gwup | die skeptiker

… denken kritisch seit 1987.

SITP-Video: „Anti-science and post-truth: climate change, GMOs and nuclear power“

| 8 Kommentare

Der März-Vortrag von Skeptics in the Pub Wien ist jetzt online:

Der britische Autor und Umweltaktivist Mark Lynas sprach über „Anti-science and post-truth: climate change, GMOs and nuclear power“:

Science has become a political football in the age of so-called post-truth. While conservatives, especially in the US, deny the scientific reality of climate change, left-wingers and greens are equally likely to deny the science on genetically modified foods and nuclear power.

How can we try to have a more evidence-based debate about these issues?“

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Mark Lynas: Die Gentechnik-Sicherheitsdebatte ist vorbei, GWUP-Blog am 27. Mai 2016
  • Klimafakten und Emotionen: „Der Eisbär ist jetzt auch schon so ein bisschen ausgelutscht“, GWUP-Blog am 26. März 2018
  • Reaktorkatastrophen: Zwischen Angstmache und Verharmlosung, Skeptiker 4/2017

8 Kommentare

  1. Am 14.4. ist übrigens wieder March for Science:

  2. Ab heute ist sein neues Buch „Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs“ erhältlich – ich bin schon am Lesen. Unter den Kommentaren zum Buch ist auch Simon Singh:

    „Mark Lynas is a courageous writer whose evidence-based turnaround on GMOs should be a lesson to all environmentalists. A must-read for anyone who cares about our future.“

  3. I think Mark is mischaracterising the risk of GMO.

    One problem of GMO is the scale. You can introduce massive changes very fast. This is obviously a huge advantage but it also carries a much larger risk and potential for abuse.

    Huge companies might use GMO in combination with other products and patents to create monopolies that eventually create dependencies that individual countries might no longer be able to oppose.

    I don’t fear the science of GMO much, but I fear that science might be easily abused and might fail to check economic interests which often are contrary to public interest.

    When we are talking about GMO, we are not talking about objective science working on solutions to global problems, we are talking about permitting companies to market their products in a weakly regulated environment. The same companies that send armies of lobbyists out.

    The problem is definitely not whether it’s safe to eat GMO products, the problem is if we can trust economic organisations to be responsible. I don’t.

  4. I understand Mark such that there is no risk to live in Chernobyl and Fukushima. The radiation levels are safe.


    Science is about objectively verifiable facts. I do not have access to radiation data and I don’t know how radiation levels compare on these sites compare with other locations and which levels are dangerous.

    Now if the half-life of radioactive fall out in Chernobyl and Fukushima is a few decades and not tens of thousands of years and if the levels are low enough to repopulate the areas, why is it not been done? Japan is not known for being underpopulated, real estate is an issue on an island. Home owner have not really been fully compensated for their losses, I guess they would be happy to move back or sell their estates.

    I find it hard to believe that Chernobyl and Fukushima is all fake.

    If there really is a problem with radiation on these sites, Mark is not exactly reporting this in a very scientific way. He is implying that there is no substantial risk in nuclear energy, because Chernobyl and Fukushima actually are not contaminated. Really?

    Regarding nuclear waste. Mark shows a silo with nuclear waste. Problem solved. You can just put the stuff out in the open and wait until it’s no longer active. What’s all the fuzz about? That’s a scientific argument?

    Looking at this from a German perspective: They are looking for permanent storage for five decades and not even conservative governments have been satisfied with a solution. If there is no problem, why don’t we just put the stuff in metal containers and throw them into the next landfill?

    I find this attitude very disappointing and certainly not scientific.

  5. @Michael: Whether we trust economic organisations or not has nothing to do with GMOs and is not unique to companies dealing with GMOs. It applies just as much (or little) to those growing, selling and marketing organic food products.

  6. @Michael: On Fukushima (I have visited the prefecture) and Chernobyl (which Iida has recently visited) I recommend reading the blog of GWUP member Iida Ruishalme. She debunks many of the anti-science „green“ myths very nicely:

  7. @ Michael:

    Fukushima is not a fake and has been repopulated again quite soon after the incident.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Pflichtfelder sind mit * markiert.