Header image
Enter a name
Lateral view of a Female Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeridae) (Hex) Mayfly Dun from the Namekagon River in Wisconsin
Hex Mayflies
Hexagenia limbata

The famous nocturnal Hex hatch of the Midwest (and a few other lucky locations) stirs to the surface mythically large brown trout that only touch streamers for the rest of the year.

Dorsal view of a Epeorus albertae (Heptageniidae) (Pink Lady) Mayfly Nymph from the East Fork Issaquah Creek in Washington
This specimen keys to the Epeorus albertae group of species. Of the five species in that group, the two known in Washington state are Epeorus albertae and Epeorus dulciana. Of the two, albertae has been collected in vastly more locations in Washington than dulciana, suggesting it is far more common. On that basis alone I'm tentatively putting this nymph in albertae, with the large caveat that there's no real information to rule out dulciana.
27" brown trout, my largest ever. It was the sub-dominant fish in its pool. After this, I hooked the bigger one, but I couldn't land it.
Troutnut is a project started in 2003 by salmonid ecologist Jason "Troutnut" Neuswanger to help anglers and fly tyers unabashedly embrace the entomological side of the sport. Learn more about Troutnut or support the project for an enhanced experience here.

Posts: 107
Gene on Oct 9, 2007October 9th, 2007, 6:57 pm EDT

An Indiana Environmental Scientist has found through studies that genetically modified corn has the serious potential to harm aquatic ecosystems. Toxins from the corn cause problems in caddisflies (mortality and growth) and a host of other problems.

Here's the link:


This is very serious in my estimation as an aquatic scientist.


In the end we will destroy everything....
Jmd123's profile picture
Oscoda, MI

Posts: 2474
Jmd123 on Oct 10, 2007October 10th, 2007, 1:27 pm EDT
Gene, I haven't read the article yet, but I'm going to jump the gun and assume that you're talking about BT corn - transgenic maize with a gene incorporated to create the toxin produced by the bacterium Bacillus thuringensis. Am I correct? This toxin has been used in several pest-control applications, including control of lepidopterous larvae (a.k.a. caterpillars) and against blackfly larvae as well. The toxin is fairly innocent until it is consumed by insects, as the gut pH of the insects causes the toxin to crystalize - inside of them. Think of it as suddenly having a mass of broken glass in your stomach - not a healthy condition!

So, I'm going out on a limb again without reading the article and guessing that this is happening to caddisflies that ingest pollen from BT corn. It's already known that monarch butterfly caterpillars get poisoned from corn pollen landing on their favored food plants, the milkweeds. I don't think it's much of a stretch to imangine the same happening to caddsiflies, which some evolutionary biologists think are descendents of the order Lepidoptera, just adapted to an aquatic lifestyle. Caddis adults do strongly resemble moths in their overall morphology, and caddis larvae also resemble caterpillars. (I should mention that I have a Masters degree in entomology from Michigan State, June 1991.)

What a typical giant agribusiness solution to a pest problem! Let's just put the pesticide IN the corn. Most corn pest problems can easily be dealt with by one simple technique: CROP ROTATION!! Not only that, but alternating corn with legumes like soybeans replenishes the nitrogen in the soil that corn so efficiently strips from it. But oh gosh, that would cut into our corporate profits and the bottom line, to waste every other year growing soybeans instead of CORN CORN AND MORE CORN to make us more money off the ETHANOL FUEL boondoggle (let's use MORE energy to produce fuel than we can GET BACK FROM IT). It isn't just genetically modified crops that are the problem - it's INDUSTRIAL FARMING that's the real problem! Your typical family farmer takes good care of their land and uses the best methods available to produce their crops - it's their heritage and their LIFESTYLE. But when all of that falls away in the supreme emphasis on PROFIT, especially when things are done on huge scales, care is thown out the window. Why take care of the land when we can just DUMP MORE CHEMICALS ON IT?!?!

I've come to this conclusion about any and all human constructs: when they get too big, they go to hell.

No matter how big the one you just caught is, there's always a bigger one out there somewhere...
Posts: 107
Gene on Oct 10, 2007October 10th, 2007, 4:01 pm EDT

Yes it appears to be the pollen and related by products. I would assume but it doesn't say in the study because other test haven't been done that this will endanger the entire food web of the ecosystem through biomagnification.

And this stuff is being grown everywhere!


No other species so degrades his nest as man!
Posts: 13
Shocking on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 2:35 am EDT
Relax! This was just the teaser. The rest of the story is at the links below (their other results). Academics need funding, and sometimes they don't tell the whole story, especially when its boring.


Posts: 13
Shocking on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 2:51 am EDT
By the way, after a million dollars of research, it also turns out that Monarch butterflies are not impacted by Bt corn. As far as crop rotation solving pest problems, try again. One species of corn rootworm has evolved to lay eggs in rotational crops awaiting the return of corn, while another species has developed a 2 and 3 year egg diapause (hybernation) awaiting the return of corn. The main moth pests simply fly to the corn when it emerges from the ground. New Bt crops reduce the use of pesticides by over 1 million pounds per year. Big business is not the only potential source of propaganda! By the way, the stream on our farm is full of caddisflies. High-intensity farming practices have allowed us to farm on only 25% of the land returning 75% to "natural" habitat, including wetlands that we put in at our own expense (government funding was so pitifull as to not be worth the paperwork). If you want more land in habitat, write to your representatives in Washington before we get another farm bill passed with too few conservation provisions.
Posts: 107
Gene on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 5:33 am EDT

The problem with the studies is that they are short term and do not take into account what happens over a longer period of time, both synergistically and cumulatively . The exposure was a of a very low concentration. However, if you read the study on Monarch Butterflies it shows that they would need large concentrations. The Monarchs were only exposed for about 3 days in some of the studies to the pollen. The Butterflies are only there for a short period of time but the stream is constantly receiving the input. I've seen this dog before and it never did hunt. It was about how the "Green Revolution" was going to save Africa. It didn't save Africa and probably from an environmental and social stand point made things worst including serious problems of disease resistant parasites with multiple vector stages.

I'm glad your farm is doing so well and your stream too. You appear to be a model of what a responsible farmer is but in most instances the PetroFARM Conglomerates are anything but ecologically sound. One only needs to look at India to see what has occurred there to see the dark side of all of this.

Evolutionarily anytime something that is introduced into a system that wasn't there before, in this case man-made genetic pollen many wierd things can happen. In England a "superweed" was created when a genetically modified oilseed rape cross fertilized with a distantly related plant--a charlock. Prior to this happening the so called experts, genetic scientists said that this was an impossibility. So much for the impossible.

tight lines and dancing nymphs


Posts: 13
Shocking on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 7:17 am EDT

The field study in question looked at invertebrates in the field ditches, so the exposure seems pretty realistic to me. People also feared antibiotics when they were first discovered. They are likewise not "natural". I assume that you also don't have a microwave - another device that was going to harm us all. Everything has risks including biotechnology. There is a risk that martians will land in my driveway today, but I don't think that I'm going to rush out and move my truck. I think the EPA has done a good job in regulating this technology. I try to look at things objectively. Nature does not seem to take care of one species over another. Whether the virus survives or the sick child gets well is up to fitness. Mother nature is not going to take sides. I prefer to intervene with unatural drugs prescribed by a trained MD.


Posts: 107
Gene on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 11:54 am EDT

Your analysis has nothing to do with what we were talking about. First of all you fail to understand long term effects and biomagnification going up the food web. The number of peer reviewed scientific studies on the long terms effects is dismal to say the least.

There is a lack of biodiversity in these seeds in terms of stamina; they are being bred for x factor if something arises in the environment they are easily wiped out. Some of them pose allergenic reactions for some people.

You are right Mother Nature doesn't choose sides but who gave Monsanto and our Fascist Government the right to play God. Have you ever checked Monsanto's environmental track record!

You are correct life is a risk but citizens should have the knowledge and rights to determine which risks they will take--not Monsanto and Corporate America.

The problem of the cross fertilization and creation of a super weed should be enough for people to know that the so called geneticists got fooled badly. There are no long term studies on anything concerning these products and it appears that's exactly the way Monsanto, Corporate America and our Government want it. They say trust us....that's why I became a scientist...cause I don't trust the likes of Corporate America, Monsanto and our esteemed Government. I mean they have never lied to us before on anything like this ....now have they

tight lines


Posts: 13
Shocking on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 1:05 pm EDT

I am not defending Monsanto, but as you say lets get back to the original paper in PNAS and the press releases from the authors of that paper. Did you read the results and conclusions by these authors at the NABS links that I listed in the first comment? Do you think that most folks would consider these results pertinent to the conclusions that they draw in the PNAS article? If so, then what motivation might these authors have had for not mentioning these results? If there is no effect in the streams right near the fields, why would they think that there would be an effect to the ecosystem? Bio-accumulation makes sense for persistant chemicals, but have you ever heard of a bio-accumulating protein, especially one that is found naturally in a common soil organism and which has been used by organic farmers for over 50 years? Anything is possible, but by my assessment, this is pretty silly. By the way, the EPA regulators are also scientists, and it is their job to protect the environment. They are concerned people just like you and I.

Posts: 107
Gene on Oct 20, 2007October 20th, 2007, 6:03 pm EDT

I'm sure your are competent in you field of endeavor but you appear not to be an aquatic or environmental scientist. Try this:

"Background. The endotoxin in Bt crops consists of a crystal protein toxin ("Cry" toxin) coded for by genes which have been isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil organism. According to Andow and Hutchison (1998), over 100 Bt Cry toxin genes may have been patented, but those active against lepidopterans such as corn borer, for example, appear to be limited to Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac and a few others. Other Bt Cry genes are active against colepterans (beetles) such as Colorado potato beetle, and dipterans such as mosquitos. Thus, it was believed that one could insert the gene(s) coding for specific toxins into crop plants, and act selectively against the target group.

However, the selectivity of foliar-applied Bt arises from at least two critical steps which are bypassed entirely in Bt-crops. The Bt in soil microbes exists as a protoxin, a precursor which is not insecticidal. It becomes activated (and insecticidal) only when a) ingested by an insect with the proper, alkaline intestinal pH, and b) specific enzymes are present to cleave the precursor into the active form, which then c) binds with receptor sites in the gut, leading to the death of the insect. In GMO applications, it is active endotoxin - not the precursor molecule - which is synthesized in the plant cells. Thus, the first two screening steps are absent, and the potential for non-target effects is increased.

Selectivity/Ecological Ramifications. Hilbeck et al. (1999) at the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture demonstrated that the Bt in GMO crops behaves entirely differently from what would be expected from foliar Bt. A non-lepidopteran "prey" species - Spodoptera littoralis (Egyptian cotton leafworm) - was fed on either Cry1Ab protoxin or activated Cry1Ab toxin (as Bt-corn). Neither mortality nor weight of the non lepidopteran prey individuals were affected at any level of protoxin, as would be expected of a product selective for lepidopterans. However mortality rate doubled and weight of surviving individuals was reduced at the highest level of active endotoxin - which should not have happened in a non-lepidopteran species.

The active Bt-fed and protoxin-fed prey larvae were in turn fed to a non-target, non-lepidopteran predator species, Chrysoperla carnea, which is an important biocontrol agent in many agricultural systems. Neither mortality nor development were adversely affected when the C. carnea predator was fed protoxin-fed prey larvae. However, mortality was increased and the percent success in developing through each life stage was reduced when the diet consisted of Bt-corn fed prey larvae.

The tri-trophic study of Hilbeck et al. (1999) challenges the claim that Bt crops retain the selectivity of foliar Bt. In essence, if validated over a wider range of organisms and conditions, these findings suggest a loss of selectivity in transgenic vs. natural Bt applications. The study further suggests the potential for adverse ramification out into the wider ecosystem - analogous to what happens with bioaccumulative pesticides.

Persistence. One reason why decades of foliar Bt applications on organic and IPM operations has generated so little resistance in target organisms is because the Bt organisms are short-lived in the aerial environment. Foliar applications are vulnerable to UV radiation, essentially eliminating their efficacy in as little as a week. Usage can thus be timed and targeted to specific pests, without risk of harm to non-target species at other times in the season. Again, GE-Bt is an entirely different proposition, because it must remain active - in every cell of every plant - throughout the season.

Stotzky and colleagues (Crecchio and Stotzky, 1998; Tapp and Stotzky, 1998; Saxena et al., 1999) have demonstrated that the Bt endotoxin, whether coming from crop residues or from root exudates can persist for at least 234 days bound to clay particles in the soil. Further compounding the exposure issue, Bt crops also exude the insecticidally active endotoxin from the root system during the growing season. Thus, the time duration of exposure of target and non-target organisms to the insecticidal properties of Bt is vastly prolonged in Bt-crops as compared to foliar Bt sprays. Risk/likelihood of development of resistance in target organisms is concomitantly greater.

In essence, the process of engineering insecticidal traits into crop plants has taken a product that was short-lived and selective in its native state and turned it into a product that mirrors the persistent, bioaccumulative, ramifying harms associated with chemical insecticides. Thus, justification that genetically engineered Bt is environmentally benign and safe because Bt is a natural product is unsound."

Here's a paper that summarizes many of the disinformation put out by the government and industry:

As far as the EPA goes most of them are about as worthless as tits on a boarhog. They have failed to hold the states responsible to the Clean Water Act and have allowed industry to basically destroy this nation environmentally especially under this administration.

The EPA regulators are not usually scientists...they are often political hacks and that's why so many scientist have quit the EPA in recent years.

It's not silly at all because of the pathways, interactions and synergistic effects that occur.

GM Crops have been rammed down our throats because Monsanto and other companies own this government and the Dept. of Agriculture.

The scientist at NABS did just a few short term studies...that's all and there were some questions even about them.

tight lines and big trout


Posts: 13
Shocking on Oct 21, 2007October 21st, 2007, 2:23 am EDT

I'll try to hit all of your points 1 by 1 and then I'll give up.

First lets tackle the super-weed urban ledgend. I am aware of no scientific evidence that genes have moved to weeds from transgenic crops, but it is possible. The gene for Round-Up herbicide resistance could move from a crop to related weeds making them imune to the herbicide. This is what could make them "super". So lets get this straight. You think that Monsanto should stop giving farmers tools to improve production like the herbicide Round-Up, and crops that resist this herbicide, so that weeds won't develop resistance to the herbicide that you don't want Monsanto to sell? A little warped if you ask me.

Next - The Hilbeck study. I have not read it, but you seem confused. The egyptian cotton leafworm is a Lepidopteran just like the target insects and gets sick when it eats lepidopteran-active Bt proteins (although less so), and if you feed these sick insects to other insects they don't grow well. Big surprise, predators that eat healthy insects grow faster than predators that eat sick insects. As far as activating pro-toxins, common enzymes activate these crytstal toxins even in plants.

Next - Insect resistance is of real risk with these Bt crops. Thus, programs have been put in place to delay this, and so far they have worked. However the use of Bt as an organic pesticide has not faired as well, and has caused widespread resistance (e.g. diamondback moth). This is precisly due to the property that you mention. Bt sprays decay to a weak level creating an evolutionary stepping stone to resistance. Those EPA scientists, that you have so little respect for, realized this and required a consistent high concentration of the Bt proteins in crops before registration was granted, and it has worked!

Next - The work of Stotsky's lab has been followed up on by the EPA and many other researchers and seems to have no merit. Bt proteins degrade very quickly in the environment whether sprayed out as an organic pesticide or expessed in crops. It is not hard to find these research articles by many labs. Like the caddisfly paper, unrealistic studies were used to scare the uninformed public.

Next- Your India reference is very interesting. Are you referring to the improved yield of cotton with GM varieties that have resulted in record levels of adoption by Indian farmers? Or are you referring to the improved health of the farmers due to the reduced exposure they have to pesticides? This is a great example of how this technology can help small poor farmers!

Next - You got one thing right. Bt crops are not safe because they are "natural". They are safe because empirical safety testing has shown them to be safe. The EPA realizes this and is requiring programs to be in place to prevent insect resistance that could jeopordize their long-term utility. Seems like a pretty smart group of folks to me.

Finally, you seem to think farmers are stupid. You think that they are having technology rammed down their throats. You are dead wrong! Farmers know a good thing when they see it and are some of the most practical people there are. They also understand the value of the land and work hard to preserve it.

You seem driven to find evidence to support your predetermined conclusions. This is not science and as a scientist, I am certain that you know this. Step back for just a moment and re-evaluate the path that you are on. No technology is without risk, but be certain that you look at all the facts, and be cautious of claims without real data. I once heard the saying: In God we trust, everyone else bring data.

Signing off on this topic for now,

Posts: 107
Gene on Oct 21, 2007October 21st, 2007, 6:04 am EDT

Obviously we are from two different universes and that's fine. Here's a gene transfer article or two:



Here's some info on horizontal gene transfer etc.



IN India and other places GM crops have multifaceted set of problems; try these:



The second lie we were told was that this kind of stuff would never happen.

I think anyone reading these articles and scientific studies without a bias towards the Petrochemical Farming industry would conclude we have been hoodwinked. You seem to put good faith in government scientists. Have you ever been involved with these people? Many of them are quite talented and some are downright incompetent. Whatever the case they work for some administrator who is a political hack and they either follow the company line or else. I'm not saying that the people who did the article have done that at all. But in anything like this you need long term studies. I'm saying that there is a history of this type of behavior and it doesn't matter if it's a life or death matter. Want Proof!

Go ask the people who are dying (and many have already died) from the Twin Towers aftermath. You know the fire fighters and rescue workers who inhaled that toxic soup BECAUSE THE EPA HEAD CHRISTINE WHITMAN AND THE EPA DELIBERATELY LIED TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THEM THAT THE AIR WAS SAFE! Now if they don't care about the lives of people do you really think our trout streams matter to them!

I have friends that work at the DEPT. of Agriculture who have PHds in Economics....the place is totally political and is run by industry...that's their opinion. I have worked with and against EPA and other government environmental organizations. If these people were doing their jobs (or if they were allowed to do their jobs which usually they are not) would this country be in such an evironmental state of ruin!

As far as your genius farmers .....I agree there are some that are very good and ecologically sound at what they do. However, according to my fishing buddy who just retired from selling farm equipment and providing seminars over the years on the best methods of taking care of the soil etc....He said that most of them appear to be dumber than a box of rocks and are totally controlled by the Petrochemical industry! MY own personal experience shows this to be true. If farmers are so good why do they lose so many billions of tons of top soil into our streams each year. Many of these farmers are too lazy to put up a few fences to protect stream banks from destruction by cattle.

The last group of people I will trust on this earth is the Petrochemical industry or Exxons of the world. The truth about GM crops is that it poses many risks and some worst than others, and it has been a rush to judgment because industry owns the agencies and the government who are supposed to be objective. The environmental track record of the Petrochemical industry reads like a manual from Hell. You are entitled to your opinions and I have no problem with it. However, I have no bias in it. I have seen their handiwork over the last 25 years and I have dealt with them so I know how they think and what they really care about.

tight lines


Pleasant Gap, PA

Posts: 1197
Shawnny3 on Oct 22, 2007October 22nd, 2007, 10:48 am EDT
Thank you, gentlemen, for that thoughtful discussion - I've enjoyed it and have learned a lot from the repartee.

This issue, along with the stem-cell issue, have created some oddly juxtaposing positions on both sides of the aisle. On the one hand, you have a group that clamors for advancements in food technology to help feed the world's billions while running to the defense of a few extra embryos. On the other hand, you have a group that clamors for advancements in stem-cell technology to help Parkinson's- or Alzheimer's-afflicted grandmas live better in their old age while running to the defense of a few butterflies. Meanwhile, both groups accuse the other of standing in the way of science, pointing out vociferously that lots of people are starving and lots of grandmas are forgetting their relatives' names while we quibble over embryos and butterflies. If Monsanto decides to lead the charge into embryonic stem-cell research, will our very universe implode?

Forgive me if it seems irreverent, but I hope we can all have a good laugh at ourselves in spite of the seriousness of the issues and the passion with which they're argued.


P.S. And, just so no one gets the wrong impression, I should mention that I have a grandmother of each variety (Parkinson's and Alzheimer's). I'm also fond of GMOs, butterflies, and embryos. And puppies and small children. You get the idea.
Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis
Posts: 13
Shocking on Nov 11, 2007November 11th, 2007, 2:13 am EST
A letter to the editor from non-industry scientist from several countries in response to the caddisfly paper can be found at the following link:

Posts: 107
Gene on Nov 11, 2007November 11th, 2007, 5:25 pm EST

I don't know whether you are a bit naive or think that I'm not a very good researcher AND SCIENTIST. Anyway, it doesn't matter because such a discussion will go no where. However, I thought perhaps that I told you that I have worked in a number of scientific endeavors and know just about everyone and what side they are really on.


Every single scientist on the list works for the biotech and petroagricultural industry. Mark Sears ...receives money from Monsanto and Dow!

These people have no credibility even with Phds after their name because they went down the road of Whoredom long ago. Whether the study is perfect is not the point. There has not been adequate studies done and this stuff is being shoved down the throats of everyone. But when someone questions the research and they are industry shills and whores how much credibility do you think they have? Dr. Henry Miller has written articles on DDT where he didn't have clue to what he was talking about. He is considered a joke by most independent scientists in the field. Miller also claims that global warming is hoax. He chimes the corporate line because he knows who calls the shots...industry.

There are now studies showing that many organically grown plants have higher nutrient value because they have more micronutrients and phytochemicals than plants grown with pesticides. One study showed rats preferred wheat grown organically! These people see only the light provided for by their corporations. These people don't see it that way and with good reason...they are being paid by industry.

These people are a disgrace and I recognized their names immediately. I'm sure you didn't realize who these people were because they sound so professional but they are the last people you want questioning anything because they work for the petroagricultural complex in one way or another. Nothing personal but I've been to conferences with these types and I'd like to hit them right between the eyes.

Whatever the answers to our problems are they will not be solved by these shills...and I learned that a long time ago.

tight lines


Pleasant Gap, PA

Posts: 1197
Shawnny3 on Nov 11, 2007November 11th, 2007, 11:35 pm EST
A few questions:

1) This marriage you continually to speak of, Gene, between the biotech and petrochemical industries, seems a bit strange to me. Wouldn't these two industries be each other's direct competitors and hence not likely to support each other, one creating GMOs that put the hurt on the other's pesticide business? Or is this as simple as political cronies watching out for each other's back? It just seems strange that you lump them together. Please explain.

2) Your comments on organically grown foods are interesting. Now, I know you can't possibly be arguing that such agriculture is sustainable for the population at large, but don't GMOs come a lot closer to the organic ideal than incessant pesticide use? For example, I grow wine grapes as a hobby. The traditional European varietals are extremely susceptible to all manner of disease and require an incredible amount of pesticide and fungicide for their healthy growth (if anyone had told me beforehand that growing some freaking grapes was going to be this difficult, I never would have started). If you tried to grow these traditional vines organically, the results would be absolutely disastrous. Newer hybrids, however, are much more resistant to disease naturally and require much less pesticide and fungicide. There are no GM vines yet to my knowledge, but I would personally welcome them if it meant fewer sprays and healthier plants, and I find it hard to believe that someone as passionate about the environment as you are wouldn't at least look at such advancements with guarded optimism. Again, please explain your reasoning.


P.S. I'm not looking for a fight, here, just a little clarification.
Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis
Posts: 107
Gene on Nov 12, 2007November 12th, 2007, 6:37 am EST

Here's the list of scientists who wrote the so called letter:

Alan McHughen, Professor, University of California, Riverside.
Brian Federici, Professor, University of California, Riverside.
Henry Miller, M.D., The Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Klaus Ammann, Prof. emerit. Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
C. Kameswara Rao, Professor. Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education,Bangalore, India.
Prof. Dr. Ingo Potrykus, Chairman, Humanitarian Golden Rice Board & Network
Dr. Piero Morandini, Dept. of Biology, University of Milan, Italy
C. J. Leaver, CBE, FRS, FRSE, Sibthorpian Professor of Plant Science, University of Oxford, UK
S. Shantharam, Director, Biotechnology Education Programs, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
Mark Sears, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
C. S. Prakash, Professor, Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee University, USA

Every single one of them receives grants, money etc. in some form from the petroagricultural complex which includes the biotech too. For example Monsanto which is both. Some of these clowns actually worked for Monsanto. Follow the money. They all signed the letter questioning the study because that's what these groups do. They put out disinformation to confuse the public. They are industry whores!

We are going to have genetically modified crops no matter what. However, my point being that these are often more dangerous than anyone especially the Dept. of Agriculture and the biotech-petroagricultural industry wants anyone to investigate or know about. Their answer simply is: Trust US! How can you trust these scumbuckets when the so called scientfic base consist of people who work for them and have a history of lying about everything. These are same fuckup type scientists who worked for the tobacco industry and said cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

If you grew your crops organically and the guy next to you grew GM and it infected your crops (which has occurred in many places) would that be okay with you!

There are no simple answers to these problems but the massive GM influx without constant independent research is another boondogle just like the petrofarming. The transfer of the pollen and the other stuff into the food web is what they orginally said wouldn't happen!

We have too many people on this planet for the way we wish to live. If you bring everyone up to the US standard (which China and other countries are trying to do) it will eventually be over as far as I am concerned and your trout and salmon rivers will be long gone by the time that happens.

The so called "Green Revolution" in Africa did more harm than good as far as most ecologists are concerned and probably even hasten the spread of aids. We wish to try and grow crops for people who can't sustain themselves at the expense of the environment. Read the story of what happened in India with GM crops.

GM crops are not a panacea. They have risks too including many of them lack the rigor of other crops and in some cases can be readily wiped out. Most of the crops grown in the US are from massive petrofarms. So now we will change to massive GM farms. The GM industry tells you it's going to be great. Find out for yourself. Other nations of the world have many smaller local farms and don't have to ship their crops massive distances as compared to the US. Their crops are fresher and require less overall energy to grow and move. The amount of energy we requre to get crops to the market in the US is beyond belief. So how is this better for the environment?

If we have a world wide-recession-depression the US will be the hardest hit esepcially with food and this is one of the major reasons. In much of Europe their produce is mostly local and the people can get it fresh everyday (they also have a better infrastructure than us including massive rail systems so they don't need to drive everywhere like we do).

Organic farming may not be sustainable according to the present model the US has posed but who is making the rules? Simply put it doesn't fit into the giant corporate model that industry has for farming in this nation. Would thousands of smaller organic-semiorganic farms be better for America than the limited number of petro-biotech-agriculatural conglomerates? Depends on your viewpoint. I'm not saying that we need only organic farms but this is a reasonable approach for some crops. Some organic farms produce more per acre than conventional farming. However, low tilliage and no-tillage farms are doing a pretty good job environmentally as well with limited pesticides.

It's not one or the other---it's all of them that we need but to say that GM crops do not pose a major risk that may have extreme consequences down the road, and the people you are suppose to put your trust in,---are industry shills get a life.

And finally....The website The Public Research and Regulation Initiative is an SHILL Site Run by .....Industry. Their funding comes from Croplife International...the globlal biotechs industry federation and other biotech companies.

tight lines,


Posts: 13
Shocking on Nov 12, 2007November 12th, 2007, 10:26 am EST

If you want to follow this, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) will, no doubt, be evaluating both sides of this argument. They published the original caddisfly study. I a sure that Gene will have reasons not to trust them, but I do. Science is supposed to be about data and information, not about killing the messenger. The critisism of the caddisfly study addresses critical study flaws and data omissions. It is not an attack on the background of the scientists that ran the studies. If you do not have a scientific background, please do not judge scientists by Gene's conduct. If you do have a scientific background, then you understand this not normal behavior. Calling those you disagree with names is not how scientists conduct themselves. They deal in data and logic. Gene has some valid points, but his avangelist behavior (Mother Nature is God, and industry is the devil) is not consistent with scientific methods, and will undermine any message that he carries with most. Passion is a two-edged sword.

Sorry Gene, but this is a little to far out for me. Think that you watched the movie Conspiracy Theory one too many times.
Taxon's profile picture
Site Editor
Plano, TX

Posts: 1311
Taxon on Nov 12, 2007November 12th, 2007, 1:17 pm EST

I really don't have a horse in this race. However, I cannot help but observe, whatever one may think of Gene's views, at least he is not hiding behind anonymity.
Best regards,
Roger Rohrbeck
Posts: 107
Gene on Nov 12, 2007November 12th, 2007, 5:14 pm EST

You either work for the biotech industry or you lack any serious understanding of systems, ecology,data, and the scientific method. We aren't talking about just this one study. You just don't get and I've been polite long enough.

See if you can understand this: we are talking about the entire petroagriculturalbiotech industry! The people on the site you listed are shills! The site is run by the goddamn biotech industry. Do you expect them to say anything else! They are being paid by the biotech industry. Now let's get this straight what they say is correct but what anyone else says is wrong and we are shooting the messenger. Did I get that right! And they are paid by the biotech industry. Many of us were born at night but it wasn't LAST FrickING NIGHT! You expect people of science and otherwise not to question their letter! Wait,... I believe we are in some kind of stupid war because no one had the balls to question anyone on anything. Is that your ideal of what science is all about? If someone told you we needed to go to war and use this weapon and they were representatives of weapon company who made the weapon......I guess you'd trust them...right!

You appear to have a myopic viewpoint about science but you criticize me for showing the public the obvious. Scientists criticize other scientists all of the time. I work in this industry in many capacities, and I and everyone else who works in it know who the industry shills are, and these people are industry shills.

Perhaps you live in bubble and don't pay any attention to the world around you. What happened when the Nobel prize winner James Watson said something that was political incorrect about race and IQ...the world tore him a new asshole even though the data support much of what he had to say. He was called a number of things that I won't even put on this website by other scientists. You haven't heard any scientist's comment on the shills for Exxon and other oil companies over global warming..give me a break. Wilson of Harvard criticized the late Stephen Jay Gould all of the time....and rightly so. You seem to lack an understanding of the history of science and what goes on in it. A few examples: Dr.Gallo ripped the French doctor and researcher Luc Montagnier in a conference on aids in front of hundreds of scientists (Gallo was wrong but that's immaterial). I've seen environmental scientists question graduate students giving a paper at a conference so rigorously that their professor had to come out of the audience to defend their research from the attacks! The scientist bluntly said the students were basically incompetent in their research!

These clowns may very well be right on this particular study but that's not the question because if you check what these people write about it's always what the corporate biotech industry wants them to say and they never deviate. Now what's the probablility of that? Biotech is alway right and everyone else is always wrong! Dr. Miller in particular writes a column on a website called Newsback which I also write for. I've read everything he's written in the last year and he never goes against the biotech industry because he works for them. He is a right-wing extremist whore of a scientist and I would personally tell the bastard to his face. He doesn't think there is any danger in anything the biotech industry does or the petrochemical industry. Furthermore, you misstate my position on mother nature and everything else. Can't you fricking read! I never remotely said Mother Nature is God and Industry is the Devil or anything close to that.

What I said is that there should be more studies done on GM and everything else and I don't trust the industry scientists who do it because they have been lying to us for years. They have a vested interest..can't you see this! Where have you been? Do you sell GM products?

You are right on one thing I don't trust the National Academy of Science because they have caved into political pressure in the past and everyone in the environmental community knows it. You have this blind faith in anything industry tells you. Or anything that they write or publish. However, I work in the real world and know what goes on and it's always about money...never about safety, ecological systems or anything else. The bottom line is it's always money....not science!

Keep your blind faith of industry ...Shocking...because that's what it is.. faith..and it has nothing to do with science!

Meanwhile I'll do what I am suppose to as a scientist...question everything especially from an industry who tries to disinform the public at every juncture. And if these so called people are nothing but whores and shills I'll be glad to call them that and so do other scientists. There are some industry scientists that are objective but those who signed that letter don't fit that category. I have worked for industry and still do but I never allow them to color or distort my work. They don't own me!

Dr.Black and I were told by the PFBC Commission Scientists that there was nothing wrong with Big Spring. The hatchery didn't hurt it at all. Even though 98% of all the fish in 5 miles of one of the world's greatest spring creeks only were found in 150 meter stretch below the hatchery. This was according to their own data. Well everyone knows where that disinformation ended up..and after our study closed the hatchery...what do you know...Big Spring is back.

You trust industry and government and that's your choice...but I know better and question them until I'm satisfied. And when their industry stooges are put on the stage let them tell you where their money comes from and this is true whether it's from the right or the left.


tight lines and question everything....because that's why you are here folks AND THAT'S WHY YOU GO FLY FISHNG!


Quick Reply

Related Discussions

Last Reply
Apr 8, 2010
by Jmd123
Jun 24, 2011
Jul 28, 2013
by Taxon
Troutnut.com is copyright © 2004-2024 (email Jason). privacy policy