Communal stirring stick

well, what IS clean?

define "clean".

Jeremy wrote:well, what IS clean?

define "clean".

errrrrrrrrr Jeremy doesnt know what clean is! the

dirty

little

bugger.

" mm salmonella" *lick lick lick* <--- is Jeremy

<---and this is Jeremy saying yes to the squirts.

Where did you get these amazingly precise emoticons jen? its uncanny.

Jeremy wrote:well, what IS clean?

define "clean".

1. free from dirt; unsoiled; unstained: She bathed and put on a clean dress.
2. free from foreign or extraneous matter: clean sand.
3. free from pollution; unadulterated; pure: clean air; clean water.
17. not radioactive.

I made them all by myself Sarah. It was amazing. I thought "what would Sarah like the MOST on the forum?"
So, I carefully crafted the most emotionally intense and provoking smileys anyone can possibly CLICK on, and TYPE in CODE. It was a revolution, a unity, a harmonious moment of inspiration and determination. All for the sake of BEING EMOTIONALLY ACCURATE!
I spent NIGHTS. AND DAYS. AND DAYS AND NIGHTS AND BREAKFAST, LUNCH, SUPPER, TEA, JUST DOING THIS TO PLEASE YOU. TO HAVE YOU BE HAPPY AND SAY "Where did you get these amazingly precise emoticons jen? its uncanny."
I strived and suffered and bled for these words.

You are my muse.










In all honesty, they came with the forum.

hehe!!

You are a brave soul Jeremy but what about the Lactose intolerant people. They buy soy milk, they are paranoid about turning into a walking behives or a puking vesicle so they freak out at the thought of having even a .00001 mls of milk in their coffee from the soaked through stirring stick.


I am not too fond of milk. I am not paranoid either but some people might be concerned.

So, in the end, you'd need people who are perfectly healthy with amazing immune systems and a strong stomach to bear all the thoughts of what could be on that stick.

Oh, and recently vaccinated against Hepatitis C.

I have tonsilitus. If i didnt know better i would blame Jeremy's stiring stick. Infact...i think i will anyway.

Jeremy has AIDS!

I nominate Jeremy for selling his body to communal science.
All in favor- say YAY.
All who oppose- go take a long walk on a short pier.

ina wrote:but what about the Lactose intolerant people. They buy soy milk, they are paranoid about turning into a walking behives or a puking vesicle so they freak out at the thought of having even a .00001 mls of milk in their coffee from the soaked through stirring stick.

That's what I meant about the remnants of said buildup on the stick. The idea of washing the stick- how often would it be washed? And with what? How often would the stick's washing container be rinsed out and replaced with untainted fluid? I still applaud you J... let's just sign those papers and get it over with, ne?

I'm somewhat lactose intolerant to a degree (milk and other dairy products do a number on me after breakfast, but it seems alright later in the day. Is that strange?), but I don't drink milk with anything other than a protein drink or hot coco. I'd rather some tasty orange tea and light sugar.

the body releases different chemicals at different times of the day so I am not surprised that your lactose in the morn and then not so much later in the day. i also drink soy milk even though i am not lactose, i have IBS and milk irritates it...i just read how they geneticly alter soy beans and now i am a bit frightened and disgusted by what i thought was a healthy choice.

Ina wrote:the body releases different chemicals at different times of the day so I am not surprised that your lactose in the morn and then not so much later in the day. i also drink soy milk even though i am not lactose, i have IBS and milk irritates it...i just read how they geneticly alter soy beans and now i am a bit frightened and disgusted by what i thought was a healthy choice.

the majority of soybeans grown in the US are modified, have been for a while.

what is it about something being genetically altered that makes you frightened and disgusted? and what makes you think it isnt a 'healthy choice'?

because in order to penetrate a cell and alter it they use viruses and other typically harmful chemicals to break down the cell wall and INVADE it. I doubt it can them produce the natural vitamins that an organic plant would. it is infected. the chemicals that they use to break the DNA with can cause allergic reactions. in my mind (and this is highly exaggerated) it is like smoking crystal meth with all the most un natural chemicals that people use to clean their sink with being pumped into the blood stream.

... this sounds very tasty.

Well, thinking of it that way, how do you feel about everything else that you consume? In some way it's been modified by human means, so it's been in some way or another 'infected' by other chemicals and whatnot.

Dood, wrong thread... LOL.

Ina wrote:because in order to penetrate a cell and alter it they use viruses and other typically harmful chemicals to break down the cell wall and INVADE it. I doubt it can them produce the natural vitamins that an organic plant would. it is infected. the chemicals that they use to break the DNA with can cause allergic reactions. in my mind (and this is highly exaggerated) it is like smoking crystal meth with all the most un natural chemicals that people use to clean their sink with being pumped into the blood stream.

I'm really not sure how to respond to this without coming off as extremely condescending. sufficed to say i've been working in a biotechnology lab for the last 2 years, and i've genetically modified multiple plant species for academic studies (not for commercial food products). that being said, I am well versed in all the methods used to genetically modify plants. I'm sorry to inform you that...pretty much all of what you just said is a fallacy. I dont blame you, there is so much incorrect information being propagated by fearmongers who actually have no clue about the molecular details of plant transformation. thats not to say that there arent certain dangers in the practice of doing this sort of transformation (thats what we call it) but the public oddly seems to not know any of the real dangers, and only focuses on things similar to what you've mentioned.

I could go on for pages about all this, but i'd probably have to use a bunch of jargon that no one would understand.
in the end...any product you've recieved that has been genetically altered does NOT contain bacteria or viruses. It has not been invaded, it is far far FAR removed generationally from any plant that was actually transformed. It is the great great great great great great great great (X100) granddaughter of the plant that was transformed. see once a gene is stably inserted into a plants genome (the whole of the genes) they are grown out for many generations for testing, and that new gene comes along for the ride. by the time you get it a zillion biochemical tests have been performed, all the proteins screened for possible allergens, and there is nothing any rational (and educated in this area) person would consider 'dirty' about it. it simply has a small segment of DNA from a different creature, and a new protein which it wasnt able to make before. They test to see if the other 'minerals and nutrients' have been affected, and if so how. It is not in their interest to create detrimental transformations that rob people of nutrition...that would immediately be identified and adjusted. DNA is DNA, it is like lincoln logs...it can be swapped around, it is not species specific.

penicillin is often grown by genetically modified fungus, but i'll bet you've had that injected directly into your bloodstream at some point, at least taken it orally.

Plant breeders have been incorporating genes from one species into the genome of another species for millenia, biotechnology has enabled us to bypass the tedious and unnecessary process of breeding plants, and lets us enact these changes more directly. every single crop you've ever eaten that was commercially produced has had foreign genes introduced to it over time from exogenous sources, the only difference is that one took a whole lot of time, and that genetic transfer was limited to close relatives (but ONLY because thats all the breeders were capable of)

as for the methods that we use to get the DNA into the plant cell, one of the methods is using a transformed bacteria that *NATURALLY* (as in, does this in nature) connects to the plant cell from the outside, makes a small hole in the plasma membrane and inserts some genes into the plant. the bacteria never enter the plant cell, just the DNA. when WE do it...we know the exact segment of DNA that is introduced, we know EVERYTHING ABout the bacteria...because we basically created it from the natural bacteria to be ONLY a delivery method. it is completely inert otherwise.

ugh, I gotta get back to work, i've been rambling long enough.
plus i'm assuming there is no amount of talking about this I could do to change peoples minds so they dont see it as 'dirty'.

^ christ that was sexy.

After that lengthy lecture from our long lost lincoln log laden lad...

I wonder... why haven't they invented genetically altered brusselsprouts that actually taste good? Or at least like nacho cheese?

Sarah: I'll just assume you were being serious. and yes, it is sexy. dead sexy.

Artful: I doubt in this kingdom of earth that there is anything anyone could ever do to brussel sprouts that would make them taste good.

*another thing from ina's post I forgot to address, Very few of the chemicals used in the transformation process are harmful/carnicogenic/mutagenic. if they ARE, they're used in chemical solutions that are used to quantify the genetic products of the plant cell. which means that we grow out transformed plants, and THEN grind them up, extract DNA, and use some of those chemicals to isolate and amplify the DNA so we can truly see exactly what has happened to it. that is all done after the plant has been transformed, and these chemicals are never in contact with plant tissue. think about it, they're trying to create good conditions for this plant to take up the DNA and regenerate new plantlets...that wouldnt be possible if we were damaging it with nasty chemicals. It might reassure you slightly to know that there isnt even a need to wear gloves while carrying these procedures out (which is a requirement when working with toxins).

sorry, this has just been sticking in my craw, the public perception of this stuff has been almost fully created by conspiracy theorists and overactive environmental alarmists. what they FAIL to realize, is that GM crops do far more good for the environment than they realize. creating corn/soybeans/rice/wheat that dont require high levels of insecticide and chemical fertilizers is safer for the environment, it costs the farmers less to grow them, it produces less chemical runoff from agricultural fields. agri-pollution is a major source of 'dead rivers' and 'fish kills' that occur. but none of that is ever mentioned by the alarmists.

I wasnt joking.

My brain died.

I'm shutting up.


as soon as I lick that yummy patch of concrete over there....

Well, that was quite educational.
And I'm very much disappointed that science and biotechnology hasn't come up with a way to make brusselsprouts taste any better. What the hell are we paying them for?!

That reminds me of a magnet I got from my friend before I left the country.

=3

I was always a math person.. so never really liked biology.. its terrible of you Jeremy to make me like it now!

since you know all this.. a very stupid question.. that i always found very stupid to ask anyone and hence never did.. been to a few science exhibitions of sorts.. and the DNA molecule always had mirrors at either end.. and.. whenever i'd ask the reason i'd get a silly reply like dna is infinite.. and even in maths infinity is not considered quite a few times while finding the limit of a function.. so how can something so hypothetical.. exist.. so prominently within like every multicellular being(even unicellular, i have no idea)?

or were the tour folks plain dumb and didnt know why the mirrors were put?