The DNA Protection Act of 2013

How would you vote on this proposal?

  • no

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • yes

    Votes: 9 81.8%
  • undecided

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11

DNAprotection

Member
Jan 18, 2013
245
17
16
cali
The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
We need your help to make The DNA Protection Act of 2013 into a law by way of getting it on the ballot and then getting it passed into law by a majority vote of the people.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.

"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;

section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

section 2. DEFINITIONS:

2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
 
The DNA Protection Act of 2013
By: DNA Protection 12/22/2012 @ 4:03pm
The Act will ban GE & GMO's from California on the basis of 'original design'.The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.We need your help to make The DNA Protection Act of 2013 into a law by way of getting it on the ballot and then getting it passed into law by a majority vote of the people.The first thing anyone can do to help is to get the word out by re-posting this message and the Act itself anywhere and everywhere you think people might read it.All forms of volunteerism are needed in this effort from signature gathering to just about any way you can think of to help.Find us at facebook or e-mail us at [email protected] for more info on volunteering and for progress updates.This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.At this stage all further suggestions on changes or additions to the text of the Act are still welcome, and thank you.http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-DNA-Protection-Act-of-2013/501996139820653"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,and is as set forth herein as follows;section 1. FINDINGS,The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,and,1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",and,1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,and,1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,and,1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,and,1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.section 2. DEFINITIONS:2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof). .............
Agriculture.com Mobile

Linked
 
Not only do I support this, I want one for my state, and then all of the remaining 55.

Death to Monsanto.
 
Summary of the bill?

What are the consequences of me supporting it/not supporting it?
Some one else (Monsanto, AMGEN) can PATENT your DNA and make you pay exorbitant prices for Gene Therapy or whatever else later on.

Oh you don't think your DNA can be Patented? "Google" it, I dare ya'!
 
Summary of the bill?

What are the consequences of me supporting it/not supporting it?
Some one else (Monsanto, AMGEN) can PATENT your DNA and make you pay exorbitant prices for Gene Therapy or whatever else later on.

Oh you don't think your DNA can be Patented? "Google" it, I dare ya'!

Yes and here's more info on that:

" Published on Mar 7, 2012

Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patoned by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues."

Google "Katherine Davies and Thomas Linzey" to see the youtube vid on this its worth it.

As far as what the proposal would do, it simply would prohibit living GE/GM organisms from within the state of California, with the exemption allowed for in sec 3(c) for strictly controlled medical use or research etc.
 
Not only do I support this, I want one for my state, and then all of the remaining 55.

Death to Monsanto.

Exactly what needs to happen in as many states possible, it reframes the debate over GMO's in such a way as to make it more conclusive in its foundation.
I have found that to wield the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny proves the undeniable point much like a simple decapitation or like game over in the video game debate version...once wielded not even the top Monsanto et al scientists can argue against the simple fatal truth of it and even Einstein would in all likelihood argue in defense of its simple equation logic with respect to not having all the numbers to the equations of life itself let alone its symbiotic nature and the possibly devastating chain reactive effects this technology could unleash as we allow the corps/gov to General Custer us all forward redesigning and privatizing the gene pool (we all swim in and come from) for profit...the quote of destiny is awesome and should only be used if ready to behead your opponent. Sometimes its useful to draw your opponent out far enough so as to be naked for their beheading...sorry, ima soldier...
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld
 
I tried pm'n ya back Intense, but won't let me yet.
All apologies to the folks here as I may have violated the rules with my original post of the proposal etc...as I did paste it up. To be clear to all though I did also write it.
That may account for its 'tortured' language in some parts and whatever other shortcomings.
The thing is though that there is nothing else out there like it and something needs to be so here ya go...if you like it then run with it...if you like it but want to change it then please do that.
The issue is critical at this point in time and an all hands on deck effort is called for in my opinion.
Thanks again to all for allowing the post<3
 
Hi again folks, just hoping to get a better sampling on the vote count.
So far the response posts have been great but only 1 vote in the poll.
I totally get the resistance to voting as it is usually a bait and switch game, but this effort is not such and truly needs your votes and opinions on this topic.
I would post links to info that could help show more about the subject generally, but I think I need to make more posts here before I am allowed to do so and I don't have the time today to elaborate further in my own words about this subject and the urgent attention it deserves.
'I'll be back' in attempt to further discuss terminator technology and all the rest that can and should be considered about this topic.
Thanks again, please vote early and often...and remember, every time someone votes, a pig gets their wings and escapes from a Monsanto lab<3
 
Hi again folks, just hoping to get a better sampling on the vote count.
So far the response posts have been great but only 1 vote in the poll.
I totally get the resistance to voting as it is usually a bait and switch game, but this effort is not such and truly needs your votes and opinions on this topic.
I would post links to info that could help show more about the subject generally, but I think I need to make more posts here before I am allowed to do so and I don't have the time today to elaborate further in my own words about this subject and the urgent attention it deserves.
'I'll be back' in attempt to further discuss terminator technology and all the rest that can and should be considered about this topic.
Thanks again, please vote early and often...and remember, every time someone votes, a pig gets their wings and escapes from a Monsanto lab<3

It looks like a shutout. :D

I've got lots of stuff. I'll get off my ass and do my part.
 
This could be a good primer for those new to the subject:

About GMOs


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 'Monsanto Rider': Are Biotech Companies About to Gain Immunity from Federal Law?

A so-called &#8220;Monsanto rider,&#8221; quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations bill, would require &#8211; not just allow, but require - the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed. All the farmer or the biotech producer has to do is ask, and the questionable crops could be released into the environment where they could potentially contaminate conventional or organic crops and, ultimately, the nation&#8217;s food supply.


I believe this went through in December. It's hard to get news from the conservative media.

All you guys that love to throw around the word "fascism" -- Batter up.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes a reader finds a video doc to be less work so here's a sum-up:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P1CJ7IEt0c]Food, Inc. Monsanto control 90% of US soybean - YouTube[/ame]

It's annoyingly cartoon-filtered but the point is there.

Here's the full documentary. Requires an investment of an hour and a half but it's worth it:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ap_qefLjI]Food, Inc. (With Subs) - YouTube[/ame]
 
:eusa_clap:
Tried to quote ya but I am still denied lol...
You are awesome! I wish we were in better proximity because our powers combined would surely ward off the coming 'springtime for hitler' era that Monsanto et al is intent on ushering in by way of redesigning privatizing and controlling the evolution of everything they can lol...only thing is I'm not joking lol...:eusa_pray:
I have been posting this in other political forums and I can tell you we have our work cut out for us.
Here is a scary backwards logic example of the current controlled descent propaganda efforts and their effects on peoples perceptions about this war over our genetics that they don't even know is being fought:

Peter wrote:
"I agree that GMO is not ready. But labeling will kill it off - in the mean time testing can be done and the question revisited in 10-20 years. We don't need a huge law or the jack-boot power of the State to achieve this. If there is labeling GMO will go out of business."

In response I then wrote:
Well Peter you have made two quite far reaching assumptions and I can't imagine there is any evidence that would make such conclusions plausible?
Take for example labeling, (at your own risk lol) turn on a TV and watch for ten minutes or less and you will in all likelihood see one or more commercials for 'drugs' or as they say 'medications' and on each of those commercials you will see a nightmarish laundry list of possible side effects that can occur when using said products that almost always include death as one of the possible side effects. Its hard to imagine a corp paying for such commercials or required GIANT AUDIO LABELING if it was as counterproductive to their profit margin as you seem to think such a measure would be etc...
As far as the "jack-boot power of the State", I'm sorry to say that your quite inaccurate or more to the point backwards on that assumption. The state of things at present is that Monsanto et al currently wield the power you speak of and are using it in haste in effort to further the notion of centralized power, only this technology gives reach to the ultimate centralized power ability of redesigning privatizing and controlling the evolution of everything through controlling genetics.
I can't imagine a more "jack-boot power of the State" era than the one you and the other posters here are so willing to usher in.
If you agree that GMO's aren't ready for prime time, then truly take some time to really learn why and what the real potential for unintended or intended consequences are for us all, not just those who 'consume' GMO products. We are talking about chain reactive technologies, I hope you fully understand what that means?
 
Thought this might also help inform folks on whats going on with all this:

BRIA 23 4 c Patenting Life

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
WINTER 2008 (Volume 23, No. 4)

Patenting Life

"The U.S. Patent Office issues patents for new inventions. With the development of biotechnology, scientists are designing new bacteria, plants, and even animals for medical and other uses. The issue arises: Should patents be issued for these living things?

Patenting living things has always provoked controversy. Some of the controversy hinges on moral and ethical issues, and some on legal disputes. Another area of controversy is whether patenting cell lines, specific genes, and diagnostic tests actually helps or hinders medical care.

The Supreme Court has not considered this issue since 1980. Since that time, many revolutionary discoveries in biotechnology have occurred. Scientists, lawyers, and businessmen agree that the law on patenting life has not kept up with new discoveries and that it is time for Congress to act.

Can Living Things Be Patented?

Ananda Mahan Charkrbarty grew up in India. After finishing his PhD, he came to the United States and in the1970s was working for General Electric in genetic engineering. Charkrabarty invented a new kind of bacteria to which he added plasmids (small pieces of DNA, separate from the chromosome) from other bacteria. His multiplasmid bacteria grew faster and better on crude oil than any of the single plasmid bacteria. His new bacteria were good at cleaning up oil spills because they consumed oil so quickly. After meeting with a patent attorney, he decided to apply for a patent on his oil-eating bacteria.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied Chakrabarty's patent application in 1973. The PTO ruled that Chakrabarty's bacterium was a "product of nature" and no one may get a patent for living things. Seven years later, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overruled the PTO.

In its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed the language of the Patent Act (35 U.S. Code 101), which states:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The court held that the terms "manufacture" and "composition of matter" should be interpreted broadly and that no history or case law indicated otherwise. It cited a congressional committee report from1952 (when the Patent Act was amended) stating that Congress intended people to be able to patent "anything under the sun that is made by man." The court acknowledged that true "products of nature" may not be patented: "Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter." But Chakrabarty's bacteria had different DNA and different properties from any bacteria found in nature. "His discovery," the court ruled, "is not nature's handiwork but his own,"and therefore may be patented. "

I am unable to post link, but to read the rest of this please google:
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
WINTER 2008 (Volume 23, No. 4)
 
This debate over GMO's will become a love/hate relationship IMO.

After we have screwed the enviornmnet up to the point we can no longer count on a certain nunber of days suitable for the growing of our most common food crops, we will rely on a GMO to change the natural grow cycle of corn, wheat, beans etc to accomodate the change in weather patterns.

GMO's could be our savior and our downfall both. I don't like them now, but I am not hungry enough yet.
 
This debate over GMO's will become a love/hate relationship IMO.

After we have screwed the enviornmnet up to the point we can no longer count on a certain nunber of days suitable for the growing of our most common food crops, we will rely on a GMO to change the natural grow cycle of corn, wheat, beans etc to accomodate the change in weather patterns.

GMO's could be our savior and our downfall both. I don't like them now, but I am not hungry enough yet.
zeke, in my opinion your deductions are wise and well thought out...its like the company slogan, give'em cancer and then pretend you've got the cure...or at least can treat the symptoms etc...create the status then profit from same...its the old war or military industrial complex game and has been working for years...just expanded now to all aspects of culture and technology...um...yikes...
 
Please Link Each Copy and Paste to It's Source. Keep them Short.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Before getting to the news story from 'Independent Science News' I just wanted to comment on the response so far to this proposal in other demographic sectors of inhabited internet political forums. So far the best response has come from this site and a pro cannabis site lol and the more definable 'democrat' or 'republican' sites are in common rejecting the proposal based on mostly lack of information on the subject of genetic engineering or saturated with misinformation about such and at the end of the day mostly culminating in a bizarre giving of the benefit of doubt to the corps/gov and its inherent responsibility to always do their best for us...yikes...makes it difficult to proceed, but such is why the proposal is written the way it is in that it seeks to reframe the 'debate' or 'discussion' about this technology in such a way as to get folks asking themselves and others questions they as of yet for the most part have been diverted from considering or asking in the current 'gmo's are good' v 'gmo's are bad' framing of the issue. bla bla anyway here's the latest 'good' v 'bad' news on GMO's (lol) from Independent Science News::eusa_boohoo:

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
January 21, 2013 Biotechnology, Commentaries 21 Comments <snip>

DNA, you're gonna git yourself in trouble posting entire articles like this. I think you only need something like 15 posts to get linking capability so do yourself a favour and make a few meaningless posts somewhere so you can embed links. For the sake of copyright law, as well as easier on the eyes for the readers.

Since this stuff is important, here's a link to your story in full. I'll do the next one in another post. A public service. :eusa_angel:
 
Hi again folks, hope you are all well, your world needs folks like you now more than ever.
Just wanted to drop this article for more info to consider on this subject:

More to consider:

Nanotechnology offers disturbing parallels to GMOs <snip>

Additional sources:
The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
Associated Press. “Scientists concerned about nanotech products.” November 13, 2008.
Food and Water Watch. “The Risks of Nanotechnology.” September 2008
Ball, Philip, “Nanoparticles in Sun Creams Can Stress Brain Cells.” Nature. June 21, 2006.
KABC-TV. “Studies Show Nanoparticles Used in Sunscreens and Makeup can Harm the Environment.” March 26, 2009
“Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture.” ETC Group. November 2004.

Link to above article here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top