 'scientists' &c. (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Brian Sandle at Sep 14 15:04 UTC
Rik Tindall wrote: > [...] > Cr McKay won the case that 'irrigation > systems need protection' - from competing land-use demands such as new > power line infrastructure - 'like airports, in order to spread them' > [...] > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/43qYm0doyhKobYog0g3bvw If we have water for irrigation I think it would be great to run some hoses along under power lines and plant low growing shrubbery, or biodiverse character. Heavens such a lot of Christchurch is having its tall trees removed and replaced with tussock and low growing stuff. Sometimes essential infrastructure such as old rubbish tips/railway lines have provided last refuges for biodiversity. Is Cr McKay advocating land area free of obstruction for the large moving sprinklers and their associated monoculture crops? I have posted earlier my worries about Solid Energy advancing on huge areas of Canterbury's crop land with biofuel crops. I note the Biofuel Bill just passed into law requires NZ petrol to have a percentage of biofuel in it. NZers have been promised that will not come from converted food-crop land of the poor nations. But I did not hear a promise that it will not come from food-crop land. So I surmise it is going to be coming from Canterbury crop lands. I suspect the true CO2 budget will be smudged over in an attempt to gain income for Solid Energy, an SOE not sufficiently at arm's length from the State. I also stated how Solid Energy said their current rape supplies are too expensive to make their biofuel project pay. So I worry that they and their farmers will be going for permission for the seemingly cheaper genetically modified crops. There is a strong sales push from the GMO companies, who make a lot of money at the expense of farmers. The GMO crops do not cope with shortage of water, (hence teh irrigation protection push?) and pesticide tolerant pests develop and necessitate expensive cocktails of pesticides to try to retrieve the crop, with indeed more profit to the pesticide companies who also sold the GMO seed. The GMO industry ignores epigenetics. In a recent article http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3XBhDpXti2kVNwCuLDAEmd I pointed out how AgResearch argue that reduced selection pressure is all that is required to remove a genetic pollutant, and I gave contrary data. Extending my argument I point out they conveniently ignore epigenetics.
Brian Sandle wrote: > Rik Tindall wrote: > >> [...] >> Cr McKay won the case that 'irrigation >> systems need protection' - from competing land-use demands such as new >> power line infrastructure - 'like airports, in order to spread them' >> > [...] > >> This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/43qYm0doyhKobYog0g3bvw >> > If we have water for irrigation I think it would be great to run some > hoses along under power lines and plant low growing shrubbery, or > biodiverse character. Heavens such a lot of Christchurch is having its > tall trees removed and replaced with tussock and low growing stuff. > Yes, Canterbury region's Biodiversity Strategy needs all such assistance we can muster for it: great on purposes, but short on implementation detail. > Sometimes essential infrastructure such as old rubbish tips/railway > lines have provided last refuges for biodiversity. > > Is Cr McKay advocating land area free of obstruction for the large > moving sprinklers and their associated monoculture crops? > I wish you luck in obtaining your answers Brian. I have just reported what was said at a public meeting in Timaru, with very careful attention to accuracy. It is inappropriate for me to speculate on unstated reasons for what was said then, therefore I have not and will not do so. One thing I do know, however, is that the "less democracy" (less reporting, less proportional representation) camp does so to have more free reign for acting without public engagement, which makes allocating them votes very risky indeed. Also, they'll leap to overbearing and threatening behaviour the moment you try to point this out, in the attempt to shut you up. Farmyard or schoolground bullies are bullies, and always need confronting. - Last comment from me on that, I say in hope. > I have posted earlier my worries about Solid Energy advancing on huge > areas of Canterbury's crop land with biofuel crops. > I note the Biofuel Bill just passed into law requires NZ petrol to have > a percentage of biofuel in it. NZers have been promised that will not > come from converted food-crop land of the poor nations. But I did not > hear a promise that it will not come from food-crop land. So I surmise > it is going to be coming from Canterbury crop lands. I suspect the true > CO2 budget will be smudged over in an attempt to gain income for Solid > Energy, an SOE not sufficiently at arm's length from the State. > I have very similar concerns Brian. Better public knowledge is most of the real answer. Under the 'feeding a hungry world' propaganda framework of runaway export dairy despoliation, real (not luxury) food production is most definitely being lost in Canterbury. Transition to "dairy support" is driven by economics, which you can't argue with and simply have to develop more advantageous and sustainable options within (organics and alternative crops in particular).[1] The prime example being milling (bread) wheat being replaced by stock wheat, due to the lower (cheaper, non-regulated) nitrogen requirements of this food grade. Getting to improved (rather than eroded) substance for consumers is more and more becoming a matter of peeling away the greenwash. Around government-sponsored "biofuels" there are two primary toxic hooks: a) that ethanol made from ("growth"-driven) whey is in any way a positive for the environment - it is not, and must be vigorously opposed; growing ethanol-specific crops, with greater food values, is the way forward here. b) that rapeseed-based biodiesel is a described as a primary product is simply deceptive marketing - it is not, it is a byproduct of a different industry; the main driver in Canterbury rape production is not for the seed but to supply a bulk stock feed fibre supplement; Solid Energy are actually 'deversifying' (actively intervening in agribusiness infrastructure) here. Your observations are interesting, thankyou Brian. Agribusiness is the unrestrained master of all, it would seem. Bring on the new democratic age.
Rik Tindall wrote:
> Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>
>> I pointed out how AgResearch argue that reduced selection pressure is all
that is required to remove a genetic pollutant, and I gave contrary data.
Sorry, actually I was reading the work of the ERMA Agency assessors of
the AgReasearch application.
>> Extending my argument I point out they conveniently ignore epigenetics.
>>
>> Brian Sandle
>>
>>
>
> [1] new healthy foods and renewable bioenergy, the advance upon
> off-green conservatism.
>
>
Those of you who have Christchurch Library membership should be able to
access the following on line to learn about epigenetics.
Rewriting Darwin: the new non-genetic inheritance. By: Young, Emma,
New Scientist, 02624079, 7/12/2008, Vol. 199, Issue 2664
Database:
Science Reference Center
And the follwoing extract may also have some bearing on the referendum
about smacking children:
"In humans, too, there are troubling hints that damaging experiences
early in life, while the brain is still developing, can affect
epigenetic settings, perhaps with catastrophic consequences. In May,
Meaney and his colleagues reported a study of 13 men who had committed
suicide, all of whom had been victims of child abuse. They showed clear
epigenetic differences in their brains, compared with the brains of men
who had died of other causes. It is possible that the changes in
epigenetic marks were caused by the exposure to childhood abuse, says
the team. Could the changes have contributed to their suicides too?"
and
"The realisation that individuals can acquire characteristics through
interaction with their environment and then pass these on to their
offspring may force us to rethink evolutionary theory. While examples of
this "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" are only just emerging
in mammals, there is long-standing and widespread. That may explain why
botanists are much more ready to acknowledge and promote the idea that
epigenetic inheritance has a significant role in evolution, whereas
zoologists are generally reluctant to do so, says Eva Jablonka from Tel
Aviv University, Israel."
The Green Party pointed out recently that AgResearch admit that when
trying to get genetically modified animals, many physical deformities
are produced.
Now I ask about whether such matters as epigenetic inheritance may also
be deformed. There ought to be checking, for plants and animals and
other forms of life.