What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
70 Comments
- govsucks, on 10/29/2009, -0/+46Scientists say they have concerns that eventually the plants will absorb so much carbon that they will grow to over 300 feet tall and attack Tokyo.
- XxUNDEROATHxX, on 10/29/2009, -0/+25new car smell
- merbrian, on 10/29/2009, -0/+22That's one way to solve a problem--just engineer a brand new species . . .
- Corrina41, on 10/29/2009, -0/+17I wonder what the flowers smell like?!
- mlw4428, on 10/29/2009, -0/+16The Ford plant in Dearborn, MI has some tech sorta like this. They put grass on all of their building's roofs, they have special concrete which is supposed to allow rain water to seep into the ground, but not oil and dirt.
That said you gotta love Toyota for really going above and beyond the call of duty. - JohnnyDo333, on 10/29/2009, -0/+16"Feed me Seymour!"
- WordsnCollision, on 10/29/2009, -5/+19Can't see GM, Ford or Chrysler doing anything like that.
- AndrewMoyer, on 10/29/2009, -0/+11They manufactured a plant at their manufacturing plant..
- askantik, on 10/29/2009, -1/+11Strenoth, god damnit, I've seen that ***** so many times here on Digg. Selective breeding which we've done for over 10,000 years is not the same thing as genetic engineering. P.E.R.I.O.D. For a community that so actively supports science, I can't understand why I've seen people say those two things are the same so many times.
IF (stress the if) these flowers are grown INSIDE and not allowed outside under any circumstances, I would be ok with it. One of the main problems with GE crops is that they (aside from encouraging monoculture and reduce biodiversity) could potentially wreak havoc on native species, particularly if the GE species has an unmodified relative in the surrounding area. There's already problems in Mexico where GE maize is threatening the 40+ ancient varieties of corn.
Objecting to (or at the very least, questioning) genetic engineering of our crops is not on the basis of some retarded freak out. There are very valid, scientific reasons for being cautious. - jsuther, on 10/29/2009, -1/+11This article is rather light on science and heavy on the marketing. If the plant absorbs nitrogen dioxide (NO2), what does it turn it into? Does it do anything with it chemically or does it stay in the plant and then just get released back into the atmosphere when the plant dies and decays?
- Quisquis, on 10/29/2009, -0/+8It probably converts it into nitrogen for nutrients and releases the oxygen. If this could be adapted to food crops, it could be a novel(and possibly safer) way to deliver fertilizer.
Just imagine putting your farm next to a car factory and letting the nitrogen compounds in the air that the factory produces be your fertilizer. - missjames, on 10/29/2009, -1/+8I was going to reply again, but it looks like askantik has covered it all.
It's one thing if plants are genetically modified due to breeding, but we have gone above and beyond that (particularly with our food), with no real knowledge of how they will affect the environment. Sure this Toyota flower may be a harmless flower, but it also could have some unseen effect on its surrounding ecosystem.
Beyond that, I also think it's reasonable to object to a solution for a man-made problem -- pollution -- with a genetically modified flower, rather than focusing on the emissions themselves. - ricksite, on 10/29/2009, -0/+6No, it decays and when it decays it releases carbon dioxide.
- missjames, on 10/29/2009, -4/+10I'm not OK with genetic modification of our food either. I know it's likely an unpopular stance, but that's how I feel.
- mattclare, on 10/29/2009, -1/+7Toyota engineers realized that it wasn't their vehicles that required further optimization to achieve the desired outcome and simply applied themselves to the relevant task.
The real story is why their aerospace devision hasn't made as much progress in the required modifications to gravity. - ricksite, on 10/29/2009, -4/+9How do they keep the greenhouse gasses from going back into the atmosphere when the flower dies?
- majortom1981, on 10/29/2009, -0/+5well considering the co2 was in the ground in the form of oil why not put it back into the ground?
- DCstewieG, on 10/29/2009, -1/+6So you want Toyota to break the law of conservation of mass? I don't think they're that good.
- fadetoone, on 10/29/2009, -1/+5Knowing very little about the process, I hope absorbing the gases effectively eliminates the problem instead of just transferring it into the ground or something.
- sageerrant, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Sup dawg.
- maddskillz, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Why not? I think all companies are interested in doing things that make them look good.
- Myakka, on 10/29/2009, -3/+7How will introducing a new species into the environment alter the environment as a whole?
Will it be another invasive species which takes over our planet's ecosystems?
Just how carefully did they think this through? - majortom1981, on 10/29/2009, -1/+5If your going to be sarcastic atleast read the article. The plant was engineered to absorb nitrogen oxide and heat. wich a lot of plants don't do.
- jerrolds, on 10/29/2009, -1/+5Youve been eating genetically modified food for decades - think the corn on the cob youll be having for thanksgiving is created by nature? Nope!
- DoodleMaster, on 10/29/2009, -3/+7Oh please...we genetically alter tons of ***** apples, people, trees, animals, why in the world don't you like the idea of genetically engineered plants that absorbs green house gasses more effectively?
- Logicexe, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Yeah it is, but it also tends to fall from the sky every few days so it doesn't build up over long periods of time like CO2 and methane.
- MOJIRA, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3Can these be grown around large metropolitan and industrial areas, and they cost effective?
- Hetman, on 10/29/2009, -1/+4Soul sucking plants. That sounds like the greatest thing ever.
- mlw4428, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3I was OK with your point up until you said "feed people."
Toyota isn't making these plants to feed people with. That said I'd eat me some genetically modified corn. - jsuther, on 10/29/2009, -1/+4famous last words...
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/29/2009, -1/+4Creative marketing.
I doubt it means much in terms of actual environmental impact though. - Surgeon62, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3I'm OK with it as long as they don't name them Audrey II.
- esfisher, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3They already have, we just don't know it yet because of their time modification department.
- MotoFly, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2They probably separate the molecules, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and using the nitrogen as fuel for Captain Olimar's ship.
- Hetman, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2I am all for GM anything to be honest with you. Be it animal, plants and or humans which we could file under animals. Anyways my only problem is the copyright laws. They need to be changed so that one company cannot have a monopoly over all of our agriculture.
- k3rfuffl3, on 10/29/2009, -3/+5"while the gardenia's leaves create water vapour in the air"
Water vapor is a green house gas! /s
Seriously, it is though. - ParadiscaCorbas, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3I love all the intelligent questions people are asking in this thread.
I hope that Toyota's engineers have already worked out the concerns expressed here. - Strenoth, on 10/29/2009, -5/+7ALL of our food has been genetically modified since we first started farming & herding.
We are just more direct about it now. - Laminarcissus, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2Yes, I'm sure Digg is way ahead of them.
- mlw4428, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2Scientology for tree huggers?
- esfisher, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2It doesn't store a lifetime of carbon dioxide.
- fasda, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2You know that dirt has organic molecules that are resistant to further metabolism right so there always will be a net carbon loss. Or if we really wanted to he could turn all the cellulose into celluloid or rayon and have it never decay.
- JROXZ, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3Nah... Godzilla has their back...
- fasda, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2why cause it wasn't natural? Your entire life is due to unnatural things, vaccines, polyethylene, antibiotics, bleach, stainless steal, doped Si, wheat, electricity, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides. All of these things don't exist in nature as we use them all of them had to be engineered by people for a desired result would you rather live in a cave have most children born die and live to your 30s?
- fasda, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1yeah seriously if the people who make GE plants don't strenuously prevent (and I mean make the plants sterile) cross pollination well they are just up a creek with out a paddle. Can they sue another company for try to purposely sell a plant with the same modification I don't think that is unreasonable (for a few years anyway)
- Logicexe, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1There's a significant difference between engineering a plant that sucks undesirable substances out of the air and a plant engineered for human consumption.
I'm strictly opposed to either, but I do think that plants engineered for human consumption should be much more heavily tested for their impact on human health and on the environment since it's likely going to be used much more widely than this little flower Toyota created.
Hetman also brought up copyright law, which I think is another important point. - Persian5Life, on 10/29/2009, -3/+4as long as we can control it i don't see anything wrong with it.
- ParadiscaCorbas, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Probably, but you and I both know there is enough Science Gone Horribly Wrong in pop culture to make a person wonder.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is