[ekianjo]

Reasons for anti-nuclear and anti-GMO? You must be kidding. GMOs enable crops to grow in areas with much less water and reduce the use of pesticides and insecticides. Nuclear (even more so the newer form of it) is the safest form of energy production despite the complete paranoia about it in the public. And if you care about climate change, nuclear is certain a strong option to consider to reduce CO2 emissions drastically.

[code_duck]

By far, the largest use of GMOs in the United States is to allow more use of Roundup.

[jlavine]

I hate to sound like a shill for an evil company, but I've read that even Roundup-Ready crops have an environmental advantage in allowing greater use of low- and no-till methods on industrial farms, which sufficiently reduces erosion of soil (with all the fertilizer that causes algae blooms and other problems) into public waterways. I was stunned to read that a majority of US industrial farms - not only permaculture hippies - now employ such methods.

[code_duck]

Where did you read this and how does greater herbicide use enable that?

I’d question, is it a net win for the environment and workers?

[jlavine]

I don't have a record of exactly where I read this - it was years ago - but you can find many articles explaining the claim in a similar way by googling "roundup" and "no till". Here are some articles summarizing the pros and cons: - http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ - https://pha.berkeley.edu/2014/03/02/monsanto-corporationroun... - http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

The general concept is that tilling/plowing is used to mow over weeds, and killing weeds with chemicals is an alternative.

Your question is a good one. I don't know the answer. The articles listed above describe the environmental and health downsides.

A distinct problem - also described in these articles - that may spell doom for Roundup-Ready crops is the emergence of resistant weeds.

There are alternatives to industrial-scale weed control outside of tilling and herbicides. One way is to grow cover crops in the "off season", then cut them and leave them in a thick mat that starves weeds of sun while also gradually rotting and fertilizing the soil, then cut little holes in this mat where you plant seeds. The USDA NRCS promotes methods like this largely through educational programs. Farmers adopt them because they ultimately save costs on herbicides and fertilizer.

Who knows maybe in a few decades we'll produce all food through some industrial process resembling hydroponics, with energy from Nuclear Fusion replacing sunlight, and weeds will be a distant memory.

[jussij]

Another reason GMO is pushed by multi-nationals is because it helps the company take power away from the farmer.

Those GMO seeds are covered by Intellectual Property Law and that power lets the company controls every aspect of how that seed is used by the farmer.

And when the farmer resists it end up in court.

[ekianjo]

Do you have any source for that?

[code_duck]

Sure, the traits are typically insect tolerance and herbicide tolerance. I guess I’m giving BT short shrift. Many crops have both traits.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetical...

Upwards of 90% of all major crops (corn, soy, cotton, beets) have BT, HT or both. Other GMO crops and traits are dwarfed by scale of this mass cultivation.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/47649/alltables.x...

Notice that traits like drought resistance don’t come up at all.

[PopeDotNinja]

I'm anti-nuclear waste. Get politicians on board with owning the disposal and I'd have no issues with it.

[godzillabrennus]

http://deepisolation.com has a solution for the waste.

[anonymous5133]

That's not really a solution. The problem with nuclear is the risk of a meltdown and risk of radioactive release. Both risks must absolutely be reduced to 0% chance of occurring. In other words, reactors need to be created such that it is virtually impossible for a meltdown to occur. Likewise, the reactor needs to eliminate all radioactive waste from even being created or to confine it permanently at the site of creation.

If we are using existing reactor technology then basically these nuclear plants would basically have to built thousands of feet below ground in some sort of solid rock area and then waste areas would need to be created such that it can contain the waste for hundreds of thousands of years. If an absolute disaster were to occur then the entire underground facility would need to basically be completely sealed off permanently before radioactive dust or materials are leaked. The facility would also need to be designed such that even if a disaster occurs that an underground nuclear explosion does not occur and if it does occur that it is not so massive that it somehow bursts out to the surface or creates fissures.

Currently I am anti-nuclear based on the existing way things are run but if nuclear is implemented correctly, with safety as the most important priority, then I would support it. If I recall correctly, there is a company funded by Bill Gates that is creating micro reactors. That might have potential in the underground nuclear facility I have.

[knodi123]

There's no shortage of acceptable solutions. The challenge is getting politicians on board.

[skrebbel]

Care to explain the solution? I tried to read the website but they don't say. (!)

[tzs]

You are implicitly assuming that either it is not possible to use GMO to produce something harmful that would not be impossible or much harder to produce without GMO, or that if it is possible then the commercial interests that decide how to apply GMO will refrain from doing so.

The first assumption is scientifically incorrect. GMO is just another tool for altering organisms. Whether those alterations are good or bad depends on how the tool is used. It does allow a wider range of alterations than traditional techniques, and is faster, so enlarged both the set of good alterations possible and the set of bad alterations possible.

History, or a trip to the grocery store, suggests that the second assumption is questionable.

As Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility. GMO is great power, but will the people who wield that power do so responsibly? That is not a science question.