Hard News: Science: it's complicated
401 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Nuclear power plants for instance may not break very often, but when they do…
Did I read somewhere that the damaged reactor in Chernobyl will have to be maintained for 4,000 years before it no longer presents a hazard? Sure adds to the cost of nuclear power.
-
Sacha, in reply to
there's a reason you can't get insurance for them
-
There are of course clever folk trying to make power via nuclear fusion in the UK at the JET facility. If they should succeed, it would provide a much safer method of power generation, where the waste is no more radioactive than the ore.
[they also get points for the Star Wars lego on the homepage :-)]
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Perhaps not to do with GM in itself, but the GM varieties we currently have require loads of fertilizer and pesticides
So I agree we use too much fertaliser and pesticide in producing our food and that damages the environment.
But from 1996 to 2009 GM crops reduced pesticide use by 393 million kg of active ingredient. In 2009 alone it was 39 million kg or about 10% of the total pesticide use! Solely as a result of using GM crops.
A majority of the maize and almost all the soybean in the USA is GM, and most of those crops have switched to no-till agriculture solely as a result of switching to GM. With all the benefits associated less soil loss, less tractor use.Just those two things alone have benefited the environment an amazing amount and at the same time as increasing yield.
I'm sorry if this sounds bad but I really cannot see how anyone who cares about the environment can be opposed to these kinds of benefits. If you oppose GM you really have to question why you are willing to do such damage to the environment.
I can’t see what other directions there are to go in with GM
Oh oh oh (picture me squirming in my seat with excitement). See this here - GM has such potential it is amazing. I'm sorry but if you think the internet has changed you life you haven't even begun to see what GM can do.
How about introducing nitrogen fixation into grain crops - so just like legumes they can fix their own nitrogen - then you wouldn't need nitrogen fertalisers for most of the worlds crops!
How about drought tolerance - so in marginal environments you don't need to irrigate to keep your crops alive and that means you don't get salination of soils and erosion and you get to keep the water for important things like drinking.
How about removing the cyanide genes from casava so it doesn't need to be cooked for 24 hours before it's edible - casava is the major carbohydrate source for most of Africa.
How about modifying indigenous food plants so they can produce good yields and replace maize where maize sucks (eg most of Africa).Oh god there is so much potential in this science. So many things we can and will do to make food better for everyone.
I think the way of the future will be in everybody growing their own where possible; urban and rooftop gardens that use every bit of space available
Sure, but at the moment you can't get the yields needed to feed you and your neighbours year round without using those fertalisers and pesticides that neither of us want to see used. And to be honest it's not about you and I it's about India and China and Africa and Sth America where no amount of rooftop gardens will suffice.
I don’t think GM will feed the world
I do, it's why I do my job. I also believe it is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.
I really passionately believe GM is the "greenist" technology we have ever seen and I so very very much wish that the environmental lobby groups had not chosen to oppose it, because they are wrong. GM is good and GM is green and the scientists working with it want to make the world better not worse.
Sorry, more ranting from me :).
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
the large scale corporate approach to GM has been to hold the future of global food supplies to ransom for greater economic return
Ok I really have to do some of my real work but I think there is some misunderstanding about just who uses GM. The dogma is, it's the big multinationals.
So in 2010 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries planted 148 million hectares of GM crops. 90% of those are resource poor farmers. Small scale farmers, NOT big multinationals. Yes they buy their seed from big seed companies but that has always been true and they buy GM seed because it produces better yields using less pesticides. The small farmers are the ones making the biggest gains from GM. they make the choice to grow GM because it is better for them.
-
recordari, in reply to
GM is good and GM is green and the scientists working with it want to make the world better not worse.
All of them? Can I borrow your glasses, mine seem to be fogging over with cynicism. Overall I agree with much of what you say, it's just while I can feel the intensity of your passion from right across town, and wouldn't question your personal desire for good, I'm pretty sure there are many scientists employed purely to extract more profit out of food crops who couldn't give a GM monkey's uncle for the greater good.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
But from 1996 to 2009 GM crops reduced pesticide use by 393 million kg of active ingredient.
You and your sciencey facts.
-
Oh oh oh (picture me squirming in my seat with excitement). See this here - GM has such potential it is amazing
Thanks Bart... I do so like passion! And informative too.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I’m pretty sure there are many scientists employed purely to extract more profit out of food crops who couldn’t give a GM monkey’s uncle for the greater good.
Yeah there are some I'm sure as well.
But I'm lucky enough to have started my career at exactly the time GM crops were first developed. And I've gone to meetings where I've met and had dinner with - and drunk nice Pinot Noir with - most of the folks involved in the early development. And over the years I've met a lot of the people doing GM science.
Of the scientists I'd say 80% are mostly doing what they do with the explicit intent of doing "good" for the planet. They also love the science and the discovery. But they believe that what they are doing will add to the greater good.
However, that said, most of the control of research funding is in the hands of accountants and MBAs. Those guys I'm less comfortable about the motivations. On the plus side if any of us scientists actually believed something was going to be released that was "bad" we'd scream loud and long.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I meant the front end in the dimension of time.
But what happens when that falls off?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Thanks Bart... I do so like passion! And informative too.
Likewise. Appreciate the info, most generous.
Bart:
I think there is some misunderstanding about just who uses GM. The dogma is, it's the big multinationals.
I believe that Monsanto in particular has been given too much credit here in the past as a genuine innovator. From what I can gather they're more in the nature of a Microsoft, acquiring, publishing, and continuing to develop the work of smaller startups.
Like Microsoft their aim appears to be to maximise return while minimising R&D costs. Their GM products appear well suited to locking clients in, with little apparent alternative. If a soybean or canola grower of whatever size were to look for a better deal, what would be their options? And is there a GM equivalent of open source?
-
recordari, in reply to
Of the scientists I'd say 80% are mostly doing what they do with the explicit intent of doing "good" for the planet. They also love the science and the discovery. But they believe that what they are doing will add to the greater good.
You inspire some hope with this. I've met a lot of medical scientists like this too. But, as you say, it's those bean counters that can muck up a perfectly sound proposition by focusing on the bottom line. Not sure what the answer is overall, but more unattributed public funding for science would be good. 'No shit, Sherlock!'
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Sorry, more ranting from me :).
I appreciate your good faith and patience in explaining things you know and care about.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
There are of course clever folk trying to make power via nuclear fusion in the UK at the JET facility. If they should succeed, it would provide a much safer method of power generation,
Not radioactive as such but they sure could sling some nasty stuff about, a neutron with an energy of 14.1 Mev is a hard thing to keep control of and you wouldn't want to get one of those in your eye I can tell you.
I have been actively campaigning against this sort of nonsense for a while, I was only chatting to a bloke down the pub about it last night and he was an electrician so he should know.
Domestic power consumption in NZ accounts for 34.3% of the total power generated in this country, add to that commercial (offices) and public consumption of 25% )public buildings, street lighting and such and you have a whopping total of 59.3% of power being used in the non productive sector. Taking into account the 40.6% used by industry and you can account for 99.9% of generated power. That missing 0.1% is due to transmission losses, which in 2009 was 3135 GWh.
This gives you some idea of the really big numbers we are talking about.
Those losses alone would supply 4 times the power used by the entire Dairy Industry.
If we had a sensible Government R&D policy ((RDRDR) laughing at my own joke) we would be looking at co-generation and solar power alternatives with an emphasis on massive decentralisation (solar panels on all roofs, wind generators on all (practical) farms). We would need no further construction of generation capacity, combine that with more efficient consumption and Bob's yer Uncle, Billy's the odd one that dresses like his Mum, a sustainable future and prosperity for all.
;-) -
Yamis, in reply to
We have the sort of situation where the Amazon is being cut down to produce beef for American hamburgers...it's not like America can't keep its own cattle, but it's cheaper to do it in the Amazon.
I don't disagree that certain 'tastes' have resulted in large scale environmental destruction but shifting production from an overseas location to your own backyard doesn't necessarily solve everything. I read that 260 million acres of US forests have been clearcut for animal agriculture. If they have to make their burger patties using local cattle it would be fair to assume they chop down a lot more of their own forests instead of those abroad.
The reduced transport costs and pollution would be an obvious incentive to do that of course.
Us meat eaters have a lot to answer for :( But it just tastes so damn good!
-
Steve: I don’t at all disagree about solar panels and decentralised generation, but I think further research into sustainable power generation is also important. Science and technology present us with complex choices and choosing the best path depends on context.
and Yamis: once again, the issues are complex, and I’m not saying that raising beef cattle locally would solve every environmental problem. Global food production could be much higher if people ate less meat and dairy, but how you make that happen I don’t know.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Bart, I also appreciate your patience, especially with those of us who may have strong views but who are ignorant of the technical details.
Science has brought us so many amazing benefits, but I'm not sure we've been very good at dealing with the power it gives us.
I think what I was trying to say earlier in a roundabout sort of way is that I don’t blame the science or the scientists for the sometimes stupid ways technology gets used. I think it’s our responsibility as a society to ensure that we direct and use scientific developments for the greater good; to do that we need excellent communication between scientists and laypeople, so we can make informed choices.
Which I think Russell already said in the original post. :-)
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I believe that Monsanto in particular has been given too much credit here in the past as a genuine innovator.
This is a classic case of the difference between Monsanto the company and Monsanto the group of scientists who worked there in the 80s. The story is interesting (to me anyways). In the early 80s some executive decided it would be good if more people would pay Monsanto to use Round-up (glyphosate) and it would be especially good if some crops were resistant to glyphosate. So very oddly he set up a team of molecular biologists to work on the problem, Rob Frayley, Rob Horsch, Stephen Rogers, Harry Klee and others. They focussed on the possibility of transforming plants with new genes, specifically the possibility of a glyphosate resistance gene. They were amongst the folks who discovered the earliest pieces of the mechanisms Agrobacterium used to transfer it’s DNA into plants. the same mechanism used to make many of our GN crops now. They made many of the early vectors and developed selection systems. They really did do much of the early work in the field.
By the late 80s some of them had moved on or up or sideways but there is no question that those scientists made some of the key innovations.
So yes Monsanto does deserve some of the credit. Not all by any means and there were others in different labs around the world who contributed as much.
Does Monsanto the company deserve that much credit? Does the fact they bought up some of the patents they didn’t have make them better or worse? Does the fact they bought seed companies so they could supply seed with their innovation and make more money make them better or worse?
I don’t have answers for any of those questions and I suspect each person’s answers will be coloured by their own experiences.
However, for whatever reason Monsanto assembled a really cool group of folks who did some pretty neat work that made really significant progress at that time. For that I’ll give them credit.
Edit - oh and Monsanto let them publish!
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Lilith, thank you for asking the questions. Strong opinions aren't a bad thing. And not knowing something is not a bad thing either - there is so very much I don't know.
Science has always been a tool for good and bad in society and societies have always struggled to keep up with science. I want to avoid that bad as much as anyone, the trick is always to capture the good while avoiding the bad.
-
James Bremner, in reply to
Famous Phil changed his story a bit. Increase is now statistically significant. A whopping .19C from 1995 to 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
Oh my goodness!! 1.2C a century!!
Prior to 1995 we were told that temp increase would accelerate from the rate of increase observed from the 1970s to the early 1990s, which of course is what started the whole shenanigans. And instead we got a lousy 1.2C a century!! -
Islander, in reply to
And instead we got a lousy 1.2C a century!!
Which is an enormous amount for a lot of species-
-
James Bremner, in reply to
My fairly desperate position? That's a good one!! If the skeptics are in a desperate position then why are you devoting a show to trying to understand how all us dummies just don't get tricky stuff? It is you and the AGW crew that are the ones in the desperate position.
AGW is at the bottom of the public's list of concerns, not the top. Belief and concern about agw has been dropping overtime, especially since Climategate. And that is because while the general public can have the wool pulled over its eyes or be dragooned into believing a position for a while, over time the general publics bullshit detector is fairly sound. And team agw has so many strikes against it now, the public is well and truly turned off it. Why on earth anyone still hangs on every agw pronouncement is really what deserves attention and discussion. -
James Butler, in reply to
Prior to 1995 we were told that temp increase would accelerate from the rate of increase observed from the 1970s to the early 1990s, which of course is what started the whole shenanigans. And instead we got a lousy 1.2C a century!!
Consider that the entire range temperatures on Earth is only roughly -50°C to 50°C - that's a 1.2% change in only one century, which sounds pretty fucking significant to me.
-
Its Friday.
Todays neat bit of science for you all. Ice melts at 0 deg C. A simple statement. If you have a bowl of ice and water, stick a thermometer in it and let it melt, it will sit at 0 deg C until it is all melted. If you then cool it, it will start freezing and then sit at 0 deg C until it is all frozen. That is the simple story. If you then put some really really pure water in a glass tube, evacuate it, suck as much air out of it as possible, you are left with only water and water vapour in the tube. Freeze this and the water is then at it's triple point. So called because all 3 phases of water are in equilibrium. Water vapour, liquid and solid. The temperature of this is now not 0 deg C but +0.01 deg C.There are only two defined points on the thermodynamic temperature scale. Absolute zero and the triple point of water. 0 k and 273.16 k. (k = kelvin, equiv to deg C but with 273.15 subtracted from it.)
If you then stick a really really good thermometer in the tube of water, the triple point can sit there for literally months with a few millionths of a degree. 0.000001 or 2 ish of a degree. Chances are, if we could ensure less electrical noise, vibration and better instrumentation, we could probably show it will sit there within fractions of a microdegree. It is an amazingly small temperature difference and impressive physical phenomenon.
You have to say to yourself sometimes, why does this happen?? What causes this constancy of temperature while a phase change is happening?? We are trying to figure that out along with lookig at how other other metal freezing points that define the usuable temperature scale behave similarly.
What is fun is that I get to play with toys that can measure that good.
It gets better. Hydrogen and oxygen have more than one isotope. The concentration of these different isotopes has a small but measurable effect on the triple point of water. So if I make one of these triple point cells in NZ and one in France say, and we measure the triple point of water, we will find we get two different numbers. Now that really really is annoying. But incredibly interesting at the same time!
Work done here at Measurement Standards Lab over the last 20 years or so has enabled us to make corrections that we can now apply to all our triple point cells around the world so that we can all measure the triple point of water more accurately.
So what? In a bizarre set of steps from such incredible precision, eventually, when you go down to the doctor and he sticks a thermometer into you, the idea is that the temeprature he measures is tracable to the triple point of water. The temperature in Palmerston at 5am this morning also has some measure of reality because the Metservice back track their temperature calibrations to our triple point of water.
Ain't science fun!!!
-
Oh Russell, which part of the Owen Glen building. Do you know how big it is and, and... how BIG it is?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.