Genetic engineers are developing nitrogen fixing bacteria to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (which is made using fossil fuel).

Will these new bacteria be designed to limit how much fixed nitrogen they make? Without negative feedback that would limit the production based on circumstances, what would avoid that?

I also worry about the issue of patents and what this will cost farmers. Patents on the bacteria could make farmers even more dependent. On the other side, if the protection against an excess of these bacteria, and a consequent excess of fixed nitrogen, is that they don't survive very long, does that mean farmers would have to buy more bacteria each year?

Runoff has made the rivers of Iowa toxic — people can't the fish or drink the water.

This runoff includes phosphate as well as nitrate. The bacteria to fix nitrogen would perhaps eliminate the latter but not the former. And no substitution of fertilizer will reduce the outflow from animal feedlots — they only consume the plants.

Wildfires, increasing in many areas due to global heating, are polluting water supplies — sometimes long after the fire.

The fires also release mercury, which ends up in wildlife, which can be unsafe for people to eat.

If civilization survives, we ought eventually to deploy a system to concentrate mercury from the environment, so we remove it from the environment.

A letter written by Kavanaugh in 1983 provides more evidence that he lied to the Senate about how he lived then.

A Christian extremist movie says that the bullshitter was sent by "god" to save the world's morality.

According to the restored morality, people will lie and cheat all the time.

This movie's success further demonstrates that the Republican Party has become a cult.

Canada wanted to deport Ebrahim Toure, considering him a menace to Hollywood. But he was totally stateless, so there was no country Canada could send him to. So Canada put him in prison, where he has been for six years, in service of an impossible goal.