The following was stated: "Are you just simply going to ignore it because I'm not going to go search around Google for links? You couldn't even "keep up" in that thread (because it's out of your realm of study/knowledge), yet you chose to dismiss all of it because I didn't hunt down some Google links for you." H.Kuska comment. Yes, without scientific documentation, it is merely your opinion. Please note how the Podevin and du Jardin, 2012 paper was commented on in this very recent review reported in Google Scholar: PDF][PDF] SCOPING REPORT C Marris, C Jefferson - 2013 - kclpure.kcl.ac.uk 169 days ago - ... Document Version Preprint ��" the version submitted for publication Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Marris, C., & Jefferson, C. (2013). ... This report should be cited as: Marris, C. and Jefferson, C. (2013). ... "One reason for the scepticism displayed by some actors in response to such declarations is that at the time when genetic engineering first merged, strong claims were also made by proponents of the field about the precision of the new techniques. Thus, molecular biologists in the 1980s emphasised the lack of sophistication of previous techniques to emphasise the enhanced predictability of the then new recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, as exemplified in the seminal OECD report of 1986 (OECD, 1986)11:" H.Kuska comment, the following is a quote from the 1986 report. "While rDNA techniques may result in the production of organisms expressing a combination of traits that are not observed in nature, genetic changes from rDNA techniques will often have inherently greater predictability compared to traditional techniques, because of the greater precision that the rDNA technique affords to particular modifications. […] It is acknowledged that additional research and experience with rDNA micro-organisms, plants, and animals, should certainly increase our ability and precision to predict the outcome of introductions of rDNA organisms into the many varied ecosystems." (H.Kuska comment, end of 1986 quote, now back to recent review quote.) "Despite these claims of greater predictability and precision, studies have now found that unintended additional fragments of DNA are often present (Rang et al., 2005; Windels et al., 2001), and that unintended re-arrangements of sections of the host genome flanking the genetic insert were present in GM crops that have been placed on the market (Hernández et al., 2003; Windels et al., 2001). Also, a recent study by scientists from the European Food Safety Authority demonstrated that some long versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter, very commonly used in genetic constructs and present in a number of GM crops on the market, unexpectedly contain an overlapping viral open reading frame which, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes (Podevin and du Jardin, 2012). This demonstrates that even seemingly well-characterised and routinely used noncoding regulatory DNA sequences can produce unpredicted, unintended effects, yet such sequences are commonly assumed to present little risk when assessed within the EU regulatory framework, and “intergeneric microorganisms resulting only from the addition of well-characterized, non-coding regulatory regions” are excluded from the US Biotechnology Coordinated Framework. Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided about whether any future forms of genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, could ever result in the creation of organisms with reliably predictable behaviours, especially when released into complex, diverse and variable natural ecosystems; and this is directly related to divergent evaluations of the prospects for GMMO products that would need to be released into the environment in order to perform their intended function" H.Kuska comment. Please notice the use of the word "opinions" in the following: "Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided........" i.e. it is my "opinion" that the public is being used as beta testers. ------------------------------------------ Here is a link that might be useful: link to above review

"H.Kuska answer. Because "clastogenic" does mean "will cause cancer". A clastogenic compound "may" cause cancer. It also "may not"." Actually, "clastogenic" for biologists (which I am one) means inducing breakage or disruptions of chromosomes...aka, breakage, deletion, and addition mutations. Maybe we wouldn't have so much denial about the issue if you could make that connection based on what I was talking about and the meaning of the word rather than focusing on how it may cause cancer. Your lack of understanding of the subject is jumping to strange conclusions. This is getting extremely silly. If you're going to Google a bunch of stuff, cut/paste it, and demand scientific accuracy from others...at least know how to read and use the information you're trying to use for the sake of your own scientific accuracy. If you don't understand a word, use the same Google search to find out what it means. ...and besides...this is just a distraction from the point I've been trying to make about the study you posted...that using in vitro studies and drawing conclusions about a whole body organism using single-cell measurements and concentrations are not valid to say something, quote something, or stand by something such as "100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer." That is the point that's important to the discussion at hand...how the "100,000 times" alarmist message based on an in vitro study is utter scientific bull. The example I gave merely gives an example of how you can't scale like this based on an in vitro study of a single cell type. There is no "100,000 times" effect in play. That's not how you treat an in vitro study and concentrations used in direct cell experiments vs in the real world...and that's before you get to pathways for access vs directly injecting or saturating a substance straight into a cell. If one is going to critique and use scientific literature, it helps to understand what you're reading and the "in house" language it's written in. While you may be able to break down an explanation about how a number of chemical catalysts can break down a substance into a string of chemical compounds based upon your scientific background...and I probably wouldn't be able to...you're not very good at biological science. We are both scientists, but we're not jack of all trades. A mechanic that can fix a Volvo engine isn't automatically qualified to fix Blackhawk helicopter engines just because they're a mechanic. This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jul 4, 13 at 17:35

If fully composted it won't go "bad"...but you'll lose some of it's nutrient effects as it continuously ages, especially N content. As noted, it will also shrink in volume over time as it settles, loses some moisture, and loses some of it's structural stability. That said, it's effect on mineral soil as an addition is one of it's strongest qualities, anyway. Though some that rely on composting as an important part of their nutrient regiment might lament the loss of it's overall strength, I find the most value of compost in what it does to soil structure in conjunction with the mineral part of the soil. For instance, fresh mushroom compost is practically nutrient-bare stuff (1% N/P/K volume at best, usually, and not all of it is available in plant available forms which is a double-whammy). It's one of the "worst" types of composts you can get your hands on as far as nutrient quality goes, but it's effect on soil structure when combined with the mineral portion of the soil is just as good as any other compost. This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Jul 16, 13 at 4:52

Thanks for the quotes from one of my favorite authors. It must be terrifying to know that you have Alzheimer's, especially when you are a writer and your brain is the tool you depend on. There are quit a few quotes which I identify with, not related to his disease.