From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-20 07:14:23 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.radix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:14:22 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)
References: 
 <slrnbqug4j.ss.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
   <ZuudnWONTe-cnyyiRVn-iQ@gbronline.com>
 <bor2ji$1h7730$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de> <3FB22125.1040807@noplace.com>
 <botbde$1hvqjj$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de> <3FB3751D.5090809@noplace.com>
 <JtPsb.8014$fB3.463946@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <bebbba07.0311161831.bce38a5@posting.google.com>
 <Az7ub.3669$ZF1.458179@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <1069092089.51926@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <bpib7a$9lb$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <bpib7a$9lb$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1069341262.907029@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1069341263  19813 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2738
Date: 2003-11-20T10:14:22-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> A *scientist* has said that as long as there is no proof that some
> products of largely untested "alpha"-technology impose a risk, though
> collegues say they might, he is free to use it in every setting he
> chooses, inside or outside the lab. (Genetically manipulated plants
> in this case.)

Yes, exactly. The response to GM plants is exactly like the response
to nuclear energy. The "anti" stance is formed on the basis of some
irrational belief, and is unshakable. Then pseudoscientific claims
of possible risk are used to try to destroy the hated technology, or
at least prevent it from being widely deployed. There will never be
a demonstration of sufficient lack of risk to satisfy the anti-GM
movement. You might as well try to disprove the existence of Satan
to fundamentalists.

The proper way to deal with new technology is to give it some minimal
amount of testing, looking for obvious problems, and if none are present,
go off and use it. If it turns out that problems appear subsequently,
clean them up.