Meanwhile, a form of “renewable” energy around the country has been destroying homes and snuffing out lives from the very beginning with little fanfare.

The Lake Delhi dam was built in the 1920’s as a hydroelectric generating facility.   In the late 1960’s, the facility began to show its age and the operator didn’t have the capital to replace or refurbish the turbines, leading to most of the electrical generating capacity going offline in 1973.   Had the Delhi dam been a nuclear facility, the owners would have been required to have a fund set aside for its decommissioning, thus assuring that it would not be left a derelict hulk that endangers the community.

But it wasn’t nuclear, so there it sat, turbines rusting and no power being produced.   Instead, operations of the dam were turned over to the “Lake Delhi Recreational Association,” who apparently had no interest in generating electricity  and was not at all equipped to maintain or repair the dam.  The former hydroelectric dam, which held back a ten mile long lake seems to have sat under the control of the equivalent of a neighborhood association, and received little if any maintenance or inspection.

Although hydropower is a good economic and renewable source of energy, no government subsidies jumped in to repair the dam and thus several private attempts to repair the dam and put it back into service generating power went bust over the years.

Finally in 2008, it seemed that the plant would be brought back online.   It had the potential to generate electricity, but since it was not wind or solar, it took a while to get regulatory approval to even begin the refurbishment for power generation.   Yes, that’s right, the process to just get approval to begin refurbishment takes years!

By 2010, it looked like the plant was about ready to come back online.   Unfortunately, as it was being refurbished it was discovered that the years of neglect had not been kind to the Delhi dam and was in worse shape than anyone could have imagined.   Sediment had built up against the dam, at least one gate was severely damaged by a past flood and the integrity of the dam was called into question.  In 2009, the Federal Government allocated 2.5 million for critical repairs on the dam, in part because of the safety issue it presented.   The state of Iowa came up with another one hundred thousand dollars to begin a dredging and improvement plan last April.

But apparently, it wasn’t enough, because this morning, this happened:

Right now, how much damage this dam failure has caused remains unknown.   Details are sketchy, but officials are already calling it “catastrophic.”    At least a few homes are already reported destroyed and upwards of 700 could be in danger.    At least fifty homes have already reported some level of damage and the flood has also been blamed for extensive power outages.  Due to evacuations, it is hoped that deaths will be avoided.

The dam was not a nuclear facility, however, so don’t expect to read about this on the front page of the newspaper.  In fact, don’t expect to read about it on the second page either.   It may not even make the first section of your newspaper and if you don’t live in the US, it likely won’t make it to your newspaper at all.    After all, it’s just a dam and those fail all the time.   Small consolation to those whose lives have been washed away.

At least it was only water and not coal ash.

Check it out here

]]> http://depletedcranium.com/tam-8-links-from-gess/feed/ 0 http://depletedcranium.com/the-little-dude-from-the-moon-at-tam-8/ http://depletedcranium.com/the-little-dude-from-the-moon-at-tam-8/#comments Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:21:52 +0000 drbuzz0 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=7450 Having returned from Las Vegas and The Amazing Meeting, an annual conference on skepticism hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundaton, I’ve been very eager to start posting about my experiences at the meeting.   Unfortunately, I’ve been fairly busy, as apparently going to Las Vegas for a week tends to result in a lot of work piling up.   In general, the meeting was attended by mainstream skeptics, who may not agree on everything but tended to agree on well proven things, like the fact that the US Apollo program did indeed send men to the moon and back.

This was not quite 100%, however, as at least one conspiracy-obsessed heckler did attend, and attempted repeatedly to heckle Phil Plait and Adam Savage.   Jarrah White is about as committed to the belief that the Apollo moon landings were faked as one can be.   He’s already produced (at last count) 393 Youtube videos on the subject – all of them absolutely stunning in their lack of technical and scientific knowledge.

I recognized White’s voice from the videos as soon as he got up to question Adam Savage. That snooty, nasal, sharp whine with an Australian accent was hard not to recognize, especially as I’ve seen plenty of his videos before. Apparently he came all the way from Australia to try to get up in the face of those who he considers the conspirators behind the faked moon landing

His behavior was about as strange as one might expect. I was concerned initially that he might try to rush the stage or do something else completely crazy – after all, Apollo conspiracy theorists have been known to physically threaten astronauts and do all manner of other crazy things. I alerted the staff and security to his background to be on the safe side, but luckily he didn’t try anything too violent.

Instead, he repeatedly insisted that he get a sit-down interview with Phil Plait. Phil was quite civil, and informed him that to get scheduled interview time he would need to register as press. The Amazing Meeting does not have very exclusive standards for who is given press status – bloggers and podcasters can easily get it. When he was asked for his information on this topic, he repeatedly made a scene about not wanting to reveal his background. I’m not sure how things worked out, but eventually he got a press pass and thus could get his interview. Unfortunately for him, Phil Plait decided to decline the request. After rudely interrupting Phil, who was trying to converse with others at the conference, the Little Dude from the Moon finally started yelling at Phil that he thought his answers were dishonest and he was a liar. Phil said something about how he didn’t believe he could say anything that would change the Little Dude’s mind and that if the Little Dude felt that way, he was not interested in sitting down for an interview.

I’m just glad that no punches were thrown. As he came from Australia, it seemed a reasonable concern that he would not want to make such a trip without getting in at least one dramatic moment or big confrontation. I did challenge him openly to a debate. He never responded to this. Surprised? In fact, I only saw him around on the first day of the three-day event. No word on whether he left early or went into hiding or what.
He has also already posted at least one video from the event:

Debunking his ridiculous claim:

There are several intentionally-placed laser reflectors on the surface of the moon. The US Apollo program left laser reflectors at the sites of Apollo-11, Apollo-14 and Apollo-15. The Apollo-15 reflector is the largest, with almost twice the surface area of those placed by Apollo-11 and Apollo-14. The Soviet Lunokhod-1 and Lunokhod-2 lunar lander also carried similar, although smaller laser reflectors.

But are these required to get a laser beam return from the moon?
Technically the answer is no. With a powerful enough laser and a sensitive and large enough telescope, it is possible, though extremely difficult, to detect the photons from a laser being reflected back from the moon. The surface of the moon is not exactly super-reflective, but it’s also not a perfect absorber of photons.  However, the reflectors still provide a much stronger return than the surface of the moon ever would.

Several attempts were made to detect laser light reflected off the moon in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. In 1962, a team at MIT finally managed to detect photons reflected off the moon by a laser. The laser they used was a pulsed ruby system, aimed through a twelve inch telescope. By the standards of the day, this was a very powerful laser. In order to detect the return, a 48 inch telescope was coupled to an array of photomultiplier tubes, cooled in liquid nitrogen to increase their sensitivity. Not long after this, the Soviet Union conducted a series of similar experiments with pulsed lasers and telescopes.

While these experiments were considered successful, the return signal was only barely detectable. A more successful method of bouncing signals off the moon had been done using modified radar equipment. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, microwave transmitters powerful enough to send a signal to the moon and detect the return signal became available and a series of experiments were conducted by the US, UK and Soviet Union. As far as radio reflectors go, the moon is far less than ideal. The total path loss from a moon returned signal is generally over 250 decibels.

Today, Moon-bounce or “EME” communications, for Earth-Moon-Earth remains popular in the amateur radio community. Part of the reason for its popularity is that it is very very difficult to get reliable returns from signals reflected off the moon, thus making it a badge of honor to do so. Amateurs who engage in EME use extremely large, high gain antenna arrays to pull in even the vanishingly weak signals returned from the moon.  Even despite these efforts, EME communications is usually limited to CW or other narrow band modulation methods.   Voice communications, though possible, are extremely difficult to maintain via EME.

The purpose of the reflectors:

The reason that reflectors were left on the moon was not simply to make it easier to get a return from laser light, but also to provide a single fixed reflector that could be accurately referenced from the earth.  While range-finding to the moon by radio or laser can provide a fairly good idea of the distance from the earth to the moon, the precision is hampered by the fact that the moon is not a regular surface.    If the light is returned from the bottom of a crater, it may have to travel hundreds of meters further than if it is returned from the lunar highlands.    By using the laser reflectors, the distance to the moon can be measured with millimeter precision.

The laser reflector experiments continue to be utilized today and have provided a great deal of fundamental data about the moon, the orbital dynamics of the earth and moon.   Not only has distance been measured with extreme precision, but it now is known that the moon is spiraling away from the earth at the rate of about 38 millimeters per year.   The measurement of distance is precise enough to verify orbital predictions made by Einstein’s theory of Relativity.   Range-finding has also allowed for extremely precise measurements of the earth’s orbital stability as well as measuring even the slightest wobble in the moon’s orbit.

How the reflectors verify the moon landings:

In addition to the volumes of other evidence that proves that, yes, human beings did go to the moon, the reflectors continue to be detectable and continue to be useful for scientific purposes.   While the surface of the moon may be reflective enough to allow for laser light measurements to be made, the reflectors are orders of magnitude more reflective.   The difference is very obvious when the moon is scanned with laser optics.

When the beam from a laser at the McDonald Observatory reaches the lunar surface, it is about 6.5 kilometers in diameter. If this beam is focused on a random part of the moon, so few photons are reflected back that they generally cannot be detected by the equipment being used. However, when the beam is aimed at one of the reflectors, a very solid, strong reflection is detected. When measurements are made, the observatory occasionally does not hit the reflector on the first attempt, and must scan a small area of the moon until it acquires the target. When it does, it is obvious. There is no doubt that these sites are unique in their ability to reflect back light, even if the rest of the moon does have some very limited reflectiveness.

In many, perhaps most cases, this protection is well warranted.   Many species are enjoyed by humans for their unique properties or their place in nature.  Others are vital to the balance of ecosystems or play a vital role in nature.  Still others may provide vast amounts of data to science on matters of evolution, biology or even practical data, applicable to medical treatment or biological control of pests.   It would be unwise to slate any species for intentional extermination without first considering whether it might have such importance and perhaps preserving some specimens, yet this does not preclude the possibility that extinction may be the best thing for humanity and nature, at least with a few species.

Numerous species of plant, animal, fungus and microbe are, dare I say it:  useless and better off wiped off the face of the planet.  Pathogens rank high here as do some parasites, such as intestinal worms, which are not prey or food for any species and play little role in the ecosystem, other than occasionally causing extreme pain, disease and death, often to humans.  Disease vectors, such as some breeds of mosquito also may be best off being dispensed of, if it is possible to do so.

If this makes me sound a bit human-centric, I have no apologies.   I happen to be a human and I also like my species quite a lot.  I have no problem dispensing with little nasties that cause my fellow main to suffer or die.

So to the Rocky Mountain Locust and the Small Pox virus I say only this:  Good riddance!

Extinct, believed extinct (no recent sightings) or critically near extinction and not really missed:

“Human Flea” – The term has been used to describe a number of fleas, one of the most common, Pulex irritans, is actually not exclusive to humans but will live on a variety of hosts, and is still very much alive. However, a number of species and sub-species of flea which preferred human hosts have existed in centuries past. Most, if not all of these species are now extinct. As some may not have been cataloged it’s not entirely clear what species of fleas may have been driven to extinction by human measures, but it is believed at least a few are now gone for good. The last large human fleas may have died off completely as late as the 1950′s.

Rocky Mountain Locust – The Rocky Mountain Locust was a species of locust common in the western United States and southwestern Canada. From the mid to late 1800’s, the species was responsible for some of the worst crop-damaging swarms in recent history, nearly causing widespread famine in areas of the western United States on several occasions. The locusts swarmed through farmland in the largest insect migrations in recorded history, decimating crops as they moved from one area to another. In 1875, what would become known as “Albert’s swarm” became the largest and most devastating such swarm.

Given how common the species was, nobody expected the Rocky Mountain Locust to experience a rapid population crash and finally extinction. However, after the 1870’s their population plummeted. It is believed that a combination of irrigation, plowing, unfavorable climate conditions for several years disrupted the life cycle of the locust and eventually drove it to extinction. The last Rocky Mountain Locust was seen in 1902. Since then, there has been some speculation that the species may have actually been a non-extinct species of grasshopper that was endued into the locust/swarming phase by high population density. However, genetic analysis of locusts recovered from grasshopper glacier has indicated this is not the case. The Rocky Mountain locust was indeed its own species and is now gone.

Small Pox - Small Pox as a disease was last reported in 1978 and is thus extinct. As an organism, there are no active viral samples left and only two samples of the virus in storage. One is located at a CDC facility in the United States and the other at the Vector Institute in Russia. These two small, frozen samples are the only known examples of the virus in existence and likely represent only a tiny portion of the once large number of strains and subtypes of the virus. As viruses tend to mutate into a diverse number of subtypes, it is likely that most of the smallpox strains are now forever extinct.

It is remotely possible that the virus may still exist in mummified human remains or in preserved scabs, as were found in an envelop in 2004. However, even if such samples do exist, it’s not entirely clear that the virus could remain viable for such a period of time outside of an active host. Activity by other microbes, general chemical degradation and compounding genetic damage has likely left such samples unable to become active again.

Leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae) – The leprosy bacterium, which has plagued humans since biblical times and probably earlier has been dramatically reduced during the 20th century. Today many regional strains and subspecies of the bacterium are believed to be extinct. The bacterium in general is teetering on the edge of extinction and may be eliminated from the environment within the next few years. The bacterium is entirely parasitic and lacks the ability to survive long term on its own, thus denying it hosts is likely to lead to its extinction. A combination of quarantine, antibiotics and sanitation has dramatically reduced new cases of leprosy. While many in the developing world continue to suffer the long term effects of the illness, millions have been cured in just the past few years and new infections are extremely rare.

Polio – After the successful eradication of Smallpox, health authorities began to consider the possibility of eradicating Polio. Like Smallpox, Polio infects only humans and is preventable with a highly effective vaccine. In the past decade, efforts to eradication have lead to the complete elimination of the virus from the Americas, Europe and most of Asia. Early hopes were that the virus could be eradicated as early as 2004, but the effort has faced something of a stalemate in India and Africa, in part due to anti-vaccine propaganda. Never the less, the WHO is confident that it will successfully eradicate the disease in the near future.

Levuana Moth - The Levuana moth was originally native to Fiji, but spread to many other tropical areas, possibly due to inadvertent transport by humans.  The moth fed primarily on coconuts and in doing so, decimated the coconut crops of many areas from the late 1800’s to the 1920’s.

Beginning in the mid 1920’s, an effort to control the levuana moth using insectacides, fumingation of coconut shipments and various biological controls began.   The program was ramped up through the following decades, leading to a dramatic decline in the levuanna moth population.   Intensive biological control played the greatest role in reducing the population of the moth until it eventually was unable to maintain a viable breeding stock.

The moth was finally declared extinct in 1994, after no individuals of the species had been detected for several years.

North American Screw Worm Fly - A very very nasty little insect that would lay eggs on warm blooded animals (yes, including humans), producing larvae that burrow into the flesh.  The larvae eat the flesh of the living host before bursting out, leaving behind open sores that are prone to infection.  This subspecies of the screw worm fly was native to North America but was eradicated through a combination of pest control and the use of the sterile male technique.   Screw worm flies still can be found in South and Central America, but they too may eventually be driven off the face of the earth by eradication programs.

The sterile male technique is one of the most effective means of wiping out insect populations.  It involves the captive breeding of males of the insect species which are then treated with gamma radiation at doses that are not fatal to the insects, but cause sufficient genetic damage to make the insects incapable of producing viable offspring.    These sterile males are then released into the environment where they mate with females.  The females then lay eggs which do not hatch due to the condition of the males they mated with.

The intensive application of sterile male insects over the course of several consecutive seasons can completely eradicate species.

Colpocephalum californici (Condor Louse) – A parasite which preyed primarily on California Condors experienced a population bottleneck due to the scarcity of the host species. The California Condor has since rebounded, in part due to captive breeding and reintroduction. However, a combination of the period of low condor population and intentional de-lousing of captured and captive condors lead to the species becoming extinct.

The Guinea Worm (Dracunculiasis) – One of the nastiest human parasites to attack humans, the Guinea worm has plagued Sub-Saharan African for centuries. The parasite is introduced to humans by drinking water contaminated with the worm’s larva. The worm develops in the gut of the hapless host for several weeks before breaking through into the body cavity. Once in the body cavity, the fully developed female worm will actually seek out males of the species which mate inside the human body. It borrows through tissue until it makes its way to the lower portion of the body and erupts from the skin. Like a horror movie, the parasite pops out of the skin and in the process causes tissue damage and often opens up the host to infection.

However, the fact that the Guinea worm needs a host to reproduce and that the host is usually a human has proven to be its weakness. A combination of improvements in drinking water sanitation and filtering as well as the use of larvicide and monitoring for contamination has proven extremely effective in combating the worm. Since 1986, incidence of the worm has been cut by more than 99%. The parasite was once common in 20 Africa countries, but it is now only found in four. It has been eradicated from most of the continent and the remaining areas are being targeted for eradication.

The United Nations, the World Health Organization, The Carter Center and the governments of several African countries have committed toward the goal of complete eradication of the Guinea worm, which they believe is possible in just a few years.

American Chestnut Moth (Ectodemia castaneae) – This species of moth fed exclusively on chestnuts, making it an acute pest to chestnut growers. In the early 20th century a fungus was inadvertently imported into North America from Asia which decimated chestnut trees, nearly driving chestnut trees in the Americas to extinction. The trees were missed, but the moth that fed on them was not. Luckily, the American chestnut tree was not driven all the way to extinction and thanks to cultivation and fungus mitigation, they eventually bounced back. The moth, however, was gone for good. Today the fungus that was imported over a century ago remains a problem for American chestnut trees, but at least the moth does not.

Anyone lament the loss or impending loss of these species?   I sure as hell don’t.

The Falcon-9 is designed to be human rated and is complete with the Dragon capsule, designed to carry cargo and eventually humans to Low Earth Orbit.   The rocket also can be configured as the Falcon-9 Heavy, which consists of three core boosters and is capable of lifting 28 metric tons to LEO, putting it ahead of the mighty Russian Proton rocket, the current most popular heavy lift ELV, and exceeding the capacity of all current ELV’s with the exception of the ultra-heavy configuration of the Atlas-V.

SpaceX also hopes to make the Falcon-9 considerably cheaper than other rockets.   The vehicle is intended to be partially reusable, with stages being retrieved after parachuting back to earth.  If the design meets projections, it may set a new standard for the economics of heavy lift vehicles and possibly help reestablish the United States as a major player in the commercial satellite launch business.

Today the first Falcon-9 lifted off and sent its payload, a test version of the Dragon capsule into low earth orbit!

First time trials of rockets are certainly not assured successes and SpaceX has spent some time testing the design on static test stands and dry runs for launch.    This flight is the culmination of years of development and an enormous step in making the Falcon-9 a cargo and human-carrying rocket we can rely on.

Organophosphates can be quite dangerous to humans and their application may require protective measures, however they tend to break down fairly quickly and when used properly the amount that remains in the end product is small and has never been conclusively linked to any health effects.   Their relatively short time to breakdown has lead to their widespread adoption.  Organochloride insecticides, such as DDT tend to present less danger of acute toxicity to humans, but may linger in the environment longer than organophosphates.

The study raises some interesting questions, but the way it is being reported makes it sound like it has presented far more conclusive evidence than it really has.    It is already being used by “organic” agriculture groups as proof of the superiority of organic products.  It is also causing a lot of fear and confusion for parents.   Even personal injury attorneys are already all over it! The news reports indicate that higher body burdens of organophosphates are linked to ADHD , but in reality the study’s data and conclusions are far less black and white.

Thankfully, you can download the entire study in PDF format for FREE here.

Issues with the study:

• Assessment of which children had ADHD was determined by a phone interview with parents using questions about their children based on (DSM-IV) criteria.   This introduces the very strong possibility that the diagnosis could be influenced by parental bias (how the parents view their children, amount of time spend with their children, cultural background.)   Clinical diagnosis of ADHD is normally done by a professional after personally interviewing the child and parents as well as reports from teachers.   Coming to a diagnosis often involves more than one session.   Thus, these criteria are, at best, considerably less reliable.
• A large proportion of the children (both those who were evaluated as non-ADHD and ADHD) were bellow the detection limits for dialkyl phosphates.   Because of this, the researchers focused on the matabolite with the highest concentration, dimethyl thiophosphate.  This is the only chemical matabolite which showed a correspondence of any type to ADHD.
• Diethyl alkylphosphate and other organophosphate matabolites concentrations had no apparent association with ADHD.  Only the compound dimethyl thiophosphate appeared to have a significant association with ADHD.  This is a bit unexpected since exposure to organophosphate compounds in general should produce an increase in all metabolites and the compounds are similar – although not identical.
• The study attempted to account for possible bias by adjusting the prevalence of ADHD for other demographic factors such as age of mother at birth, income level and creatinine levels (which could influence the amount of organophosphate metabolites excreted.)   However, it’s not entirely clear whether these adjustments could have introduced their own bias.
• The number of test subjects was fairly small.   A total of 1139 test subjects were included of which 119 were classified as having ADD or ADHD.  30 of the subjects were medicated for ADD/ADHD, indicating that they had been independently diagnosed by a doctor.   However, only one of the 30 on medication was evaluated as ADD/ADHD by the study interview criteria.   The other 29 were considered non-ADD/ADHD.   This is very significant since it calls into question the accuracy of the diagnostic method of the study.  The authors chalk this up to the symptoms being controlled by medication, but that is, at best, questionable, since medications are usually not continuously on such medications.
• Higher concentrations of organophosphates were found in children who were categorized as “Hyperactive/Impulsive” or “combined Inattentive and Hyperactive/Impulsive” but were NOT present or not as pronounced in children who were only categorized as “Inattentive.”   In other words, the apparent coloration was limited to ADHD and not to the very related condition ADD.   It thus appears that hyperactivity was the deciding factor (NOT attention.)  This could imply that the levels were influenced more by the level of physical activity of the children or their general behavior and activities.
• The levels of organophosphate metabolites for most subjects was relatively low (nanomoles per liter) but the variance from the lowest to the highest measured levels was enormous.   Thus a few high results would strongly influence the average of a group
• A ten fold increase in organophosphate concentrations corresponds to only a 55 to 72% increase in ADHD diagnosis.  This is not very large, especially given the size of the study group.
• MOST IMPORTANTLY:   This study was based on one and only one collected blood and urine sample. The subjects of the study were each given a single examination during which blood and urine were collected for analysis.   This measure represents only very recent exposure, since these compounds clear the body in three to six days at most.   A single recent exposure to organophosphates could easily skew the analysis dramatically.   The authors of the study assumed that the single analysis would be a good representation of general lifetime exposure.   This is a huge, even enormous assumption.

All things considered, I’d have to come to the conclusion that this study does not yeild enough data to draw any solid conclusions. The hypothysis is interesting and may very well be valid, but the study does not lend much evidence to it. The fact that the levels were measured only once is a huge red flag. One would expect chronic exposure, especially at an early age would be the deciding factor, especially given that the symptoms would predate the analysis given. It’s simply too big a presumption to take these single levels as a representation of exposure.

Furthermore, the data on hyperactivity and concentration levels makes for a very plausible argument that the levels could be related to behavior and activity (rather than the other way around.) The authors do, however acknowledge this, stating :

Given the cross-sectional nature of our analysis,we cannot rule out the possibility that children with ADHD engage in behaviors that expose them to
higher levels of organophosphates. If this were the case,however,we would have expected to see higher levels of urinary DEAP metabolites as well, which was not the case.

While exposure to organophosphates should, at least in theory, increase both dimethyl alkylphosphate and diethyl alkylphosphates, one could just as easily turn this statement around and say that if children with high food or environmental exposure to diethyl alkylphosphates should also show higher levels of dimethyl alkylphosphates or that the association with one should hold true for the other. Of course, these chemicals are similar but not identical, so the possibility remains that the levels are explainable due to behavior.

A few plausible explanations:

• Hyperactive children may drink more fluids due to their high physical activity.  This could lead to a difference in levels excreted and urine composition.
• Hyperactive children may spend more time outdoors playing on the ground and grass and may thus be more exposed to organophosphate compounds.
• Hyperactive children may have a greater tendency to put things in their mouth.
• Parents who categorize their children as hyperactive may be more involved in observing their children and concerning themselves with the health of their children.  These parents may tend to feed their children more fresh vegetables.
• Hyperactive children may not sleep as much, or conversely may sleep more because of the amount of daily activity they get.  This could influence body chemistry and rates of excretion.

Thus, this study is far from conclusive and is really not of enough significance to warrant major coverage in the mainstream press.

Via CNN:

Salmonella outbreak in 10 states prompts sprouts recall

Federal public health officials are investigating a salmonella outbreak that has infected 22 people in 10 states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Friday.

The infections are linked to the consumption of raw alfalfa sprouts, the CDC said.

California-based Caldwell Fresh Foods is recalling all alfalfa sprouts manufactured under three of its brands because they may be contaminated with salmonella, the company said Friday. Caldwell said its alfalfa sprouts have been associated with the outbreak.

There have been no deaths reported from the outbreak, but four of those infected have been hospitalized, Caldwell Fresh Foods said in a statement Friday.

CDC is collaborating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and with state public health officials to investigate the salmonella outbreak, the CDC said in a statement Friday.

One of those infected was an infant hospitalized in Oregon, an Oregon Department of Health official told CNN. The baby had been eating alfalfa sprouts, said Paul Cieslak, manager of the state health department’s communicable disease section.

CDC is collaborating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state public health officials to investigate the strain, called Salmonella Newport, the CDC said in a statement Friday.

The initial investigation traced the implicated raw alfalfa sprouts to a single sprout processor in California, the CDC said, though it did not name Caldwell Fresh Foods directly. The CDC did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

There’s no information, as of yet, that this is at all related to “organic” growing methods, and before fingers start being pointed, I should point out that conventional farming does not eliminate this risk. Still the increase in these kind of events in the past few years does give good reason to wonder about the possible dangers of biologically active material (s**t) being used on food crops.

In the interest of safety and food quality, I’d like to offer the following suggestions, some of which will be absolutely despised by the “organic food” lobby:

• Equipment which is used to handle, sort and package food should be regularly cleaned and disinfected with hot water and disinfectant or steam cleaning
• The use of biologically active fertilizers such as compost or manure should be discouraged for use on food crops which come in close contact with soil, such as green leafy vegetables and ground-growing vegetables.   If used, it should be applied only before planting and should be composted to eliminate most potentially pathogenic bacteria
• Irradiation of food should be very strongly encouraged and in some cases, even required.
• All fruit and vegetables should be washed at all stages of production, including immediately upon being harvested, after sorting and processing and at the time of delivery.    If possible, washing should include mild non-toxic antibacterial and cleaning agents such as vinegar, citric acid or chlorinated water.  Unfortunately, there is a limit to how thoroughly produce can be washed without damaging its texture, and washing during preparation does not mean that end consumers should not wash the food before consuming it.
• Utilize effective pest control measures at all stages of growth, processing and shipping.   Foods can be contaminated by pathogens carried by insects such as fruit flies, so even after it is harvested, it is important to mitigate pest activity.   Prevention of fungus and insect activity during growth is important not only to prevent crop loss, but because these organisms can introduce pathogens into the plant.

I realize that the above recommendations would make the skin of many “organic” advocates crawl. After all, pest control is generally kept to a minimum and cow shit is considered to be the best fertilizer, while irradiation is the stuff of nightmares. However, I prefer my food does not kill me or even make me ill.

Eventually, modern society is going to have to get past the “natural is good for you” mantra that is currently becoming so pervasive.  While it is true that there are beneficial natural bacteria, dangerous illness-causing bacteria are also natural and it does not further safety or health to allow uncontrolled amounts of unknown microbes into our food supply.

Via the Salt Lake Tribune:

Study: Songbirds prefer conventionally grown wheat to organic

Increasingly each year, humans foraging in American supermarkets select organically grown food. Not so with wild songbirds searching for sustenance in the gardens of England.

Given a choice between organically and conventionally grown wheat, they opt for the conventional stuff — which is higher in protein — 55 to 60 percent of the time, a study has found.

The findings, which were published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture on Tuesday, raise yet again the question of which is healthier: organic or conventional food.

The research team, based at the school of biology at Newcastle University in England, didn’t expect the birds to prefer conventionally grown wheat, said lead researcher Ailsa McKenzie. Earlier lab studies had reported that hens and rats preferred organically grown beetroot and wheat over conventionally grown.

But the problem with earlier preference studies, said McKenzie, is that none tested animals for longer than seven days, which meant that the animals did not have time to establish a preference.

“Birds learn,” she said. “They need to associate what they’re eating with where it is to learn a preference.”

In the Newcastle study, researchers positioned two feeders — one stocked with organic wheat and another with conventionally grown wheat — in 36 English gardens. Then over a period of six weeks in 2008, they measured how much wheat birds ate by gauging every two days how much food was consumed from each feeder.

The scientists conducted a second test in early 2009, this time studying 15 gardens over eight weeks. They also tested preferences among canaries in the laboratory.

…
All three trials found a preference for the conventionally grown food. In the 2008 trial, for example, the birds consumed 58,954 grams of wheat, 45 percent of it organic and 55 percent conventional.

The higher protein content of the conventional wheat — about 10 percent greater than the organic wheat’s — “most likely” accounted for the birds’ liking it better, the scientists wrote.

Conventionally grown crops are usually treated with fertilizers that deliver higher levels of nitrogen to plants than organic fertilizers do, in a form that can be processed more quickly. Plants use nitrogen to produce protein.

What the findings mean for humans is unclear.

“Our results suggest that the current dogma that organic food is preferred to conventional food may not always be true, which is of considerable importance for consumer perceptions of organically grown food,” the report concludes.

Advocates of organic farming beg to differ.

“For a team of scientists to extrapolate from a modest difference in what birds selected to make a statement that consumer perception should change is ludicrous,” said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, a research organization in Boulder, Colo., that promotes “the conversion of agriculture to organic methods,” according to its website.

The results are interesting, although they don’t really prove anything new. In fact, they’re pretty much what you would expect. The ratio of 45% to 55% suggests that the birds really didn’t have a huge preference one way or the other, but in general perfected the more protein-rich food.

It is interesting, however, to find that the birds preferred the slightly higher protein from conventional wheat, as it suggests that birds are capable of detecting protein levels. This says more about bird behavior and biology than organic farming, of course. One would expect that if the two samples had been closer in protein content, such as in a crop that was less dependent on nitrogen fertilizer, the ratio would likely be closer to 50/50.

The best conclusion that can be drawn from this is that birds, are generally not capable of reading and therefore are not enticed by the marketing material produced by organic farming advocates.  They may need to consider some more bird-oriented publicity programs.

Americans “bombarded” with cancer sources: report
Americans are being “bombarded” with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation and the federal government must do far more to protect them, presidential cancer advisers said on Thursday.

Although most experts agree that as many as two-thirds of cancer cases are caused by lifestyle choices like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise, the two-member panel said many avoidable cancers were also caused by pollution, radon gas from the soil and medical imaging scans.

“The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons,” wrote the two panel members, Dr. LaSalle Leffall, professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington and Margaret Kripke, an emeritus professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Cancer is the No. 2 killer of Americans, after heart disease. Kripke and Leffall, both appointed by President George W. Bush, decided in 2008 to focus a report on potential environmental links to cancer.

“The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures,” they wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama at top of the report.

“The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

A White House spokesman indicated he had not yet seen the report and the National Cancer Institute declined comment.

KNOWN RISKS

…

The report, available at pcp.cancer.gov, offered some of its own advice to consumers.

For instance, the report said that although large studies have found no links between cell phone use and cancer, people would be prudent to wear headsets and make calls quickly.

I have to say that this is one of the worst federally sanctioned science reports I have ever seen. The panel in question was made up of only two individuals, which hardly constitutes a panel. The panel is also not entirely an Obama creation, it actually was formed by George W. Bush. President Obama could have appointed more to the panel but didn’t. At this point all I can say to President Obama is that he should repudiate this report and disavow any relation to the panel.

The most blatant item in the report is radiation, both ionizing and non-ionizing. The panel, which seems to believe cancer is coming from environmental causes not only upholds the LNT model of cancer, but seems to believe that there is some kind of radiation crisis in the US that is killing people in droves. Worse still, the grouping of RF radiation with ionizing radiation is inexcusable, as is the claim that there needs to be some kind of presumption that RF radiation is related to cancer. For such statements to be made by such a governmental panel is inexcusable and revolting.

The American Cancer Society and numerous other groups fired back at these statements:

The American Cancer Society said the report downplayed known risks that cause most cases of cancer including tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones and sunlight.

“The report is most provocative when it restates hypotheses as if they were established facts,” the society’s Dr. Michael Thun said in a statement.

“For example, its conclusion that ‘the true burden of environmentally (pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated’ does not represent scientific consensus.”

Not surprisingly this grotesque report has already been received with open arms from naturpaths and various other quacks.  To them, the idea that cancer is caused by toxins is the cornerstone of their scams.  Others have used this report, which also mentions things like synthetic fertilizers, to claim organic food will reduce cancer risks, even though there is no scientific evidence of this.   Environmental extremists and other fly-by-night groups are latching onto this like a flies to a big steaming pile of bullshit. (excuse my language)

One of the worst aspects of this kind of nonsense is that it gives ammunition to those who want to sell snake-oil like “radiation protectors” or “detoxification procedures” by providing them a kind of legitimacy in the form of government sanctioned misinformation.   It can also have dire impacts on the potential for frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary restrictions on harmless products.    Already this kind of scaremongering has lead to proposals for warning labels on cell phones, despite no scientific evidence of dangers.   Generally pushed in the name of “precautionary principle” and more often than not to “protect the children” these kind of frivolous warnings only serve to undermine the authority of health officials to warn of substances that actually do cause harm.

More from Reuters:

For instance, the report said that although large studies have found no links between cell phone use and cancer, people would be prudent to wear headsets and make calls quickly.

The report delighted environmental groups that have been pressing for more regulation of chemicals. “It is very gratifying to see this remarkable report that addresses those concerns,” said Julia Brody, executive director of the Silent Spring Institute.

“The 40-year war on cancer has been called for what it is … a failure,” Jeanne Rizzo, president and chief executive of the Breast Cancer Fund, which advocates about links between chemicals and breast cancer, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said he hoped the report would help boost support for a bill requiring closer regulation of chemicals.

“My Safe Chemicals Act will require testing of all chemicals, and take substances off the market if the manufacturer cannot prove they are safe,” he said.

Great. “Prove they are safe.” Well you can’t prove anything if you keep moving the standards for what “proof” is.

I’ve got some news for the quacks and anti-technology activists who have latched onto this report: Cancer happens, and more often than not there’s no attributable environmental cause. Cancer can occur because of corrupt genes that have laid dormant for most of someone’s life or it can happen due to a mutation caused by a random copy error in DNA that occurred during cell division. It may happen because of a rogue cosmic ray or an oxygen free-radical or due to a broken enzyme or just aging of cells. More often than not there’s no direct cause that cancer can be attributed to.

Let me also remind everyone of something: you will die. Something is going to kill you. If you manage to avoid heart disease, stroke and respiratory disease for long enough, you’ll probably die of cancer. If you do manage to avoid cancer for long enough, you’ll eventually die when your heart or one of your other vital organs suffers a catastrophic failure. Any way you cut it, something can and will kill you.

Has the war on cancer been a failure? We still don’t have a 100% effective cure for cancer and probably never will, because cancer is not a condition but a whole spectrum of conditions. What we do have, however, is better survival rates than ever before. Today a child diagnosed with lymphoma or leukemia has a better than 50% chance of beating the cancer and living a generally healthy life. That was not the case 40 years ago.

Age adjusted cancer rates for men and women.
The increase seen in lung cancer is directly attributable to tobacco smoking levels.

(source)

That is not to say that there are not some environmental causes of cancer. While most cancers strike more or less at random, there are some well established environmental factors. These include the following:

Tobacco Smoking (the single largest, by far)
Chewing Tobacco
Heavy alcohol consumption (primarily liver cancer)
Ultraviolet radiation (such as from sunbathing or tanning beds)
Ionizing radiation (when very high exposure or extended high levels of exposure are present)
Arsenic
Benzene
PCB’s
Asbestos
Cadmium
Beryllium
Lead (extended exposure especially to organo-lead compounds)
Human papillomavirus
Dioxins
Certain organochloride compounds
Sooty exhaust from combustion of coal and hydrocarbons

So are we really in grave danger of being exposed to these kind of carcinogens?   Certainly some, such as tobacco use, alcohol and tanning are more of a personal choice than anything else.  Although today, there is more information than ever before to allow individuals to make an informed decision as to whether to tan, smoke or drink heavily.  As for other sources of environmental toxins, including carcinogens, things are not nearly as bad as some might make it out to be.

Historical Perspective:

Fear of environmental toxins has never been higher.  Today we live in an age where whole schools are evacuated when someone breaks a mercury thermometer.  If you listen to the hype you’d probably believe that there are more toxic and cancer-causing chemicals around us than ever before and that our bodies are being subjected to a sea of dangerous toxic metals, cancer-causing volatile organics, mutagens and all manner of carcinogens.   Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, today we live in a world that is much cleaner and safer than it has ever been. With the possible exception of developing nations like China and India, the average citizen of an industrial country comes into contact with far fewer environmental carcinogens than in years past. Improved emissions standards including The Clean Air Act have lead to dramatic improvements in air quality in many regions. While many areas continue to suffer from less than perfect air quality, standards for emission and exposure to ozone, nitrous oxides and particulates have never been higher.

The one major exception to this trend is coal burning, which continues to pollute areas heavily and expose downwind populations to mercury, lead, arsenic and sulfur dioxide.   Unfortunately, coal burning continues to be a major source of energy.  If there is any bright side to the situation with coal it is that at least coal burning for heat and small industrial purposes has been banished from urban areas where it once was common.   London is no longer choked with smog, although the areas near coal burning power plants still are.

Another major change seen in the past few decades has been a reduction in environmental contamination by heavy metals, especially lead. In the early years of the industrial revolution, much of the population was awash in lead, as it was used in everything from paint to pipe solder.  Lead exposure climbed during the era of leaded gasoline. By the mid 20th century, leaded gasoline accounted for the majority of environmental lead exposure.  Yet today, with leaded gasoline generally a thing of the past and lead no longer used in products that come in contact with food or drinking water, the average body burden of lead is the lowest it has been in decades.

Examples of environmental toxins and carcinogens which have been eliminated or greatly reduced:

Leaded Gasoline - Beginning in the 1920’s, tetra-ethyl lead was added to gasoline to boost octane and reduce knock.  However, it had the side effect of dramatically increasing environmental lead levels, becoming the primary source of lead found in the human body for much of the 20th century.   The level of environmental contamination was discovered in the 1940’s and 1950’s.   Lead use in gasoline began to decline in the 1950’s, primarily due to other antiknock agents and better refining, but its use persisted into the 1970’s.   In the US, the phase-out of leaded gasoline began in 1976, with the compound being completely banned in 1986.   Most other countries banned leaded gasoline around the same time or severely restricted it.   Today it is only used in a few countries and occasionally in some specialty applications such as avgas.

The phaseout of leaded gasoline has resulted in a dramatic reduction in environmental lead levels and average blood lead burden.    There are proposals to further reduce the use of leaded gasoline, eventually phasing out its use in avgas and in the few other applications where it is permitted (such as in the UK, where it can be used in historic vehicles but is sold at a higher tax rate.)  More countries are now phasing out leaded gasoline, further reducing  potential for lead exposure.

Lead Paint – Lead compounds have historically been used as base pigments for paint.   Lead carbonate or “lead white” was one of the most common and cound be found in numerous paint colors where it was used as a base pigment.   Lead paint carried the potential for lead exposure to painters, demolition workers and those who lived in homes where lead paint was pealing or chipping.   This was especially a concern for children, as lead paint was used in a variety of items, even including toys.

Although lead paint was not banned until the 1970’s, its use began to decline in the 1950’s with the introduction of titanium dioxide, a nontoxic and generally superior white pigment.  Today older buildings may still contain lead paint and the chipping and peeling of such paint remains a hazard, but lead paint is no longer used for new applications and thus the exposure potential has decreased dramatically.

PCB’s – PCB’s or polychlorinated biphenyl compounds are toxic to humans and have been linked to cancer. They are fairly stable and can persist in the environment for decades or centuries. They can bioacumulate and are known to collect in the liver. For much of the 20th century, they were produced in quantities totaling thousands of tons. PCB’s were most commonly used for dielectric purposes in transformers and capacitors. This includes consumer electronics and other products people came into contact with. Their use was not limited to electrical applications, however. PCB’s were used in plastics and wire insulation as well as fire retardant, lubricants, adhesives and even newspaper ink.  Even worse, PCB contaminated material was routinely released into the environment, even dumped into waterways.

Most use of PCB’s in uncontainable applications was banned in 1973.   They were banned completely in the United States in 1979, although several states had restricted their use earlier. The UK banned PCB’s in 1981 and most other industrial countries banned or severely restricted their use some time around 1980. Today concerns continue to be raised over historic PCB contamination, but it is important to remember that the amount of exposure most encounter today is much lower than it was thirty years ago.

Benzene - As recently as the 1980’s, benzene could be found in most hardware stores sold as a general purpose solvent.   It was also a common ingredient in everything from carburetor cleaners to metal polish.  Benzene was used extensively in printing as a primary solvent for inks.  It was even used to decaffeinate coffee, sometimes leaving trace amounts behind.   Benzene has been recognized as a carcinogen for some time and has such, its use in consumer end products has been dramatically reduced.   Today benzene is still used industrially, and to a lesser extent as a fuel additive to improve octane (although this is becoming less and less common.)   Benzene is rare in consumer products and when it is used, such as in a few specialty polishes or stains, it is clearly labeled with precautionary information.   In most solvent applications, toluene has replaced benzene.  Years ago, many were exposed to benzene routinely in every day life.  This is no longer the case.

Asbestos - Asbestos is a naturally occurring silica mineral, however most exposure is due to asbestos products and not due to the material in its natural environment.   Exposure to asbestos has been associated with numerous forms of cancer, especially mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer that occurs in the lining of internal organs. Mesothelioma is extremely rare, almost unheard of in individuals who have never been exposed to asbestos but has occurred in thousands of individuals due to asbestos exposure.

Asbestos was heavily used in the 20th century, although its use goes back to antiquity. It was prized for its ability to insulate, resist fire and heat and its strong fibrous composition which could be used to make durable composite materials. Asbestos fibers were commonly used for insulation, fireproofing, brake pads, drywall, joint compound, stage curtains, fire blankets, acoustic ceiling tiles and numerous other applications. Many of these products exposed workers or end users to asbestos fibers and the dangers associated with them.

Beginning in the 1970’s, health concerns lead to increasing restrictions on asbestos usage. In the United States, most applications began using substitute materials for asbestos in the mid 1970’s. By the late 1980’s, asbestos was restricted to only a few nitch applications in the US. Most of Europe has banned or severely restricted asbestos since the 1980’s. In Australia, a phase-out plan for asbestos began in 1989 and in 2004, asbestos was banned entirely. Today asbestos exposure is fairly uncommon and is generally limited to work with older structures that still contain the material. Licensed contractors with protective garments and equipment are required to remove asbestos, but on occasion home owners or demolition workers may still come in contact with asbestos.

Tobacco Smoke – Tobacco smoke is not limited to those who smoke tobacco.   Being in close proximity to smokers, especially in areas that are enclosed can result in so-called “second hand smoke.”   The dangers of exposure to second hand smoke (or passive smoking) are worst for those who are regularly in such settings, such as bar tenders, waitresses and hosts.   One of the worst locations historically has been airliners, where a lot of bored and restless people are crammed into an airtight tube with limited air supply.  Airline stewardesses have historically been at risk of cancer or other ailments from second hand smoke.

However today, the danger is considerably less than in years past, as fewer and fewer public locations and businesses allow smoking.   Smoking is banned in restaurants, bars and other businesses in many US states and several European countries as well as in Australia and Canada.   Most workplaces now do not allow smoking indoors at all.  Where it is allowed, most establishments provide a separate non-smoking section.   Inflight smoking has been illegal on domestic US flights since 1998 and is illegal in most major industrial countries.    Most airlines banned smoking before legal requirements were enacted and smoking has been banned from most flights since the early 1990’s.

Human papillomavirus The human papillomavirus is a common virus that is carried by many men and women. It generally produces no observable acute effects, although it does occasionally cause warts to appear. The virus, however, is responsible for a number of cancer types of the genital of both males and females and especially cervical cancer. It has also been linked to cancer elsewhere in the body. Indeed, by some accounts the HPV virus may be responsible for upwards of 25% of oral cancers.

In the past there was little that could be done about HPV. Condoms could reduce the specific risk of sexual transmission of the virus, but only offered limited overall protection. Annual pap smears could detect the virus and telltale pre-cancerous changes in the cervix, allowing for early intervention. Today, however, there is another option that offers an enormous reduction in risk. An HPV vaccine is now on the market which protects against two strains of the virus which are responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases. The vaccine has already been proven to reduce the risk of cervical cancer significantly. It is also believed that the vaccine will reduce the risk of other HPV-associated cancers, although the primary target is cervical cancer. Research continues into expanding the vaccine to cover more strains of the virus, but as it stands, the HPV vaccine already addresses the most common and deadly strains.

Conclusion:

The report urges the president to “remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”   Bullshit.   Our food and water have never been safer in human history.   We come in contact with fewer carcinogens than in years past and age adjusted cancer rates are down.   About the only thing we still have that could be addressed to save many lives from cancer and respiratory disease is coal burning, but it’s not like that hasn’t been mentioned here before.

Rise of the Superweeds
DYERSBURG, Tenn. — For 15 years, Eddie Anderson, a farmer, has been a strict adherent of no-till agriculture, an environmentally friendly technique that all but eliminates plowing to curb erosion and the harmful runoff of fertilizers and pesticides.

On a recent afternoon here, Mr. Anderson watched as tractors crisscrossed a rolling field — plowing and mixing herbicides into the soil to kill weeds where soybeans will soon be planted.

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”

Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.

“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.

The first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000. Since then, the problem has spread, with 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton and corn.

The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.

What we have here is yet another tired attack on genetically modified crops in general because just one of them has some minor secondary issues. Genetically modified crops come with numerous engineered traits. Some are modified to absorb nutrients more efficiently, others are modified to resist fungus or attacks by insects while others are modified to better withstand drought. The particular kind of genetically modified crop that this applies to are so-called “Roundup Ready” crops. These are crops which are resistant to the herbicide known as Roundup (Glyphosate).

While this is only one narrow example of genetic engineering, it has become one of the most popular. Although only around since 1996, most soybeans in the US are now planted with the genetically modified seed. Although they cost a little more, farmers love them, because they allow them to easily control weeds by using Roundup herbicide. The herbicide kills the weeds but leaves the genetically modified crops alone.

So apparently this has caused superweeds?   No, not really.   The increased use of the herbicide has lead to some weeds evolving a resistance to it.  That’s their only “super” quality.  They aren’t enormous in size, they don’t grow like crazy, they don’t grow legs and they won’t eat your children.   They’re not really super in any way other than being resistant to this herbicide.    This is not totally unexpected either.   While Roundup is still fairly effective and probably will be for many m0re years, it’s quite normal for pests or invasive plants to evolve when pressured by human responses to mitigate them.   It should not be a surprise that plants would evolve resistance to a popular herbicide.

The important thing to remember is that these weeds are only resistant to one herbicide, and while it’s an important one, it’s not the only one out there.   Hell, there are at least thousands of chemicals that can kill plants.   There are dozens that are commonly used as herbicides.   There are also other methods of controlling weeds.   They can be pulled, either by hand or mechanically.   They can be burned, tilled or suppressed by placing fabric or mulch around crop plants.

If Roundup stops working well for weed control, farmers will stop using it and opt for other methods of controlling weeds.    Not only that, but it’s likely the market will come up with other similar products to meet the need.   Evolution will always work toward providing new traits to gain advantage, but so will the free market.    Evolution, however, has some limits, such as having difficulty adapting to multiple stressors at the same time and being incapable of adapting to environmental stresses that kill all of an organism before it can produce offspring – at least some must survive so that progressive adaptations can occur.

Roundup Ready crops may be important and helpful in growing food crops, but their loss would not be catastrophic.  We got by without it before 1996, after all.   The reduction in effect may even be a good thing at least for those who argue that the success of Roundup Ready crops has made Monsanto too powerful when it comes to controlling food supply.

This is not a disaster and the weeds are not really “super.”