Posted on Sep 24, 2010
Interest
on Apr 3, 2010
Stumblers Who Commented On This Page
Phayder92889
Ichmael
From the page: if there's one thing you really don't want your poison to be, it's "notoriously aggressive." And if there's one place you absolutely do not want your "notoriously aggressive poison" to be, it's "everywhere."
Posted on May 31, 2010
verrin
verrin
This article gives a pretty negative spin on genetic engineering to the point of hyperbole. This is what we need, fear mongering to the uneducated masses about something that isn't as terrifying as this article makes it out to be. There's a stark difference between peddling this as the end of the world and having a healthy skepticism about the topic. Lets just ignore all the positive things we've accomplished in this field, and burn these geneticists at the stake, yes?
Posted on May 17, 2010
SketchSepahi
Heini
Well, even if it wouldn't have killed absolutely everything it still seems like a sub-par idea to just release it into the wild. I thought it was humorous even if it might not be entirely as horrifying as it's made out to be.
Posted on Apr 30, 2010
luridlollypops
Stacy
As I read this article on how the world was almost killed off by a plant bacteria my skeptic alarms were going crazy, and then I read this: www.botanischergarten.ch/debate/InghamRebuttal.pdf and found out that the lady who supposedly saved the world was just a big liar with her pants all on fire.
For shame, Cracked, for shame.
Posted on Apr 9, 2010
e271828
e271828
Brockway thinks that a single organism can destroy a worldwide ecosystem that has been constantly adapting and improving itself for 2,500,000,000 years.
What he doesn't mention is that it can only do that when it is better adapted to the environment than everything else. And this organism simply isn't. In fact, a bacterium that kills its host will not survive for long. This is why non-lethal diseases are much more common than deadly ones - the deadly diseases can't infect enough people before the host dies off. In fact, they can often only survive by infecting another species, for which it isn't lethal.
But don't listen to me, listen to Martin Mieschendahl, a geneticist / biochemist who works for the German Federal Environmental Agency:
The recombinant strain SDF20 had no improved environmental fitness.
As Fig. 1 of the publication shows, the survival in soil of the
recombinant strain SDF20 is even worse compared to the
non-recombinant parental strain SDF15. Both strain level off after 8
weeks at approximately 100 cells g-1 what (citation from the handout)
"is normal for populations existing in soil".
The publication in Applied Soil Ecology only describes experiments
performed in low organic matter, sandy soil. The handouts, on the
other side, also mention experiments performed in soil amended for
their organic matter by the introduction of peat. In these
experiments no killing of what seedlings by SDF20 was observed.
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Feb/msg00121.html
Posted on Apr 4, 2010
ekdor
brook
I want to favourite this, give it the thumbs up. But it feels so wrong, the article is horrifying but needs to be said. But the article being placed where it is, despite the authors claim of sincerity makes me uncertain about its validity. Is it humour or is it horrifying truth on a web site known for it's humour?
I must say it's a good promotion for the book. Article is still a good read and at least demonstrates a real point.
Posted on Apr 3, 2010
neil15482
neil15482
my thoughts exactly: "a bacterium that kills its host will not survive for long"