一天到晚转基因烦不烦

转基因作物最好别有事,若有事,美国真就是二流国家了。
有事的可能性极大。

不仅种转基因作物的田地长出超级杂草,还导致土壤发生变化:

Now, some farmers are taking a closer look at their soil.

First patented by Monsanto as a herbicide in 1974, glyphosate has helped revolutionize farming by making it easier and cheaper to grow crops. The use of the herbicide has grown exponentially, along with biotech crops.

The pervasive use, though, is prompting some concerns.

Critics point, in part, to the rise of so-called superweeds, which are more resistant to the herbicide. To fight them, farmers sometimes have to spray the toxic herbicide two to three times during the growing season.

Then there is the feel of the soil.

Dirt in two fields around Alton where biotech corn was being grown was hard and compact. Prying corn stalks from the soil with a shovel was difficult, and when the plants finally came up, their roots were trapped in a chunk of dirt. Once freed, the roots spread out flat like a fan and were studded with only a few nodules, which are critical to the exchange of nutrients.

In comparison, conventional corn in adjacent fields could be tugged from the ground by hand, and dirt with the consistency of wet coffee grounds fell off the corn plants’ knobby roots.

“Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant health,” said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health.

Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.

In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.

“Antibiotics kill bacteria or reduce their growth, but some of those bacteria are useful,” said Verlyn Sneller, president of Verity, a small company that sells sugar-based fertilizers and water systems and works to persuade farmers like Mr. Vermeer to switch to conventional crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/b...cts-the-soil.html?ref=geneticallymodifiedfood
 
前面已经讲了,现在的科技水平无法证明无害,不管你是什么样的实验。

只能证明吃了没有发现明显有害。这是生物里面的逻辑花样,不要上当。
非转食物经过了千百年与人的磨合,比起现在所谓的实验,我更相信自然选择的结果。
 
商业利益国家利益影响所谓科学报告的可信度,所以,首先报告的来源及其可信度如何确认是个问题。

比如美国政府信誓旦旦向公众声称伊拉克有大杀器,最后也不了了之。 Who can you trust, that's the first question.

当然,不排除自己做实验:tx:


美国打伊拉克是什么利益
 
其实,对我来说,我无法了解每个所谓实验室的背景,所以即使有几个实验室的几个实验证明了转基因无害,我无法确认它的可靠性。
即使证明了有害,因为利益的原因,它也可能照样走向市场。香烟就是个很好的例子。
对我来说,我只知道转基因食品是有很大争议的,它里边牵涉到巨大国家和商业利益, 这对我个人作决定已经足够了。
怀疑一切,是一种不算少见的人生态度。我支持。
我反对的是在这里散布谣言,感兴趣的是提供事实。
 
怀疑一切,是一种不算少见的人生态度。我支持。
我反对的是在这里散布谣言,感兴趣的是提供事实。
对你怀疑一切的这顶大帽子我还是有保留的:)

copy/paste 一段吧

科学只是最逼近真理,事物的真实道理只有事物自己知道,任何知识体系都是人为构造的,科学特别强调怀疑包括对自身的怀疑,但自从科学延生三百多年来由无数具有怀疑精神的 科学家十分谨慎地发展,许多科学领域近于成熟,因此怀疑需要一定的理性基础。科学史上影响最大的两个人物笛卡尔和马克思都不约而同的把“怀疑一切”看成是 自己的座佑铭。由于信仰共产主义的人们偏偏忽视了马克思的怀疑精神,过分地相信教条,为了警示这一点,我把它称为马克思精神。虽然如今的科学可靠性远比两 个伟人所处的时代可靠得多,但科学的可怀疑性不变,只是不能缺少科学训练盲目怀疑了,当你想怀疑某个科学结论时,你得认识认识自己,是否够上水平,因为简 单的怀疑 早被怀疑过无数次了。特别一些经典的理论,如欧氏几何、代数、运动学等理论,它们是由很少的公理和定律构成的。如欧氏几何,其五条公理相当直观,且没有一 条来自实验,在此之上演绎出的理论经几千年无数人的验证,因此可以说是完全可靠的理论。而运动学的可靠性也是这样,只是运动学的原理中,有实验定律(如速 度合成平行四边形法则),所以可靠性不如欧氏几何。为什么有实验定律的理论系统可靠性反而弱呢?这是因为实验定律是受实验条件限制的,往往一时弄不清适用条件,比如说牛顿定律是在低速情况下实验总结的,所以当人们认为它普遍适用无限推广时就会出错。从这意义上说经验科学反而没有纯科学可靠。完全人为构造起来的理论,容易做到完全没有逻辑矛 盾。只是这样的理论要在现实世界中找到完全对应则不容易,即纯科学的倒金字塔不可靠性在于其应用。怀疑精神常用在生活中,花花世界,你必须睁大眼睛辨别一 下哪些是科学哪些不是科学,怀疑精神主要用于对非科学内容的怀疑,遇事要多多思考思考,不要盲从。在我国,盲目崇拜、守旧缺乏创新精神以及传统势力过于庞 大,可以说就是缺少怀疑精神所致。是目前的高考制教育模式扼杀了怀疑精神,考试题总是要求题目有唯一的答案,且任何对题目本身的怀疑都是多余的,一定会影 响分数,则师生一致不去作任何“多余”的思考。因此教育围绕考试这现象应引起我们的深思

没有怀疑的科学就成了宗教:good:
 
有事的可能性极大。

不仅种转基因作物的田地长出超级杂草,还导致土壤发生变化:

Now, some farmers are taking a closer look at their soil.

First patented by Monsanto as a herbicide in 1974, glyphosate has helped revolutionize farming by making it easier and cheaper to grow crops. The use of the herbicide has grown exponentially, along with biotech crops.

The pervasive use, though, is prompting some concerns.

Critics point, in part, to the rise of so-called superweeds, which are more resistant to the herbicide. To fight them, farmers sometimes have to spray the toxic herbicide two to three times during the growing season.

Then there is the feel of the soil.

Dirt in two fields around Alton where biotech corn was being grown was hard and compact. Prying corn stalks from the soil with a shovel was difficult, and when the plants finally came up, their roots were trapped in a chunk of dirt. Once freed, the roots spread out flat like a fan and were studded with only a few nodules, which are critical to the exchange of nutrients.

In comparison, conventional corn in adjacent fields could be tugged from the ground by hand, and dirt with the consistency of wet coffee grounds fell off the corn plants’ knobby roots.

“Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant health,” said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health.

Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.

In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.

“Antibiotics kill bacteria or reduce their growth, but some of those bacteria are useful,” said Verlyn Sneller, president of Verity, a small company that sells sugar-based fertilizers and water systems and works to persuade farmers like Mr. Vermeer to switch to conventional crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/b...cts-the-soil.html?ref=geneticallymodifiedfood

目前比较广泛种植的转基因作物,主要有抗虫(BT蛋白)和抗除草剂(herbicide)两种。

抗除草剂的转基因作物,会施用比传统作物量大的多的会致癌的除草剂草甘膦。而且,因为在转基因田里又出现抗草甘膦的超级杂草,农民们不得不还要施用比草甘膦毒性更大的多的农药(在生长期内使用2-3次),因此,转基因粮食的农药除草剂残留要比非转粮食高得多,也毒得多。

好消息是,北美用来做豆腐豆浆的食用豆子,基本都是非转的。
 
对你怀疑一切的这顶大帽子我还是有保留的:)

copy/paste 一段吧

科学只是最逼近真理,事物的真实道理只有事物自己知道,任何知识体系都是人为构造的,科学特别强调怀疑包括对自身的怀疑,但自从科学延生三百多年来由无数具有怀疑精神的 科学家十分谨慎地发展,许多科学领域近于成熟,因此怀疑需要一定的理性基础。科学史上影响最大的两个人物笛卡尔和马克思都不约而同的把“怀疑一切”看成是 自己的座佑铭。由于信仰共产主义的人们偏偏忽视了马克思的怀疑精神,过分地相信教条,为了警示这一点,我把它称为马克思精神。虽然如今的科学可靠性远比两 个伟人所处的时代可靠得多,但科学的可怀疑性不变,只是不能缺少科学训练盲目怀疑了,当你想怀疑某个科学结论时,你得认识认识自己,是否够上水平,因为简 单的怀疑 早被怀疑过无数次了。特别一些经典的理论,如欧氏几何、代数、运动学等理论,它们是由很少的公理和定律构成的。如欧氏几何,其五条公理相当直观,且没有一 条来自实验,在此之上演绎出的理论经几千年无数人的验证,因此可以说是完全可靠的理论。而运动学的可靠性也是这样,只是运动学的原理中,有实验定律(如速 度合成平行四边形法则),所以可靠性不如欧氏几何。为什么有实验定律的理论系统可靠性反而弱呢?这是因为实验定律是受实验条件限制的,往往一时弄不清适用条件,比如说牛顿定律是在低速情况下实验总结的,所以当人们认为它普遍适用无限推广时就会出错。从这意义上说经验科学反而没有纯科学可靠。完全人为构造起来的理论,容易做到完全没有逻辑矛 盾。只是这样的理论要在现实世界中找到完全对应则不容易,即纯科学的倒金字塔不可靠性在于其应用。怀疑精神常用在生活中,花花世界,你必须睁大眼睛辨别一 下哪些是科学哪些不是科学,怀疑精神主要用于对非科学内容的怀疑,遇事要多多思考思考,不要盲从。在我国,盲目崇拜、守旧缺乏创新精神以及传统势力过于庞 大,可以说就是缺少怀疑精神所致。是目前的高考制教育模式扼杀了怀疑精神,考试题总是要求题目有唯一的答案,且任何对题目本身的怀疑都是多余的,一定会影 响分数,则师生一致不去作任何“多余”的思考。因此教育围绕考试这现象应引起我们的深思

没有怀疑的科学就成了宗教:good:

啊,你不喜欢“怀疑一切”的帽子,那我收回吧。至少你的意思是你怀疑一切的科学机构吧。
我讲你“怀疑一切”的时候,脑袋里想到的就是笛卡尔。我说支持,其实我本来还写了句,这是有利于社会和科学进步的生活态度。
没有怀疑的科学就成了宗教。太对了。所以,那些关于转基因的食品有毒无毒的报告,都要接受怀疑和验证。目前验证的结果,没有一项声称有毒的报告能够经得住检验。
我自己不实行怀疑一切的生活态度。不是因为它不对,而是因为它太累。
 
好消息是,北美用来做豆腐豆浆的食用豆子,基本都是非转的。
你确定么?豆浆熬干的很多,豆腐还真没啥标识的。。。
 
啊,你不喜欢“怀疑一切”的帽子,那我收回吧。至少你的意思是你怀疑一切的科学机构吧。
我讲你“怀疑一切”的时候,脑袋里想到的就是笛卡尔。我说支持,其实我本来还写了句,这是有利于社会和科学进步的生活态度。
没有怀疑的科学就成了宗教。太对了。所以,那些关于转基因的食品有毒无毒的报告,都要接受怀疑和验证。目前验证的结果,没有一项声称有毒的报告能够经得住检验。
我自己不实行怀疑一切的生活态度。不是因为它不对,而是因为它太累。
呵呵,不容易,终于和闹子兄[就一系列问题,经过广泛磋商达成共识]:jiayou:
 
你确定么?豆浆熬干的很多,豆腐还真没啥标识的。。。
恩,转基因大豆主要是抗除草剂草甘膦(农达)的。因为草甘膦已经被证实致癌,且在人体内不断累计不能排出。人类直接食用的豆子本来就很少转基因的,所以,他们帖GMO FREE标签非常踊跃。转基因大豆主要是饲料,榨油。
 
后退
顶部