Re[3]: Zmena klímy je mýtus a GMO potraviny nás zabijú :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	Re[3]: Zmena klímy je mýtus a GMO potraviny nás zabijú
template:	4
parent:	Re[2]: Zmena klímy je mýtus a GMO potraviny nás zabijú
owner:	Thunder Perfect Mind
viewed by:
created:	02.04.2015 - 16:37:33

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63539
63556
63998
7879929
7880068
7880113
7880177

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

Ja len k prvej vete - ohladom bezpecnosti GMO ako celku vedecky konsenzus neexistuje (ani nemoze). Existuje len ku konzumacii v sucasnosti predavanych GM potravin.

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187

suhlasim s tym, ze konsenzus ohladom ludskeho zdravia je silnejsi a zahrna viac svetovych institucii. ale existuju vyjadrenia renomovanych institucii aj k pestovaniu plodin. samozrejme, su vzdy vyhodnotenim toho co sa v tejto oblasti odohravalo za posledne desatrocia. suhlasim, ze tento risk assessment nemoze zahrnat rizika moznych novych postupov alebo novych GM druhov atd. tie treba vzdy starostlivo skumat.

napr:

This publication reviews the last ten years of research projects launched under the Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities, focusing on safety aspects of GMOs but also taking account of developments in the field over time. More than EUR 200 million has been invested through the Framework Programmes since the year 2001, developing agricultural management techniques for co-existence, tools for detection in and analysis of food and feed, and methods for risk assessment of GMOs, thus responding to the need of farmers, consumers, industry and policymakers.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

00000101000635390006355600063998078799290788006807880113078801770788018707880198

Hej, napriklad vyjadrenie svetovej institucie WHO, ktora pred par dnami reklasifikovala glyfosat pouzivany pri pestovani GM plodin Monsanta ako potencialne karcinogenny, a EPA, ktora planuje obmedzit jeho pouzivanie v USA. Samo osebe to neznamena vela, ale pekne to ukazuje ze ten konsenzus nesmieme generalizovat.

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880478

pockaj jednalo sa o glyfosat alebo konkretne roundup?
lebo glyfosat by mal byt pri spravnom pouziti podstatne bezpecnejsi ako vacsina herbicidov a hlavne sa za 2 tyzdne rozpadne. problematicke su skor stopove zlozky roundupu. ci? mas link, neviem googlit akosi...

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

00000101000635390006355600063998078799290788006807880113078801770788018707880198078804780788048307880495

dik
v podvedomi by ma taky dokaz asi urcitym zvratenym sposobom tesil, ale:

"For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals."
To mi pride ako tie testy na karcinogennost marihuany, kde mysi zili niekolko tyzdnov neustale v ganjovom dyme.

Tu http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-103601_30-Oct-91_265.pdf je sice popisana metodika a vypada celkom rozumne, otazne je, ci sa clovek vobec moze dostat za zivot k takemu mnozstvu gyfosatu pokial ho nevypije priamo (3-34 mg/kg/den).

Inac ta povodna studia je tusim z roku 99. Cize 16 rokov je glyfosat zahrnuty medzi moznymi karcinogenmi, akurat sa k tomu nevyjadrili, ti predstavitelia establismentu, voci ktorym ti konspiratori konspiruju :)

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880478078804830788049507880736

Hej ved to som pisal hned na zaciatku ze to vela neznamena, zatial. Tak ale aspon sme uz postupili z 'je to bezpecne' na 'nie je to apokalypsa' :).

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483078804950788073608327428

co toto?
http://www.agris.cz/clanek/195816

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483078804950788073607880872

jj imho tieto jemne nuansy su v zaujme zachovania objektivity celkom dolezite.

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880478078804830788049507880500

nie je to sice primarne problem GM technologii, ale pouzivania pesticidov vobec, no ked sa to tu uz zacalo riesit, tak by som rad potvrdil tvoj odhad, ze to nie je ziadna apokalypsa:

“The IARC process is not designed to take into account how a pesticide is used in the real world – generally there is no requirement to establish a specific mode of action, nor does mode of action influence the conclusion or classification category for carcinogenicity.

“The IARC process is not a risk assessment. It determines the potential for a compound to cause cancer, but not the likelihood. Exposure assessment in epidemiological studies on the effects of pesticides is notoriously difficult. Agricultural workers, the most commonly studied group, are almost never exposed to just a single pesticide and it is very difficult to establish cause and effect.

“The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.

“These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm.”
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483078804950788050007880506

este by som dodal ze je rozdiel medzi "how the pesticides are used" a "how the pesticides should be used", pretoze viem o odbornikoch, ktori striekaju bez ohladu na predpovede pocasia a donedavna prekracovali odporucane davky.

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880207

pockaj, ale WHO sa vyjadrovalo k moznym rizikam pesticidu (mozne riziko sa tyka ludi, ktori s nim prichadzaju do styku vo velkych mnozstvach, teda farmari a polnohospodari) a popri glyfosate preklasifikovala dalsie styri pesticidy, pricom vsetky sa pouzivaju aj v konvencnom polnohospodarstve. cize toto je problem moderneho polnohospodarstva a pouzivania pesticidov ako celku.

+ spoj si to s najnovsou meta-analyzou, ktora preukazala, ze:

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788020707880214

Ale ak je to pravda (co je velke a neiste ak), tak jednoducho nie je mozne povedat ze pestovanie GM plodin spojenych s glyfosatom je bezpecne. Chapes, aj keby bolo jazdit autom bezpecnejsie ako motorkou, stale to nie je bezpecne.

00000101000635390006355600063998078799290788006807880113078801770788018707880198078802070788021407880220

ale bolo by to predsa len harm reduction

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880207078802140788022007880714

Kym sa skodcovia evolucne neprisposobia.
Kym sa na drh nedostane nejaky nepodarok, ktory zlikviduje ekosystem pol planety.
Kym ...

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788020707880214078802200788071407881012

and the business goes on :)

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

00000101000635390006355600063998078799290788006807880113078801770788018707880198078802070788021407880218

aha, v takomto zmysle ano, preto vacsinou tie zavery tie institucie formuluju tak, ze: "nie je nebezpecnejsie ako pestovanie konvencnych plodin."