Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atomic Gardening

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Atomic Gardening

#71

Post by firebaze »

pfdietz wrote: post #54
theptip wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was common knowledge, but I looked for a citation and couldn’t find one. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/dupont-to-pick-up-wher... suggests that roundup-ready soy seeds are viable. So perhaps they rely solely on IP for protection.

I think if you drill down on many (all?) anti-GMO arguments you will find the evidence for them really isn't there. It's remarkable how the whole ideological edifice is built on nothing.

Occam's razor suggests the best strategy - if available - is to suppress natural reproduction, if you were in possession of a superior genetic strain, in order to stay ahead of the market. Suppressing natural reproduction is the same general principle as suppressing others using your idea/strategy/copyright.

I'm sincerely curious why this seems so far fetched to you. If I were the CEO of a company having the option to nudge my researchers into this, I probably would, seen from a ethics-detached point of view.

By the way, I'm not anti-GMO; in fact I think it's the only way to sustain the whole of humanity until we've passed the next great filter. Still I don't buy into that line of thought.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#72

Post by TaylorAlexander »

SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

There’s two types of people who are against GMOs. Those that are afraid of eating genetically modified organisms, and those who take issue with how GMOs are used in practice. In practice, the most common GMOs (I believe) are Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops. The point of that crop is that farmers can spray huge quantities of the herbicide glyphosate in to the soil to kill all plants in the field without damaging the crop. Monsanto swears this is safe but there are many reasons why this practice puts workers and eaters at risk and seriously damages ecosystems.

So I would love to know what plants are GMO and specifically what strain is used and why. This would help me avoid GMOs that are used to damage farm ecosystems. This is also why I look for certified regenerative organic products - I want the food I eat to regenerate the soil, not destroy it.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#73

Post by pvaldes »

SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

> Mutagenesis, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its "traditional".

Not, is because is a different technique. Hybridizing two closely related species is a thing. Introducing the gen of a fish into a tomato is another totally different, and mutating the gen of one species (often with poor results) is a third thing. GMO mix the genetic code of species that can be even in different kingdoms.

There is also an international consensus into not including selective breeding in the same category as genetically modified, for similar reasons. Would be confusing.

The so called atomic gardening had produced several fancy and really ugly cacti, but not much more really. Plays in a much lower league than hybridization.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#74

Post by superkuh »

pfdietz wrote: post #69
superkuh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rio red variety was not developed in 2007. It was developed in the 1980s, in, you guessed it: Rio, Brazil. When I first heard about this some handful of years ago I was naturally curious about how a researcher in Rio in the 1980s had access to thermal neutrons without a fission reactor. After a lot of reference digging and discussion on physics forums we came to the conclusion it was most likely a penning trap st…

The Curiosity neutron source is indeed a conventional pulsed sealed-tube neutron source, not a Penning trap. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5253560_The_Dynamic...

Sorry I wasn't clear. The DAN and other pulsed sealed tube neutron sources use a penning trap for their ion sources. But yeah, it was an incomplete and inaccurate wording.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

pvaldes wrote: post #73
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

> Mutagenesis, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its "traditional". Not, is because is a different technique. Hybridizing two closely related species is a thing. Introducing the gen of a fish into a tomato is another totally different, and mutating the gen of one species (often with poor results) is a third thing. GMO mix…

> Mutating the gen of one species, often with poor results, is clearly different than introducing the gen of a different species into other that can be even classified in a different kingdom.

Genes aren’t inherently kingdom specific, and mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature; moreover, it produces changes all over the genome; when you then select for a desired trait, you still have unrelated changes all over, whereas there is a whole lot more control and knowledge of what you have with transgenics.

Yeah, they are different techniques, but it is insane that mutagenesis (especially in its modern forms) is not treated as even a moderate concern by the same people who hold up transgenics as an existential threat.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#77

Post by pfdietz »

firebaze wrote: post #71
pfdietz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you drill down on many (all?) anti-GMO arguments you will find the evidence for them really isn't there. It's remarkable how the whole ideological edifice is built on nothing.

Occam's razor suggests the best strategy - if available - is to suppress natural reproduction, if you were in possession of a superior genetic strain, in order to stay ahead of the market. Suppressing natural reproduction is the same general principle as suppressing others using your idea/strategy/copyright. I'm sincerely curious why this seems so far fetched to you. If I were the CEO of a company having the option t…

No one is holding a gun to farmers' heads forcing them to buy GMO seeds. If a particular kind of seed doesn't increase their profit they won't buy it. The older non-GMO seeds will still be around. They won't be outlawed.

So, the scenario you seem to be thinking of is that GMOs will drive down the price of agricultural commodities, so that farmers who don't avail themselves of them will be unable to compete. But this argument "proves too much": it's an argument not against GMOs, but against ANY agricultural technology that boosts yields and reduces costs. Presumably the Green Revolution is not something we should object to because food prices declined.

I think you are on to something in understanding the anti-GMO motivation in Europe, though. Farmers don't want to have to compete against the more efficient large scale farmers in the US. Anti-GMOism is a kind of camouflaged protectionism.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#78

Post by pvaldes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #76
pvaldes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mutagenesis, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its "traditional". Not, is because is a different technique. Hybridizing two closely related species is a thing. Introducing the gen of a fish into a tomato is another totally different, and mutating the gen of one species (often with poor results) is a third thing. GMO mix…

> Mutating the gen of one species, often with poor results, is clearly different than introducing the gen of a different species into other that can be even classified in a different kingdom. Genes aren’t inherently kingdom specific, and mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature; moreover, it produces changes all over the genome ; when you then select for a desired trait, you still have unrelated…

The statistical probability of a crop randomly mutating a gen that would express a new complex alkaloid from scratch is close to zero (We know it because hasn't happened often in the last 3000 years)... but can be easily done with GMO.

To blend all those different techniques under the same term would be useless and confusing to both science and consumers.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#79

Post by codingdave »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #72
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

There’s two types of people who are against GMOs. Those that are afraid of eating genetically modified organisms, and those who take issue with how GMOs are used in practice. In practice, the most common GMOs (I believe) are Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops. The point of that crop is that farmers can spray huge quantities of the herbicide glyphosate in to the soil to kill all plants in the field without damaging the cr…

> Monsanto swears this is safe...

Not anymore. The lawsuits challenging its safety ended to the tune of a 10 Billion dollar loss.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#80

Post by pvaldes »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

I'm in your boat. Gene's are letters in a story. To say "That's a salmon gene! It doesn't belong in my tomato!" is puzzling, like "That letter belongs to another book! Keep it out of this book!" Anyway, good ol' paleo food was whatever nature provided, most of what was happy to kill you. Humans tamed 1000's of plants over 50,000 years changing them beyond recognition so they wouldn't hurt us with alkalis and poisons.…

> Gene's are letters in a story. To say "That's a salmon gene! It doesn't belong in my tomato!" is puzzling, like "That letter belongs to another book! Keep it out of this book!"

Using the same reasoning we could pick some pieces from an apple computer, mount it in a PC and expect that will fit in place and work flawlessly because, well... plastic is plastic. Right?.

It does not work like that. Organisms has been designed and polished for millions of years to work as a whole, all expensive useless stuff has been pruned for good reasons, and yes, this salmon gene -most probably- will not belong to a tomato... because is part of a salmon.

Post reply on HN