Feedback: This Little Piggy’s A Binge Drinker
In this edition: Blame The 6 O’clock Swill For Piggy Drinking Habits - Double-dip, toodle-pip - Letter To Editor Of The Star They Would Not Print
Blame The 6 O’clock Swill For Piggy Drinking Habits
It makes no real difference whether the legal drinking age is 18, 20, 21 or 121. Adults, young adults and even children that have the motivation and means will always find ways to obtain alcohol, no matter what the law says. Such bans or partial bans never work, because humans have free will and minds capable of making choices, rational or otherwise. Humans are not caged animals and eventually rebel when controlled, taxed and enslaved too long.
Todays alcohol abuse is a direct consequence of the six o'clock swill. Fifty years of binge drinking from 1915 to 1965 has left an indelible legacy of alcoholism on our culture and each subsequent generation.
Youth alcoholism is simply an overreaction to the overbearing, oppressive, conformist, collectivist, politically correct adult world they must soon join. They are trying to enjoy their last and limited taste of freedom.
Parents should look at their own mis-spent youth before passing judgement, and stop bleating for the government to fix yet another problem. Parental love, education, individual freedom and responsibility are the only answers.
If it were not so serious, there is a great opportunity going begging for an entrepreneurial advertising agency.
I am sure they would gain far more mileage for the Lotto Board if they were to do a re-make of the current television advertisement which replaced the 3 images of Hillary Timmins with images of Turiana Turia, Philida Bunkle and Susan Bathgate dancing to the tune of "Double-dip, Toodle-pip".
Letter To Editor Of The Star They Would
Brian Priestlys simplistic and naïve faith that because those in power have their scientists say something then it should be trusted is to profess alarming ignorance as to the dangers GE poses to our health and environment from many independent scientists whose income does not rely on corporate funding.
As Dr Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society has pointed out the dangers of GE starts from its adherents simplistic assumption that scientists can now precisely identify the individual gene that governs a desired trait, extract it, copy it and insert the copy into another organism. At its most basic level this genetic determinist science assumes that, firstly, Genes determine characters in linear causal chains, one gene determining one character; secondly, genes are not subject to influence from the environment; thirdly, genes remain stable and constant; and fourthly, Genes remain in organisms and stay where they are put.
However, all of this has been proven to be false as independent scientific research by DR Ho and others has found that the real nature of genes are that, firstly, genes function in a complex network where causation is multidimensional, non-linear and circular; secondly, genes and genomes are subject to feedback regulation; thirdly, genes and genomes are dynamic and fluid, can change directly in response to the environment, and give adaptive mutations to order; and fourthly, genes can jump horizontally between unrelated species and recombine. These findings have recently been confirmed from the Human Genome Project which has found that genes instead of having only one function can now have up between 10 to 50 different functions all of which are controlled by the organism as a whole in coordination with the whole of the DNA structure. In other words GE scientists simplistic assumption that when they put a totally unrelated species gene into a new host DNA structure it will only do the one thing they want it to do is completely false. Especially, as they do not know where in the DNA sequence it will end up or move to over time and hence not know exactly what it is actually doing in the field. Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University, who is famous for his accurate prediction of the dangers of " Mad cow disease" more than seven years ago has said of this danger, "The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain” and that genetically engineered foods pose “essentially unlimited health risks.” Evidence which the Royal Commission and the government have chosen to ignore.
But, wait there is more! Dr Ho and other scientists have warned that horizontal gene transfer from GE plants could spread the new genes and gene-constructs to unrelated species. This can in principle, occur to all species that interact with the transgenic plants, either directly or indirectly: microbes in the soil and in other parts of the plants, worms, insects, arthropods, birds, small mammals and human beings. This could result in new viruses, new bacterial pathogens and new poisons in both our food and environment.
As Dr Ho has stated “Genetic engineering biotechnology is inherently hazardous. It could lead to disasters far worse than those caused by accidents to nuclear installations. Genes can replicate indefinitely spread and recombine. For this reason, the release of a genetically engineered micro-organism that is lethal to humans could well spell the end of humanity. Unfortunately, the proponents of this terrifying technology share a genetic determinist mindset that leads them to reject the inherently dangerous nature of their work. What is particularly worrying at first sight is the irresistible power of the large corporations which are pushing this technology.” This is the power to which the Royal Commission and government caved into.
On top of this open pollinated GE crops, e.g. canola, soya bean and corn crops, have been found to have contaminated the whole food chain, whether conventional or organic, in North America and in doing so has destroyed any chance of consumers being able to avoid taking risks with their health. Especially, as the GE corporates have lobbied against and have had watered down any labelling of their GE wonder products.
So when Brian Priestly and others wonder why there are people who are prepared to participate in non-violent acts of civil disobedience to keep GE out of our food and environment when corporate and government scientists say GE is “safe” they need to know our concerns are backed by sound science and scientists. Not to mention the revulsion many of us have as to the moral, ethical and spiritual abomination that GE represents. Unfortunately, the corporates control the media and they have consistently refused to allow the anti-GE scientists perspectives to be aired in public. It is one of the great media cover ups of our time that the real dangers of GE in our food and environment have been consistently ignored by our government and so-called “free press”.
Tremane Barr (B.Soc.Sc., MSc. (Hons.))
This is not to be abridged. The public have a right to know the scientific dangers GE poses to their food and environment.