Reply to post: Re: Just another distraction.

Don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump? How about this woman who says Wi-Fi melts kids' brains?


Re: Just another distraction.

cray74: "No food is so thoroughly tested as GMOs before they enter the food supply..."

Ah, that old straw-man argument. How quaint.

Of course, the real concern with GMO foods is not that they're individually toxic to humans. It's that they're allowing corporations, motivated solely by short-term profit, to manipulate the most vital part of our biosphere in drastic, unprecedented and poorly-understood ways.

We've already seen possible negative results, as weeds become increasingly resistant to Monsanto's Roundup. We've also seen entirely inadequate justification for the whole GMO approach, as evidence continues to mount that smaller-scale, lower-tech farming could probably feed the world more effectively, with less risk of a substantial ecosystem collapse (as we've seen in the bee populations).

The impact on our environment has not been "thoroughly tested." In fact, it's hard to imagine a really thorough test that wouldn't take many decades, given the complexity of the problem. In any case, when the entire testing system is massively controlled by vested interests, a little skepticism isn't unwarranted.

"And she puts an anti-nuclear plank in her campaign platform."

And, with Fukushima still spewing radioactive waste into the Pacific ecosystem, that's a bad thing? While truly safe nuclear power seems theoretically possible, it's impossible to pretend that the nuclear power we now have - a system, again, regulated directly by those who profit from it - is even remotely safe. Most reactors are operating beyond their original design lifetime. Nuclear fuel is being stored on-site, because we still have no plan whatsoever for long-term disposal of spent fuel that requires constant, active cooling to prevent explosion.

Insurance companies won't touch nuclear projects. Why? Because if the wind had been a bit different, Fukushima would have made Tokyo uninhabitable. As it is, the expense of cleaning up that one mess will probably wipe out any conceivable cost advantage of all nuclear projects so far, worldwide. Just how much more of a warning do we need? At the very least, the regulatory framework needs to be torn down and rebuilt with sane lines of accountability.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020