GMO crops can feed the world

GMO protesters are stopping many from getting food

Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#21  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 07, 2012 10:03 am

Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:

It's not just a lack of evidence, it's a lack of a reason for "GMO-in-a-lab" to be qualitatively different in terms of potential for harm from "GMO-on-a-farm" which is what humans have been doing since they started agriculture practices.


Selective breeding is not the same as gene splicing.


What is the qualitative difference in terms of potential for harm?


I have no freaking idea.

Quite frankly I dont' think we can know what the consequences would be down the line for splicing coelenterate DNA fragments into that of a tomato.


Do you believe we have any reason to suspect that there is a qualitative difference, such that we should be concerned?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#22  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Dec 07, 2012 11:22 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Selective breeding is not the same as gene splicing.

What is the qualitative difference in terms of potential for harm?

I have no freaking idea.

Quite frankly I dont' think we can know what the consequences would be down the line for splicing coelenterate DNA fragments into that of a tomato.

Do you believe we have any reason to suspect that there is a qualitative difference, such that we should be concerned?

Selective breeding has been going on for millennia and this long experience shows that it certainly doesn't pose any potential for harm to human consumers of selectively bred foodstuff plants.

Genetic modification of foodstuff plants is, in effect and/or by comparison, a brand spanking new undertaking that involves manipulating the very foundations of plant life, with a paucity of field testing or experience and hence is an area that probably shouldn't be considered absolutely risk free in terms of harm to humans at this early stage.

Usually in such circumstances, the wise approach is to err on the side of caution and prudence. But this usually goes right out the window when there are tens or hundreds of even $billions of dollars at stake in a highly competitive industry like big ag.

I won't come as any surprise to anyone here that I'm not one to trust private corporations to always do the right thing, not so long as their primary interest is making money, and we've seen numerous cases go by in our own time of corporations lying through their teeth to sustain their business, need I say BIG TOBACCO?

Is there any real difference betwen Monsanto, Inc. and R.J. Reybolds Tobacco, Inc. I happen to think there's not and hence my distrust of what Monsanto's doing with regard to GMO foods. The seed aspect of it alone appears to be a horror story in and of itself to me. I'm a long time and rather thoroughly experienced vegetable grower, with 40 years of doing this under my belt. I have been taking (some of) my plants to full maturity and harvesting their seeds for future use, a practice that's common in my world of growing foodstuffs and one that both myself and others in my community will keep doing. This is pretty easy to do with corn for example but can be much less easy with other crops.

I learned the fine art of growing food crops from my Russian neighbors, people who came to Canada from Ukraine a hundred years ago as simple peasant folk with a very long history of growing food crops ... without the use of pesticides or herbicides. Having learned from them my gardens have never been subjected to applications of chemicals of any kind for any purpose and I'm pleased to know that this is routine for growers in the valley of my residence, so that we enjoy clean topsoils throughout this valley, and have managed to keep our highways department from spraying our roadsides with herbicides and convinvced them to mow instead.

I don't know to what degree the government in America has been overseeing the development and deployment of GMO crops but I'd hope at least they are doing this and doing it thoroughly and responsibly, although something tells me this wouldn't be a good bet knowing how corporate giants like Monsanto can co-opt such efforts and "capture" regulatory agenc
ies, the way BP captured the Minerals Management Agency, which lead to the blowout in the Gulf that brought such ruin to the gulf fishery and coastal ecosystems.

Given the scale of the greed that's infected US businesses over the past 20 years or so I'd not be inclined to trust any of them, but hey, to each his own.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 92
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#23  Postby Gallstones » Dec 08, 2012 12:07 am

Selective breeding is not gene splicing either.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#24  Postby Gallstones » Dec 08, 2012 12:10 am

Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:

Selective breeding is not the same as gene splicing.


What is the qualitative difference in terms of potential for harm?


I have no freaking idea.

Quite frankly I dont' think we can know what the consequences would be down the line for splicing coelenterate DNA fragments into that of a tomato.


Do you believe we have any reason to suspect that there is a qualitative difference, such that we should be concerned?


Yes.
I'm not a geneticist.
So again, I have no freaking idea, but I am not comforted by suggestions that I disregard my aprehension.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#25  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 08, 2012 10:54 am

Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:

What is the qualitative difference in terms of potential for harm?


I have no freaking idea.

Quite frankly I dont' think we can know what the consequences would be down the line for splicing coelenterate DNA fragments into that of a tomato.


Do you believe we have any reason to suspect that there is a qualitative difference, such that we should be concerned?


Yes.
I'm not a geneticist.
So again, I have no freaking idea, but I am not comforted by suggestions that I disregard my aprehension.


I'm not sure I'm parsing that correctly. Are you saying that the reason to suspect there is such a qualitative difference is that you aren't a geneticist, or are you saying there is a reason, but you haven't stated it?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#26  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 08, 2012 11:10 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
What is the qualitative difference in terms of potential for harm?

I have no freaking idea.

Quite frankly I dont' think we can know what the consequences would be down the line for splicing coelenterate DNA fragments into that of a tomato.

Do you believe we have any reason to suspect that there is a qualitative difference, such that we should be concerned?

Selective breeding has been going on for millennia and this long experience shows that it certainly doesn't pose any potential for harm to human consumers of selectively bred foodstuff plants.

Genetic modification of foodstuff plants is, in effect and/or by comparison, a brand spanking new undertaking that involves manipulating the very foundations of plant life, with a paucity of field testing or experience and hence is an area that probably shouldn't be considered absolutely risk free in terms of harm to humans at this early stage.


Again, what's the qualitative difference between the two?

How could a change made in the lab be distinguishable from the same change made through sexual selection of certain alleles in the wild? What reason do we have to assume that there is an inherent difference between the outcomes of the different methods by which an organism gains a trait?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#27  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 08, 2012 1:27 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:this usually goes right out the window when there are tens or hundreds of even $billions of dollars at stake in a highly competitive industry like big ag.


Well, that's really all this is about. The division of phenomena into natural and artificial, along the lines you are proposing, has never been more, um, artificial.

You can pursue your argument, but if you pursue it with me, it will become increasingly obvious that there is a form of woo at work, involving some reflections on the human potential to affect the human potential, an invented category, along with 'natural' and 'artificial'.

I have no objections to spirited political debate, but I don't like injecting woo into politics without recognising it. Money is not a perfect abstraction; if you study thermodynamics at all, you will learn something about the cost of doing business.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30790
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#28  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Dec 08, 2012 5:39 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:this usually goes right out the window when there are tens or hundreds of even $billions of dollars at stake in a highly competitive industry like big ag.

Well, that's really all this is about. The division of phenomena into natural and artificial, along the lines you are proposing, has never been more, um, artificial.

I didn't "propose" anything, nothing whatsoever. So this comment makes no sense to me.

If you'd quote me "proposing" something, then I suppose we could talk about it.

Cito di Pense wrote:
You can pursue your argument, but if you pursue it with me, it will become increasingly obvious that there is a form of woo at work, involving some reflections on the human potential to affect the human potential, an invented category, along with 'natural' and 'artificial'.

I have no objections to spirited political debate, but I don't like injecting woo into politics without recognising it. Money is not a perfect abstraction; if you study thermodynamics at all, you will learn something about the cost of doing business.

Again, this makes no sense to me. In order to make sense to me you'd have to clarify what your on about here but as it stands I don't see a correlation to anything i've posted. Perhaps a more comprehensive use of quotes would improve your chances of achieving an effective communication on whatever points you wish to raise, but as it is, I can't see any relationship between what I've posted in the thread versus what you've posted here, which makes it impossible for me to respond substantively.

Thanks.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 92
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#29  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Dec 08, 2012 5:40 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:this usually goes right out the window when there are tens or hundreds of even $billions of dollars at stake in a highly competitive industry like big ag.

Well, that's really all this is about. The division of phenomena into natural and artificial, along the lines you are proposing, has never been more, um, artificial.

I didn't "propose" anything, nothing whatsoever. So this comment makes no sense to me.

If you'd quote me "proposing" something, then I suppose we could talk about it.

Cito di Pense wrote:
You can pursue your argument, but if you pursue it with me, it will become increasingly obvious that there is a form of woo at work, involving some reflections on the human potential to affect the human potential, an invented category, along with 'natural' and 'artificial'.

I have no objections to spirited political debate, but I don't like injecting woo into politics without recognising it. Money is not a perfect abstraction; if you study thermodynamics at all, you will learn something about the cost of doing business.

Again, this makes no sense to me. In order to make sense to me you'd have to clarify what your on about here but as it stands I don't see a correlation to anything i've posted. Perhaps a more comprehensive use of quotes would improve your chances of achieving an effective communication on whatever points you wish to raise, but as it is, I can't see any relationship between what I've posted in the thread versus what you've posted here, which makes it impossible for me to respond substantively.

Thanks.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 92
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#30  Postby Gallstones » Dec 08, 2012 5:56 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:

I have no freaking idea.

Quite frankly I dont' think we can know what the consequences would be down the line for splicing coelenterate DNA fragments into that of a tomato.


Do you believe we have any reason to suspect that there is a qualitative difference, such that we should be concerned?


Yes.
I'm not a geneticist.
So again, I have no freaking idea, but I am not comforted by suggestions that I disregard my aprehension.


I'm not sure I'm parsing that correctly. Are you saying that the reason to suspect there is such a qualitative difference is that you aren't a geneticist, or are you saying there is a reason, but you haven't stated it?


I'm saying I can't satsify your request for information because I don't have the expertise to speak from.
I'm going on gut feeling and supposition and extrapolating from past occurrences. It just seems that because we can do a thing that it isn't necessarily wise to do it without having some idea of the long term consequences. Also, that we simply can't fully predict what the consequences might be. Not all mistakes can be reversed or fixed.

My preference is to reduce the population so to reduce the pressure to produce more and more food.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#31  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 08, 2012 6:17 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:...this comment makes no sense to me....

Again, this makes no sense to me. In order to make sense to me ...


Please inform me of the requirements for making sense to you. In excruciating fucking detail.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:as it stands I don't see a correlation to anything i've posted.


Evidently not.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Usually in such circumstances, the wise approach is to err on the side of caution and prudence.


Why the fuck is that, FM? Keeping god's kingdom intact?

ScientificSkeptic wrote:These GMO protesters are doing so much harm by stopping people from getting food.


And what? People having children they can't feed are not doing 'harm'? Why not fuck off with the business of 'doing harm'?

Blame it on the corporations.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30790
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#32  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 08, 2012 6:47 pm

Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I'm not sure I'm parsing that correctly. Are you saying that the reason to suspect there is such a qualitative difference is that you aren't a geneticist, or are you saying there is a reason, but you haven't stated it?


I'm saying I can't satsify your request for information because I don't have the expertise to speak from.
I'm going on gut feeling and supposition and extrapolating from past occurrences. It just seems that because we can do a thing that it isn't necessarily wise to do it without having some idea of the long term consequences. Also, that we simply can't fully predict what the consequences might be. Not all mistakes can be reversed or fixed.

My preference is to reduce the population so to reduce the pressure to produce more and more food.


...what past coinsurance? And again, what qualitative difference exists between the GM means we're considering?

I'm not seeing the impetus for a call for alarm, or even caution. Is there more than "we just don't know"? Because the answer to that is "we know quite a bit".
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#33  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Dec 08, 2012 8:07 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:...this comment makes no sense to me....

Again, this makes no sense to me. In order to make sense to me ...

Please inform me of the requirements for making sense to you. In excruciating fucking detail.

I already did, citing the fact that you might achieve better communication if you included a more comprehensive use of quotes in your posts, but I guess you missed that part.

Cito di Pense wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:as it stands I don't see a correlation to anything i've posted.

Evidently not.

Evidently.

Cito di Pense wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Usually in such circumstances, the wise approach is to err on the side of caution and prudence.

Why the fuck is that, FM? Keeping god's kingdom intact?

Let's give an example, let's say you arrive at the airport to catch a flight and the gatekeeper tells you he can get you aboard a new airliner that's being tested and it won't cost you a dime for your flight. So you ask this fellow about this "new airliner" and please would he elaborate on it a bit, after all, if you decide to take him up on his offer, it's your life that will be on the line and if it crashes you'll be the one who'll be dead.

So he elaborates for you, he tells you that the company who builds this new airliner isn't quite sure its ready for prime time in commercial service and is conducting some tests to help them determine if it is, or it isn't.

"You mean there's some chance it may crash?" you ask.

"Well, yes," he responds.

This is where the principle of erring on the side of caution and prudence comes in. If you don't care about your life well, then, you'll take this guy up on his offer of a free flight. But the thing is, most of us DO care about our lives and because in this situation there's some unknown degree of risk which could be large, most of us will indeed exercise caution and prudence and and choose to fly aboard our regularly scheduled flight on an airliner that's proven itself to be safe through years of service.

In other words, whenever we're faced with a decision that involves the safety of our lives or our health and well being, it's usually considered wise to act with caution and to invoke a good degree of prudence in our decision making.

The risks to life and limb from consuming GMO foods are not fully known, just as the risks of that imaginary airliner I mentioned crashing or not crashing werent fully known. When risks are not fully known it makes our decision making process very difficult, we just don't know enough to make a fully informed decision. The idea of caution and prudence is to reduce the unknown risk factors we face and thus help assure that we live long and healthy lives.

You or any of us may choose to take inordinate risks and place our lives and well being in jeopardy, but in most cases most of us won't be inclined to do that, we'll exercise caution and prudence and thereby avoid running fast into a brick wall.

You see? It's not really all that complicated.

Now, what was that about me "proposing" something? Can we get to that?
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 92
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#34  Postby Gallstones » Dec 08, 2012 10:55 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I'm not sure I'm parsing that correctly. Are you saying that the reason to suspect there is such a qualitative difference is that you aren't a geneticist, or are you saying there is a reason, but you haven't stated it?


I'm saying I can't satsify your request for information because I don't have the expertise to speak from.
I'm going on gut feeling and supposition and extrapolating from past occurrences. It just seems that because we can do a thing that it isn't necessarily wise to do it without having some idea of the long term consequences. Also, that we simply can't fully predict what the consequences might be. Not all mistakes can be reversed or fixed.

My preference is to reduce the population so to reduce the pressure to produce more and more food.


...what past coinsurance? And again, what qualitative difference exists between the GM means we're considering?

I'm not seeing the impetus for a call for alarm, or even caution. Is there more than "we just don't know"? Because the answer to that is "we know quite a bit".


OK.
We only think we know quite a bit.
We can't possibly.

I'm pretty sure I haven't expressed or made any call for alarm.

Coinsurance? :think:
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#35  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 09, 2012 3:48 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:The risks to life and limb from consuming GMO foods are not fully known, just as the risks of that imaginary airliner I mentioned crashing or not crashing werent fully known. When risks are not fully known it makes our decision making process very difficult, we just don't know enough to make a fully informed decision. The idea of caution and prudence is to reduce the unknown risk factors we face and thus help assure that we live long and healthy lives.


But they're known to the extent that we know the risks of the other GMO-via-selective-breeding foods that are out there. Without some apparent qualitiative difference between GMO-ing in a lab vs GMO-ing in a field, it's like shifting from Philips-head screws and drivers to a novel type of screw-and-driver and saying that we need to investigate the danger. We use those screws in airplanes! And nuclear reactors! And in coal mines! We should know the dangers. Without some qualitative difference though, there's just no reason to care.

What do you think we need to know?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#36  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Dec 09, 2012 3:50 am

Loren Michael wrote:
I'm not seeing the impetus for a call for alarm, or even caution. Is there more than "we just don't know"? Because the answer to that is "we know quite a bit".

And by what mechanism(s) do we "know quite a bit?" Has Monsanto published peer-reviewed papers? Issued detailed reports? Conducted seminars? Made their test results public? Published testimonials? I have no idea, but I am curious.

I think we can all be asked to provide evidence of claims we make in our posts. Can you provide evidence of your claim?
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 92
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#37  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 09, 2012 4:14 am

Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I'm not sure I'm parsing that correctly. Are you saying that the reason to suspect there is such a qualitative difference is that you aren't a geneticist, or are you saying there is a reason, but you haven't stated it?


I'm saying I can't satsify your request for information because I don't have the expertise to speak from.
I'm going on gut feeling and supposition and extrapolating from past occurrences. It just seems that because we can do a thing that it isn't necessarily wise to do it without having some idea of the long term consequences. Also, that we simply can't fully predict what the consequences might be. Not all mistakes can be reversed or fixed.

My preference is to reduce the population so to reduce the pressure to produce more and more food.


...what past consequence? And again, what qualitative difference exists between the GM means we're considering?

I'm not seeing the impetus for a call for alarm, or even caution. Is there more than "we just don't know"? Because the answer to that is "we know quite a bit".


OK.
We only think we know quite a bit.
We can't possibly.

I'm pretty sure I haven't expressed or made any call for alarm.

Coinsurance? :think:


Coinsurance was my fingers' interpretation of my mind telling them to type "consequence".

We can't possibly know everything. "Quite a bit" by itself without a comparison or something similar means very little.

My "quite a bit" comment was getting at the notion that, given that we're confident enough with selective breeding GMOs is it unreasonable to say that we can be confident enough with lab GMOs? If you believe we can't, why not?

"it isn't necessarily wise" and "we simply can't fully predict what the consequences might be. Not all mistakes can be reversed or fixed" is the alarm/caution that I was referring to.

That "we simply can't fully predict" is a weird bar to hold something to. We can't fully predict farm-GMOs, but we need to fully predict lab-GMOs? Why this discrepancy? If that's not what you mean, what do you mean?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#38  Postby Gallstones » Dec 09, 2012 4:17 am

There's a difference between screws and DNA.
A faulty screw might cause a plane to crash and a couple hundred people to die.

Faulty DNA can lead to disasterous genotypes/phenotypes that could cause a portion of the food supply to crash.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#39  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 09, 2012 4:26 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
I'm not seeing the impetus for a call for alarm, or even caution. Is there more than "we just don't know"? Because the answer to that is "we know quite a bit".

And by what mechanism(s) do we "know quite a bit?" Has Monsanto published peer-reviewed papers? Issued detailed reports? Conducted seminars? Made their test results public? Published testimonials? I have no idea, but I am curious.

I think we can all be asked to provide evidence of claims we make in our posts. Can you provide evidence of your claim?


We know lab-GMO food undergoes testing all the time. Golden Rice has been extensively tested, here's a link about the safety of lab-GMO soybeans.

I'm curious about the double standard here. New breeds of [a plant/animal] made through farm-GMOing aren't questioned. There isn't the call for peer-reviewed papers, detailed reports, seminars, public test results, etc. Why the call for such things when they come from a lab?

What is the qualitative difference? Nobody's suggested one.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: GMO crops can feed the world

#40  Postby Loren Michael » Dec 09, 2012 4:31 am

Gallstones wrote:There's a difference between screws and DNA.
A faulty screw might cause a plane to crash and a couple hundred people to die.

Faulty DNA can lead to disasterous genotypes/phenotypes that could cause a portion of the food supply to crash.


You've misunderstood the analogy like a champion. I blame myself.

Again, without some qualitative difference between labGMO and farmGMO, there's just no reason to care.

What do you think we need to know?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Earth Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest