Why the leader of GreenPeace left
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
135 comments displayed.
#27
-
anon (07/28/2015) [+] (6 replies)
stickied by prohibullion
okay major lol about that chlorine part bunch of ********
#80
-
deadmaniii (07/28/2015) [+] (1 reply)
stickied by prohibullion
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
Basically tackles the argument with GMO and Organic. It's a long read but a good portion of it highlights how Green Peace is not an organization above agendas and fear mongering.
prohibullion sickie please.
Basically tackles the argument with GMO and Organic. It's a long read but a good portion of it highlights how Green Peace is not an organization above agendas and fear mongering.
prohibullion sickie please.
#6
-
mrdudemanguyperson (07/28/2015) [-] I hate that people are just painting GMOs with a broad brush and assuming anything that is genetically modified must be bad. There's so much good that can come from modifying crops, but people just think that GMO = poison
#10 to #6
-
captainrattrap (07/28/2015) [-] But what are companies using them for?
Enriched white rice (I won't go into the fact that non-white rices already have the nutrients needed) is the poster child for "our companies are feeding children!" but the main pricepoints of the gmo producers are products such as roundup ready soy, wheat, corn, and flax. GMO producers don't focus on feeding people-- they focus on selling chemical-tolerant GMOs that work with the chemicals that they produce.
TL;DR both sides are full of **** . The public needs truth more.
Enriched white rice (I won't go into the fact that non-white rices already have the nutrients needed) is the poster child for "our companies are feeding children!" but the main pricepoints of the gmo producers are products such as roundup ready soy, wheat, corn, and flax. GMO producers don't focus on feeding people-- they focus on selling chemical-tolerant GMOs that work with the chemicals that they produce.
TL;DR both sides are full of **** . The public needs truth more.
#11 to #10
-
thatonecommunist (07/28/2015) [-] Chemical-tolerant GMO's make it vastly easier to grow the crops in many countries, the issue is not with them focusing on making it chemical-tolerant, the issue is that they patent these things and sue the **** out of you if you don't have a license to use them.
#17 to #11
-
laseneph ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] Why does every time GMO is brought up everyone screams the companies are trying to sue poor farmers, the only legal cases of them suing farmers is when the farmers continue to store and use GMO grain after their agreement with the company is ended. It's akin to someone renting a laptop and then being sued when they refuse to stop using it.
"B-but cross pollination happened and then the farmer was sued!" No legally documented cases such as these exist, those who did cry this when they were being sued were found to have reused the GMO grain from previous harvests (when they still had an agreement with the GMO company) after said contract has ended and they didn't renew it. In fact relatively recently farmers have attempted to sue GMO companies for the RISK of their harvests being cross pollinated.
In short, study the subject before you spread misinformation. Terribly ironic I have to post this on content such as it is.
Here are a few reputable sources from the last time I had to post this:
www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/07/24/top-10-myths-about-crop-biotechnology-and-gmos-heres-the-real-story/
naturalsociety.com/top-7-myths-about-gmo-foods-monsanto/
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
"B-but cross pollination happened and then the farmer was sued!" No legally documented cases such as these exist, those who did cry this when they were being sued were found to have reused the GMO grain from previous harvests (when they still had an agreement with the GMO company) after said contract has ended and they didn't renew it. In fact relatively recently farmers have attempted to sue GMO companies for the RISK of their harvests being cross pollinated.
In short, study the subject before you spread misinformation. Terribly ironic I have to post this on content such as it is.
Here are a few reputable sources from the last time I had to post this:
www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/07/24/top-10-myths-about-crop-biotechnology-and-gmos-heres-the-real-story/
naturalsociety.com/top-7-myths-about-gmo-foods-monsanto/
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
#71 to #17
-
anon (07/28/2015) [-]
There are actually rulings from both sides, actually. If a non-gmo farm has documented cases of gmo strains in its fields, two outcomes occurred in two separate countries. In America, the farmers got sued for utilizing Monsantos intellectual property without their knowledge (despite me believing owning an organisms DNA sequence is dangerous all ready, think Jurassic Park but with plants.) whereas in other countries the owner of the gene is sued, due to failure to prevent bio-contamination in the surrounding areas, as it is initially their responsibility.
Dont get me wrong, GMO (and remember Genetic modification does not mean Genetic Engineering) are one of the greatest biological feats of human nature. However, its peoples abuse of it which leads to issues, which i guess, is the same problem with guns, nuclear power, wealth, etc.
Dont get me wrong, GMO (and remember Genetic modification does not mean Genetic Engineering) are one of the greatest biological feats of human nature. However, its peoples abuse of it which leads to issues, which i guess, is the same problem with guns, nuclear power, wealth, etc.
#65 to #17
-
captainrattrap (07/28/2015) [-] Yeah this is my number one disagreement with the anti-GMO effort. They always make a claim regarding lawsuits and the claim is just not true.
There are still other issues that need to be addressed-- The lack of conclusive testing regarding their new pesticides that have come to replaced roundup one pesticide is a chemical that makes up 50% of Agent Orange, which is a bioangent made by Monsanto that was used in Vietnam and caused millions of people to experience ****** up genetic defects. But instead of testing this chemical to prove conclusively that it's harmless to the environment and consumers. Monsanto suppresses public concern for GMOs by having several dozen high ranking connections in government.
Case of gmo companies suing states over labelling theantimedia.org/monsanto-sues-vermont-claims-first-ever-gmo-labeling-law-in-u-s-violates-free-speech/
There are still other issues that need to be addressed-- The lack of conclusive testing regarding their new pesticides that have come to replaced roundup one pesticide is a chemical that makes up 50% of Agent Orange, which is a bioangent made by Monsanto that was used in Vietnam and caused millions of people to experience ****** up genetic defects. But instead of testing this chemical to prove conclusively that it's harmless to the environment and consumers. Monsanto suppresses public concern for GMOs by having several dozen high ranking connections in government.
Case of gmo companies suing states over labelling theantimedia.org/monsanto-sues-vermont-claims-first-ever-gmo-labeling-law-in-u-s-violates-free-speech/
#142 to #141
-
thatonecommunist (07/28/2015) [-] The people know what they're getting into when they sign up for that, though, you act as though they're hiding the fact that it doesn't make parent plants.
#22 to #11
-
theuntakenusername (07/28/2015) [-] Roundup(glyphosate) inhibits certain catabolic enzymes in plants, which in GMO crops is countered by overproducing these enzymes. Other plants normally don't have this excess of essential proteins, so they die. However, these competing plants(tares I think they're called in English?) have already found ways to take up the crops' gene in their own genome, therefore making the original modification obsolete.
Sustainability of GMO's is a big issue.
Sustainability of GMO's is a big issue.
#23 to #22
-
thatonecommunist (07/28/2015) [-] But not relevant to the previous statement, it's easy for farmers to use currently.
#25 to #10
-
martycamp (07/28/2015) [-] What GMOs actually do is make crops disease ans pest-tolerant, by giving them specific toxins - for example Bt cotton, which produces specific toxins from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis that only affect target insect species that actually eat the crop and are completely harmless to humans. This drastically lowers insecticide use. An example of disease resistance is papaya, which was done about 20 years ago in Hawaii, making the papaya entirely resistant to a virus. These are well known examples, and there are plenty more. Just need to Google
#35 to #6
-
endospore (07/28/2015) [-]
The one legitimate argument is that GMOs are very new and most people don't want to be test subjects, especially where labeling is not required for GMOs. And if you care about farming, there is quite a bit of gray area from the business side, but that's a whole other issue.
I disagree with that argument on every single level since there has not yet been a single sickness linked to GMOs, but it is a valid argument.
I disagree with that argument on every single level since there has not yet been a single sickness linked to GMOs, but it is a valid argument.
#36 to #35
-
bootysmash (07/28/2015) [-] we've been using genetically modified foods for the past 30 years, they are not as new as you think
#39 to #36
-
endospore (07/28/2015) [-]
GMOs as a whole, yes, but new GMOs are patented every year with no requirement to test on humans beforehand, and each new season could theoretically present new risks.
Again, it's an argument based on 'what if?' with no factual backing and I disagree with it, but it is a legitimate worry.
Again, it's an argument based on 'what if?' with no factual backing and I disagree with it, but it is a legitimate worry.
#40 to #39
-
bootysmash (07/28/2015) [-] You are right about that, while past GMOs have not been any problem there do need to be laws regulating the passing of newer strains of foods.
However those might not come around until a company ***** up and produces a GMO that is harmful to people or the environment.
And when that happens you'll have people screaming about how they were right from the beginning and it'll lead to a huge ban on both good and bad GMO's. It should be a preventable problem but what can you do when there is a profit to be made.
However those might not come around until a company ***** up and produces a GMO that is harmful to people or the environment.
And when that happens you'll have people screaming about how they were right from the beginning and it'll lead to a huge ban on both good and bad GMO's. It should be a preventable problem but what can you do when there is a profit to be made.
#108 to #6
-
akkere ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] The thing that always bothered me about the subject of GMOs is how the discussion is ruled by corporations on both sides. You've got Monsanto pushing to completely eradicate all regulation over extend control of key markets on one side, and the Organic food companies looking to use disinformation via social networking and expand control of key markets in their own way on the other side.
#43 to #6
-
iridium (07/28/2015) [-] I think GMOs should not be banned, but I agree that GMO products should be labeled, at least in the US.
There are inherent risks to them. We don't know how they affect people over a long period of time, for all we know there could be some stuff people have allergies to or it could increase the risk for cancer, and if nothing is known about it we may well not even know it's killing us. Now obviously it depends on the organism and what they actually do to modify it, but there still are risks to changing the proteins.
I know the reason they are modified is for the benefit of the people and the industry, but I still think we need to know more about the long term effects of GMO foods and as such they should be labeled as such if possible.
There are inherent risks to them. We don't know how they affect people over a long period of time, for all we know there could be some stuff people have allergies to or it could increase the risk for cancer, and if nothing is known about it we may well not even know it's killing us. Now obviously it depends on the organism and what they actually do to modify it, but there still are risks to changing the proteins.
I know the reason they are modified is for the benefit of the people and the industry, but I still think we need to know more about the long term effects of GMO foods and as such they should be labeled as such if possible.
#15
-
worldatarms (07/28/2015) [-] I really hate Green peace because they keep doing stupid **** on Nuclear, Historical sites where they're literally putting more people at risk by their own stupidity than the areas could ever do.
#127 to #15
-
reginleif ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] **reginleif used "*roll picture*"**
**reginleif rolled image** :/ The problem with nuclear is that the advocates for it always point out how safe it is, and in theory it is safer as long as precautions are taken. But we're human and I don't think I can trust people to not take short cuts and **** us over.
We went through this issue in our ecology class with tankers-trains- and trucks
It's cheaper and less polluting to use giant boats to carry our oil, trains pollute more and cost more, trucks are the most expensive option and pollute the most.
However.... truck spills (which are much more common) pose much less of a risk to the environment if something goes wrong, while tankers cause environmental disasters as with most offshore oil **** .
I carry that same thought with nuclear..... it's good in theory, but when we add in the fact that a **** up will happen, it's not worth it imo.
**reginleif rolled image** :/ The problem with nuclear is that the advocates for it always point out how safe it is, and in theory it is safer as long as precautions are taken. But we're human and I don't think I can trust people to not take short cuts and **** us over.
We went through this issue in our ecology class with tankers-trains- and trucks
It's cheaper and less polluting to use giant boats to carry our oil, trains pollute more and cost more, trucks are the most expensive option and pollute the most.
However.... truck spills (which are much more common) pose much less of a risk to the environment if something goes wrong, while tankers cause environmental disasters as with most offshore oil **** .
I carry that same thought with nuclear..... it's good in theory, but when we add in the fact that a **** up will happen, it's not worth it imo.
#154 to #127
-
anon (07/28/2015) [-]
You could say the same about planes and cars. Car crashes are WAY more common than plane crashes, but an individual plane crash (especially in cases like 9/11) can cause way more damage than an individual car crash. Despite this, car crashes are responsible for many times the deaths of plane crashes.
Fact is, coal plants produce significantly more radiation than nuclear plants with the exceptions of extreme ******* like chernobyl. And considering that since nuclear power was introduced, only two major incidents have occurred (three if you count three mile island), I wouldn't be surprised if the overall effect of coal plants was more significant than the effect of those incidents, all of which were the result of cutting corners and ignoring blatant safety restrictions (Even fukushima, because they built it on a known risk area to save money). In the west, safety regulations are so considerable that it would take a malicious attack for anything to actually go wrong.
Trying to keep us from using nuclear power does nothing but slow our growth, and is entirely the result of ignorance and fear. It would be like trying to ban planes after 9/11, even though security at airports has made a terrorist attack extremely unfeasible, in the hopes that more people die (and cause car crashes)
Fact is, coal plants produce significantly more radiation than nuclear plants with the exceptions of extreme ******* like chernobyl. And considering that since nuclear power was introduced, only two major incidents have occurred (three if you count three mile island), I wouldn't be surprised if the overall effect of coal plants was more significant than the effect of those incidents, all of which were the result of cutting corners and ignoring blatant safety restrictions (Even fukushima, because they built it on a known risk area to save money). In the west, safety regulations are so considerable that it would take a malicious attack for anything to actually go wrong.
Trying to keep us from using nuclear power does nothing but slow our growth, and is entirely the result of ignorance and fear. It would be like trying to ban planes after 9/11, even though security at airports has made a terrorist attack extremely unfeasible, in the hopes that more people die (and cause car crashes)
#3
-
cookiedude (07/28/2015) [-]
Prager Uni vids are great. They're really good at telling the truth in controversial issues.
#7 to #3
-
belcomar ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
I really love these videos they have taught me a lot and shown me issues and sides of arguments that I have never seen, but lately I've been wondering if the have a bias, it seems that all groups have some sort of bias and I've been wanting to know what theirs might be if they have one
#12 to #7
-
anon (07/28/2015) [-]
Prager university's video's often don't come with too many biases, but if you watch some of the video's regarding anything with traditional conservative idea's, you can see they lean right pretty heavily. Their founder was pretty into the republican party so it isn't hard to see why. They have a few videos like "Christians are the most oppressed demographic" and "colleges focus too heavily on liberal ideas", etc. But for video's like this and the one that talks about sexism, tend to be based on reliable facts.
#38 to #20
-
summerizer ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] Christian's currently are the most oppressed religious group, they're basically getting ****** everywhere that isn't the west.
#179 to #12
-
cookiedude (07/28/2015) [-]
Christianity is the most oppressed religion by numbers though. Look in the Middle East where either they get killed, forced to convert, or pay "security" fees.
Christians get ****** every where that isn't the Americas or Europe, and even then, modern liberalism has begun to **** them.
I'm an atheist, but damn, let people worship what ever they want.
Christians get ****** every where that isn't the Americas or Europe, and even then, modern liberalism has begun to **** them.
I'm an atheist, but damn, let people worship what ever they want.
#60
-
lesotho (07/28/2015) [-]
Allthough this video is quite good, I am surprised by the number of comments saying how unbiased Prager University is and how they go to the facts. However I've seen a number of videos and it is clearly biased by a rightist point of view. Later I made a little research, and the director is known for his conservative ideas.
People is talking about facts and stuff like they are the only truth, but remember that even the decision of what fact to choose is biased by your previous ideas, like it seems the case in these videos.
People is talking about facts and stuff like they are the only truth, but remember that even the decision of what fact to choose is biased by your previous ideas, like it seems the case in these videos.
#93 to #60
-
samxdaxman (07/28/2015) [-] Agreed. While they do make a lot of good videos, they do have a biased view towards the right. Keep in mind, these are the people who say that Christians are the most oppressed group in the world nowadays.
#99 to #93
-
taniv (07/28/2015) [-] Did they actually say that?
And double agree. I don't think they should be labeled as "unbiased" so much as "a right-wing point of view that isn't FOX News for once"; it's sensible and sound reasoning from their perspective, and it is a great addition to on-going discussion, but not the only one to be considered.
And double agree. I don't think they should be labeled as "unbiased" so much as "a right-wing point of view that isn't FOX News for once"; it's sensible and sound reasoning from their perspective, and it is a great addition to on-going discussion, but not the only one to be considered.
#100 to #99
-
samxdaxman (07/28/2015) [-] 
Here it is. And yeah, I guess that's a better phrase for it.
#103 to #100
-
taniv (07/28/2015) [-] Christianity is technically a minority despite being the largest religion in the world, I guess.
But seriously, not to hate on Muslims because I know a lot of amazing Muslims and I trust the good outweigh the bad, but Christianity and Islam have a similar bloody history. The thing is, Muslim countries haven't developed, but they hate everyone equally. The ones who are radicalized will kill you if you're Atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Agnostic, or you praise the one true God, FSM.
The most persecuted group, internationally, is women, and always has been. Not saying "hurr durr muh rights" 3rd wave feminism, but actually just look at a history book or even at any 3rd world country. Somewhere between the hunter-gatherer days and our modern era, there was a global consensus to oppress women, and one of the top identifiers to future growth in a country is how the women are treated if you are abusing 50% of your resources, you're not gonna get very far . I'm Indo-Canadian and a lot of my traditions are sexist, but my own family is pretty progressive and my great-gpa was actually the first man in his village to educate his daughters, and it was a genius decision, but still a backwards country at the time, and sometimes even in modern days. Again, this isn't about the BS that Western Feminists bitch about because they're afraid to tackle real issues globally, this is about the consistent **** that women have gone through in Western history and Eastern present.
But seriously, not to hate on Muslims because I know a lot of amazing Muslims and I trust the good outweigh the bad, but Christianity and Islam have a similar bloody history. The thing is, Muslim countries haven't developed, but they hate everyone equally. The ones who are radicalized will kill you if you're Atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Agnostic, or you praise the one true God, FSM.
The most persecuted group, internationally, is women, and always has been. Not saying "hurr durr muh rights" 3rd wave feminism, but actually just look at a history book or even at any 3rd world country. Somewhere between the hunter-gatherer days and our modern era, there was a global consensus to oppress women, and one of the top identifiers to future growth in a country is how the women are treated if you are abusing 50% of your resources, you're not gonna get very far . I'm Indo-Canadian and a lot of my traditions are sexist, but my own family is pretty progressive and my great-gpa was actually the first man in his village to educate his daughters, and it was a genius decision, but still a backwards country at the time, and sometimes even in modern days. Again, this isn't about the BS that Western Feminists bitch about because they're afraid to tackle real issues globally, this is about the consistent **** that women have gone through in Western history and Eastern present.
#106 to #103
-
samxdaxman (07/28/2015) [-] Nah, I agree with you. Feminism is needed, just in countries that are predominantly Muslim and not necessarily first world countries.
He does have some fair points, but no matter who it is, I can never 100% get behind people that say "This group I'm in is the most oppressed in the world/country", it just feels like they want pity instead of to solve the issue. This goes for Neo-feminists who claim women make 70% of what men do and for FJers who claim men are more oppressed than women(in 1st world countries).
He does have some fair points, but no matter who it is, I can never 100% get behind people that say "This group I'm in is the most oppressed in the world/country", it just feels like they want pity instead of to solve the issue. This goes for Neo-feminists who claim women make 70% of what men do and for FJers who claim men are more oppressed than women(in 1st world countries).
#113 to #106
-
taniv (07/28/2015) [-] Not just Muslim countries though, like, most of the East and, to some degree, some of the West.
I agree that his group is persecuted, I just don't like how sneaky it feels watching it. Like there's a point being made that most of the audience knows but the speaker won't actually say it to avoid the controversy. We all know there's an implied message about the "evils of Islam", but rather than be bold and make a statement, he dances around the issue to save face while instilling the feeling in us. It's cowardly and I don't like it at all. Kind of like when everyone called the Baltimore rioters "thugs" and the one dude being interviewed was like "just say ******* , we know what you mean". They're afraid of the backlash, which I understand, but if they don't address what they really mean we can't have a discussion about it and educate each other. What about fundamentalist Islam is so dangerous? fundamentalism in many religions has proven to be toxic, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (historically speaking) Does it make the religion of Islam bad as a whole? the answer is simple: no What can we do to create peace in these damaged environments? education and societal development; the West didn't stop being Christian, but they still stopped doing "Witch Hunts" . Muslims oppressed the Sikhs in India for generations, and so did the Hindus, despite Sikhism being founded by a Hindu whose spiritual mentor was Muslim. Sikhs responded with self-defense and courage. Even after the 1984 massacre where the Hindu government murdered Sikhs in their place of worship, we mourned, and then stood up for ourselves and demanded change. Call Islamic fundamentalism toxic all you want, because it is, but it's not alone; Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and even Buddhists have committed their own atrocities
I agree that his group is persecuted, I just don't like how sneaky it feels watching it. Like there's a point being made that most of the audience knows but the speaker won't actually say it to avoid the controversy. We all know there's an implied message about the "evils of Islam", but rather than be bold and make a statement, he dances around the issue to save face while instilling the feeling in us. It's cowardly and I don't like it at all. Kind of like when everyone called the Baltimore rioters "thugs" and the one dude being interviewed was like "just say ******* , we know what you mean". They're afraid of the backlash, which I understand, but if they don't address what they really mean we can't have a discussion about it and educate each other. What about fundamentalist Islam is so dangerous? fundamentalism in many religions has proven to be toxic, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (historically speaking) Does it make the religion of Islam bad as a whole? the answer is simple: no What can we do to create peace in these damaged environments? education and societal development; the West didn't stop being Christian, but they still stopped doing "Witch Hunts" . Muslims oppressed the Sikhs in India for generations, and so did the Hindus, despite Sikhism being founded by a Hindu whose spiritual mentor was Muslim. Sikhs responded with self-defense and courage. Even after the 1984 massacre where the Hindu government murdered Sikhs in their place of worship, we mourned, and then stood up for ourselves and demanded change. Call Islamic fundamentalism toxic all you want, because it is, but it's not alone; Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and even Buddhists have committed their own atrocities
#115 to #113
-
samxdaxman (07/28/2015) [-] That's what I mean. To me, subtle racism/sexism/whatever-ism is worse than flat out. I'm a white guy, so I've never had to experience it(maybe I did and I was oblivious, unlikely though), but it's underhanded, which is a bitch move.
And I don't think there's a single race, religion or whatever that hasn't committed some sort of atrocity in the name of someone who said "Don't commit atrocities".
And I don't think there's a single race, religion or whatever that hasn't committed some sort of atrocity in the name of someone who said "Don't commit atrocities".
#121 to #115
-
taniv (07/28/2015) [-] While I personally think, from what I know of history, that a lot of the worst forms of racism and discrimination were perpetuated by white people and Christians not to demonize people based on skin colour or religion, but white-skinned groups did start a philosophy of white skin = good and black skin = evil, and Uganda wasn't as radical in it's anti-gay stance until western Christian missionaries visited , they also aimed it at each other, like the discrimination faced by Irish and Socttish folk. That being said, if you go to the middle east/south asia, brown people and yellow were murdering each other since they discovered each other Jesus was likely middle Eastern , and if you're white in some places you'll likely have troubles for the most part just be taken advantage of, like ripped off on deals. For actual hat, more likely the Middle Eastern countries that hate the western world because a lot of developing countries idolize the western world. Oh, and probably some citizens that might still hate their former colonizers .
To your second point, yeah people are ******* stupid. "Love thy neighbour. When it's convenient. I guess. Maybe. **** it."
To your second point, yeah people are ******* stupid. "Love thy neighbour. When it's convenient. I guess. Maybe. **** it."
#124 to #121
-
samxdaxman (07/28/2015) [-] You said it bro. All of history can basically be boiled down to that last phrase
#42
-
infraredanus (07/28/2015) [-]
Prager university, facts and science and as little bias as possilbe. focuses on the truth. great stuff.
#54 to #42
-
ezzay (07/28/2015) [-] well... I wouldn't say as little bias as possible. One vid said that women civilize men, and I just don't think thats true. it can certaintly happen In fact i've seen it happen. but I think its the exception rather than the rule. but its just one of the few ways they are bias. also, speaking as a christian, they have a huge bias towards Christianity.
#72 to #54
-
deathstare (07/28/2015) [-] Women civilize men, and men civilize women. If that wasn't the case, we'd have died out long ago. Even the most civilized of people fall into chaos if everyone stopped making babies.
#158
-
AztecJew (07/28/2015) [-] I've been donating to green peace every month for the last 3-4 years. I've openly opposed all GMO's despite having a intermediate scientific background. I feel ridiculous now having become privy to this information.
There aren't many posts out there or videos that genuinely alter or change how I perceive things, and I always make a conscious effort to give them their fair chance to do so. This made a difference for me and I appreciate that. Thanks for this post. I'm glad I'm not going to look like an idiot damning any and all GMO's anymore.
There aren't many posts out there or videos that genuinely alter or change how I perceive things, and I always make a conscious effort to give them their fair chance to do so. This made a difference for me and I appreciate that. Thanks for this post. I'm glad I'm not going to look like an idiot damning any and all GMO's anymore.
#160 to #158
-
prohibullion [OP](07/28/2015) [-] not everyone is willing to be changed
still, I'm glad I could help
still, I'm glad I could help
#58
-
anon (07/28/2015) [-]
People that don't like GMO's because "its not natural" deserve to pay for the deaths of people that could have been saved by genetically modified food.
#48
-
angelious (07/28/2015) [-] he looks so sad...something he helped create has become something so...despicable..i kinda feel sorry for the guy.
#30
-
iamnuff (07/28/2015) [-] Rather than running away and pussying out, he should have stayed inside and tried to steer the sinking ship.
If you're the only person there wish a scientific background, then you NEED to explain this **** to the other directors.
If you're the only person there wish a scientific background, then you NEED to explain this **** to the other directors.
#34 to #30
-
ryrynz (07/28/2015) [-]
Understand that.. It's the same for people that kill themselves due to various social reasons.. like that guy that killed himself and holding tax the 1% sign. Dude may have been able to do more alive if that was truly his goal. The world could be so great if it wasn't so completely ****** .. I'm disappointed in our society, the needless squandering of resources the lack of population control and the inequality and mistreatment of living things including ourselves. Really don't want to be a human in my next life.. maybe there's a better society out there in the universe my consciousness can be born into.. in the meantime I'll just try and live this one as long as I'm able..
#37 to #30
-
thekingajs (07/28/2015) [-]
You can drag a horse to a river, but you can't force it to drink. He probably was voted or was about to be voted out of the group. There's a point where you have top stop banging your head on a wall and simply cut your losses. He's now capable of having greater maneuverability in his actions, outside the group, than he would if he had remained.
#76
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] mfw i hear about gmo ******** and how it 'could save millions of lifes'
#82 to #79
-
vilememory ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] Few people do, they hear GMO and they think mad science. Killer Tomatoes, corn that explodes. People don't realize we have been genetically modifying plants and animals since we started farming and domesticating through selective breeding.
#117 to #82
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
A genetically modified organism (GMO), also known as a transgenic organism, is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques
there is a difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering. per definition.
To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.
Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety.
The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.
so please tell me more about how you know so much about that topic.
my family owns a farm and is tudied agricultural science. we had to learn a lot about gmo's and because it has an actual impact on our lifes we learned about the good and the bad things about it.
so please go on with that half assed knowledge you acussed others of. same goes to you *************** .
no, a bred dog race is not "genetically modified"
there is a difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering. per definition.
To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.
Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety.
The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.
so please tell me more about how you know so much about that topic.
my family owns a farm and is tudied agricultural science. we had to learn a lot about gmo's and because it has an actual impact on our lifes we learned about the good and the bad things about it.
so please go on with that half assed knowledge you acussed others of. same goes to you *************** .
no, a bred dog race is not "genetically modified"
#119 to #117
-
sometimeswefuck (07/28/2015) [-]
"Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism"
lol.
lol.
#123 to #120
-
sometimeswefuck (07/28/2015) [-]
Its your not understanding that makes me lol
Obviously GMO and selective breeding aren't equivalent, however selective breeding is a type of GMO.
The same way nicotine consumption and smoking are not equivalent, rather, smoking is simply a form of nicotine consumption
Obviously GMO and selective breeding aren't equivalent, however selective breeding is a type of GMO.
The same way nicotine consumption and smoking are not equivalent, rather, smoking is simply a form of nicotine consumption
#125 to #123
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
sorry... i was going to reply a long text explaining it to you.
but **** it, its the internet. you wouldnt accept you are wrong anyway and i got better things to do. if you compare selective breeding to genetic engineering alright... do it.
i dont really care, you live far away from me most likely that your ignorance doesnt matter as an opinion in elections where i'm from.
but **** it, its the internet. you wouldnt accept you are wrong anyway and i got better things to do. if you compare selective breeding to genetic engineering alright... do it.
i dont really care, you live far away from me most likely that your ignorance doesnt matter as an opinion in elections where i'm from.
#190 to #125
-
sometimeswefuck (07/29/2015) [-]
Typical excuse for someone who can't back their own argument.
Have fun being misinformed
Have fun being misinformed
#177 to #171
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-] **catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**Typically I wouldn't say fj is a great medium for intelligent discussion, and useful expression of ones opinion. I did find your comment about their opinion being null, because of its lack of relevance to your local elections, to be very funny. Tell me, do you think your thoughts and ideas will be more respected, or objectively considered by your local elected official, or someone that lives very far away and has nothing to do with your governments system?
**catx rolled image**Typically I wouldn't say fj is a great medium for intelligent discussion, and useful expression of ones opinion. I did find your comment about their opinion being null, because of its lack of relevance to your local elections, to be very funny. Tell me, do you think your thoughts and ideas will be more respected, or objectively considered by your local elected official, or someone that lives very far away and has nothing to do with your governments system?
#178 to #177
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
what i meant to say was:
if someone lives around me and has an impact on elections i would consider talking more about pro/con of different topics. i would try to research and discuss it together so we get to a better understanding to make sure the best solution would be mainstream-view and that our gov would take the right stance, according to what we believe in.
since it isnt the case here i will save my energy.
if someone lives around me and has an impact on elections i would consider talking more about pro/con of different topics. i would try to research and discuss it together so we get to a better understanding to make sure the best solution would be mainstream-view and that our gov would take the right stance, according to what we believe in.
since it isnt the case here i will save my energy.
#180 to #178
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-]
I can definitely respect that stance on sharing and seeking knowledge together. I see that I didn't understand your statement completely. I admire your faith in the gov. I don't share that faith. It seems to me that people are way to easily influenced in the gov. to be counted on to make the best decisions for everyone. It certainly seems like some try. I'll leave it at that.
#135 to #117
-
thegamegestapo (07/28/2015) [-] Do you know why people don't believe you? It's because you seem to think GMOs are in any way harmful.
You know what is pretty harmful though: starvation.
You know what is pretty harmful though: starvation.
#173 to #135
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
i researched that topic.
i'm not against gmo's. but the arguments i hear so often on the net are plain stupid and show a lack of understanding of the topic.
nobody who seriously researched gmo's and their ecological and economical effects can say that there is no negative side effect. there are many known negative effects, especially for the farmers.
i'm not against gmo's. but the arguments i hear so often on the net are plain stupid and show a lack of understanding of the topic.
nobody who seriously researched gmo's and their ecological and economical effects can say that there is no negative side effect. there are many known negative effects, especially for the farmers.
#192 to #173
-
thegamegestapo (07/29/2015) [-] Most of the negative effects are routed in the fact that large companies sell seeds to GMOs designed not to be able to produce seeds of their own, leaving the farmer dependent on the company. In other words, people are the problem.
If in your research you managed to unearth some actual peer approved evidence that GMOs have a negative impact on the environment when compared to traditional crops treated with fertiliser then I'd love to hear it. I'm currently sceptical of your assertion as I briefly interned at both the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine and the Roslin Institute, where I met many expert in the field who were highly vocal in their support of GMOs.
If in your research you managed to unearth some actual peer approved evidence that GMOs have a negative impact on the environment when compared to traditional crops treated with fertiliser then I'd love to hear it. I'm currently sceptical of your assertion as I briefly interned at both the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine and the Roslin Institute, where I met many expert in the field who were highly vocal in their support of GMOs.
#83 to #82
-
sometimeswefuck (07/28/2015) [-]
That's exactly what I was going to say LOL
people think spiderdogs or cows that grow bacon out of their tails and dumb **** like that.
Without GMO's the fruits/veggies you know today probably wouldn't exist.
people think spiderdogs or cows that grow bacon out of their tails and dumb **** like that.
Without GMO's the fruits/veggies you know today probably wouldn't exist.
#84 to #83
-
vilememory ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-] Or many dog breeds, it always ***** up people when I point out their dogs are the products of GMO. Of course the problem with dogs now is that the blood lines have gotten too narrow with the pure breeds. We need to mix them up for the good of the animals but it isn't fashionable to have a 'mutt' better to have an animal that is in constant pain that requires thousands of dollars in medical care.
#101 to #84
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-]
I'm not hating on gmos, but there is a difference in natural hybridization, and altering a plants or animals gene's yourself. We are still learning more about genetics all the time. Do we really know the extent of what we change if we don't clearly understand all the angles? How can we comfortably introduce a plant that is modified into the natural world? As far as fighting world hunger goes, there are hundreds of natural plants that can be cultivated for agricultural use. Some are being used for that now. Check out Moringa Oleifera and how its being used to fight hunger in Africa. There are over 200 different edible plants in my area alone, and very few will ever be seen in a market.
#137 to #101
-
thegamegestapo (07/28/2015) [-] Humans have always played fast and loose with the natural world, it's kind of our whole survival strategy. GMOs will allow us to take the best features of foods we've been engineering for millennia through the inefficient process of selective breeding and increase the benefits tenfold.
#155 to #137
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-]
That is very true about the nature of humans. But I'm not sure there are so many problems that can be solved by gmo's that can't be solved another way. It's all about what directions we put our attentions and energies. Do we really need to modify plants to solve our problems, then spend the time and energy fixing the problems that may occur from our modifications. If there is one thing that we've learned from experience with environmental science, it is that what ever we change can cause dramatic changes to localized ecosystems. What will have the strongest impact on any system, and what will the impacts be? How will a new plant interact with its local environmental system? The same question must be asked for naturally occurring hybrids, and genetically modified hybrids. Seeing as how we are still trying to understand the complicated nature of any naturally occurring system, how can we be certain our own modified plants will not have a more detrimental effect than the ones that have developed for thousands of years?
#163 to #155
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-] **catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**On a side note, about what plants people give their attention, there is a funny story about one of my favorites: the air potato. This awesome plant literally could replace potatoes for its starch content, and to good natural effect. This plant grows on a vine, and can be cultivated on a trestle, therefor it would not have the same detrimental effects on disturbing top soil as the potato does. They are a quickly growing plant and require controlled cultivation to be practically farm(basically you shouldn't grow them really close to trees, or they will climb and spread, but that us an easy problem to overcome). Anyway, you won't find this plant growing in many places because it has been mostly over looked as a possible agricultural resource. The funny thing about this plants story is that its close relative of the species was grown a lot in the southern parts of the united states for its beauty(that particular species was not edible at all). Many did not take caution with the way that they grew them, and now the non edible variety is growing rampantly and is considered an invasive plant. As a result, even the edible species has gotten a bad rep, and people don't want it grown in those areas. It's funny, in a sad way. This is a great example of a lack of knowledge, and little caution. Who knows, perhaps now that people are beginning to understand the plants they grow and how responsibility plays are part in our actions with these plants, we may see air potatoes and other diverse foods sold in local markets. The problem with this, however, comes from funding. Farms in the U.S. are paid to grow, what our government wants them to grow. I feel like people have discovered how to genetically modify things, and want to use this as a quick and easy fix for some problems. The point is we need to more fully understand how we can make use of whats already around us. As long as there are people looking for funding for their work there will always be that carrot dangle in front of the faces of the masses, as well as the faces of those that see the potential to make money from their creations. It may be a harder route for us to find a natural way to end our problems, but in the end I think that it would be the more harmonious route, and ultimately we would learn more about our connection to nature.
Anyway, sorry for the long posts. lol.
**catx rolled image**On a side note, about what plants people give their attention, there is a funny story about one of my favorites: the air potato. This awesome plant literally could replace potatoes for its starch content, and to good natural effect. This plant grows on a vine, and can be cultivated on a trestle, therefor it would not have the same detrimental effects on disturbing top soil as the potato does. They are a quickly growing plant and require controlled cultivation to be practically farm(basically you shouldn't grow them really close to trees, or they will climb and spread, but that us an easy problem to overcome). Anyway, you won't find this plant growing in many places because it has been mostly over looked as a possible agricultural resource. The funny thing about this plants story is that its close relative of the species was grown a lot in the southern parts of the united states for its beauty(that particular species was not edible at all). Many did not take caution with the way that they grew them, and now the non edible variety is growing rampantly and is considered an invasive plant. As a result, even the edible species has gotten a bad rep, and people don't want it grown in those areas. It's funny, in a sad way. This is a great example of a lack of knowledge, and little caution. Who knows, perhaps now that people are beginning to understand the plants they grow and how responsibility plays are part in our actions with these plants, we may see air potatoes and other diverse foods sold in local markets. The problem with this, however, comes from funding. Farms in the U.S. are paid to grow, what our government wants them to grow. I feel like people have discovered how to genetically modify things, and want to use this as a quick and easy fix for some problems. The point is we need to more fully understand how we can make use of whats already around us. As long as there are people looking for funding for their work there will always be that carrot dangle in front of the faces of the masses, as well as the faces of those that see the potential to make money from their creations. It may be a harder route for us to find a natural way to end our problems, but in the end I think that it would be the more harmonious route, and ultimately we would learn more about our connection to nature.
Anyway, sorry for the long posts. lol.
#104 to #84
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-]
The problem with dog breeds is inbreeding. There is not enough diversity in their genes. We have the same problem with many of our agricultural plants. Having been removed from the diversity of growing naturally, they yield less nutritional value. We should never stop looking for answers to our problems with the tools we have, but we also have to be cautious in how we act on our information. If we don't understand to full context of modifications we make, and how they may effect the other plant withing their family once they start to naturally hybridize, how can we justify their introduction into the agricultural industry?
#107 to #84
-
catx (07/28/2015) [-] **catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**As it is, we will know in time, what effects this new tech will have on our planets biosystems. Gmo's may solve many problems, and they may cause many. Only time will tell. It is awesome to see what ways humans can change a our world. It all comes down to our amazing capability and our narrow minded ways. We chose to ignore the diversity that nature has to offer and focus our intent on the handful of plants that we've used for years. We they don't offer enough, we just need to change them right?!
**catx rolled image**As it is, we will know in time, what effects this new tech will have on our planets biosystems. Gmo's may solve many problems, and they may cause many. Only time will tell. It is awesome to see what ways humans can change a our world. It all comes down to our amazing capability and our narrow minded ways. We chose to ignore the diversity that nature has to offer and focus our intent on the handful of plants that we've used for years. We they don't offer enough, we just need to change them right?!
#85 to #84
-
sometimeswefuck (07/28/2015) [-]
Now we wait for the uneducated to make "I *biohazard symbol* GMO's"
#97 to #76
-
aizeinstein (07/28/2015) [-] Oh, come on, man! Just because you have nightmares about rapist potatoes, it doesn't mean all GMOs are bad.
#111 to #76
-
angelusprimus (07/28/2015) [-] What I find fascinating that leading supporters of GMO are scientists, biologists, chemists etc.
And leading opponents have no scientific background what so ever.
Its almost like people fear and hate something they do not understand.
And leading opponents have no scientific background what so ever.
Its almost like people fear and hate something they do not understand.
#114 to #111
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
there are scientists on both sides.
i live in a country which doesnt have gmo's and companies dont pay a lot to the universities. and, oh what a surprise: in agricultural science we learn a lot about the negative ecologican and economical aspects of gmo.
i live in a country which doesnt have gmo's and companies dont pay a lot to the universities. and, oh what a surprise: in agricultural science we learn a lot about the negative ecologican and economical aspects of gmo.
#187 to #114
-
angelusprimus (07/28/2015) [-] Interesting, because I go to a lot of scientific conventions, for business. (and if you ever wanted to be in a room of about 200 people and feel like the dumbest person in the room I highly recommend going to conventions like that) and I talked to people from all across the world, and less than one person in ten who has any biology background says anything bad about ecological (that's how its spelled) and biological aspects of GMOs.
They all have a lot to say about gene patenting. Some of the things they have to say is an education in itself. If you want to hear a person with two doctorates and a tenure at Cambridge swear ask them about gene patenting.
But idea that GMOs are in any way worse biologically than selectively bred is laughable.
They all have a lot to say about gene patenting. Some of the things they have to say is an education in itself. If you want to hear a person with two doctorates and a tenure at Cambridge swear ask them about gene patenting.
But idea that GMOs are in any way worse biologically than selectively bred is laughable.
#188 to #187
-
kanedam ONLINE (07/28/2015) [-]
never said they are in biological ways.
eventhough: they can be. there is no long running study so far about the effect they will have on nature. there are so far just a few hypothesis, but they get almost no funding to really get researched on (like the link between gmo and bees dying)
but what you mentioned is what i meant. the gene patents and the way it is handled right now is a big problem. it can ruin farmers, especially that genes are getting patented that also exist in long existing breeds, meaning farmers have to pay eventhough they never got any seeds or animals from the companies having the patents.
the problem with not being allowed to keep seeds yourself to grow next year is also a big problem to a lot of farmers, and means they are held in a bad situation (sorry, english is not my native language, its a bit harder for me to talk about such manners properly at 1am)
there are a lot of problems with gmo's right now as they are. (and that doesnt only mean the gmo itself, its about the laws, patents, companies policy and so on. i'm glad someone knows a bit about that topic. because thats why the whole "we could save millions from starving!" is not a clear and proper argument when you think about gmo's unless you ignore all the other parts of this topic)
eventhough: they can be. there is no long running study so far about the effect they will have on nature. there are so far just a few hypothesis, but they get almost no funding to really get researched on (like the link between gmo and bees dying)
but what you mentioned is what i meant. the gene patents and the way it is handled right now is a big problem. it can ruin farmers, especially that genes are getting patented that also exist in long existing breeds, meaning farmers have to pay eventhough they never got any seeds or animals from the companies having the patents.
the problem with not being allowed to keep seeds yourself to grow next year is also a big problem to a lot of farmers, and means they are held in a bad situation (sorry, english is not my native language, its a bit harder for me to talk about such manners properly at 1am)
there are a lot of problems with gmo's right now as they are. (and that doesnt only mean the gmo itself, its about the laws, patents, companies policy and so on. i'm glad someone knows a bit about that topic. because thats why the whole "we could save millions from starving!" is not a clear and proper argument when you think about gmo's unless you ignore all the other parts of this topic)
#189 to #188
-
angelusprimus (07/28/2015) [-] Ok, few things.
You are absolutely right about how agricorp research companies are policing their products is abhorrent and wrong. Montesanto is pretty much a comic book evil corporation. BUT, there is nothing wrong with the product, just how they act on it. (That it affects bees has pretty much been discounted. Bees problem this days is that our cellphones and towers radiation interfere with their tracking, which is why 5g tech will have to be bee safe)
But it doesn't affect the golden rice. Golden rice could save millions of lives. Because the "free use for sustenance farming" has been allowed. Which means golden rice is free to farm, and keep and use as seed grain for anyone who isn't growing rice on commercial level. Even small scale sales (which means less than a ton) are allowed.
That would allow sustenance farmers in africa to grow this rice that is full of necessary nutrients that people there are lacking badly, and its a VERY high yield rice so it would seriously increase their food production output.
Golden rice could save millions of lives and its being opposed ONLY because this people think GMOs are bad. That's stupid.
You are absolutely right about how agricorp research companies are policing their products is abhorrent and wrong. Montesanto is pretty much a comic book evil corporation. BUT, there is nothing wrong with the product, just how they act on it. (That it affects bees has pretty much been discounted. Bees problem this days is that our cellphones and towers radiation interfere with their tracking, which is why 5g tech will have to be bee safe)
But it doesn't affect the golden rice. Golden rice could save millions of lives. Because the "free use for sustenance farming" has been allowed. Which means golden rice is free to farm, and keep and use as seed grain for anyone who isn't growing rice on commercial level. Even small scale sales (which means less than a ton) are allowed.
That would allow sustenance farmers in africa to grow this rice that is full of necessary nutrients that people there are lacking badly, and its a VERY high yield rice so it would seriously increase their food production output.
Golden rice could save millions of lives and its being opposed ONLY because this people think GMOs are bad. That's stupid.
#166
-
BlueToaster (07/28/2015) [-] Y'know, Admin....
As much as I understand your need to have ads on this site in order for you to have a source of income for FJ, there one thing I have to ask-
WHY ARE THERE ADS WITH SOUND?
Seriously, it pisses me off every time that I attempt to enjoy a video it always gets interrupted by a goddamn advertisement! For everyone's sake, euthanize them.
As much as I understand your need to have ads on this site in order for you to have a source of income for FJ, there one thing I have to ask-
WHY ARE THERE ADS WITH SOUND?
Seriously, it pisses me off every time that I attempt to enjoy a video it always gets interrupted by a goddamn advertisement! For everyone's sake, euthanize them.
#174 to #168
-
SuperHyperCrazy (07/28/2015) [-] I thought I was the only one getting them! They keep interrupting my music
#175 to #174
-
BlueToaster (07/28/2015) [-] It's not even though the ads just play once and then stop- they keep going!
#170 to #166
-
prohibullion [OP](07/28/2015) [-] I believe there is a way to make them not autoplay, but I forgot and am therefore no help
I encourage you to google it, though
I encourage you to google it, though
#150
-
prohibullion [OP](07/28/2015) [-] ok wow, I wasn't expecting this to actually get into the top ten
still, I'm glad this was shared with as many people as possible
still, I'm glad this was shared with as many people as possible
#77
-
rudeobuteo (07/28/2015) [-] Patrick Moore also supports nuclear energy. It is about the only hope of ever really having a zero-carbon economy. disinfo.com/2015/07/synthesizing-jet-fuel-sea-water/
