farminator3000
farminator3000's Journali am completely right and you look more foolish with each post!
Nobody is genetically modifying the virus, they are using genes from the virus to modify the crops.this shows that you either don't now how the process works or are deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes for infernal purposes.
please explain how THIS, which is used to get the type VI, is not GE:
The gene can be isolated using restriction enzymes to cut DNA into fragments and gel electrophoresis to separate them out according to length.[48] Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can also be used to amplify up a gene segment, which can then be isolated through gel electrophoresis.[49] If the chosen gene or the donor organism's genome has been well studied it may be present in a genetic library. If the DNA sequence is known, but no copies of the gene are available, it can be artificially synthesized.[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Process
CaMV Type VI is a PROMOTER (just a RANDOM PART of the NATURAL CaMV virus) which is combined with YET ANOTHER organism and INJECTED INTO THE NUCLEI OF PLANT'S CELLS.
to say that this does not happen in nature is more than a bit of an understatement.
also please check the section in bold at the end of this post!
a short course-
CaMV is a promoter-
What is a 'promoter'?
A 'promoter' is a stretch of genetic material that acts as a switch for turning genes on. Every gene needs its own promoter. But the promoter is not a simple switch like that for an electric light, which has only two positions, either fully on or fully off. Instead, the gene promoter has many different parts or modules that act as sensors, to enable it to respond, in ways we do not yet fully understand, to signals from other genes and from the environment. These signals tell it when and where to switch on, by how much and for how long. And under certain circumstances, the promoter may be silenced, so that it is off all the time.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/story.htm
for things such as-
Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops
www.pnas.org/content/103/35/13010.full
by T Funke - 2006 - Cited by 64 - Related articles
Aug 29, 2006 – Roundup Ready plants carry the gene coding for a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, obtained from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4.
AND
Bt-Corn: What It Is and How It Works | University of Kentucky ...
www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp
Jan 22, 2013 – In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a ...
AND
LibertyLink (gene)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
LibertyLink is a Bayer owned brand of genes for use in agriculture providing tolerance to ignite herbicide and glufosinate (a.k.a. Liberty or Basta). The genes were developed by Bayer CropScience. LibertyLink is the only herbicide tolerant gene other than Roundup Ready on the market. Also, LibertyLink provides an herbicide resistance system that is still effective in the presence of glyphosate resistant weeds.[1] The gene which gives resistance to glufosinate is a bar or pat gene which was first isolated from two species of Streptomyces bacteria. Glufosinate was included in a biocide ban proposed by the Swedish Chemicals Agency [2] and approved by the European Parliament on January 13, 2009.[3]
Streptomyces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Streptomyces is the largest genus of Actinobacteria and the type genus of the family Streptomycetaceae.[1] Over 500 species of Streptomyces bacteria have been described.[2] As with the other Actinobacteria, streptomycetes are Gram-positive, and have genomes with high GC content.[3] Found predominantly in soil and decaying vegetation, most streptomycetes produce spores, and are noted for their distinct "earthy" odor that results from production of a volatile metabolite, geosmin.
***
Abstract
To search for strong promoters that confer constitutive expression of transgenes, we evaluated the
prornoters of an Arabidopsis tryptophan synthase protein ~ subunit gene (PTSB1) and a phytochrome B
gene (PPHYB) as alternatives to the 35S RNA promoter (P35S) of Caullflower mosaic virus.
Characteristics of the Soybean chrolotic mottle virus promoter (PNCR) were also studied for
comparison.
http://www.kazusa.or.jp/ja/plant/jspcmb/PlantBiotech/PBpdf/PB19-1_PDF/PB19A019.PDF
The regulatory elements of CaMV have been used since the
1980s to express novel genes in plants;2 specifically, the 35S promoter
(P35S) and terminator are widely used in research and
plant biotechnology.3,4 The P35S is a strong constitutive promoter,
generating high levels of gene expression in dicotyledonous
plants. Of the 86 single transgenic plant events that have
been authorised in the United States, 54 contain one or more
copies of the CaMV P35S.5
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0020R.pdf
Abstract:
Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications. The genetic organization of the densely packed genome of this virus results in sequence overlap between P35S and viral gene VI, encoding the multifunctional P6 protein. The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants.
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/21406/?show_full_text=true
***
The CaMV promoter - a recipe for disaster?
THIS was the title of a scientific paper co-authored by myself and my colleagues, Angela Ryan from the Open University UK and Prof. Joe Cummins from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and submitted to the journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease last October. The journal-s Editor, Prof. Tore Midtvedt, a distinguished medical microbial ecologist working in the Karolinska Institute of Sweden, promptly posted our paper on the journal's website before publication and put out a press release. Within two days, someone managed to solicit at least nine critiques, including one from Monsanto, which were posted on a website funded by the biotech industry and widely circulated on the Internet. The critiques varied in tone from the moderately polite to the ill-mannered.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/story.htm
here's the best list of seeds/plants to avoid this planting season, and lots of other stuff
"As a person that used to be involved in brokering deals like this, I can tell you that Monsanto wants to be front and center."
http://horticulturetalk.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/who-owns-who-where-and-how-monsanto-has-their-sticky-little-fingers-in-the-home-garden-seed-industry-3/
***
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/New-Mexico-GMO-labeling-bill-heads-for-state-legislature
***
It has been estimated that upwards of seventy percent of processed foods in the US today - from soda to soup, crackers to condiments - contain genetically engineered ingredients.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/are-un-labeled-geneticall_b_2433223.html
***
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/
***
What is of greater concern is that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) that should be looking into GM labeling have kept quiet for most part. In an RTI response, filed by Greenpeace, the FSSAI under the Ministry of Health and family welfare, which is the nodal agency for labeling of GM food, had said that it is not looking after the labeling of GM food. In its response letter it was said that Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which is the nodal agency for any environmental release of GM crops, is responsible. And the GEAC in a RTI response at about the same period said the opposite, putting FSSAI as the agency in charge of labeling rules. (hmm....)
http://www.cseindia.org/node/4388
***
However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
Do not increase yield potential
Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
Have mixed economic effects
Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58
***
“The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland,” Sawicki told reporters, adding that pollen of this strain could have a harmful effect on bees.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/04/poland-to-ban-monsantos-genetically-modified-maize/
***
big one-
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf
plot this?
Please show me a "murder rate" vs "gun possession" correlation plot. I'm interested to see it and open for what ever it shows.the article is about the complexities of data. but just look at the top 5 and bottom 5.
there's obviously something there...
20 Deadliest Gun States
Jan 10, 2011 8:13 PM EST
You're five times more likely to die from a gun in Arizona than Hawaii. In the wake of the Giffords massacre, The Daily Beast ranks which states have the worst record of gun fatalities.
"...But advocates for gun laws argue that restrictions prevent suicides, gun trafficking and domestic violence. A study commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns last year concluded that the states with the most lenient gun laws are responsible for the guns used in crimes across state lines at much higher rate than states with strict laws, concluding that "certain gun laws are an important component in reducing criminal access to firearms."..."
"Given the complexities involved in gun regulation and violence, The Daily Beast sought to determine which states are the most dangerous when it comes to firearms. Our methodology was simple: Rather than measure the number of guns, we measured the measure of gun deaths per capita in each state, using the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That counted for 75 percent of the ranking. The other 25 percent was derived from the Legal Community Against Violence's state-by-state comparison of firearm laws, which ranks all 50 states by their relatively severity, incorporating everything from policies on mental-health background checks to whether loaded guns are allowed in bars."
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50
#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50
#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
---
#46, New Jersey
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.2
Permissive gun laws: 49th out of 50
#47, Connecticut
Gun deaths per 100,000: 4.3
Permissive gun laws: 46th out of 50
#48, Rhode Island
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.5
Permissive gun laws: 42nd out of 50
#49, Massachusetts
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6
Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50
#50, Hawaii
Gun deaths per 100,000: 2.8
Permissive gun laws: 47th out of 50
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html
John McCain Receives The Most Lavish NRA Donations - addicting info dot org - well, gollleee!
so i went to look up this bob barr 'fellow' (he's apparently a whipped-cream licker 
), and wiki seems to say he was ON THE BOARD of the NRA..at the SAME TIME he was in the House. period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr
footnotes (6,7) and footnote 84 under Political Associations, so 2001-2003...um...
do i need to get my eyes checked? 
but that's just an aside.
to wit!
from link below:
there appears to be one letter of the alphabet slightly over-represented in the above chart... 
15 (i think) states. only 2 swing states (right?)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/17/john-mccain-receives-the-most-lavish-nra-donations/
2012/12/17
about 1/2 way down-
"More from from McCain’s 2008 Senate campaign website:
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry. McCain says, “Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal.”
Translation: McCain wasn’t even trying to hide that he is for protecting gun manufacturers, not gun-owning individuals, here."
***skip 1 ¶
"Here’s a good example of McCain sucking up to Big Gun (Todd S. Purdum quotes McCain in an article for The New York Times, Aug 17, 1999):
If you want to take every gun in and dump it in the ocean, I’ll still take you to a Web site where it teaches children how to build a pipe bomb. And I’ll take you to a Web site where the worst kind of hate language that is terribly offensive to all of us exists. I can take you to a video game being sold to our children where the object of the game is to kill police. I understand the importance of weapons, but to define that as being the major cause [of youth violence], there’s a whole lot of causes.
Translation: “Why don’t we ban cars / knives / bombs / blunt objects, because they can hurt or kill people, too,” “Free speech that includes hateful things we don’t like is to blame, not guns” and “Gun violence is due to pop culture / scary web sites / video games / TV / movies / society / comic books / horror novels / music / musicians / Goths / single moms — not guns”: a trifecta!" 
***
near the end-
"McCain has also voted for allowing weapons in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, against background checks at gun shows, for loosening license & background checks at gun shows, for maintaining current gun sale laws (in other words, not requiring guns be sold with mandatory trigger locks), against another gun registration / trigger lock law specifically restricted to Washington, D.C., and for allowing firearms in National Parks.
If we are going to have serious discussions about gun violence in this country, we need to separate the interests of gun manufacturers (the group the NRA really supports) from responsible gun owners, we need to get serious about sensible restrictions on the types of weaponry and ammunition civilians are allowed to buy, own, and use, and hold politicians like John McCain accountable for his voting record–good and bad–on gun control, gun registration, gun show background checks, waiting periods, “concealed carry” / transport of weapons and other ammunition-, body armor- and gun-related legislation."
***
last line - "We can do better than this."
awesome!
very cool, bill. what are your interests? besides the truth? i'm a farmer.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.calling all gun trolls!
who want to argue with the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT!!!!
the trap is sprung, good luck. remember SCALIA wrote this, not me
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"
so what were you saying about your guns again?
Please sign this petition on the White House site to sensibly reform gun laws, and pass it around.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/increase-discussion-regulation-and-taxation-assault-weapons-using-article-2section-3-constitution/JZKxN37Jso if this gets 25,000 signatures in a month, they have to discuss it at a white house policy meeting and decide who replies to it.
since article 2,sec 3 means obama, maybe he'll actually say something..
worth a try. thats the whole thing below.
we petition the obama administration to:
Increase the Discussion, Regulation and Taxation of assault weapons by using Article 2,Section 3 of the Constitution
to convene a Special Commission of 51 Senators to create legislation to:
1. collect a 25% tax on all new gun purchases, used for improving our nation's mental health screening and care.
2. change firearm laws to be similar to automobile laws, requiring titles, training, testing, insurance, and inspection for guns, and declare guns with clips holding 7 or more bullets to be assault style.
3. create an internet forum for citizens to participate in a rational discussion of the epidemic of gun violence, and begin to reduce the influence of pro-gun lobbies.
While gun ownership is a right, the word right means both "a just claim or title" and "adherence to moral and legal principles and authority." There are more guns than cars in America, and the amount of laws should reflect that.
Created: Dec 17, 2012
Issues: Consumer Protections, Firearms, Health Care
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:27 PMNumber of posts: 2,117