China Third Country To Be Hit By 'Brown Tide' 129
ananyo writes "The species of alga that causes 'brown tides' in the United States and South Africa is also to blame for massive blooms along China's east coast on the Bohai Sea, researchers have found. The finding could be the first step to tackling the problem. It is the fourth consecutive year the country has been hit by the bloom (Slashdot's story on the 2010 bloom), with the situation worsening each time the bloom returns."
history repats itself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As long as we don't have the white froth...
Re:history repats itself (Score:5, Funny)
Not a Santorum campaigner, I presume?
Re:history repats itself (Score:5, Funny)
First the red flood, now the brown tide...
Both are different algae species and/or the bacteria that accompany the algae decay so its not all that surprising.
A surprise would be something totally different, like getting hit with "Tide with bleach alternative" or "2X Ultra Tide"
Re:history repats itself (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:history repats itself (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like you're describing a movement made by a woman....
Re: (Score:2)
next, the golden shower ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Brown Tide in Corpus Christi, TX (Score:1)
We had ongoing brown tide in Corpus Christi, TX. Lots of research was done. Run off from King Ranch, Chemical Industries, and city waste were all looked at. As I recall, the water had too much fertilizer in it (nitrates, phosphates).
By the way, if you are having problems with Geese pooping all over your lawn - stop fertilizing. That gets rid of another brown tide.
Sorry! (Score:3, Funny)
It's my fault; beer, pizza, and tacos when one has cholera is not advised. Sorry :(
Nature healing itself (Score:1, Interesting)
It's nature healing itself.
PH levels in the sea are rising. This a result of it. Let this bloom grow and it will eventually come in contact with a different PH level current or sea or ocean and disperse and die - the end result is a normal ph level.
Re:Nature healing itself (Score:5, Informative)
It's nature healing itself.
PH levels in the sea are rising. This a result of it. Let this bloom grow and it will eventually come in contact with a different PH level current or sea or ocean and disperse and die - the end result is a normal ph level.
No, the pH (note the way it's typed - stands for 'negative log of the Hydrogen ion concentration') is DROPPING (becoming more acid - look it up).
"Nature" doesn't 'heal itself'. It goes along working against entropy. Whether or not that happens to help humans is another issue.
And while you're hanging out on Wikipedia learning about acid - base reactions and buffers, check on the articles about ocean circulations and gyres.
Baltic Sea still the worst? (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3007228.stm [bbc.co.uk]
'Half of the fish species in the Baltic are at levels below the critical biological level, while pregnant Swedish women are being warned not to eat herring - a staple diet - because of dioxins. There is little dispute that St Petersburg - Russia's second-biggest city - is the Baltic's single biggest polluter, and behind many of the problems.'
http://www.euronews.com/2010/02/10/baltic-nations-take-action-on-sea-pollution/ [euronews.com]
'Northern European nations have been discussing pollution in the Baltic Sea at a conference in Finland. The Baltic is considered one of the most polluted waterways in the world. [...] “Today some of the richest and most environmentally-conscious countries on earth live on the shore of one of the world’s most polluted seas. What a tragedy. It is clear that something has to be done and quickly.” [...] “Today we are also facing a historic international challenge, which I would like to point to as as the issue of chemical and conventional weapons dumped into the Baltic Sea.” [...] Almost enclosed, very shallow, and fed by numerous rivers, the Baltic is a vulnerable sea. 90 million people live around its shores, many of them depending on the sea in some way or other for their livelihoods, but waste from industry, agriculture and daily life ends up in the sea. One of the biggest resulting dangers is too much algae. Excess growth of it robs the water of oxygen suffocating other species.'
etc.
Maybe the Chinese still can change this tide, err, that brown tide.
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK YOU.
I want oil for my Hemmi.
seas getting polluted isn't about your hemi. it's about shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally. You might want to specify that...
Re: (Score:2)
You know those moments where you say something you think is funny, and everyone just stares at you instead (in shock or utter disbelief)?
This is one of those moments.
Not about KFC (Score:2)
I initially assumed this was about indigestion caused by all the fast food restaurants opening up in Shanghai.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/mcdonald-s-no-match-for-kfc-in-china-where-colonel-sanders-rules-fast-food.html [bloomberg.com]
Did we jumped planet while I slept? (Score:5, Funny)
-- Lady Deirdre Skye, "Planet Dreams"
Re: (Score:2)
What does a transforming cassette-tape ornithoid have to do with algae?
Re: (Score:2)
Even Decepticons need a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
If I hadn't posted already you'd get mod points.
Re:Did we jumped planet while I slept? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked"
Man, this is tough (Score:1)
I have to decide whether to go with a scatological or racist joke. Hmm...
Okay, how about, "Sorry, took me a few flushes to get that one down."
Long term effects? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You end up with seacoasts covered in dead fish. The local birds are often fairly happy for a week or so, but since it's a one-time or only rarely and irregularly repeated thing there's no significant long term effect that I'm aware of.
It probably also kills any corals and sponges in the area, so depending on how fully killed the reefs are you lose reef protection, resulting in stronger storm surges and faster beach erosion.
Mind Worms! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh.
Except that the "Gaians" around here are pretty much 100% in the tank for a Planned system.
So, we can't scoop the stuff up? (Score:2)
And make bio diesel out of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Just as soon as we produce enough biodiesel to power the ships that'll do all the scooping...
In all seriousness, the people researching biodiesel aren't going to have any use for just any algae out there.
I thought we'd already figured this out (Score:1)
What My Opponent Will Say Is Easily Dismissed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes that's the only way to have a debate. Particularly when your opponents are to cowardly to come out and back their position when it doesn't suit them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, these "anti-GM-anything-full-stop" morons are all over, and grandparent hasn't inaccurately characterized them.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's being a Luddite to be concerned with the safety of something that is engineered, whether it be organic or a high-speed train.
Especially since in the U.S. there has been an awful lot of lobbying aimed to MAKE SURE that extensive long-term tests don't have to happen before these products go to market.
Even regular hybridization can occasionally cause bad side-effects and we've even seen this lately.
Being skeptical and wanting more information is scientific, not being a Luddite.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't think it's being a Luddite to be concerned with the safety of something that is engineered,"
There's being concerned the proper tests have been done and then there's dismissing something based on nothing more than dogma. Greenpeace et al are firmly in the latter category.
"Even regular hybridization can occasionally cause bad side-effects and we've even seen this lately."
Life isn't risk free, you mitigate as much as you can. You're just using the standard issue "It went bad once so never use it again" luddite argument. Sorry, but if everyone thought like that we'd still be living in mud huts and riding around on horses. ... Actually no , we'd be walking , because someone once fell off a horse and hurt themselves , best stay away from the dangerous beasts.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:5, Informative)
There's a fascinating story with Greenpeace and GM corn. The folks making the GM corn did a study where they got both their GM corn and conventional corn that was as similar as possible, and then fed both to lab rats. They weighed the rats every week, then took the rats apart after a while and assayed ... everything. Organ sizes, weights, chemistries, etc. They concluded that there were no significant differences.
Greenpeace sued to get the raw data, something I think they have a right to (since that study was used as the basis for approval). They got some folks (grad students in Germany, I think) to do their own statistics, which concluded that GM corn caused a statistically significant increase in growth rate for male rats and a statistically significant decrease for female rats. I looked at what they did, and it turns out they made a sophomoric statistics error that I teach, well, sophomore undergrads not to make.
What they did, essentially, was to neglect the fact that limited-sample-size uncertainties in "weight of rat at 6 weeks" and "weight of rat at 7 weeks" are correlated when they tested for statistical significance. Of course they're correlated -- they're the same damned rats! (In technical language, they calculated chi-squared based on the naive standard-errors-of-the-mean, rather than on the full covariance matrix which is required for [strongly] correlated data.)
If Greenpeace can't even get undergrad stats right in one of the cases where they *have* shown their work (and it's wrong) then I see no reason to give them any credibility unless someone who's better at this than they are checks their work.
Re: (Score:3)
> Greenpeace sued to get the raw data, something I think they have a right to (since that study was used as the basis for approval).
And that's where the problem starts. Greenpeace may be well meaning, but they usually can't deal with data. And this inability is based on dogma, because data is seen as something "evil corporations" use to boost their profit (which they do, to be honest).
Working with data is not easy, and doing it from a dogmatic perspective (whether as a company or at Greenpeace) is never
Re: (Score:3)
I dismiss GM foods because of the commercial interests and their behavior in the past and present. Controlling the food supply of the planet is inhuman and leads to inhuman behavior. Consider the ramifications of controlling the water supply or air supply. The results are much more terrifying but they are all quite necessary for survival and limiting and controlling the means of survival is where I draw certain lines.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial food interests may be greedy and evil but GM food should be evaluated on its own merits.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and let's not forget the other side-effects.... super-bugs.
We don't seem to be learning our lessons in nature and biology do we? We introduce foreign plant and animal life to help cure some form of pest or another and the next thing you know, the whole eco system is messed up and you're up to your arm-pits in frogs. And what of the over-use of anti-biotics? Heard any MRSA horror stories lately? Heard of anyone infected by one of those and end up losing arms, legs and more? I have... lots. With bi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. But..
The invention of fertilizer allowed 6 billion people to be fed.
GM is what will allow us to continue feeding the planet as the population grows.
So if you're against it, I assume you will do your part, and restrict your eating (especially meat), and get a vasectomy to prevent yourself from contributing to the population problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The invention of fertilizer allowed 6 billion people to be fed.
GM is what will allow us to continue feeding the planet as the population grows.
Well done to the people who invented fertiliser, and good luck to the genetic engineers. But it is, as we say in Dutch, mopping with the tap still running. Every time we engineer ourselves out of trouble, we procreate ourselves right back in*. At some point we'll have to figure out a way to limit the growth. We can then use our technology to improve quality rather than quantity. I'd have healthier, tastier, more varied and robust GM crops rather than just more of them and a larger population.
* Question: How
Re: (Score:2)
Population growth needs control, not more feeding. Let's not get too much into that because you can't talk about the facts without being "racist." Screw that. But I am happy with my reasonable quota of children. I don't need a vasectomy to control birth. Thanks for the insult though.
GM is NOT necessary. There is such a thing as "acceptable losses" when dealing with crops. Freezes and bugs and all sorts of things simply happen and it's a fact of nature. GM foods is about reducing those "productions p
Re: (Score:2)
air supply
You know what? I can't fight this feeling any more. It makes me feel like screaming.
I'm all out of love for these GM companies. Ain't it a shame that a few powerful people will call all the shots?
If it was up to them, they would stop the rain. Mother said, "hopefully this is the end of the line for them". I hope it's not too late.
Re: (Score:2)
...indeed. They would stop the rain to create scarcity so they can raise their profits. It's capitalism.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's true that there's theoretical ways that either of them could hurt you, but most people who are afraid don't understand much about either topic. It's rare to find someone who even understands how regulators test that GMOs are safe for human consumption, and if you ask them how the testing process should be improved, they can't answer. Then if you ask them to do a cost/benefit analysis for GMO crops, they just stare at you like lost rabbits.
Another similar topic is irradiated food. Blanket fear of radiation.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The situation with GM crops almost sounds like it is coming right out of a James Bond story. My problems with GM crops isn't that I believe they are inherently safe. Heck, I would love to be able to buy strawberries that were deliciously sweet, the size of a watermelon, and stayed fresh for a month without refrigeration. My problem with GM crops is that in our legal climate, I don't trust corporations not to manipulate food availability to increase profits. I also would not put it past them to engineer the food to induce greater consumption.
It isn't the scientific issues that worry me. It is the legal ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, your worry about monoculture, which can be serious, is not related to GMO. It has been a problem long before GMO crops.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure your worries are any more realistic than anyone else's. Imagine some company tried to control the food market. Then all the farmers would have to use seeds from 20 years ago. How bad would that really be?
Then that company (*cough*Monsanto*cough*) would do what they usually do: pay someone under the table to fling a few GM seeds into the farmers' fields, and then sue the farmers into oblivion. So, to answer your question, it'd be pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, a good scientist attacks his own theories, have you tried that? A good scientist does not use data the was a drunk man uses a light post, for support rather than illumination. Don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The likelihood of Monsanto eventually using the money making tactic of implementing GURT should be compared to the likelihood of Comcast implementing faster connections to web sites that pay them not to throttle their users. Not to a me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who oppose GMO don't understand the issues, they fear things like 'chemicals.' Conspiracy theories appeal to those who are more familiar with how Hollywood works than how the world works. It is not surprising that you come up with amusing scenarios where a single company holds the world ransom for $100 billion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another similar topic is irradiated food. Blanket fear of radiation.
Oh really? Russian scientists from the 1970s disagree with you. Something about it reducing the nutrient value of the food over 50% while turning "healthy" fats into "unhealthy" fats...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is research going on to allow various wheat and barley strains to fix their own nitrogen by implanting genes from peas and beans. If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops.
Unfortunately as usual the greenpeace and anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites are against it because ... well I've no idea really , best ask them. Perhaps they think nitrate poisoning of the sea is better than putting pea genes in a grass.
Yeah, that or maybe they think GM wheat and barley will be as much of a disaster as GM corn has been. We should do neither...
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, that or maybe they think GM wheat and barley will be as much of a disaster as GM corn has been. We should do neither..."
Fine. Whats your solution then? A nobel prize awaits you...
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
GM corn has been a disaster?
Now, Monsanto's lawyers in combination with patent law have been a disaster -- I'll grant you that. But the technology itself is safe (see above, and see the safety tests on Bacillus thuringensis bacteria themselves, which farmers used to put directly on their corn) and has prevented tons and tons of insecticide from being sprayed on crops.
I was a field hand in a study of Bt cotton vs. conventional cotton. The instructions to farmers were "farm both of these like you normally would, and ignore us -- we're going to come in and count bugs once in a while". The conventional field was a wasteland, since farmers had to spray to kill caterpillars, and then spray again to kill all the things that the predators who're now dead would have eaten.
The Bt field had bugs (and other insects, but mostly bugs) all over it, happily eating each other and eating pests -- especially aphids. Aphids are a notable critter here, since they're resistant to most insecticides but are a tasty snack for all sorts of predators.
Re: (Score:1)
Organic works, but only if everyone substantially reduces their food intake and wastage. The issue isn't so much that there isn't room, it's that third world countries like the UK and America eat more than they should and waste enough for a small family - not claiming I'm a saint at all, mind.
We're also in big time need of a population cull, I'm all for reversible sterilisation at birth, provided you pass a basic cognitive test you can have as many kids as you want.
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
While you are at it, test for basic empathy and compassion too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you have heard the popular saying, "if you take away legal guns, only criminals will have guns", now imagine only criminals and most backward countries are having children...
Is what you picture good for the human race or the planet?
Re: (Score:1)
provided you pass a basic cognitive test you can ...
There are cheaper and more effective ways to implement a survival of the fittest policy.
False dichotomy (Score:1)
"If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops."
Well if the plant fixes the nitrogen instead, how are we using less nitrogen, and thus fixing the algae problem?? The only way that can be true is if the plant fixes *just* enough and no more nitrogen than it needs, making it more *efficient*. However the most likely outcome is that the GM crowd make one that over-fixes nitrogen because underfixing is a fail, and there's no evolutionary dr
Re: (Score:2)
"More efficient use" means "hey, instead of spewing nitrates all over the place, let's let the plants make their own right where they need it". There's basically no scenario where giving plants the ability to fix their own nitrogen will result in more wastage than the current strategy of "mix the stuff up with the dirt".
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not entirely convinced that the other poster's conclusion (that wider use of genetically modified crops would therefore reduce the incidence of harmful algal bloom) is necessarily correct, but I think I understand, at l
Re:GM crops are partially the answer (Score:5, Informative)
Because nobody has any idea about the long term implications of using GMOs, or what might be going wrong. They make them, decree they're safe, and then say unless there's evidence to the contrary, they must be.
GMO crops can affect biodiversity, and in the case of Monsanto pollute other people's fields even when they aren't using it, and when it's sent for food aid the recipients are told they can't keep seed to plant next year because they're not "licensed" to grow corn.
It's the law of unintended consequences, really. Except that people take the default position of "what could possibly go wrong?", until something does.
If you think people are against GMO food because they're luddites, then you're an idiot.
People are against it because there's no evidence it's safe either, and there's a lot that can go wrong with it. In fact, there's loads of examples where it has.
Genetically modified pigs have ended up in the food supply [mindfully.org] and contaminated crops [guardian.co.uk].
It's like pharmaceuticals. The company who makes it has a vested interest in selling it, so if they take a few shortcuts, or leave out the evidence they don't like, or outright fabricate their evidence -- well, then we don't really know what we're getting, do we?
I'm far from a luddite, but I see an awful lot to suggest that people are doing this, doing a piss poor job of actually keeping tabs on it, and not always being up front about it when it goes wrong. With some things (say, thalidomide) you only discover the disastrous consequences after literally years.
Feel free to exercise your choice to eat those things. Me, I'd prefer to avoid it. There's just too many accidents and questions that I'm not convinced there are good enough answers yet.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"If you think people are against GMO food because they're luddites, then you're an idiot."
No, they're against it because its big scaring biotech and people are always against stuff they don't have a clue about.
"People are against it because there's no evidence it's safe either,"
Oh puh-lease! The attempting to prove a negative straw man argument. Let me guess - you want to keep testing until someone or something falls ill? No? But if no one falls ill how long do you wait until you think its safe? 1 year, 10
Re: (Score:3)
A) he was pointing out you're ;logical fallacy.
B) You're reason are made up crap and don't reflect the real world at all.
C) Ah, another ad hom by you. That's what? 3? Plus your strawman. Not going well for you, is it?
D) You have eaten GM foods. Just so you know.
BY opinion is based on the evidences I have read in studies and talking to people in the field. Could new data change things? yes. Is it likely at this point? no.
You know why people like you irritate me? Because in the 70's there was a new pesticide
Re: (Score:2)
"You can neither prove something is safe nor dangerous "
You can't prove something is dangerous? Seriously, is that your argument??? Man , you really need to get yourself an education.
Tell you what, if you seriously believe that go eat some cyanide. I mean its only been 100% fatal to everyone who's ever done it but that doesn't prove its dangerous in the slightest does it? Get back to me with your results though you might have to wait until I've bought a wigi board.
"So why don't you go back to swapping genes
Re: (Score:2)
GM crops are tested for safety, no other crop is.
"If you think people are against GMO food because they're luddites"
well, what else do you call people who don't understand the technology, don't understand the testing, haven't read any actual good study, but still don't want it done? It seems Luddites is accurate.
"People are against it because there's no evidence it's safe either,"
you mean besides millions and million of people eating every day without problem? besides the testing?
So what if genetically modi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is research going on to allow various wheat and barley strains to fix their own nitrogen by implanting genes from peas and beans. If these are used in agriculture substantially less nitrogen fertilizer will be required on farms growing these crops.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that nitrogen fixating plants leak nitrogen into the soil and therefore eventually into the water. Just like nitrogen fertilizer, except you cannot easily control the amount being fixated.
But then again, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't need to go on a rant against Greenpeace and "anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites".
Re: (Score:1)
And if you knew anything about algea, you would know that nitrogen DOES NOT cause blooms.
Re: (Score:2)
"But then again, if you knew what you were talking about,"
If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that leakage is a DAMN site less than the amount caused by fertlizer runoff plus it tends to stay locked in the soil. Ever heard of run off from legume farms? No, you won't have. Now back under your bridge you pathetic troll.
Re: (Score:1)
We do not grow legume in Denmark, but we do grow peas, and there is run-off off from those.
Your name calling is pretty pathetic even for Slashdot. Go take lessons in how to insult people, or at least learn how to spell.
Re: (Score:2)
"or at least learn how to spell."
If you're going to tell a native english speaker how to spell when its not your native language then I would suggest you make sure your english is perfect first starting with your grammer. It's "we do not grow legumeS". Plural. "Go AND take lessons".
And I don't believe you about the run off. Post a link.
Re: (Score:2)
"The correct flame would be "peas ARE legumes"."
Wow, you're flaming yourself. Thats impressive.
"And really, "its" and "grammer" in a grammar flame"
You're the one who used the tired old attack on spelling instead of a cogent argument, not me. I really don't care if I make a few mistakes but if you're going to have a go at people about it you really need to get it 100% correct yourself. And I'm really not going to take english lessons from someone who speaks a language that sounds like you're trying to throw
Re: (Score:2)
Some 20 year old student disseration? Is that it? Seriously?
Here's something to think about - given that legumes have been grown by man for thousands of years do explain why nitrate poisoning of the rivers only started after artificial fertilizers came on the scene. You'd expect that large crops of legumes would already have caused it.
Re: (Score:3)
You owe the poster an apology:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301091552.htm [sciencedaily.com]
And Green Peace turned into an 'ANTI-anything from corporations and shit we don't understand' group in the 80. AS a former member, it's saddens me to have seen the go from "How can we do thins safely" to "Don't do anything new".
Re: (Score:1)
You owe the poster an apology:
Most certainly not. Even your own link says it: "also leaves the soil enriched through the plant matter left after harvesting, creating a natural fertilizer for other crops, which is the basis for crop rotation". That is the positive spin on "puts nitrogen into the ground, where it will leak into waterways".
Organic and natural are lovely positive words, but things are not harmless just because they are natural or organic.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in a town
Re: (Score:2)
It's a management issue, not a food issue. Cut the population in half, and it won't change a thing because it's a management issue.
People where starving when we had 4 billion. Care to guess why? management issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't we look at The Problem. There are TOO FUCKING MANY PEOPLE
Right on. First shuttle to the sun will be at your place in 5; don't worry about packing anything.
Your argument can be stated identically with this statement: "There are TOO FEW RESOURCES." You can't go culling wide swaths of people or magically increasing on-hand resources. Besides, as geekoid says below, it's a matter of logistics, which is something we *can* begin to address. We can also begin to address education in family planning and increases in resource acquisition, but this is a very long-t
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately as usual the greenpeace and anti-GM rent-a-mod luddites are against it because ... well I've no idea really
So what you're saying is, you haven't paid one bit of attention to this debate over the past decade or so. Weird that you feel compelled to post about it just so say you know nothing at all about it.
Just on the off chance you have some new-found ability to learn, here are the three major reasons people are against GM foods, in order of plausibility:
1) Health and safety. This is the one that gets the most attention because only stupid people (there are a lot of them) believe it and pro-GM people find it ea
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lets blame other unpopular subject matter as the reason for an undesirable happenstance. Without any proof or facts lets connect GM crops to brown tide. There, anti-GM fanatics have another "fact" in their arsenal about why GM crops should be banned. Of course we all know that non-GM organic crops NEVER leak nutrients into the environment, they are perfect in every way. GM = bad, non-GM = good, I don't need no stinking facts!
While we are at it I also blame abortions and and increase in human rights