I'm voting Democrat because I don't hate myself enough for being white, male, educated, straight or middle class.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the best strategy in war is defeat. It broadens the mind to learn Japanese, German and Arabic. Talk about multiculturalism!

I'm voting Democrat because Al Gore says global warming is hiding under my bed, waiting to get me.

I'm voting Democrat because I want to assume absolutely no personal responsibility for my actions.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm mad that George W. Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden. That's because Bin Laden is the only Islamic terrorist in the world.

I'm voting Democrat because I've been whining like a ritalin-marinated toddler on a temper tantrum about my candidate having won a Presidential election for the last eight years, and I want to be right for once.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that if I don't have enough money, the solution is for the government to take more of my money. Who needs money when gas is $5 per gallon?

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the ideal family is two homosexual bonobos, a goat and a parrot raising a human baby. Love and compassion is all it takes to make a successful family!

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not an individual. I'm a race, a gender, a religion (or lack thereof), and a sexual orientation.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather have gas prices be easily influenced by world markets rather than drill in the Anwar preserve set aside for the purpose of drilling. I think terrorists know how to use our money best.

I'm voting Democrat because it's my body, and if I want to kill my baby, I'll do it, even if its head is in the birth canal. If I want to cut out my intestines and feed them to the crocodiles, I'll do that too.

I'm voting democrat because psychotic dictators like Amadinejad and Jong-Ill will listen to reason if I just talk to them instead of backing up my words with actions. I'll buy them a beer.

I'm voting Democrat because our enemies on the battlefield deserve comfy hotel rooms, Pay-Per-View, prostitutes and all the benefits of American citizenship.

I'm voting Democrat because we need to make the illegal immigrants feel more at home by learning to speak Spanish. I think we should hand them welcome brochures that detail where to get government services and free Ipods at the border too.

I'm voting Democrat because having a picture of Jesus within 100 miles of me is offensive. Colored lights are offensive. Christmas trees are offensive. Hell, let's just ban the whole holiday! Let's put up lots of Ramadan decorations, more footbaths, more mosques and more Islam recruiting posters in our subways instead. Diversity is our strength.

I'm voting Democrat because I like the government making all of my decisions for me. I'm not smart enough to make them myself.

I'm voting Democrat because supporting a work-capable person on welfare for over 50 years is so noble. Anyone who doesn't take pity on these poor souls don't have a heart.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need other countries' permission for me to turn down my thermostat.

I'm voting Democrat because I care about the real victims of crime -- criminals.

I'm voting Democrat because the real cure for racism includes preferential policies based on race -- particularly in presidential voting. If you believe that a black candidate ought to be qualified, as well as black, you're worse than Bull Conner.

I'm voting Democrat because everyone deserves crappy healthcare. Sure, you'll have to wait years for that life-saving cancer surgery. But it's first come, first served at the cemetery!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in minority rights (except in Muslim countries), free speech (with regard to pornography but not conservative talk radio), environmentalism (unless we're talking about Al Gore's house) and diplomacy (but never backed by the threat of military force).

I'm voting Democrat because Socialism needs another chance. Sure it failed eleventy billion times throughout history, but that's only because we haven't tried it yet!

I'm voting Democrat because I think the terrorists just need a big hug. I'm sure a little lovin will convince them to take their bombs off.

I'm voting Democrat because I like the words "hope" and "change." Also "kazoo." That's a funny word.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that America's founders were rich, white, greedy xenophobes, and that America's founding principles are hogwash requiring periodic editing from an unelected group of liberal judges.

I'm voting Democrat because I like the ideas they have over in France, but I don't feel like moving there. I'll threaten to move, but I really won't. After all, I have a good job, healthcare, lower taxes, free speech and a social framework that promotes family structure. And all of it is defended by the most effective fighting force on the planet.

I'm voting Democrat because disagreeing with a black man is racism.

I'm voting Democrat because all of the history books were written by fascists with an agenda. America terrorized every country it ever set foot in, and stole candy from little babies.

I'm voting Democrat because I hate Bush. He caused 9-11, Katrina, and the nail I broke this morning.

I'm voting Democrat because successful entrepreneurs either oppressed a minority or were lucky, and don't deserve their financial success.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm too historically ignorant to realize that we still have a large military presence in Japan and Germany.

I'm voting Democrat because I can't get the new Iphone 3G yet, my new Hummer needs new tires already, and McDonald's screwed up my lunch order. The economy is making life in the US a 3rd world country!

I'm voting Democrat because Sharia law sounds just neato.

I'm voting Democrat because I want the world to know that I want a weak America just like Europe does.

I'm voting democrat so I can roll over and die the next time some emo ass-clown with more prescription drugs than teeth in his body shoots up a public place. Because I can't be trusted to personally own or carry a firearm. And I'm too unsafe to dare shooting back.

I'm voting Democrat because I want to screw one of our biggest allies in the Middle East for the third time in 20 years.

I'm voting Democrat so we can sell out everyone else the way we sold out the South Vietnamese.

If only the institution of far-left values resulted in a great country. Oh, well. That won't stop me from voting Democrat, though. After all, I'm voting Democrat because thought isn't one of my strong suits.

         In our daily lives, we are exposed to multiple sources of electronic magnetic fields through our televisions, radios, microwaves ovens, thunder & lightening storms, computers and yes, even our cell phones.  What kind of impact does the safety of the electronic influences in our lives have on our health?  Many people question the safety of cell phones and the alleged relationship between cell phones and cancer of the human brain.

          The question is...for those with brain tumors...how do we know for sure what is the direct source of contamination?  And really, for the patient who is diagnosed with a brain tumor...is that really their main concern?  Or do they just desire to be cured; allowing them to go on and have a productive, healthy life?  

        Scientists, who study such things as cause and effect, are very conflicted about the facts.   There are those who do the studies with a preposed starting position or belief.  A true scientist, will disregard a held belief and rely on the data as the only only truth, if the statistics are done correctly.  How does a regular person interpet these studies to make an informed decision about their own cell phone use?

           A person has to question the source of funding in many of these studies when the statistics are published proving or disproving the conclusion of the study when the final results appear to validate a self serving position.  Meaning...if a cell phone company funds the research; and it upholds their position that cell phones are safe and have absolutely no ill effects on humans, then the results have to be considered a bit one-sided. 

          On the other hand, if a company that holds a belief that cell phones are evil and that they pose the greatest risk to human health ever known to mankind, funding a research project; and, it "proves" their preposed belief...then, you have to question the results of that study as well.  Somewhere in the middle, probably lies the truth.  What is needed is a comprehensive study of research that is funded by an independent source; a research project who's testing results will not have any bias; or, an independent source that will not benefit, in any way, from the ending results.

       If such a research project was done independently; and it said that cell phone use definately increased your risk for cancer; would you continue using it?  How many minutes or hours a day do you use a cell phone?  Or, do you avoid cell phone use?  Do you let your young children use a cell phone regularily?  Send a comment on what you think and believe about this issue?

"Consistent with regulations"

How many people assume that the drugs prescribed to them by their doctor are safe.

They don't realize that for the vast majority of doctors, they only know what their pharmaceutical reps told them last week.

And the pharmaceutical companies?

They only know what will make them money.

Congress, the White House and the FDA are in on the game.

 It's time we all woke up to how bad it is.

 Consider this short video our wake up call:

 http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/377.html

This image speaks more to the insanity of building a fence along the Texas border with Mexico.

This wall project has more "un-intended" consequences than have been seriously studied.

If you consider the human factor in this region, the resources for assistance is uneven. The further north this damage goes, the further away from resources. The coast for both countries is well covered. But, as population thins as you move north, resources also thin out. DHS has it's Border Wall project that will cause more grief than safety.

Speaking about safety, how will DHS handle relief efforts? A Category One Hurricane is not the beast of past storms ... UNLESS it hits at the mouth of a major river. The Rio Grande River can be a monster when flooding starts from the North ... But when a storm surge starts from the mouth of the river, you will see major flooding and destruction. The infrastructure on the Mexico side will be hard pressed to attend the consequences. History has demonstrated the cost. The Border Wall will be its own monster when the hurricane passes.

There are many posts in this blog about salmonella tainted tomatoes. But the article does a good job of covering the basics. So, I have listed the details again.

A little information on Salmonella and the strain of salmonella that infects tomatoes. 

The salmonella family includes more than 2,300 different strains that live in the intestinal tracts of animals and people and may easily be transferred to food and water. Salmonella is the most common cause of food-borne illness or "food poisoning." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 1.4 million cases are reported annually, and many cases may not be reported. The particular strain associated with this summer's outbreak was a rare type of salmonella making it more difficult for officials to track down the source. Food can be contaminated with salmonella, but the appearance, taste or smell may not be affected.

How does Salmonella infection spread?

Salmonella is usually transmitted to humans when food is contaminated by water or hands that have been in contact with feces. Any raw food of animal origin, such as meats, poultry, eggs and seafood, should be cooked thoroughly to kill the bacteria. Raw milk goes through pasteurization to make it safe, and eggs for commercial and hospital use may also be pasteurized.

Guidelines to prevent Salmonella infection:

Frequent hand washing is critical to prevent the spread of salmonella when preparing or serving food. Experts recommend the use of several different cutting boards so that raw meats and juices do not come in contact with vegetables or fruits during meal preparation. The cutting board or container used to hold raw meats should not be used again for cooked meats. If you marinate raw meats before cooking, never baste the meat with marinade it was soaked in. Wash all utensils and knives with hot, soapy water before moving to the next food item. Use disposable paper towels and disinfecting cleanser instead of a sponge for kitchen cleaning. Refrigerate or freeze cooked foods within an hour or two, and reheat leftovers to 165 degrees before eating.

The three-part cleanup effort includes:

- The cleansing of site soils, pond sludges and sediments in a ditch near the Pensacola Yacht Club.

- Fifty years worth of groundwater treatment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

- Dioxin contamination cleanup of the private residential and commercial properties that surround the former plant.

Hurricane Ivan stymied the groundwater cleanup effort in 2004 when the storm took out a building that housed a groundwater pumping station. The pumps were working by late 2005, Neiger said.

The contaminated water is pumped out of the ground, the creosote is removed, placed in containers and shipped off-site for disposal.

The City of Pensacola received a federal grant from the EPA to study the possibilities of reuse for the American Creosote site. The plans completed in 2003 have been shelved for years as the slow cleanup progresses, City Manager Tom Bonfield said.

"First, they must cap the contaminated area, and then there is a plan in place for a mixed-use development project that goes from Main Street up to the north side of the American Creosote site," he said. "It takes the EPA finishing up all of their process and, as I recall, they have a ways to go."

American Creosote is one of seven Superfund sites in Escambia County. Others include the nearby Agrico site, the Escambia Treating Co. and more on local military bases.

Money to study this effect or that effect or the feasibility to do whatever and the whole time the ground water continues to be contaminated.  Good plan.

The report by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is at odds with an analysis done by Republican staffers on the same committee. The Republican report found that trailer manufacturers should not be held accountable for the high levels of formaldehyde — a preservative commonly used in building materials — in trailers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency set up to house people displaced by Katrina in 2005. Republicans say it is the government's fault for not having standards for safe levels of formaldehyde in trailers.

But Democrats say their staff interviewed employees from one of the manufacturers — Gulf Stream Coach — who said they, too, were suffering effects from formaldehyde exposure, including nose bleeds, shortness of breath, dizziness and bleeding ears. One employee told investigators that there was a foul odor throughout the plant.

Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., received the bulk of the FEMA trailer contracts after Katrina, collecting more than $500 million.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the Democrats' investigation found that Gulf Stream did test trailers, but treated the test results as a public relations liability instead of as a health hazard.

"It found pervasive formaldehyde contamination in its trailers, and it didn't tell anyone," Waxman said Wednesday.

The Republican analysis said, "Blaming trailer manufacturers for doing what was expected of them would be misplaced and ineffective."

The Republican report also faults the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FEMA and the Environmental Protection Agency for controversial testing that it says led to misleading results about the formaldehyde exposure. Last year, scientists tested hundreds of FEMA trailers and found potentially dangerous levels of formaldehyde.

Tony Buzbee, a lawyer representing hundreds of current and former trailer occupants who are suing dozens of trailer manufacturers, said it's laughable to assert that the manufacturers bear no responsibility for the levels of formaldehyde in the trailers they made.

But there is no government standard for the amount of formaldehyde in travel trailers. The government sets standards for indoor air quality for materials used to build mobile homes, but not for travel trailers. If the government were to set a standard for materials in travel trailers, the order would have to come from Congress. Katrina victims now occupy 15,000 travel trailers in the Gulf Coast.

Until experts determine a safer level of the preservative, FEMA has set its own standard at 16 parts formaldehyde per billion parts of air. Tests last year found an average of 77 parts formaldehyde per billion parts of air in FEMA trailers.

Keep visiting: www.lifechums.com/ more Celebrities featuring Shortly .............

There is a cause therefore for alarm as the pesticide cargo is as dangerous as a “ticking time bomb” that may cause another disaster of great magnitude again anytime. Any leakage could be destructive to our marine life as well as people living near the area.

Below is the complete account from Caroline J. Howard:

Toxic chemical leak will have international repercussions: expert

By CAROLINE J. HOWARD
ABS-CBN News Channel

One cargo in the sunken M/V Princess of the Stars off Romblon can very well be a ticking time-bomb.

Dr. Romeo Quijano, a technical expert from the UP Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the UP Manila, who has done extensive study on the highly-toxic pesticide endosulfan, says the chemical belongs with the likes of other Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) like DDT and has been the subject of attempts at global banning.

"We have been pushing for a complete ban since 1990. There's also a push by the European Union to include it in its official list of POPs for global banning."

Endosulfan is highly toxic in whatever state.

Quijano rejects claims endosulfan in its raw form poses no immediate threat of contamination.

"The technical grade 92% (in the sunken ferry) endosulfan is a highly-concentrated form of the pesticide, so it doesn't need activation before it can be toxic. It is toxic by itself, and as soon as it gets out of the compartment, animals and humans are exposed to immediate and long-term danger of toxicity even in very small amounts," he said. "The level toxic to fish is .03 parts per billion. Assuming the container broke and all 10 tons spread, there can be sufficient concentration to kill fish within a 100 kilometer radius, even humans exposed to acute toxicity."

Current can spread toxic chemical
Quijano admits containing the highly-toxic endosulfan and preventing a possible contamination is no easy task.

Unlike a possible oil leak, where efforts can be taken to separate oil from water, Quijano says endosulfan dissolves in water and spreads easily.

Looking at the worst-case scenario involving the toxic cargo, Quijano warns a leak of the highly-toxic chemical endosulfan could have far reaching consequences, polluting not just Philippine waters but the entire globe.

"If the chemical spreads, given underwater pressure, there's a potential for it to become an international incident. It can go to international waters and the other parts of the globe because of ocean currents, or join atmospheric currents. In one month's time, it can reach colder areas in North America or Canada."

Need to contain immediately
Quijano says this risk makes it all the more urgent to know the integrity of the container and whether packing regulations had been complied with.

He adds the area should be closely watched for possible fishkills that would indicate a leakage of chemicals. Nearby communities must be warned to stay away from the water if this happens.

Quijano says the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, companies like Del Monte and Dole, which insist of using the toxic chemical, manufacturers of the chemical, and Sulpicio Lines, which carried the toxic cargo onboard a passenger vessel, are to blame for the potential danger posed by toxic contamination.

Quijano laments this threat could have been prevented had government listened to their advice to ban the chemical's use in the country.

"These potential disasters are preventable, and there's very little awareness on the concept of precaution, specially if we know the dangers of this pesticide... We hope regulatory officials won't put the burden of proof on us, to wait for dead bodies to show up before they are convinced these things are potentially disastrous."

In a study entitled "Risk Assessment in a Third World Reality: An Endosulfan Case History," sometime in 1990, the FPA ordered a ban on endosulfan 35%, allowing only 5% formulation and severely restricted its use.

Companies like Del Monte were given a 2-year phase out period, but Quijano says this was followed by several extensions, approved against the recommendation of technical experts.

According to the study: "Real world experience... reveals that the risk assessment process has failed to protect public health and the environment, especially in Third World countries where financial, technical, human and other resources are sorely lacking and where socio-political circumstances are conducive for powerful chemical companies to exert influence and manipulate the market."

"In fact, risk assessments have been used to legitimize the sale of largely unnecessary pesticides and facilitated public misinformation regarding the real risks people face when exposed to these toxic chemicals. The case history of endosulfan in the Philippines, a developing country, is an illustrative example of the reality that risk assessment, as currently practiced, is not workable and is easily distorted and manipulated by powerful chemical manufacturers," the study said.

Today, in light of the M/V Princess of the Stars incident, things are no different.

The toxic cargo virtually ticking away beneath the ferry's hull only points to the urgent need for change yet again, and a lesson hopefully learned before its too late.

 

Sana ay maalis na kaagad ang nakakalasong chemical cargo na iyan mula sa barkong lumubog para maalis na ang panganib na maaring idulot nito sa ating karagatan kapag nagkaroon ng leakage. Hindi lang mga isda at iba pang yamang dagat ang mapipinsala nito, maging ang buhay ng mga naninirahan malapit sa pinangyarihan ng sakuna ay nanganganib din.

"How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! - Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips... I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.

- Mary Shelley, Frankenstein.

It was the summer of 1816 when Mary Shelley first dreamt up this image. Her husband and she went to go visit their friend in Switzerland - Lord Byron. Due to the dreary weather they were confined to the indoors and shared ghost stories. For Mary's entire life she was surrounded by some of the most famous writers in British literature - both her parents, her husband, and her friend Lord Byron all went down in British history. So, to no surprise, during this dreary summer the idea came up that everybody would create their own ghost story. Finally she dreamed the image quoted above, as she explains in the introduction of the third edition of Frankenstein:

I saw - with shut eyes but acute mental vision - I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.

For it was not a ghost story that really shook Mary to her bones. Mary was concerned about the concept of mankind playing God. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. She was questioning the dark corridors that science could lead us down. The idea that some people would try and use science to do the work of nature, and in fact replace nature, was alive in Mary Shelley's mind as she wrote the famous words of Frankenstein.

Of course in 1816 it was not biotechnology or transgenics Mary Shelley had in mind - but electricity. While many scientists worked diligently to help pave the way to the creation of all benefits electricity has given us, many scientists felt that within electricity the elixir to life was hidden. The possibilities were endless in many scientists mind - electricity could've been the key to bring back the dead. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warns us about using crude knowledge of science to try and follow a pipe dream, such as Dr. Victor Frankenstein did. You see - in Frankenstein's mind he was certain what he was building was going to be a beautiful, perfect creature, but as soon as he had succeeded in what he was pushing for so long he becomes aghast at what he had created and tried to run from his own creation, but what he created was irrevocable and ultimately the death of him.

In the book Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering on a Biotech Planet by Denise Caruso, I see a Mary Shelley of the 21st Century. The mysticism of electricity is long dead - Since Mary's masterpiece physicists have found a way to link it magnetism and most other forces of the Universe, we have harnessed its power to energize virtually every household and machine product. It was done collaboratively for the public good and today we couldn't function at the level of society we do without the gift of science and the lack of greed that consumed them. Sure - we could find a more efficient way to transport it among other things but civilization has democratically agreed electricity has been conquered and put to its most efficient use. But science is never out of new boundaries. Today it's genetics and biotechnology. Denise Caruso assesses risk and she tries to make sure that others assess risk properly. Of course nobody will take eloquent, centuries-old, fiction as warnings anymore (though many would do us some good), so Denise Caruso writes a logical, referenced-reinforced, and deeply interesting book on how we should assess risk with technology we do not understand yet. And if you don't have time to read the book, you should read this entry though it's long, because it's shorter than the book. I use both information provided by her and information I've found on my own as my references which are linked along the way (please click, lots of work involved)

So What Is Biotechnology and Transgenics?

Don't feel dumb. That's a fair question to ask - I know you're not a scientist (most likely). Imagine you are about to have a child and it is born with a disease that will severely impact his life - now imagine that a doctor could use genetic engineering to remove that disease. Pretty cool, huh? The doctor would simply replace the "broken" gene with a healthy one and your child would have averted the disease. But let's not stop there - Imagine if you could alter genes in delicious fruits and vegetables so that they could stay fresh 10 times longer to reduce the impact on the planet? I mean - we simply are treating the gene that makes that fruit or vegetable rot just like the gene that was going to cripple your child for life - we just need to put a gene that keeps freshness longer - what difference does it make what gene we change, so long as it benefits us? I mean don't even stop there, let your imagination come off the reel here - what if we could infuse some common, mass produced food, like bread, with a bunch of essential nutrients and send it to poor countries to feed their teeming famished? And why deal with animals if we could just grow their body parts from DNA and only produce the profitable and delicious parts? And what if we could create species as we pleased with whatever clever DNA already exists from any species on the planet? We could have pigs that glow and fish that grow super fast and we could design our children to look exactly like we wanted, and if we want them to be athletic, they can be athletic, and if we want them beautiful, they can be beautiful - the sky is the limit!

Now take everything written above and stick it in your pipe because this is our current pipe dream. This is the early 21st century's electricity.  Biotechnology and Transgenics have achieved most of those things above to some or partial success. If they have not achieved them they are promised to come in the future by those researching. But they are in their infancy and the corporations conducting research are fervent believers that biotechnology and transgenics are the answer to most, if not all, of our future problems. But when they finally achieve their idea of success with biotechnology - will they awake to a horror not unlike Frankenstein's monster?

Anybody can dismiss that question as absurd. But I am a true believer that any unknown front in science should be objectively risk-assessed so we're not blindsided with something we could have predicted - because the story of Frankenstein is a question: At what point does your dream become your nightmare? Where do we draw the line? How do we know? and who decides? On the fronts of biotechnology and transgenics these questions are falling to the wayside for the simple motivation of profit - which I will support with evidence further on.

So - again - what is transgenics? We know it has the capacity to be both our dream and our nightmare, but what is actually the process? Well here goes - I'm no geneticist, but it seems to be a relatively simple concept: I've read it likened to "cutting" the desired traits from gene A (let's say a trait that make honey bees docile) and "pasting" the trait into the DNA code of gene B (let's say the aggressive Africanized honey bee).  The result? Docile Africanized honeybees - or so we'd hope. As we know, things are not always as simple as they sound.

Let me try and magnify the risks as "cutting and pasting" makes it sound like a 2nd grader could do it. Instead of collecting body organs geneticists find the proper components to infect the desired trait into the plant or animal victim.

That's right - infect. Because essentially that is what transgenics could be described as in one single word - infection. And that holds certain negative preconceptions - as it should - infection indicates a foreign body invading a natural environment with the intent to permanantly change that environment. To infect holds significant risk alone. When your body becomes infected with a disease, the disease is attempting to take over your body by force, your body is not okay with just naturally accepting it and your body wants to fight it off. In transgenics all of these things need to be overcome so the infection wins. Because the intent is to infect the body with something good as opposed to something bad.

If you're a fan of zombie movies - I Am Legend provides an excellent example of this. If you listen to how the zombies came to be it was the result of something totally unexpected - a cure for AIDS. And in the movie the person who designed the "cure" explains a very similar process about infection. But ultimately there were no long-term studies done on this "cure" and the infection ended up becoming extremely aggressive as well as airborne infecting virtually everybody with extremely disastrous results. Another movie (and video game) Resident Evil creates a post-apocalyptic world via zombies that came about through a highly secure DNA testing facility having a disease released using the same processes described here.

While it is unlikely this infectious process will turn us all into zombies, it is likely that there could be unforeseen consequences to infecting living beings with "better" qualities. The main reason being that infectious items are aggressive and accomplish their needs through means of force, not through a working symbiotic relationship.

So how do they infect, for example, a crop of plants to become resistant to weed killer? Well they take a soy plant, for example, and now they have to find out a way to stop it from being harmed when it is sprayed with glyphosate (aka weed killer). So what is glyphosate resistent? Salmonella. However since we don't want the gastroenteritis that comes with it, we just extract the good part, the part that happens to be resistent to weed killer.  And now, how do we get it into the soy plant? Now that we have the cargo we have to deliver the goods. So we take a little bit of E. Coli to use as the vessel to deliver and infect the soy plant on a DNA level. And, in addition Denise Caruso explains:

There are generally other bits of DNA included in transgenic cassettes that are designed to perform various other functions, like impelling the target protein to express in certain parts of the plant (or animal) and not in others. In Roundup Ready, this bit of genetic material comes from a petunia, for example. Until recently, virtually all commercial transgenic cassettes have also included a sequence of antibiotic resistant DNA from Streptococcus bacterium.

Can anyone not see Dr. Frankenstein's parallel? We are taking the best parts of life, much like Dr. Frankenstein gave his monster the best parts of a human. But when they come together and work, what do they produce? Has mankind out-done nature or "God" as Mary Shelley put it? The roundup ready soy we just learned the basics of transgenics on is actually a product on the market now making a hefty load of cash. The EPA approves it. So can there be any serious risks or problems with this Frankenstein-like work? Have we put Mary Shelley's classic work to shame? Have we proven stronger than the natural Universe itself?

I won't make you wait for the answer - it's simply No - we haven't. And without proper oversight and insight from those leading the front of biotechnology the problems will continue and we will have a Frankenstein on our hands - and we will recoil in horror at what we had created. What problems, you ask? These problems:

Problems with Biotechnology and Transgenics

Profit is the number one problem for biotechnology and transgenics. It skews reason, it disregards long-term testing, and it corrupts government. Okay, how do I prove these things? We can start with Monsanto which is literally the Hamburglar of the world. As Grimace, Ronald, and the chicken nuggets are looking the other way Hamburglar sneaks behind the counter and steals more hamburgers than he could even possibly eat. Only instead of the counter Monsanto sneaks behind the world, and instead of stealing more hamburgers than he can eat, Monsanto steals more money than it can use. Bold claim! But not without cause. Monsanto was the producer of Agent Orange - of Agent Fucking Orage - and they have the audacity to make their logo a fucking plant? I mean isn't that seriously insane? Agent Orange killed everything it touched and mutated both animals and plants for generations to come - and yet we find Monsanto a member of a website called Bio.org with the theme "Science for Life."

You would think that anyone with that theme would have at least this single pre-requisite: The creators of Agent Orange are not allowed to join strictly on principle but they made it in. Now we can all say "Hey, that was Vietnam, Monsanto has a totally different staff, they've turned over a new leaf, they're an honest company now - they now are not motivated strictly by profit as they were back during Vietnam - at some point the company grew a conscience." Then it would be hard to explain the phenomenon known as Monsanto Revolving Doors. Excerpt from one of the multiple Monsanto documentaries:

The state of affairs in 1999 includes Linda Fisher moving from the Environmental Protection Agency to Monsanto, Michael Friedman from the FDA to Monsanto, Marcia Hale and Josh King from the White House to Monsanto, Margaret Miller from Monsanto to the FDA, William Ruckelshaus from the EPA to Monsanto, and let's not forget Michael Taylor who went back and forth several times.

Monsanto employees are flopping between the company and the government at the highest of levels and in areas that could change the biology of the Earth for centuries to come could at nicest be described as a conflict of interest, and at the strictest could be described as a crime against humanity. Because Monsanto has made a business out of biogenetics - roundup ready crops can only be bought for a single season - you are not allowed to replant the previous years seeds at a penalty that could cost everything you own. Much like the RIAA Monsanto has been trying to create a profit by becoming as litigious as possible filing loads of lawsuits because they knowingly have the upperhand in lawyers. Also it's a great way to eliminate your competition - which happens to be individual farm owners and not giant impenetrable behemoth corporations (which makes it super convenient for Monsanto).

Now I'm not just calling Monsanto a giant impenetrable behemoth without just cause. I'm not doing it to belittle it, but Monsanto has been the poster child for what is going wrong in the world of biotechnology today. A couple paragraphs up I linked a documentary on Monsanto. I'm going to do it again to be sure if you don't believe in the unethical practices Monsanto is engaging in that you know the facts you're up against. It's called The World According to Monsanto. This is not the only documentary on Monsanto and its unethical practices, but it's the only one available on the internet. It kills me when people get defensive of big business as if the very suggestion of unethical practices in the area of business deserves to be scoffed. But these are not men and women who dedicate their lives to peace, unity, the Universe, God, cohesion - they are dedicated to making a profit. What makes more logical sense? That Monsanto insists on creating a new seed every year because it's a great way to turn a profit or because they just want to update to the genetically best enhanced version for their customers and don't want previous batches soiling it? In the area of business profit is more than essential. And this should settle the argument alone because even Monsanto's public relations chief said:

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job.

I stress that point so much because I feel people would rather believe it's alarmist than make a stand against such methodological manipulation. All of these moves by Monsanto and its employees who went to and from the government have clear reasons to be motivated by profit and little else. The astoundingly lax standards on such an unknown technology with the obvious influence of Monsanto Employees within the agency that governs it - and because Monsanto is a corporation it makes no secrets that it's number one responsibility is to his shareholders. Now - before people get confused - I'm not saying there is anything wrong with capitalism - that is a totally separate issue. But the government is put in place to ensure safety for all before a rabid desire of profit. Because, after all what is capitalism but another complex game we play to make things seem less confusing. So at what point do we know when to say "Hey, that's unethical and a total detriment to nearly everybody but yourself"? The government is our agreed upon source for that. So when those who desire primarily to profit go into an agency of governing its own product to a pretty advantageous degree - that is wrong.

How advantageous? Remember earlier how I described the process of transgenics - like an infection? Creating genetically engineered plants with bad infections is obviously bad and illegal. But the fact remains - creating genetically engineered plants with good infections is not the same as making a regular plant (ie. planting just a regular seed). But high level biogenetics companies like Monsanto in the 80's were already working very closely with the government on a new and upcoming technology - genetically modified plants.  Biogenetic companies seemed to try and portray the dutiful American by promising the wonders we've previously imagined that biogenetics could provide. But there was just one tiny eency weency problem - the industry hadn't even begun yet - it was still completely in its infancy. There was no data to prove that Genetically Modified organisms were safe. "Well shucks!" says the GMO (biotech) companies, "If you want to be the best in the world we need to get started right away. It's just un-American to not let us lead in such a dream-delivering idea. Hey - I got an idea, judge us by our product, not by our process."

This is known as substantial equivalence. Basically if you breed a new strain of corn by taking two types of centuries old, untainted breeds you would not need to go to the FDA to get it approved. So the GMO companies say "That's basically exactly what we're doing - but instead of naturally breeding we'll just forcefully infect whatever parts of whatever species we please - but it'll look identical to corn so it's close enough. That's what substantial equivilance is - The law of close enough. It's like saying I've come up with a new way to slaughter cows for mass production - and as long as the meat isn't covered in e-coli or Mad Cow I have the right to sell it regardless of the process of how I butchered it. But if I butchered it in a way that was totally unsafe for the environment I'll never have to have a legal repercussion for that because we made a deal not to assess my process - only my product. And the government bought it hook line and sinker - but once again most likely with internal help. Finally after a lawsuit the FDA was forced to release documents proving it knew there was potential danger with the products that are not going to occur in naturally occurring plants. And that took a lawsuit - there was no apology and it's still in effect. Why wouldn't we want to know what the dangers to GM food is? Denise Caruso quotes from a critic (Linda Kahl) of the substantial equivalence product -

I believe there are at least two situations relative to this document in which it is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The first... is that the document is trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices.  This is because of the mandate to regulate the product, not the process. The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks. There is no data that addresses the relative magnitude of the risks - for all we know, the risks may be lower for genetically engineered foods than for foods produced by traditional breeding. But the acknowledgment that the risks are different is lost in the attempt to hold to the doctrine that the product and not the process is regulated.... [The second square peg is] the approach of at least part of the document is to use a scientific analysis... to develop policy statement. In the first place, are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data? It's no wonder that there are so many different opinions - it is an exercise in hypotheses forced on individuals whose jobs and training ordinarily deal with fact

Regardless the FDA approved the law of substantial equivalence. But for the biggest reason on why it's obvious that profit is the primary motivation we have to revisit bio.org. Simply looking at the slogan and the picture on the site one would assume the organization is around for the benefit of life. Yet the picture is truly symbolic - it is a picture of a plant growing out from dirt on top of a hand. Previously we only needed to put plants into just dirt to have them grow, but it is literally the goal of this site to remove that ability from you in exchange for growing your food out of their own hands. Even on the front page we can see profit is primarily the focus in this organization as all the entries seem to be directed at shareholders. Today there is a link to a blog entry called Science is your brand. The problem with language like that is that you're speaking as if you're talking to consumers - people who are looking for personal gain - not gain for humanity. And it's true - the blog addresses shareholders letting them know to "protect their investment." The only problem with that is that a shareholder only protects his investment as far as he believes he's going to make a profit off of it - not to the point that it's for the benefit of humanity or the world. In fact when we move to the members section of bio.org I start to notice something fishy - like something out of the Stepford Wives or Pleasantville. All the sites seem to be extremely similar. They all have serious scientists doing precision work or happy children and families or caring doctors... and of course the occasional cool close-up picture. In fact looking at the members of bio.org is like strolling down the suburbs of the internet - it is a place where image is more important than information. Lets take a look at some:

Monsanto - I just still am so stunned that Monsanto dares tries to remake its image to be a positive and natural thing when it is most definitely the very definition of unnatural in what they're doing.

Captial Royalty L.P. - hot looking girl doing something smart, check. double helix invading her skull? Check. What is the site actually for? Seems to be good for distributing money "appropriately" among GMOs, but they keep it vague enough that it just wants to you to give up at finding its actual duties.

Wyeth - Wyeth too has a randomized image maker of looking-out-for-you-doctors and satisfied customers. Thats because Wyeth is the creator of Robitussin and Advil. However it makes you wonder how far they will go, being a pharmaceutical giant, with a technology that has 0 risk assessment - it makes you wonder how many they already did.

PaleoTechnology - Ah yes - the sprawling beauty of nature covering the site following Monsanto's lead in replacing facts with nice pictures. Of course it's vague but it seems they have the crazy idea of finding solutions to our "problems associated with existing technologies" (ie. the oil crisis) by looking at oil. Who would have such backward logic but an oil company with too many assets to find a real alternative? Well their parent company - PetroHunter - seems to be quite close with Encana Oil & Gas as all of their producing wells are operated by Encana, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world.

Scigen - A Singapore company also directly related to bio.org. Again we see the surgeon-like hands doing careful scientific work and of course the happy little girl and boy jumping for joy. With those plus the cool blue background the site figures you need little more information now - so they politely explain that they do work dealing with endocrinology and immunology. Now these items are seriously important - I have a family member who is very close to me that could use the sciences of endocrinology so he doesn't need to take pills every day multiple times a day for his entire life (which hopefully will be very long), so it's not that I'm insensitive to the work... but how can you possibly work on genetically engineered immunities without assessing the risk? Also I find it interesting that this company is based in Singapore but all the key executives for the company aside from a secretary are white males (she seems to be doing her best to look like one though).

Yorktown Technologies, L.P. - Another fine innovative member of bio.org. They create the product known as Glofish (which come in 3 exciting colors! Electric Green, Starfire Red, or Sunburst Orange!) which are exactly what they sound like - fish that glow in the dark. What are they created for? For you! And your friends! They've genetically modified a species of fish for the sole purpose of making them glow in the dark. God knows what other parts of species ended up in these fish - but Glofish are an excellent example of where do we draw the line? and especially what about the risk of genetically modified pets? At what point do we agree that genetic infection stops here? Glofish are a promise by the biotech industry that there is no brake.

Spaltudaq - Though the company explains their website is under construction we can clearly see that they are nearly complete. They have their exciting picture of technology up there that gives us (the reader) only feelings - not facts. My only suggestion is that the site put up a scientist or a doctor doing something really important - and to balance out the seriousness put a happy family or some children. But again - they are part of bio.org and totally for pushing ahead on a technology that has no risk assessment and making it sound like they know what they're talking about - even though nobody does. But it is clear that they are working on these technologies for the ultimate goal of profit like all the other sites on bio.org

Sound Pharmaceuticals - Here is another company part of bio.org that is under construction - oh wait, no it's not. It's easy to get them confused because they all look so similar - under construction or not. This site is interesting because they plan on restoring hearing by regenerating your cells - obviously with the intent to profit which would be totally fine except for the process has unassessed risks (did we cover this thoroughly enough yet, because it seems a lot of people like to forget that part).