Peng Guangqian After the publication of the author's thousand-character article "Eight-questioning staple grain genetically modified", it has aroused widespread public concern and resonance. Recently, the Information Office of the Ministry of Agriculture issued an exclusive interview with Lin Min and responded. Originally thought to be a member of the Committee on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms and director of the Institute of Biotechnology of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lin will come up with some persuasive information. Unfortunately, his answer has not only failed to dispel doubts, but has also deepened public concerns. As a new technology, there is a huge risk of transgenes, which is almost common sense. Even Paul L. Berger, the Nobel laureate who is a pioneer of transgenic technology, said that GM technology is potentially dangerous to human health and the environment. Because of this, all countries have adopted extremely stringent risk management measures including “refuges†and “isolation beltsâ€. Lin could not get too much valuable scientific evidence to say that there was no problem with genetic modification. How could the public believe it? In 2012, the European Food Safety Authority failed to fully accept the French professor's conclusion that GM maize caused tumors in rats, and concluded that transgenes are safe. But it was precisely the European Union that subsequently allocated 3 million euros to finance the experiment of continuing to feed mice fed genetically modified corn. This shows that the EU is not sure about the safety of genetic modification and needs to continue to evaluate it. And it is because of the inability to meet the European Union's requirements for reporting on prevention and control of ecological pollution and ecological damage. Companies such as BASF and Monsanto cannot withdraw from the EU's GM crop market. Lin quoted British writer and environmental protection activity activist Mark Linas regretting that he helped launch a campaign against GM to prove the harmlessness of genetic modification. However, more conscience scientists in the world have recently made sharp criticism and serious advice on genetic modification. For example, the British medical and molecular geneticist Michael Antonio used a large number of experiments to prove that genetically modified crops and foods are sources of health risks. Dr. Arnold Abbot, Ph.D. in Applied Biophysical Chemistry in France, pointed out seriously that in agricultural technology, science has joined hands with businesses. The development of genetically modified crops for 20 years tells the story of a scientific misguided road. Do not know what kind of scientific experiments Lin really did? Can we use experimental data to refute the conclusions of the aforementioned scientists? It is very simple to eliminate common people's doubts, just use scientific experimental data to speak. Recently, some people have been eating GM food gatherings. Apart from propagating shows, they have no significance in demonstrating the safety of GM foods. Given the potential and gradual nature of the risk of GM foods, if it is sincere, it is recommended that relevant departments and agencies take the lead in carrying out trials for one to three years. During the trial period, only genetically modified foods were eaten. Each year, data on the correlation between genetically modified disease and disease is published and compared with the non-transgenic group. Do not know if the relevant departments and agencies have this courage? As a Chinese citizen, it is our vocation to care about national security; as a consumer, we must not deprive and deprive anyone of our right to information, participation, choice, and supervision. The issue of genetic modification is related to people’s safety and even national security. There should not be any mistakes. Relevant departments are obliged to clarify things to the people in a sincere, truth-seeking and responsible manner. â–²(The author is Deputy Secretary-General of the China National Security Forum and Expert on Strategic Issues)
Size: DN40MM--DN600MM (1 1/2"--24")
Rubber sphere: Dual-ball
Flange: DIN2576, BS4504
Flange material: Carbon steel, stainless steel
Flange surface: Galvanized
rubber
expansion joints are designed to absorb movements and stress on piping
systems, compensate for pipe misalignment, reduce vibration and system
noise. they also protect against start-up forces as well as system
surges. All SA style joints come standard with ANSI 150# solid floating
metallic flanges. the design of the SA style does not contain any
metallic reinforcement in the carcass of the bellows. Instead the
carcass has a minimum of four layers of high tensile synthetic fabric.
Each layer is impregnated with a rubber or synthetic compound. this
allows movement and flexibility between the layers of fabric. the SA
style design has a long radius arch allowing for self cleaning and thus
eliminating the need for a filled arch. the sa style is the most
economic choice when it comes to rubber expansion joints.
Rubber Expansion Joint,Rubber Expansion Joint Connector,Rubber Expansion Ellbow,Rubber Connector Hebei Lanwei Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. , http://www.hblanwei.com
Rubber material: EPDM,NBR, NR, Neoprene