February 26, 2014

Comment Against the US Government’s Sham “Coexistence” Policy


“Coexistence” is a fraudulent propaganda term. Coexistence is physically impossible, as contamination of non-GM crops and wild relatives by GMO maize, cotton, canola and other types is already rampant, as is the feral spread of GMO canola in various forms.
The USDA wants to promulgate “coexistence” as the official ideology and practical recommendation of the US government. There’s currently a comment period open on this, which expires March 4. Here’s one of the several pre-written comment and submission forms available, if that’s easier.
The contamination problem will only get worse, the longer GMOs exist. Meanwhile the poisons associated with GMOs, so far primarily glyphosate, inevitably drift and contaminate soils, water, air, other plants, and accumulate in our bodies. This problem will significantly escalate as “second generation” GMOs resistant to the far more volatile and drift-prone 2,4-D are commercialized. There’s still time to comment on this as well, as the comment period has been extended to March 11.
All this is in addition to the malign socioeconomic and political effects of poison-based corporate agriculture. I’ve written on this many times; here’s just a few examples. Here too it’s impossible for human beings to coexist with GMOs. It’s untenable to have our very food dominated by corporations whose one and only imperative is to force us to apply the maximum poison in and on our food. Humanity’s only path forward is the complete abolition of GMOs.




  1. Russ:

    Forgive me for being off topic. I’ve just found your blog, and it’s had me think about the current state of capitalism and its trajectory. In particular, how socialism may arise from post-capitalist conditions. A common theme through-out your blog is that food production is a primary human economy. You’re indeed correct. I think part of economic democracy comes from managing our limited resources in a sustainable manner. But I think there’s a fundamental economy which underlies all else, and that is the energy economy. I don’t merely refer to how and where energy is stored (be it bio-fuels or solar rays), but in particular the universal capacity for humans to perform work, both from utilizing this latent energy and our own bodies. Insofar as we reproduce the means of life everyday through our work, so too is energy central to the human economy as a whole.

    We can speak of renewable energy sources concretely, but in principle, Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics would forbid that. The ability for a closed system in non-equilibrium to perform work decreases as energy is converted into irreversible work. By definition, no energy source is completely renewable, because work cannot continue indefinitely. And of course, our rate of consumption far exceeds initial energy input, and this disparity will only get worse into the future. You’re absolutely right that we need to scale down our energy
    consumption in preparation for a democratic economy (or socialism).

    But I see a lingering problem with this proposal. The productive capacity of capitalism has allowed the exploiter nations to industrialize quickly at the cost of environmental and social upset. The current economy is wasteful in two ways:

    a) It has produced excess which is systematically with-held from those
    who need it;

    b) It’s inefficient in converting usable energy into work. For fossil
    fuels, the average energy conversion rate is very poor. The rest is dissipated as waste heat which cannot be used for work. For rockets, one must reach very high speeds in order to get good efficiency.

    In order to sustain our wasteful energy economy in its current form, we’ve had to invest literal trillions of dollars into infrastructure. I strongly believe that our dependence on fossil fuels is manufactured, due to the capitalist profit motive. I believe innovation has been stifled thanks to private interests, and there are a limited range of non-fossil fuel alternatives which would require scaling down our energy dependence. It’s true that we can scale down our consumption and liberate those trillions of dollars into more productive work, such as quality education and childcare. But, I think we should also look at alternatives which could both meet our energy needs and not generate waste.

    The central problem we face requires we know about physical energy costs vs.physical output. This is before we can even talk about energy needs. There are fundamental needs which simply cannot be metered. And while it’s true our current system is wasteful, it’s doubtful that a post-industrial nation could be sustained with socialism and windmills alone. There’s not enough productive capacity for that. However, if we could find a way to allocate energy use efficiently, we’d free up productive capacity. And it’s from here that I see post-industrial socialist societies
    being viable. With negligible costs, there’s no worries about consumption.

    There are four categories of technology that show promise:in this regard:

    • Quantum vacuum/zero-point field energy access systems and related advances in EM theory and applications
    • Electrogravitic and magnetogravitic energy and propulsion
    • Low energy nuclear reactions
    • Electrochemical and related advances to internal combustion
    systems which achieve near zero emissions and very high

    The third one in particular, low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), is the one I’m most knowledgeable of, but we can also discuss EG and ZPF to some extent. LENR is the technical name for a nuclear-scale process more commonly known as “cold fusion”. Experiments with it have shown compelling results. In particular, much more energy is recorded being released than being put in. This is enough to warrant being a source of anomalous power generation, and not simply within expected values due to other mechanisms and error. By analogy, merely one teaspoon of heavy water has the energy content of three hundred gallons of gasoline. Your car could drive 55 million miles on a gallon.of heavy water, simply by tapping into the fusion potential of the deuterium nuclei.


    Basically, in the original experiment by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons–and I’ll note this discovery was by fortunate chance–two electrochemical cells were compared. There was a heavy water-palladium cell (D/Pd) and a light water-palladium cell. The D/Pd loading ratio in the first cell was much higher than in the second, where light water has about 1/6500th of its hydrogen nuclei naturally occurring as heavy isotopes. Pons and Fleischmann were recording the temperatures of both cells and plotting it against the heater power as a function of time. Normally, the solvent evaporates as the cell heats up, and less heater power is needed to maintain the same temperature over time.

    The positively-charged deuterium nuclei (D+) were packed into a compact palladium-platinum lattice. Somehow, the D+ overcame the repulsive Coulomb barrier and managed to fuse. Ordinarily, such fusion is only possible under conditions of extreme heat, such as at the sun’s core. This implies that a reaction occurred at room temperature where the strong nuclear forces overtook the Coulomb barrier. The two scientists measured nuclear scale excess heat. MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center–representing an industry with vested interests– had an unpublished draft report on Cold Fusion (the Phase-II calorimetry report), where the excess heat curve for the D2O cell was downshifted with no explanation.

    There were two drafts of the report–one published in a journal, another unpublished. The unpublished curve suggested 20% less heater power was needed to heat the same volume of fluid. What was the source of this power? It could not be attributed to solvent loss alone, as Dr. Mitchell Swartz showed in his analysis of the MIT PFC Phase-II calorimetry report. The published negative report was used by the Department of Energy to deny funding for cold fusion research.

    But there are contradicting statements about the negative report. Teams who obtained positive results alleged that MIT et al. didn’t reach a high enough D/Pd loading ratio for the effect to occur. But then we have a downshifted heat curve. I believe that MIT initially found the proper ratio, but then deliberately used a lower D/Pd ratio so that other teams, referring to MIT’s experiments, could not reproduce Fleischmann and Pons’ findings. This would lead to an artificial scientific consensus against LENR, and the initial heat curve could be explained away as solvent loss.

    There’s compelling evidence for a concerted effort against cold fusion/LENR. This is for several reasons, which are beyond the scope of the comment. But I can elaborate in detail later if you wish.

    Implications and Uses for These Energy Sources

    The removal of air pollution related to energy generation, including electric power plants, cars, trucks,
    aircraft and manufacturing.The near elimination of all manufacturing processes since the energy per se required for same would have no cost related to fuel consumption. This would allow the full application of technologies which remove effluent smokestacks, solid waste, and waterways.

    The practical achievement of an environmentally near-zero impact yet high tech civilization on earth, thus assuring the long-term sustainability of human civilization.

    Trillions of dollars now spent on electric power generation, gas, oil, coal and nuclear power would be freed to be spent on more productive and environmentally neutral endeavors by both individuals and society as a whole.

    Underdeveloped regions could industrialize in about a generation, and without the negative costs of environ. impact, including health and social.


    We don’t need to scale down our energy use for the long term. In particular, our current and future needs can be met by these low-cost, highly productive technologies listed above. The physical cost of maintaining these systems (energy input) is so low that we simply can’t meter them. And of course, to meter means to profit. By definition, we cannot monetarily profit from these technologies. I think these alternatives will be the catalyst to ending capitalism. The primary human economy–energy–will supply our food production, travel, and manufacturing needs. Every industry, every action, requires energy (capacity for work). Without energy, we can’t reproduce the means of daily life.

    I hope we can also use these alternatives to power labor-saving devices at negligible cost. This would allow us to transition to a democratic leisure economy. Currently, only first-world nations (USA, UK, Canada etc.) have a leisure economy dependent on a super-exploited class (the third world). There’s a large middle class with disposable income and leisure time. If these labor-saving devices were made available to everybody…there could not be an exploited class. Energy will be available to anyone, so there’s no need to expend human labor. There’s so much work to be done, and yet there are no jobs. This is a capitalist contradiction, and it’s an artificially imposed mindset. Work will be redefined in terms of its social utility, so everyone, young or old, will have the chance to contribute to society and pursue their goals.

    If we’re to discuss any industry–even food production–we must talk about energy. But the current alternatives we have aren’t enough.

    Forgive my rant. I hope it’s thought provoking, at least.

    Comment by heavywatergate — February 26, 2014 @ 1:12 pm

    • @heavywatergate,

      “But the current alternatives we have aren’t enough.”

      Enough to do what? You seem to assume the goal ought to be continuing to project the illusion of perpetual exponential growth. Why? The game we are playing right now is musical chairs, without the chairs. Keeping the lights on and the music playing won’t change the fact that the game is a fraud, that the only guy who is going to win is the one with his finger on the iPod. We need to walk away from this game and find a new one. While what you propose may work from a technological standpoint to keep the music playing for awhile longer, from a sociological standpoint, all you would accomplish is extending the scam and diverting good minds away from either building chairs to make the current game valid or developing a new game that is valid from the start. Without the chairs, it’s game off.

      Comment by Tao Jonesing — February 27, 2014 @ 3:10 am

  2. PS: It’s true that some Nordic countries (e.g. Denmark) derive a good portion of their energy supply from clean wind power and solar cells. But this is dependent on local climate, elevation and other geographic factors which affect the distribution of these technologies. I think we can use LENR, et al. to supply our needs wherever we are. We don’t need the blessings of geography–only science.

    Comment by heavywatergate — February 26, 2014 @ 1:18 pm

    • P.S.: I should clarify some potentially confusing points about cold fusion. A source of skepticism was that P & F didn’t encounter lethal gamma radiation as nuclear physics predicts for hot fusion, when the deuterium nuclei fused. If they’d encountered fusion, where was the radiation ? This became known as the “dead graduate student” problem. Three prominent theorists stepped forward to posit possible mechanisms for room temperature fusion that could explain the absence of radiation: Keith Johnston, Peter L. Hagelstein and Julian Schwinger (Nobel Laureate in Physics, experience in particle physics).

      The second point is that excess heat was only observed in the D2O heavy water cell, not the light water (H2O) cell. There’s something about the D/Pd loading ratio in the D2O cell and how the D+ nuclei were packed in the Pd lattice that induced fusion. D/Pd loading ratios of ≥90% have given good results, as a recent talk by Hagelstein states. It’s very likely that the MIT Plasma Fusion Center used loading ratios well below 90%. That’s a key difference b/w a negative and positive result for cold fusion.

      Remember: Low input energy, high output energy (capacity for work), zero impact (no gamma rays or toxic waste produced). LENR and other such low-cost, highly productive technologies are the future fuels I’m excited about. Plus, the latent energy can be extracted anywhere at anytime, whereas solar and wind have inherent limitations to when and where they can be used.

      Comment by heavywatergate — February 26, 2014 @ 2:02 pm

    • Thanks heavywatergate. I wish you luck working on those, although some of them are physically impossible, and none of the others have ever been viable in practice, nor is there any reason to believe they will be. Regular fission and unconventional oil are economically impossible without massive subsidies, which means massive power concentration and surplus value extraction. That is, they’re impossible on a democratic basis.

      I say that to keep focus on the fact that industrial agriculture is unsustainable for several major reasons starting with the impending decline of energy consumption to historical levels, while low external input agroecology, the great solution for humanity, even now outproduces industrial ag acre for acre, and will outproduce it to an infinite extent post-cheap oil. So there’s no reason to look at a future of lower energy consumption as a future of lower food production. On the contrary, agroecology produces more and much higher quality food than industrial/corporate ag.

      Of course it does so in an economically and politically decentralized way, so no one can amass power with it, nor can anyone get rich with it. That’s why it’s anathema to the system.

      Comment by Russ — February 26, 2014 @ 3:15 pm

  3. Which of the proposed solutions do you find to be impossible? To my knowledge, all of the technologies I have listed have a strong theoretical basis, and any contention to their practical application is often based on (misunderstood) theoretical grounds than their alleged potential.

    Comment by heavywatergate — February 26, 2014 @ 5:40 pm

    • For example zero point energy, if it existed at all, would be just like any other kind – it would take vastly more energy to concentrate it into a usable form than would be contained in the concentration. That of course is just as true of fossil fuels, which took billions of years of concentration, and vastly more energy than ended up being contained in the oil and gas and coal, to create those concentrations in the first place.

      This site doesn’t believe technological magic bullets are possible or necessary. I argue that the solutions are already in our hands and being deployed, albeit nowhere near on the scale they need to be, and up against often severe adversity. But the obstacles are purely political, and can be just as easily eradicated if enough people wanted to make a different political choice.

      Comment by Russ — February 27, 2014 @ 12:37 am

  4. On second thought, spare me the details. Your comment could easily be applied to socialism. I’m not on baseless speculation–these are phenomena which have been observed in the field and have a theoretical basis. Further, it’s clear that energy underlies ecology. No physical system can exist without energy. So I’m at a loss as to why you think food production is the most important problem–it isn’t. Even a single acre of crop requires many kilo-joules of energy from the sun, etc. LENR et al. are democratic energy solutions because it allows anyone, anywhere, at any time to tap into the fusion potential of heavy water and other mediums. Windmills and solar cells require the blessings of geography to even be remotely considered viable options. They also have an inherently limited distribution range. We need energy to perform work–that’s self-evident. Agro-ecology will solve at most one major problem. Clean energy solutions will solve pollution problems related to travel, manufacturing and food production at once. But go ahead…think as you like.

    Comment by heavywatergate — February 26, 2014 @ 8:18 pm

    • If you say LENR can really work, and work on a democratic basis, I’m glad to hear it. That would help with the basic point that post-oil, post-commodification, post-globalization we can still live materially great lives including many of the comforts we’ve become accustomed to (“we” in this context meaning the Western middle class which is necessarily the target audience for the movement-building argument here).

      I say food production is the most important thing for the obvious reason that along with shelter and water we physically need ample non-poisonous food, and whether or not humanity shall have this is highly questionable at this point.

      Not, as I said, because agroecology cannot be used by 7 billion or even more people to provide food for themselves, but because of the political choices around food production and distribution which are being forced upon us (and also, so far, chosen by us).

      Comment by Russ — February 27, 2014 @ 12:47 am

    • The astronaut and scientist Brian O’Leary wrote about cold fusion and other alternative energies and concluded they are for real. He also researched into other suppressed areas, as did the astronaut and 6th man to walk on the Moon, Dr Edgar Mitchell. People would be surprised what these people found, what is being kept hidden from us. The problems on this planet are being intentionally created for us. Becoming aware of this is the first obstacle to overcome.

      Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 1, 2014 @ 4:41 pm

      • Russ, since we’re talking about the bigger picture here, one thing I have found: the global assault that threatens our food, water, air, freedoms, health, the natural world, indigenous groups… reaches to even Music. Over the last few years I have been able to recover the original ancient musical tunings. “Modern tuning” is a type of mathematical hoax, where all the ancient keys of music have been lost, replaced by this blurry one-size-fits-all tuning, which is out of synch with the Earth and the laws of harmonics. Putting music back in tune would bring tremendous benefits to our minds and health. I wrote up a summary of my findings and sent it to a couple interested people in David’s blog, and so if you are interested, let me know, it’s like a ten page word document. (you might need a break from all the typing)

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 7, 2014 @ 11:35 am

      • I agree that the one-world corporatist assault wants to homogenize and monetize all culture are well. Are you talking about Bach’s tuning system? Your project sounds interesting, and I’ll keep your offer in mind, though I don’t think I have time to focus on it right now.

        Comment by Russ — March 7, 2014 @ 3:52 pm

      • I believe the tunings I have recovered predate Bach, and other composers, who were trying, in my view, to recover the original tunings. As I’m sure you know, almost all written records were confiscated and destroyed or hidden in the centuries leading into the Renaissance period, musical records and instruments as well. There is a simple code that allowed me to recover the tunings, and solve various musical riddles. I’ll be hanging onto the summary I wrote up. if ever you or anyone wants a copy.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 8, 2014 @ 10:21 am

      • Thanks Tom. I’ll check out when I get a chance.

        Comment by Russ — March 8, 2014 @ 11:30 am

      • Just thought I’d add, if anyone wants to give the ancient musical keys I’ve recovered a quick listen, here is me playing three minor chords in a key, and then playing them in the other 11 ancient keys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIWWlfCrCVE

        You might need to listen to that twice to get your ears used to it, some keys sound like crystals, some are bluesy…

        If anyone wants to pursue this further, I just posted in this same youtube account, a video: Recovery of the 12 Ancient Keys of Music parts 1 and 2, and may add a third. I boil down priceless info into minutes here. You could study music for years and you would never learn these things, just like, you could study “dentistry” today and you’d never learn about the research of Weston Price, showing cavities are caused by a severe calcium deficiency, and can be healed by a change in diet… We live in strange times

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 15, 2014 @ 10:37 am

      • Thanks Tom.

        Comment by Russ — March 15, 2014 @ 2:01 pm

  5. […] context of the USDA’s attempt to promulgate a so-called “co-existence” policy. “Coexistence” (CE, as I’ll abbreviate it) is not a practical measure, and no one thinks it is. The […]

    Pingback by “Coexistence” With GMOs Is Impossible | Volatility — March 8, 2014 @ 9:30 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: