vampares

Plants have a relatively large amount of extra DNA. There metabolism, a CO2 consumer, is radically different from that of humans or other animals. This being the case, plant DNA is more subject to changes. I think it is inappropriate to take advantage of this quality in plants. Plants species are at least somewhat stabilized in their proper DNA. When something screws this up, it makes for general chaos and disorder. If a farmer is not a good farmer, then it is his own fault. I also think my grandfathers Pug dog smells and is inappropriate. If Monstanto is looking for some DNA that needs tweeking, start with that.

I'm not proposing any specific theory yet. I'm just questioning the potential impact this technology *could* have on the earth. My numbers and attempt for data are somewhat slim and miscalculated as well. The moon having significantly less mass than the earth (mass is 0.0123 Earths -- or 1.2% !!!), I would think it would be the most effected ultimately: by harmonics, or just gravitational 'fling'. It is the source of the quasi rotational drag (the other possibility would be diurnal warming). I'm not close minded to the possibility that wind energy could be producing an optimal effect on the planetary orbits of the earth and it's satellite. If it were the case I'd even suggest enhancing the adjustments, however minute. I've ridden a ferry across the English Channel which blew more black smoke (a teacher of mine calls this "bunker-C"). It's basically tar. I have some understanding what effect this has on the environment. It's been discussed i.e. carbon footprints, global warming -- I have expectations and a few gripes. But the ultimate long term effects of wind energy haven't been discussed. And of course those sails are provided energy by wind. Where part of my concern lies is in the constant large scale wind energy draw (in contrast a 180,000 lb jet airliners create plenty of disturbances but they tend to be more chaotic). Even trees block wind. But this sort of energy draw might include some harmonic components from usage demand without the harmonics of a natural organism designed to be in harmony with the earth, sun and moon . . . the wind, the rain, the heat and the cold.

OK maybe the modest amount of resistance isn't nearly enough to alter the earths orbit. Over time the mega-watts would add up. IDK if it is of any coincidence but the wind has a tendency to bounce off of the US west coast lately particularly the Californian west coast. With a loss of wind come a loss of precipitable water. The precipitable water connection is another major global force that might be factored in. 1 inches of rain per acre is roughly 27,000 gallons of water. Which is almost 100,000 kg. Lifted force is 1,000,000 newtons. Work = mass x acceleration x distance one turbine = 3 megawatthour = 10,800 megajoule The atmosphere has a mass of about 5x10^18 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface. 238,351 megawatthour global wind capacity in 2011. This global trend, loosely extrapolated to a cubic equation or some function, controls being: time, power consumption, competition and cost, availability of wind, desirability/aesthetics/enviro, industry investment, reliability The tangent on the data indicates the rise is steady. 600 megawatthours is not unreasonable. I think the earth orbit question is rather valid. I think it would require a sphere of relatively small size to generate tidal energy. (Think Titanic). On the global spectrum this is certainly more reliable. What percentage of energy can be subject to the unreliability of wind? Yet this source of energy is rarely used. In regards to the impact of turbines on the atmosphere, I have read that they are turbulent. Turbulence would have an impact on things, clouds for instance. The video is kind of funny because a few wind turbines in a stiff breeze seems benign. It could be a crude and sloppy way of getting around the undesirability of tidal generators. ONE might say, "What energy is given to me" rather than "What energy is available"

Prevailing winds travel from the west to the east in on all parts of the globe. This is true, say, roughly somewhere 70% to 95% of the time in the global atmosphere. The moon raises/moves billion of gallons of water daily as tidal movement. The same force is likely responsible for the movement -- or non-movement -- relativistically, of the atmosphere because the earth revolves substantially faster than the moon's orbit (regardless of whether it goes forwards or backwards). Solar energy is responsible for some acceleration of particles in the atmosphere on that daily basis, ((the word for this)), but tidal forces are undeniably controlled by primarily by lunar forces. SO, if energy is extracted to from this system: wind against a stationary earth-bound resistance of rotational consumption 1. Does this slow the earths revolution about its axis? 2. Does it slow or accelerate the orbit of the moon? 3. Does this draw the moon closer or farther? 4. Does it draw the earth into or away from the sun?

Acid rain is primarily a result of dissolved CO2. I think the best way to ensure the CO2 is biologically utilized would be for aquatic vegetation to photo-synthetically assimilate the carbon. This would occur in a variety of bodies of water. Two factors are involved: 1. which species of aquatic vegetation and how does it get there 2. what sort of planning and control mechanism need to be in place Fact is most human occupied watersheds (that would be virtually every viable ecosystem) has little, or no, aquatic vegetation. Aquatic vegetation provides dissolved oxygen to the water. Dissolved oxygen promotes the aerobic digestion of waste (humus, detritus, etc.), which tends to produce completed recycling of such. Greatest issue facing humanity is the economic benefit in fossil fuels. Policy wise it is asking for the depression of industrialized nations when asking for reduction of carbon emissions. Doing "more with more" could prevent the ultimate depression in years to come. Weather or not increased CO2 will really bring about things like desertification (as Bill Gates said there are many paths leading to a mistake): you really have to ask if there is anything "wrong" with what is in place as it is. Everything else is just a little boost to system.

If it is just emf radiation, than any large mass will absorb those emf's. There are pictorial charts of how much radiation is received inside of various structures. The second story basement of a multi-story concrete building receives ~10% or less of the radiation received in a simple enclosure. It is unlikely a full shielding is possible beyond the point of detectability. The difficult thing is conductive shielding, like speaker shielding or coaxial shielding. All I know about it is that multiple layers of material are more effective than a single massive shield. I'm not sure if it would be possible to reasonably (expense, material excess and complexity) shield from solar emf's.

I remember a study that was televised by one of the public broadcasting networks. The study correlated female African-American affluence with high miscarriage/premature births. The medical idiopathic conditions were found to be low progesterone. This study/documentary went through just about every rational and suspicion available. But in nearly identical conditions as their peers, there seemed to be no other cause than biologically based racial differences in a given environment. The conclusion that was made favored racial introspection in regards to things like diet and environment, also cultural biasing things like maternity and social engineering.

The intelligence of an organism does not give it any more right to live than, say, a tree. The competency of a phenotype/genotype is subject to scrutiny. A biome has some investment in any given organism it contains. If an organism is destined to fail or looses valuable traits, there is an argument for culling populations. Domestication of animals and other organisms by humans places humans in a position to avert eventual harm to the environment.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_absorption There is significant absorption everything outside of the visible/photosynthetic regions of the solar emf spectrum. So it would be an impediment. UVA 400 nm–315 nm UVB 315 nm–280 nm But only at UVC levels UVC 280 nm-100 nm The NMR is around 120hz for regular tap water (perhaps related to the frequency choice of the AC power supply).

The proteins in the "cerevisiae" are, AFAIK, not substantially different in the sense that there was evolutionary divergence. They seem to be simply broken and are probably not expressed. Human antibodies should be able to handle the species with little or no effort at all. It is not a pathogenic species. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is not bred to handle nitrogen compounds. It is bred to produce carbon dioxide bubbles or alcohol (in some cases enzymes i.e. laundry detergent). This may leave potentially carcinogenic nitro compounds unreduced. Not typically an issue with white bread... The Eukaryotes, boulardii and cerevisiae, will recognize each other as a member of the same species. I read one patent application regarding boulardii, which contained research breeding boulardii with various other strains. The viability of the hybrid was between 8% and (ad hoc) ~50%. There is a greater issue which is of importance. This Eukaryote is not bread born, or beer born organism. It is an organism that happened to be captured by a civilization, was retained for some. Over some period of time the genome was hyjacked. Remember that many organisms can produce alcohol. The human body for instance. It is a decedent of single celled Eukaryotes. Lacto bacillus can produce both alcohol and carbon dioxide bubbles in dough. Lacto bacillus happen to have a patchy population distribution. This Eukaryote was/is prolific on a global scale. My observations: It has the ability to produce vitamins (most grain fortification uses brewer's yeast extracts). Many members of the animal kingdom rely upon this vitamin production. It has the ability to function in the nitrogen cycle. It functions in the sulfur cycle. It is necessary for some fungi (call this secondary fungi?) to exist. It produces glutathione. It is capable of entering the atmosphere by making use of the evaporative properties of water. Once it is there it is able to collect water into the atmosphere. A colony is able to utilize bonds amongst member to partly manipulate the atmosphere. The colony is also able to induce precipitation. As prolific a primal organism it is, virtually no organism would have evolved without its presence. Diseases of imbalance can be substantial. One such instance may be the American Walnut. The lack of this yeast is a likely pathogenesis: via presence and persistence of another yeast-- being incapable of fulfilling the biological role -- occupying the niche. It is a likely scenario for stated "algal blooms" and incurable eutrophic conditions. Dinosaurs are extinct. I feel bad about that. I would wish it would never happen again. What is the status of evolution without this organism present in the immediate enviroment (based upon entropy not landscaping and GMO agriculture)? What is left on this ground?

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a well known eukaryote. It is also sometimes referred to as "Baker's yeast" or "Brewer's yeast". Saccharomyces boulardii (the best link is wikipedia) is a "natural" or "wild" yeast. It is not generally cultivated by humans. The two are essentially the same to some observers. Clustering of Saccharomyces boulardii strains within the species S. cerevisiae using molecular typing techniques This is a preliminary genetic test of various yeast strains in which the protein codes are broken apart and sorted by size. Some are boulardii, some are not. For reference, #2 is a boulardii strain. The conclusion one might draw (I won't speak over your heads) is that cerevisiae is a broken copy of the original Eukaryote.

Dog breeds. It's not evolution until the DNA can't combine.

I was completely unaware of that. I knew it could **** up a bicycle race ...

I have posted before on DNA deterioration. I would think that the preservation of DNA would be best seen in a nontrivial population increase. I had some maps and graphs on this thing as well. Shows population increasing in peculiar ways. One family in Africa may have 10 kids. Projection show that to be very detrimental. The Malthusian factor is very accurate as well. Sustaining a population of such a size with so few resources is near impossible -- much less maintaining the environment. Other countries -- notably those of European decent will be eclipsed by the population growth of other countries. There will be a push for resources on these communities by those fleeing the others. This statement is misread many times to mean "STOP REPRODUCING". That is very bad policy. A female must produce 2 children for the population to be sustained (not a small task). In cultures of "birth control" they are now suffering aging populations and replacements by foreigners.

So, a night sleep before memorization or a night sleep after? I have really weird dreams w/ lots of loose ends so obviously something is askew.

What's inside an atom? a proton is 1×10^−15m and a hydrogen is ~10×10^−10m. Tell them that there are particle forces that occupy some space. Besides that "dark matter" and other transient particle junk. Otherwise it's not a "vacuum" it is a "void". Vacuums refer to lack of gas. Light particles travel trough a "vacuum" quite readily. Scratch that. Tell them that's where God is.

The HIV study seems dubious. If there are sperm, there is the HIV virus which has integrated itself into the DNA. This is a diabolical; it is to suggest CD4 or AIDS could be separated from the sperm. It catechism of serpent. Who even cares if they get AIDS from that vantage point?

We humans have the ability to learn from our mistakes (most of us anyways). Our reaction could be part of that learning experience. Animals learn but far less quickly, and there is less to learn from it. It may as well be better to not be so affected so that they can run, etc. A pack animal, like a dog/wolf, benefits from the appearance of having won a fight. Humans get themselves into more predicaments and benefit more from being rescued.

There is what's left of a farm in my back yard. The owners breed horses. There is intrest in converting the farm to accommodate more horses (all I know about the person is that she was sick). Obviously we do not want more than two or three horses in our back yard. A large steel building would be an eyesore. This would devalue our property considerably, as it benefits from being the property that sits in the view of the farm from the road. What is best, is for us is to exercise precedence the deed restrictions afford us. We stand to gain nothing by someone else's frivolous undertakings. Even if by survey we do seem to entertain the idea, we will expect to be compensated for the devaluation. Allowing such a thing could even cause issues with the mortgage. At one point there was a plan laid out. From that plan other plans were permitted (this wasn't one of them). Having a plan is not a bad thing. In fact I'd encourage it. A strong plan in fact. It should take the other existing plans into consideration -- not just for this community but for the other communities that are served by it. Ask them what would appreciate their property. This will lead to success. Even if they don't use the services they are benefited enough to where they can relocate. And of course they can't tell you anything they don't know, so it is best to consult with two or three people who know about these things, not just those who draw up the plan.

That is a peculiar theory. I wouldn't think the effects would be seen directly over top of the same place the water evaporated from. It could be the pollen or other dust particles that release help seed the clouds. I don't think pollens go up that far though. The Amish burn stuff that the English give them, pills, chinsy plastic stuff, batteries. I saw 'em fire bomb a Toyota Celica once (it's supposed to make rain -- it never hits them though). Whole county is full of smoke half the time. They eat worms and then punch you in the nuts. It is a lifestyle not to be disrupted. Most rain occurs because of pressure differences. These are generated by temperature differences. A bubble of colder air should push warm wet air up and make rain. It must be cooler with the bush. How very American. I've seen hay used at planting time. I guess it keeps some of the moisture in by preventing the sun from hitting the ground. I'm not much of a farmer though. In Brazil they switched farming techniques. They now only clear strips in a checkered pattern. This allows the secondary growth to be restored quickly. Of course it means farms are twice the size. It could help. But you'd have to move the rabbit fences. Or start new farms, which means fences anyways. Which ever costs the least (it is an alien concept to some -- but no one wants to move fences, except the Amish, gives em something to do). Smaller farms would probably move the fences, where as industrial farms might buy new fences.

Farming is sort of a way of "covering our tracks". I can see the geological impact this would have. It is more of a disruption than a real epoch. The climate change would have a real impact, even if it is small. The industrial revolution is somewhat dubious. Defoliation is also a disruption. The widespread paving and concrete foundation is going to be quite tricky to dig though!

Charlie Rose: May 21, 1993 This is an episode of Charlie Rose. It is an AIDS discussion. Laurie Garrett is a journalist who documents medical news. She wrote The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World out of Balance. It was published in 1994 and covers developments on HTLV-I & II and the HIV (or HTLV-III ), the spread of AIDS into remote populations, etc. The other speakers are equally as good. You probably saw things like this 13 years ago. It is a good review. The people who are most effective at fighting AIDS are themselves it seems. Unfortunately the modes and methodologies is expensive. So expensive that almost all research seems to have ceased and desisted. This leaves us with the first problem.

There is a "don't eat me" OSHA warning that is implied. :mad:/:-p I'd use gloves at the very least. The graphite in no. 2 pencils is soft and intended to crumble. Graphite rods for arch welding or from a nuclear reactor (not one that is in service, please) won't break down as easily. Obviously they should stand up to the energy and heat should you short the circuit. I don't know that this will necessarily work and it won't be absolutely perfect but it's better than pencils. Oh yeah, don't follow any instructional literature written by atheists or the hole thing will be doomed.

I'm on the pill, my sister smokes crack. If I had a black friend or little step-brother I teach him to Dust-Off and go Robo-tripping in the 'hood. I'd heard of certain heart failures that occur in mulattoes (it was in this context -- that blacks don't have heart failures like this ordinarily). I'm not sure how this comes about -- if it's cause their mixed or if it's because of something else (like the mini-thin's I've been selling them). Maybe I ought to reconcider my pharmacopoeia. Thanks for the heads up! We're off to the clinic! Now that I'm sniffing glue again, the idea is a little weird. How about drugs for a certain class of people? Like the lower-middle class of people. Or business people who get stuck in traffic a lot? Where are the drugs for fat people? Banned because they cause heart attacks. It's tough to get around that whole stigmata thing.