General Motors

Researchers Create Matrix-Like Instant Learning Through Brain Stimulation

Posted by

0


You know Kung Fu. Researchers at HRL Laboratories have discovered that when you use transcranial direct current stimulation to send the brain activity of commercial and military pilots into the heads of novice pilots, subjects can essentially learn to fly in a realistic flight simulator.

The researchers discovered that “subjects who received brain stimulation via electrode-embedded head caps improved their piloting abilities.

 “As we discover more about optimizing, personalizing, and adapting brain stimulation protocols, we’ll likely see these technologies become routine in training and classroom environments,” said Dr. Matthew Phillips. “It’s possible that brain stimulation could be implemented for classes like drivers’ training, SAT prep, and language learning.”

HRL, owned by The Boeing Company and General Motors, is working in sensors and materials. This technology is far from commercial-grade, but if zapping your brain can teach you how to fly a multi-ton piece of very specialized transport equipment, then I’m kind of afraid and/or enthused.

GM’s Roboglove Will Turn Workers Into Cyborgs

Posted by

0


THERE’S NO BETTER way to start a job interview than with a firm handshake. It’s a clear sign that you’re confident, capable, and ready to work like John Henry on PCP.

wired_gm-s-roboglove-will-turn-workers-into-tool-slinging-cyborgs-2.jpg

So imagine the impression you’ll make wearing Roboglove, a power-assisted gauntlet General Motors wants to give its factory workers. It may look like something in a Power Ranger costume, but it’s inspired by a real-life space robot.

RoboGlove.jpg

NASA and GM built Robonaut 2 for tasks too dangerous or demeaning for humans on the International Space Station. The super creepy humanoid was strong enough to lift 40 pounds and dexterous enough to tap out texts on an iPhone.

GM’s now working with Swedish med-tech company Bioservo to adapt the Robonaut’s grip to gloves. Pressure sensors and actuators mimic nerves and muscles, so the glove knows when the hand inside is picking something up. It’s gentle enough to handle eggs but firm enough to maintain a strong grip, so you aren’t wasting energy holding your hammer.

Just when the glove might see production, and how it GM might use it in factories, remains to be seen. But there’s no question this steel-driving hand would make spinning a wrench on the assembly line a whole lot easier.

Help Stop These Thousands Of Genetically Modified Insects From Being Released.

Posted by

0


Thousands of Genetically Modified (GM) insects developed by British scientists are set to be released into fields across Europe as an alternative to chemical pesticides. Granted, pesticides have been responsible for jeopardizing human health, damaging the environment and killing millions of bees and other insects, but is the proper solution manufacturing genetically modified insects?

The idea is to release a large number of GM olive flies that will be used to kill off wild pests that damage the crop. The company responsible for their manufacture and release is Oxitec.  They plan to release GM male olive flies that would naturally mate with the females, ultimately resulting in the death of female offspring at the larvae or maggot stage. The thought is that this would lead to a reduction in the olive fly population, which would allow the trees to produce fruit without the need for chemical sprays.

Oxitec has applied to Spanish regulatory authorities for permission to carry out a netted field trial of its GM insects. If the trial is successful, more trials will be carried out in Greece and Italy- the company also eventually hopes to be able to use the GM insects in British fields as well.

Our approach is aimed not only at controlling the olive fly, but also to avoid harming other species. By using our form of genetic sterility our flies are designed to eliminate the pest and not to stay in the environment. – Oxitec’s Dr Martha Koukidou (1)

In my view the use of GM insects to eradicate this pest is a necessary step towards achieving zero pesticide use. Critics of this technology who warn of danger to health and environment are scaremongering. European agriculture is facing some severe challenges. The burden of agricultural pests is ever present while the number of control approaches is shrinking in the face of insecticide resistance and de-registration of existing chemical treatments. To survive and prosper, European farming will need to evaluate and embrace new solutions and new technologies which are effective, sustainable and safe. If approved, this evaluation will be an important step to brining an exciting new approach to the farmers who need it- Hadyn Parry, Oxitec chief executive  (1)

Supporters of the GM insects, like Oxitec, claim that those who oppose the idea are simply fear mongering. This is currently the same response from the big biotech giants to opposers of genetically modified foods. Recently, we have found out that opponents of genetically modified foods have been correct with their concerns, as multiple studies have surfaced over the past couple of years that indicated GMOs can be very harmful to the environment, as well as pose multiple risks to human health.

It’s no different with these genetically modified insects, mosquitos to be exact, they’ve already been released into the public without a proper risk assessment.

Dr Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, warned:

Releasing Oxite’s GM fruit flies is a deeply flawed approach to reducing numbers of these pests, because large numbers of their offspring will die as maggots in the fruit. Not only does this fail to protect the crop, millions of GM fruit fly maggots will enter the food chain where they could pose risks to human health and the environment. Oxitec’s experiments should not go ahead until rules for safety testing and plans for labelling and segregation of contaminated fruits have been thoroughly debated and assessed. If these issues are ignored, growers could suffer serious impacts on the market for their crops.(1)

So what does this mean for animals that eat these flies as part of their routine diet? Or what about the humans that then eat these animals? Plans to commercialize GM insects would result in millions of GM insects being released onto field crops, including olives, tomatoes, citrus fruits, cabbages and cotton. Millions of GMO mosquitoes have already been released in experiments intended to reduce transmission of the tropical disease dengue fever, did you know about this? The release of GM insects are covered by laws and regulations that cover the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), however, there is no specific regulatory process for GM insects anywhere in the world. (2) (3)

Regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests as the UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. (2)(3)

The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts of interest should be removed from all decision making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans – Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK (4)

The use of GM technologies is controversial. Some organizations such as GeneWatch UK and EcoNexus fear that reliance on high-tech solutions like genetic modification detracts from more effective but poorly deployed measures to combat the harm caused by insects. These are the companies we need to hear more about because they are the ones that directly monitor the use of genetic technologies. Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace suggest that GM insects could have unintended and wide ranging impacts on the environment and human health due to the complexity of ecosystems and the high number of unknown factors which make risk assessment difficult. These companies have raised a number of concerns which include (2):

·         New insects or diseases may fill ecological niche left by the insects suppressed or replaced, possibly resulting in new public health or agricultural problems

·         The new genes engineered into the insects may jump into other species, a process called horizontal transfer, causing unintended consequences to the ecosystem

·         Releases would be impossible to monitor and irreversible, as would any damage done to the environment

A briefing done by these organizations also shows that Oxitec is trying to influence regulatory processes for GM insects, that they (3):

·         Don’t want to be liable for any complications

·         Try to avoid any regulation of GM agricultural pests on crops appearing in the food chain

·         Excludes important issues from risk assessments, like the impact on human health

·         Release of large amounts of GM insects prior to regulations

·         Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species which transmit disease

The list of concerns go on and on. This is something that you don’t hear in corporate media, despite the importance of dialogue, it seems developments within this field are sneaking by very quietly. Should we not discuss this? Should there not be a proper risk assessment done? Concerning ourselves with our food, health and our environment is something we need to take very seriously. Developments that should attract a great deal of concern are happening without anybody knowing about them. These are some of the most important issues that our world faces today and some of the most important issues that will contribute in shaping the near future of our planet and the path we choose to take.

Sources:

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/10/thousands-of-genetically-modified-insects-are-set-for-release/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetically-engineered-mosquitoes

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n11/full/nbt.2019.html

(3)http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Briefing%20genetically%20engineered%20Insects.pdf

(2)http://www.inasp.info/uploads/filer_public/2013/04/03/3_handout_1.pdf

(1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2410484/Scientists-launch-thousands-GM-insects-fields-alternative-chemicals.html

(4)http://farmwars.info/?p=9457

Patent confirms that aspartame is the excrement of GM bacteria.

Posted by

0


 

In 1999, The Independent published an article entitled “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria,” which revealed that Monsanto was knowingly adding aspartame to soft drinks in the United States – and that aspartame is made from GM bacteria. This report, which remains one of the earliest disclosures on aspartame in a mainstream newspaper, received little attention after its publication – possibly because its implications were underestimated at the time – and it has long been forgotten.

Since 1999, the world has become a little more attentive to Monsanto and aspartame, but ignorance still abounds about the latter’s genesis. While more and more people are starting to awaken to aspartame’s destructive effects on our health, do they know how it is actually made? Fortunately, a 1981 patent for aspartame production, once confined to the drawers of patent offices, is now available online for everyone to see – and it confirms everything that Monsanto was happy to tell us in 1999 before their meteoric growth necessitated greater prudence.

The patent, which is entitled Process for producing aspartame and is credited to Bahl, Rose, and White, summarizes the process as follows:

“The artificial sweetener aspartame, a dipeptide with the formula Asp-Phe-me, is produced using a cloned micrcorganism [sic]. A DNA which codes for a large stable peptide comprised of the repeating amino acid sequence (Asp-Phe)n is inserted into a cloning vehicle which in turn is introduced into a suitable host microorganism. The host microorganism is cultured and the large peptide containing the repeating Asp-Phe sequence is harvested therefrom. The free carboxyl group of the large peptide is benzylated and then hydrolysed to benzyl Asp-Phe dipeptides. This dipeptide is methylated and then debenzylated to form aspartame.”

Source: RealFarmacy.com

 

BIRTH CONTROL: Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility.

Posted by

0


“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto‘s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn’t shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths–a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)–so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

“Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.”

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said “The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile.”

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

“Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous.”

(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting. Trust me, or look for yourself.)

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, “This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.).” Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, “It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself.” Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they’re called “Roundup Ready.” Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babiesfrom mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova’s feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding allthe rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicleschanged from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had(PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry’s problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding “neither breed nor exhibitreproductive behavior.” Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females “at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens.” One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances variedwith GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don’t think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry’s massive uncontrolled experiment.

 

Alexey Surov says, “We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them.”

 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com

California battle over GM labels.

Posted by

0


Voters in California will decide on a proposal next month that would require the labelling of most foods made with genetically modified ingredients.

Proposition 37 is supported by the organic industry but many major food suppliers oppose it saying it will drive up prices.

Around $40m is expected to be spent on campaigning with the majority coming from opponents.

But a recent opinion poll shows a clear majority in favour of the proposal.

There have been attempts in 18 states to change labelling laws on genetically modified foods via legislation. None have been successful.

But after a grassroots campaign that garnered more than a million signatures, the measure will be on the ballot paper in California for the first time next month.

If passed, the statute will require labelling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.

Foods containing these ingredients would be banned from using the word “natural”.

Supporters say that consumers have a right to know. More than 50 countries around the world require labelling. Why shouldn’t consumers in the US, the country with the largest proportion of their food containing GM?

“We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering,” said the Yes on 37 campaign group.

Those who oppose the measure say it is unfair to single out GM as something that requires labelling and not include antibiotics, pesticides or hormones used in production.

The No on 37 group is supported by farmers, business groups and food manufacturers. Their spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks told BBC News that the overall impact of will be higher prices.

“Proposition 37 is a poorly written law that gives inaccurate and misleading information and will raise grocery costs for California families by up to $400 a year,” she explained.

It is estimated that around $40m will be spent mainly on TV advertisements, in an attempt to convince people to vote for or against. The vast majority of the money, according to an analysis by independent researchers MapLight, comes from big biotechnology firms including Monsanto and Du Pont who, between them, have contributed around $12m.

Food is a complex and divisive issue in the United States. According to Dr Philip Howard from Michigan State University, labels don’t always tell the full story. Organic producers for instance have in many cases been taken over by big food manufacturers such as Kraft, Kellogg and PepsiCo.

“You can stroll through the shelves in the interior aisles of stores with all the processed products,” he told BBC News, “and well over half that are marked organic are going to be from big multinational companies.”

He says that confusingly, some of the money spent on food labelled organic will be going to fight the GM labelling proposition in California.

“People who are buying organic foods are not realising that the money is flowing to big corporations, and the donations to both sides of the campaign are illuminating the future of the food system people really want to support.”

Some commentators believe that the vote in California will have implications beyond the state. In an analysis of voter intentions that showed strong support for the measure, researchers at Oklahoma state university say the proposal could add to consumer confusion.

“Prop 37 could disrupt the flow of agricultural products to and from California and other parts of the United States and would lead to food companies having to deal with competing requirements in different parts of the country” the authors write.

Dr Philip Howard says that where California goes others will have to follow.

“As with other California labelling requirements, many manufacturers won’t go to the trouble and expense of having separate packaging for other states,” he said.

“Internationally the effect won’t be as direct, but it is likely to encourage governments that don’t already require labeling to adopt similar measures.”

The team will be mindful of the extreme difficulty a previous Mars mission, the Phoenix probe of 2008, had in getting material to go through its sample handling system.

“Phoenix had a relatively uncontrolled drop off capability; they had just the one scoop and that scoop had to do everything,” Mr Limonadi told BBC News.

“We use gravity and vibration to get things into little parts of Chimra that make very controlled volumes of portions for us to drop off.”

The rover has now driven at total of 484m (of about 1,590ft) since its 6 August landing on the floor of Gale Crater, a huge depression on Mars’ equator.

It still has about 176m to travel to get to a location dubbed Glenelg, a place satellite images have indicated is a junction between three different geological terrains.

It is at Glenelg where Curiosity will really get down to the business of investigating past environments in Gale.

Last week, scientists announced the robot had taken pictures of rocks that were clearly deposited in fast running water. The theory is that the rover is sitting at the head of an ancient alluvial fan where a network of streams cut across the crater floor billions of years ago.

Source:BBC