volcboy wrote:
Yes, there are scientists that have a personal viewpoint that can ideologically cloud their statements. There are also internet posters, accountants, teachers, politicians etc. etc. whose personal viewpoints ideologically cloud their statements. As far as I know, a scientist is the only one of those that has to back up their statements with peer-reviewed research. Whether or not you choose to believe that research, have some faith in those who have spent years developing relevant understanding or work towards increasing your own individual scientific understanding is really up to you.
volcboy wrote:Corvus - I have attempted to use science to point out that the issues raised in AS, along with issues of other toxins in the environment, is one that should be taken seriously. I have attempted to back up my statements with logic and scientific facts and knowledge.
I have not posted throwaway one liners with no supporting evidence attempting to belittle the views of others.
Each to their own, I guess
Brett wrote:I for one have strong concerns over mono culturing of "super" trees.
Emotional dribble Brett. If you are going to argue that trees are just another crop, then treat them as just that. Breeding better trees that grow faster with shorter rotations and more timber per hectare is just that, treating trees as a crop. The question is not whether or not to grow the crop, but what we loose in the process. Or rather what society is willing to give-up in order to grow trees, have timber and produce paper. Actions and consequences again. The arguments for and against growing forests for timber are no different than the arguments for an against any other intensive agricultural or silvicultural practice.
Brett wrote:dramatic effect
corvus wrote:aquatic creatures of all sorts still thrive in the Georges river.
corvus wrote:I heard a comment today on the ABC Radio that the trees were not GM,and a further comment that aquatic creatures of all sorts still thrive in the Georges river.
stepbystep wrote:Ever given any thought to the idea that some species are more inclined to be affected more quickly than others?
Some mutate slowly over years, others die instantaneously.
Anyone heard of the problems the Platapus are now starting to experience?
Some humans survived Hiroshima into their 90's, their neighbours died within a couple of years.
Look at the results of DDT, asbestos, Chernobyl for goodness sake - c'mon people we are all our own laboratory that is affected by our genes and our environment, so why roll the dice???
Just because you see fish in the river doesn't mean they are healthy!
wander wrote:Can someone clarify why the trees were GM?
And I was under the impression that Tas was to be GM free? Obviously an incorrect understanding. What is the Tas Gov's position on GM?
volcboy wrote:wander wrote:Selective improvement can also have its downsides, as is seen in severe inbreeding in certain dog breeds and also in some animals such as cows, whose breeding for size and shape has led to a large number of cow species now being unable to give birth unassisted. Ask any vet about calving season and you will understand the downside of this issue.
Taurë-rana wrote:Thank you for your comments volcboy, you have been articulate and obviously know what you are talking about.
corvus wrote:I have strong long held beliefs about our fantastic State and have been an adherent of organic gardening , grey water use, bucket in the shower , composting and recycling for many years.I grow and eat many healthy plants and herbs ,therefore a practicing conservationist not just one with lip service ,the bees, skinks and other invertebrates are living proof of this and I have a myriad of birds come visit
corvus
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests