[Transit]

I've never understood what all the fuss around genetic engineering is. I mean, vegans ingest vast quantities of plant DNA, and yet as far as I know there's no evidence they're all turning into vegetables is there?

To me, It was lowlife like monsanto polluting farmland with their 'roundup ready' crops
Sueing anyone who finishes up with their spreading hybrids and happily selling more poison along with the seed

[Kiwizinho]

To me, It was lowlife like monsanto polluting farmland with their 'roundup ready' crops
Sueing anyone who finishes up with their spreading hybrids and happily selling more poison along with the seed

I've got to agree there. I don't think all GE is created equal (full disclosure: I did some papers in genetics at university, and my little bro has an honours degree in molecular biology).

I think there are ethical issues around patenting life, and Monsanto used GE which in itself was probably fairly harmless, to allow massive increase in the use of their herbicide.

Monsanto's attitude to both GE and glyphosate are totally unethical, and risky.

Apart from engineering glyphosate resistant crops, the use of GE to introduce terminator genes that render the seeds of crops infertile is a huge risk to food security. It's not that the genetic material itself is toxic, or even the proteins it expresses - which is the suggestion I hear from a lot of anti-GE people, which annoys me, as that's usually not the case, unless the GE actually involves introducing genes for toxins.
For me, the issue is around ethics and the point of what the GE is enabling.
Our guts are a hotbed of exchange of genetic information between species with plasmids and bacterial viruses (phages), transferring bits of genetic information between bacterial species all the time, hence the ease of developing antibiotic resistance.

I'm not necessarily against glyphosate as a tool to main biosecurity, however I'd regard it like antibiotics. You try to avoid use unless absolutely necessary, complete the course, then stop using.
That of course doesn't fit Monsanto's (now Bayer's) business model which wants to keep selling as much product as possible.

Like with any chemical, there is a dose response curve, and what might be safe in low levels in the environment may not be at high levels.

Drowning food crops in herbicide is rather different to highly targeted control of noxious weeds.

I teach edible gardens at my daughter's school and I illustrated this point to much hilarity recently by pointing out that the same chemical in 1080 poison is present in tea leaves at low levels. Apparently the class' teacher was an avid tea drinker, but I quickly reassured the class that unless she was drinking hundreds of litres of tea per day, she would be quite safe.

GE to make synthetic insulin in bacteria at relatively affordable prices instead of having to kill a bunch of animals and extract at high cost, to allow a lot of diabetics to survive is an example where I think there's a strong ethical case for GE.

[GUB]

I've got to agree there. I don't think all GE is created equal (full disclosure: I did some papers in genetics at university, and my little bro has an honours degree in molecular biology).

I think there are ethical issues around patenting life, and Monsanto used GE which in itself was probably fairly harmless, to allow massive increase in the use of their herbicide.

Monsanto's attitude to both GE and glyphosate are totally unethical, and risky.

Apart from engineering glyphosate resistant crops, the use of GE to introduce terminator genes that render the seeds of crops infertile is a huge risk to food security. It's not that the genetic material itself is toxic, or even the proteins it expresses - which is the suggestion I hear from a lot of anti-GE people, which annoys me, as that's usually not the case, unless the GE actually involves introducing genes for toxins.
For me, the issue is around ethics and the point of what the GE is enabling.
Our guts are a hotbed of exchange of genetic information between species with plasmids and bacterial viruses (phages), transferring bits of genetic information between bacterial species all the time, hence the ease of developing antibiotic resistance.

I'm not necessarily against glyphosate as a tool to main biosecurity, however I'd regard it like antibiotics. You try to avoid use unless absolutely necessary, complete the course, then stop using.
That of course doesn't fit Monsanto's (now Bayer's) business model which wants to keep selling as much product as possible.

Like with any chemical, there is a dose response curve, and what might be safe in low levels in the environment may not be at high levels.

Drowning food crops in herbicide is rather different to highly targeted control of noxious weeds.

I teach edible gardens at my daughter's school and I illustrated this point to much hilarity recently by pointing out that the same chemical in 1080 poison is present in tea leaves at low levels. Apparently the class' teacher was an avid tea drinker, but I quickly reassured the class that unless she was drinking hundreds of litres of tea per day, she would be quite safe.

GE to make synthetic insulin in bacteria at relatively affordable prices instead of having to kill a bunch of animals and extract at high cost, to allow a lot of diabetics to survive is an example where I think there's a strong ethical case for GE.

Yes it is the copyrighting of life forms that I have an issue with. It is just possible that a world changing step forward could be attained with GE and that just makes it more imperative that it is open sourced. Imagine finding a solution to Malaria then holding the third world citizens hostage with it.
As far as Roundup is concerned I use it with total confidence - same as Metasulfuran. But it is so typical of the modern hysteria machine that things are so hyped up about them that the issue of how toxic the wetting agents are that are used with them doesn't get any oxygen..

[GUB]

I wonder if it is one of us that successfully scored the 28mm? Pentax SMC 28mm f2.8 F | Trade Me A Richard who sells bras!! -don't know if that is good for our image . Did you chase it at all Mark?

[MarkJerling]

I wonder if it is one of us that successfully scored the 28mm? Pentax SMC 28mm f2.8 F | Trade Me A Richard who sells bras!! -don't know if that is good for our image . Did you chase it at all Mark?

I had a brief look but there was a bit of a bidding war going on and I was at my Tuesday night cycle race so I did not even try! Plus, I like my little 24mm manual Tokina lens and I would have had to listen to "Do you need another 28mm lens?" from my significant other so, in short - No!

[GUB]

I had a brief look but there was a bit of a bidding war going on and I was at my Tuesday night cycle race so I did not even try! Plus, I like my little 24mm manual Tokina lens and I would have had to listen to "Do you need another 28mm lens?" from my significant other so, in short - No!

Yeah I wouldn't have chased it that far. The thing is the manual focus ones are so easy to focus. And despite what others say I find the Tak bayonet ones just as sharp and often cheap as chips. So I am rather stocked up on 28s

[MarkJerling]

Yeah I wouldn't have chased it that far. The thing is the manual focus ones are so easy to focus. And despite what others say I find the Tak bayonet ones just as sharp and often cheap as chips. So I am rather stocked up on 28s

You're right. I keep the "new" 35-135mm AF lens on the camera so as to quickly cover most bases, but there's no substitute for a good manual lens. Which reminds me that I need to play with my Carl Zeiss 50mm M42 lens more. The last time I used it it produced beautiful sharp images and I have not used it since!

[GUB]

You're right. I keep the "new" 35-135mm AF lens on the camera so as to quickly cover most bases, but there's no substitute for a good manual lens. Which reminds me that I need to play with my Carl Zeiss 50mm M42 lens more. The last time I used it it produced beautiful sharp images and I have not used it since!

Is that a jena 2.8?

[MarkJerling]

Is that a jena 2.8?

Yes, indeed.

[Transit]

State of my eyes AF is derigur...
That 28 went off, I got same a while back for a fraction of that
I like the F styling

[zkarj]

Did someone say manual focus 28mm? It's one of Dad's that I inherited. Haven't done much with it, partly as I'm not sure what it's well suited for. I tend to spend more time at the other end of the focal length scale.

[GUB]

Did someone say manual focus 28mm? It's one of Dad's that I inherited. Haven't done much with it, partly as I'm not sure what it's well suited for. I tend to spend more time at the other end of the focal length scale.

Bad luck - that is the early M series 2.8. It is definitely inferior to the later ones (including the Tak bayonets). It can be distinguished by the thin chrome ring at the front and as here the serial number being still on the ring rather than down by the mount. I would still rather use it than a kit zoom tho.

[NZ_Ross]

I wonder if it is one of us that successfully scored the 28mm? Pentax SMC 28mm f2.8 F | Trade Me A Richard who sells bras!! -don't know if that is good for our image. Did you chase it at all Mark?

Well it wasn't me - the seller would have to be happy with the price for the lens.

I have a very nice Zeiss 28/2, and like Mark, there would be questions if I brought another 28mm lens

---------- Post added 30-09-20 at 07:52 PM ----------

While we are talking about lenses I am on the lookout for a SMC K 200mm f4 (the original K series not the M). If anyone has one in good condition that they would like to exchange for a few Sir Apirana Ngata's I would be very happy to talk

[Transit]

All this M dissing...Av is over-rated anyway :-)

[NZ_Ross]

I have a very nice Zeiss 28/2, and like Mark, there would be questions if I brought another 28mm lens

I overlooked my K 28mm/3.5 - given I have 2 lenses at 28mm there would definitely be questions...

I have the K 24, 28 and 35 all at f3.5 - they are a nice set of manual focus lenses to use now and again, quite compact.

---------- Post added 30-09-20 at 09:04 PM ----------

All this M dissing...Av is over-rated anyway :-)

I have a few M series lenses, I think you have to pick the right models for good results. The M*300/4 is a beast