Science has given us the ultimate argument in favour of genetic modification: chicken eggs containing skin-cancer-fighting antibodies. Altering the hens to lay eggs containing the antibody means it can be produced en masse and far more cheaply than through conventional methods. (Simply eating the egg doesn't get you a straight dose of the drug: it gets you the drug in egg form, from which it should be extracted to work properly.) This is the first time an animal has been successfully genetically modified to produce raw prescription medication, and could lead to inexpensive drug distribution in areas where factories are less feasible than chickens. However, what happens if these modified animals get loose in the traditional breeding bloodlines? What do you think, Hippyshoppers? Yay or Nay? [GT]
Skin cancer breakthrough in an egg
[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]
Scientists found that the carcinogen acrylamide forms in deep fried foods, particularly chips. Another problem with potatoes is that the longer they're stored, the more they break down, becoming mushy and unpalatable. Simplot in Idaho hopes to change that, with their GM potato that 'rebuffs' acrylamide when fried, and stays firm and fresh longer in storage. Would you eat this superior-tasting, less-carcinogenic, but genetically-modified, potato? Post yay or nay in comments. [GT]
Genetically modified spud healthier, creators say
Related stories: Yay or Nay: Should Al Gore give it away? | Yay or Nay: Would you eat a grey squirrel? | Organic, humanely grown veal: Yay or Nay?
Michael Eakes is a geek who knows his stuff, so it's not surprising he hit on a good way to get more people to see An Inconvenient Truth: he wrote a letter asking Al Gore to give the movie away free via BitTorrent. "The film should be free (as in beer)," he wrote. "Any fee is an economic inconvenience that guarantees a limited distribution. You must reach everyone, in a way only “free” can. I humbly urge you to give it away." What do you think, Hippyshoppers? Yay or Nay? [GT]
An Inconvenient Distribution: A Web 2.0 Geek’s Letter to Al Gore
Related stories: An Inconvenient Truth nears theatres | Tuesday blog roundup: Inconvenient truth 2 et al | Schools Reject Free Copies of An Inconvenient Truth
While the techniques described probably go beyond home application, the latest issue of Cold Spring Harbor Protocols includes techniques for the creation of transgenic plants, which includes rice spliced to yield extra vitamin A, coffee plants designed to be naturally decaf, and cotton that resists being eaten by pests. Obviously seeds like this would obviate the need for pesticides and enable us to hustle over to much cleaner growing methods tout suite, but what are the long term implications? Would you drink black tea spliced with cinnamon to be a natural chai? Post yay or nay in comments. [GT]
Decaffeinated Coffee Plants? New Methods Permit Functional Gene Studies In Plants [via Futurismic]
[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]
[A] risk/benefit analysis of nuclear power indicates that it is a safer choice than the fossil options that now dominate electricity generation.
In a nutshell, the proposition is that given no large-scale alternatives to current fossil fuel energy generation, the long-term risks posed by nuclear waste are not as serious as the present damage being done. If fossil fuels burned today result in global climate change in 50 or 100 years, there will be no way to reverse these effects. So should we switch over to nuclear power today, positing that it will fix today's problems, and stave off tomorrow's to a point where we can figure out what to do about them? Is that a step toward responsible behaviour, or continuation of a trend of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Read Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future and also how the IEA Energy agency backs nuclear power and post your responses. [GT]
Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future | Energy agency backs nuclear power
Related stories: Is recycling utter rubbish? | Yay or Nay: Boycott Breast Cancer Awareness Month? | Alternate Energy Sources For A Flourishing Future
[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]
It's impossible not to have seen the tidal wave of pink gear that's part of breast cancer fundraising, especially with October, Breast Cancer Awareness month, having just passed. However, The Assertive Cancer Patient, a breast cancer survivor, says she simply feels exploited and many other breast cancer survivors feel the same way. She says often only a small percentage of the pink product cash goes to the cancer fighting efforts, so it's really just a way for companies to sell more stuff. We need health care, she argues, not junk with a feel-good pink paint job.
The thing I've always wondered about the whole pink campaign is, why do feminists tolerate it? There are hundreds of kinds of cancer, yet the one that gets the most airtime is breast cancer. How is that not objectification of women? The implication has always been to me that our breasts are the most important part of us, therefore let's not bother to address brain cancer, heart disease, AIDS, etc. How can splintering types of cancer research, and forcing breast cancer to compete for public attention (therefore, funds) against other kinds of cancer, be desirable? Why doesn't October apply to all kinds of cancer - at the very least?
Continue reading >>
Billed as INCHworm shoes, the shoe that grows, these are shoes that, with the push of a button, can be extended up to one full size larger. Made for kids aged 3-9 (before they're old enough to need the support that a near-adult does) the idea is to give parents an option beyond either buying shoes that are too big and making the kid grow into them, or having to throw them out. That said, will the tyke wear them? Kids are notoriously picky when it comes to wearing anything that deviates too far from their perceived norm. Also, at the price (only £10 per pair) it's hard to feel certain about the quality (yes, I am indeed complaining that something reusable might be too cheap!). Are the green children out there sophisticated enough to accept arguments about waste as a good reason to be different? Post Yay or Nay in comments! [GT]
INCHworm shoes, the shoe that grows [via UberReview]
Related stories: Put on your recycled dancing shoes | Green Shoes with Vegan option | Shumidor biodegradable shoe freshener
digg this | del.icio.us this
| 
Stumble It!
