Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Yes, is it not also true that there are already bystanders with rad exposure?

And isn't a fair amount of rad exposure science brought to you by the folks who KNOW there is no danger to the ecosystem from the release of genetically altered flora?

from a technical standpoint, and nuclear is somewhat technical, the reason we put blowout preventers on undersea oil wells is to prevent blowouts.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sun Mar 13th, 2011 at 06:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Japan nuclear alert and earthquake - Saturday 12 March
The safety agency also warned that the number of individuals exposed to radiation from the plant could reach as high as 160.
But the number confirmed is 22.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 13th, 2011 at 07:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be fair, it is hard to see how GMOs could be harmful if the proper pre-approval studies (rate of spread, rate of interbreeding with local flora, etc.) are done to ascertain that it is not behaving as an invasive species.

The problem here is that I don't trust the regulatory authorities to do their jobs, not that I don't trust the technology. The fact that GMOs have been pushed in the WTO as if it were a trade issue rather than a regulatory compliance issue does not endear me to the idea either.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 14th, 2011 at 08:23:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series