Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneralRural LivingHome AutomationSecurity AlarmsConstructionRepairPlumbingCleaningPest ControlLawn and Garden

Homeowner Forum / Lawn and Garden / July 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Pesticide  foodstuff database

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bill who putters - 21 Jun 2009 11:58 GMT
<http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/>

Signature

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

Billy - 21 Jun 2009 17:20 GMT
> http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
informed decisions.
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 21 Jun 2009 20:23 GMT
>> http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/
>
> This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
> informed decisions.
I thought you distrusted the Fed?
Billy - 21 Jun 2009 22:52 GMT
> http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

By and large. So what does that have to do with the Pesticide Action
Network?

I'm sure that the big lobbies that spread lots of cash around, aren't
too happy with them.

Chemical companies want to sell. Framers don't want to test.
Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands just want subsidies.
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 23 Jun 2009 21:31 GMT
>> http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

> This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
> informed decisions.

>I thought you distrusted the Fed?
>
> By and large. So what does that have to do with the Pesticide Action
> Network?

It is just good to see PAN agrees with the Fed and their database :),  but
most importantly that the findings show we are all safe.
My first thoughts were these Guys had an agenda and were going to push
Precautionary Principles.

> I'm sure that the big lobbies that spread lots of cash around, aren't
> too happy with them.

> Chemical companies want to sell. Framers don't want to test.
> Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands just want subsidies.

I do have to ask,  do these pickup lines still work?  True, their totally
diversionary,  but they both also seem so, I don't know.... irrelevant.

BTW,  ever read up on  Dr. Bruce Ames,  UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and
such.

another info site on chemicals:
http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/
you can use your zip to drill down to see whats is in your area, even gets
down to specific issues.

& If you promise not to nit-pick,
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6075  has some very good background
facts.  Some still floats around the Internet discussions a bit,
.....But do check out Dr. Ames, he has a lot more to say about pesticides,
quite illuminating,  not casually dismissed.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Billy - 23 Jun 2009 23:27 GMT
> BTW,  ever read up on  Dr. Bruce Ames,  UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and
> such.

I'm sure, there are lots of good reads, like John Yoo and the torture
briefs (also Cal Berkeley). It's nice to have an argument before cites
are given. What do you have to say. Where is the site for the government
database on pesticides? Where is the PAN site that says all pesticides
are safe?

Precautionary Principles, are you out of your mind, Dow, Monsanto,
Bayer, Nisus, and Novartis would break their political legs.  Cargill,
and Archer Daniel Midlands profit handsomely from corn, and soybean
supports, which allows them to make cheap food like stuff, for
consumption.

http://www.ewg.org/node/26928 is a nice toxic read, as is
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25
.101802.123020
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Use-of-Insecticides-Linked-to-La
sting-Neurological-Problems-for-Farmers-337-1/
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/05/18/bees_pesticides/
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/c_2.htm

And did you ever consider that if we didn't do the same monocultures in
the same place most of the pesticides wouldn't be needed, under the most
conservative of judgments. GMO crops are no more productive than
standard crops, but some do allow more pesticide be used. And how about
the increase in diabetes since we started eating faux foods 30 years
ago? Prior to that they were called imitation foods.

So gunner, make your argument, and present your citations. If you've
been to school, you should know how it works.
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 23 Jun 2009 23:42 GMT
>> BTW,  ever read up on  Dr. Bruce Ames,  UC Berkeley? good read on toxins
>> and
>> such.

You are aware that the PAN database IS the USDA's PDP?
gunner - 24 Jun 2009 16:28 GMT
Ahhh!  It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed,  did ya?  Typical Billy,  then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated  BS and more links you still didn't read.  Google is not
your friend Billy. As well,  I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait"  someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know  PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves).  On their  PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other.  So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN.  Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why?  I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here,  let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338
2007 data,  published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff,  ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits.  Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the <one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base,   framed it,  added
some whirligigs to get your attention  and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm.  "OMG this has pesticides on it!"  Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially  about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb),   for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown.  But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki,  here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/science/scientist-at-work-bruce-n-ames-strong-
views-on-origins-of-cancer.html?pagewanted=1

or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you,  like most of your "citations",  this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works.  Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies.  I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.

Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Ernie Willson - 24 Jun 2009 18:06 GMT
> Ahhh!  It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
> read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
> In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
> - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Gunner--

Really good post.

People generally aren't generally smart enough to quantify such data.
Most people can't tell the difference in meaning between Parts per
hundred million and percent. The perception is.....If there is ANY of it
present it's going to kill you.

EJ in NJ
Billy - 24 Jun 2009 21:01 GMT
> Ahhh!  It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
> read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
> Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/acknowledgements.jsp

METHODOLOGY
Q: What data is shown here and where did it come from?
A: USDA¹s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) cross-referenced with toxicology1
data from EPA and other authoritative listings.
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/methodology.jsp

Great, since it's government information, you shouldn't have a problem
with it;O)

TOXICOLOGY: MAKING SENSE OF PESTICIDES
What¹s On My Food? also contains toxicological information for most
pesticides tested by USDA, and for many of the pesticide residues
(chemicals found on foods that may be different from the actual
pesticides used). The toxicological information here is pulled from
www.PesticideInfo.org, a comprehensive database that we've developed and
maintained for ten years.

> 3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
> Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>  http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338
> 2007 data,  published Dec 2008

Certainly makes me glad that I grow as much as I can. I'll read it when
I can but it still doesn't answer the questions below.

> "PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
> 2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
> pesticides that had no tolerance established."
The EPA under Bush was a joke and we all know that the USDA isn't to aid
consumers, it's meant to aid agriculture (marketers).

> Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
> that little pie chart fluff,  ground clutter thingies and verify that none
> exceed the
> allowable safe limits.  Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
> limits, ok maybe the <one%.
1% of what? How much does it take before there is a response? A response
to the one isolated chemical, or to the stew of chemicals in the food
chain and in the environment??
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm

> Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base,   framed it,  added
> some whirligigs to get your attention  and poof ....Its magic,.... please
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> parts per billion (ppb),   for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
> years
And dioxin is measured in femtograms (10^-15 g). Which would equal
6 millionths of a sec.

> I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
Yes, and the renowned Frederick Seitz said that "Global Warming" isn't
man made. Yada, yada, yada. There are lots of scientists. You have to
take a poll and measure their quality.
> because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown.  But
> since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki,  here is a synopsis link
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I will warn you,  like most of your "citations",  this reference is a bit
> old
1994? you might say so.
> but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
> other writings using his works.  Most all his papers
> are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
> his website and ask for copies.  I find most Profs want to share, well
> perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
> unique style of research.
Lots of cow patties out there:
EXCLUSIVEŠPentagon Pundits: New York Times Reporter David Barstow Wins
Pulitzer Prize for Exposing Military¹s Pro-War Propaganda Media Campaign
Pundits-double-web

In his first national broadcast interview, New York Times reporter David
Barstow speaks about his 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of the
Pentagon propaganda campaign to recruit more than seventy-five retired
military officers to appear on TV outlets as military analysts ahead of
and during the Iraq war. This week, the Pentagon inspector general¹s
office admitted its exoneration of the program was flawed and withdrew
it.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/8/pentagons_pundits_ny_times_reporter_
david

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

Lots of people are playing fast and loose with critical facts. I just
reads them the way that I sees them.

> Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
> the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
> extraneous " citations"
> doesn't help your cause.
The governors of West Virginia always call me an environmental
extremist. You¹ve got to be an extremist in order to achieve things.
You¹ve got to be ready to make enemies in order to accomplish something.
And it¹s absolutely necessary that the people here today continue to
demonstrate against this highly destructive practice.

- REP. KEN HECHLER (94 years old)

"The only congressman who marched with Martin Luther King in Selma,
Alabama, was this hillbilly from West Virginia . ."
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/29/coal

> Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
> - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
"I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit."
   -- Mel Brooks
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Bill who putters - 24 Jun 2009 21:33 GMT
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames>

<http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html>

 Bruce is going on 81 and has done good work.  That said science has a
difficult time adding up total exposure and the possible impact.  I'd
hazard a guess that our immune systems are strengthened  and weakened by  
impact of all our sensual imputes.

 Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know.  

Gardening and invoking mother nature I believe is a good thing.  Belief
system raises it complexities.  Love  and  gratefulness for sustenance  
primary sometimes expressed as saying grace in one way or another.

 Looking at the fancy Ames graph I noticed no mention of Alpha or Beta
Naphthalene which caused a hot spot for bladder cancer in Pennsville  
NJ.  Rural area with A Dupont Plant  providing employment not far from
here it smelled  like death and it was the most frequent sample turned
over to the next shift.  .  

 Exposure to harmful or helpful mediums seem to be secretive.   Vit D,
Vit K and Resveratrol along with family interaction seems good.
Allopathy good for burns and accidents only. Yea that¹s me. YMMV. Fresh
home  nibbling has to be superior  but I may be wrong.   Energy more
direct in a way from the earth and sun.

  Bill whose sister is a MD and Husband  a Virologist.

   Small birds happy singing or protecting.

Signature

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

http://www.youtube.com/usnationalarchives

gunner - 25 Jun 2009 09:31 GMT
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>  Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know.

No doubt.  I am hoping they get the operating manual and troubleshooting
guide on Man written soon..
gunner - 25 Jun 2009 09:20 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the Lithium.
There are better class of drugs these days for your condition. Hopefully one
of them can balance your mood swings and attention span out a bit better.
With the proper care and counseling you should make a full recovery.

I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.
Charlie - 25 Jun 2009 17:29 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the Lithium.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.

Oh very good, the meds insult (always very funny and insightful),
right before somehow working in a Nazi reference.

Oh wait, so sorry, I did......Godwin's Law invoked.

Charlie
gunner - 25 Jun 2009 20:02 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Charlie

So YOU can make sense out of his rambling BS and the stupid wiki links or
you just a fan of his?

Regardless that was rich Charlie , I will try to work that one in the next
time.   I'm sure there will be more  BS coming out of  eco fringe element .
It almost is like an OCD.
Charlie - 26 Jun 2009 05:48 GMT
> So YOU can make sense out of his rambling BS and the stupid wiki links or
>you just a fan of his?

Yes, I can make sense of of the links he posts and don't find that he
rambles.  How many of his posts have you read over the last two years,
newbie?  Do you have a *good* sense from whence he comes?  Why do you
call wiki links stupid?  Sometimes, when they seem a bit vague, it
stimulates me to further thought and research.

I'm one of those curious fellers, who, like so many others, tend to
distrust the status quo and choose to not side with the majority and,
like one of them there smart fellers said, choose the other path.  And
it's made all the difference.

>Regardless that was rich Charlie , I will try to work that one in the next
>time.   I'm sure there will be more  BS coming out of  eco fringe element .
>It almost is like an OCD.

No, it wasn't rich, it served it's purpose of once again allowing  you
to show your hand and your a.s and run your smart f.cking mouth.

Seriously, Gunny...your insults are juvenile, (along with those of the
rest of the people in this thread who made similar pejorative remarks
about people with whom they disagree and don't understand, people who
may not always play well with the rest of you kids) with your
references to mental illnesses and meds and loons and such.  Why don't
you just call call us retards?  Are you trained in clinical diagnosis
of mental illness and other disorders?  Are you a Doctor of Such?  Do
you give a sh.t about insulting and belittling those of us who do have
mental illnesses.......probably some of the "good folk" here who take
Kaiser's advice and medication?

When you first showed on the scene here, I had interest in what you
were doing, given I kicked about the area you now inhabit and met,
learned from and had a lot of respect for the the eco fringe hippie
loony people you put down, and have had similar designs for our life
for many years, but your denigration of the "eco fringe element" shows
that you are not in synch with, at least to my knowledge, the majority
of your regional neighbors.

Charlie
Charlie - 26 Jun 2009 08:13 GMT
>Seriously, Gunny...your insults are juvenile, (along with those of the
>rest of the people in this thread who made similar pejorative remarks
>about people with whom they disagree and don't understand, people who
>may not always play well with the rest of you kids) with your
>references to mental illnesses and meds and loons and such.

I'm sorry, I said this thread when I meant to indicate the other group
and that thread in which you and bob and kate and mic were holding
forth.

You can attribute this oversight, or mistake, to lack of medication
and ability to clarify thoughts, if you choose, Gunny.

Charlie
gunner - 27 Jun 2009 18:36 GMT
>>Seriously, Gunny...your insults are juvenile, (along with those of the
>>rest of the people in this thread who made similar pejorative remarks
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Charlie

Charlie,  I aint no Gunny.  I 'm  a Gunner, a Warrant Officer.   I was an E7
Promotable (<9 years)  when I was appointed,  then commissioned RA 6 months
later. Army also,  but I was adopted because of so many joint assignments.

BTW,  Dr of sorts... no! but I do understand more than a bit of MH issues.
FWIW I am a licensed counselor in WA State, well for the next month anyway,
getting too expensive to stay current  when you are doing free work. I have
been the Court Appointed Guardian for 3 MH persons so far and as an advocate
working issues for a few others over the years, I have been an advocate
working for the last year an a half on a host of issues ranging from the
IRS, INS, The State of CA, the Federal Government, Medicare/Medicaid and 3
Insurance companies for this one person. as well as dealing with 5 doctors.
She is
Bi Polar since teens.  last year she went down that road and I didn't think
she was coming back this time.
Was talking to the IRS for a couple of hours just Yesterday  AM on her
issues.

I am not the Dr guy one needs, I 'm the guy that plowed through the
bureaucracy
and get stuff done my friend so they can get to the Dr guy.  As you can
perhaps sense, I don't win a lot
of brownie points for style,  but I get a job done in record time.  So you
may feel that I am
insensitive,.... I do not..., may not be considered PC,  but a far cry from
being insensitive to the plight of other.

I do apologize to you if you are afflicted and felt dissed.  That you came
to
his defense, good on you so  I will tell you first,  I am going to break up
with him, he is getting way too needy and honestly,  I think he is seeing
another NG.

Who is Kaiser?  mein Fuhrer?    Are you talking
growing Meds? as in Humbolt Co,  or the other holistic ayurveda thing such
as for Diabetes?  Regardless,  Use caution with the Shaman craft.
Charlie - 28 Jun 2009 03:21 GMT
>>>Seriously, Gunny...your insults are juvenile, (along with those of the
>>>rest of the people in this thread who made similar pejorative remarks
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Promotable (<9 years)  when I was appointed,  then commissioned RA 6 months
>later. Army also,  but I was adopted because of so many joint assignments.

Thanks for the clarification, Gunner.  I wasn't sure about several
things, so I tossed out a baited line.

>BTW,  Dr of sorts... no! but I do understand more than a bit of MH issues.
>FWIW I am a licensed counselor in WA State, well for the next month anyway,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Was talking to the IRS for a couple of hours just Yesterday  AM on her
>issues.

>I am not the Dr guy one needs, I 'm the guy that plowed through the
>bureaucracy
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>insensitive,.... I do not..., may not be considered PC,  but a far cry from
>being insensitive to the plight of other.

Now I understand where you are coming from.  I know your kind.  Have
dealings with your kind regularly.

I'm the guy who has to deal with you regularly, as my wife and I
manage and live in a group home providing supports and advocacy for
people with severe to profound MR and varying degrees of physical
disabilities, ranging from minor to severe.  I speak and do battle for
those who are unable, and/or unwilling to speak for themselves, at the
most basic level.  Bad habit mine, being brusque to the point of
rudeness, often laced with sarcasm, born of years of peoples'
insensitivity to others position or disability or any number of things
of which you would be aware.

I appreciate those, like you, who get sh.t done.  I keep several of
you in my pockets for the dealings such as you deal.  I am not a
popular person with many Drs, many techs and nurses and administrative
people at the local medical-industrial-compound.  Also not popular
with a fair number of people from the state department that provides
funding and regulations for our agency. But we are respected for the
advocacy and care we provide.

In fact, come to think of it, I ain't very popular with the mainstream
and status quo crowd period.  Good.

>I do apologize to you if you are afflicted and felt dissed.  

I have found that most people are "afflicted" in one manner or
another, and yes, I have my issues, but seldom feel dissed or offended
by anything someone says about me.  What I find irritating is when
people start trotting out the "adjust your meds" putdown, or any
number of demeaning and insensitive insults that may offend others. It
demonstrates a lack of respect and an arrogance that may offend any
number of people.  So I shoot off my mouth and will continue to do so,
both online and IRL.

>That you came
>to
>his defense, good on you so  I will tell you first,  I am going to break up
>with him, he is getting way too needy and honestly,  I think he is seeing
>another NG.

I am not sure if I detect humor or yet another bit of condescension.

As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
themselves and need not my defense.  What I will do is stand shoulder
to shoulder with them and throw rock.

>Who is Kaiser?  mein Fuhrer?

Reference to KaiserPermante, typifying the medical-industrial-complex
and uncaring allopaths, bureaucrats, politicos and businessfolk, in
general, and a whole host of issues not worth going into.

mein Fuehrer???........what kind of cheap shot is that.....I guess you
worked in the reference, eh?  You are welcome for the bait provided,
allowing you to do so.

>Are you talking
>growing Meds? as in Humbolt Co,  or the other holistic ayurveda thing such
>as for Diabetes?  Regardless,  Use caution with the Shaman craft.

I have no problem with self-medication, alternative therapy, whatever,
for myself, but don't recommend, or cause others do the same, unless
they are willing to take responsibility for such, and do their own
research.  Make of that what you will.

Self-medication carries it's own dangers when dealing with MH, and
physical, issues;  one must weigh the risk/benefit, and be willing to
accept the consequences of doing so.  I do.

I might add that one also exercise extreme caution concerning the
allopathic craft.

Charlie, tired of talking shop and going to the garden for some
therapy,  getting some real dirt on my hands
Steve - 28 Jun 2009 04:12 GMT
>Charlie, tired of talking shop and going to the garden for some
>therapy,  getting some real dirt on my hands

Good on ya, Charlie.
gunner - 30 Jun 2009 07:35 GMT
> As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
> themselves and need not my defense.  What I will do is stand shoulder
> to shoulder with them and throw rock.

No one is on Bill's a.s,  he did help Martin,  kinda. This is all Billy's
doing.

Like I said,  good you show your Bud some support and I would like to
believe you really standup for the underdog.   I see no one did for Martin
( florabloom)
Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that.  Your man has
a CS Bully personality.

Billy ain't figured this one out as yet.   This is childish play, you bet,
but has he answered the question, Of course not,  because he cannot. it is a
lie and he is weasling on it.

Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken sh.t  attack he pulled on
Florabloom.  He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to
shoulder to that?

Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying,
hell,  a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got
some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which
one, don't care   but  to launch into a diatribe such as he did and
attack  a FNG for asking a question?  naaa.  No man gets to do that without
some consequence.
Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY  support from this group.

You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being
a advocate.

Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie.
Charlie - 01 Jul 2009 04:48 GMT
>> As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
>> themselves and need not my defense.  What I will do is stand shoulder
>> to shoulder with them and throw rock.

You pick and choose and selectively delete most of the reply to
continue your argument with Billy.  My reply was to clarify things
between us, not necessarily to further your argument with Billy.

>No one is on Bill's a.s,  he did help Martin,  kinda.

Not so.  You aren't on Bill's a.s, but not so.  I already pointed to
references in the other group.  Big picture, Gunner, big picture.  You
are a big picture guy, aren't you?

>This is all Billy's
>doing.
>Like I said,  good you show your Bud some support and I would like to
>believe you really standup for the underdog.  

"I would like to believe that you really standup for the underdog"  ?

There you go again with your condescension and insinuating that I lie
and twist the meaning and application of advocacy.

I would like to believe that you are not condescending, demeaning and
more arrogant then I, but I'm having trouble with that, Gunner.

>I see no one did for Martin
>( florabloom)
>Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that.  Your man has
>a CS Bully personality.

Let's not demean Billy nor I by calling him "my man", or making
yourself look like some kind of antediluvian.  Whose "man" are you?
Shall I speculate upon this?  Shall we comment upon your personality?
Or mine?  Again, let's not use me to further your problem with Billy.

>Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that.

Really?  And for whom should we stand up?  And against whom should we
stand when we believe a horrendous wrong has been committed? And
against whom do we throw rock? And whose convictions and beliefs are
we to accept, or have shoved down our throats or up our butts in order
to stand up for the right people?  Do we really want to go there,
Gunner?

Should we go into the role of America and the death and misery it has
dealt to so many innocents and the roles which each of us played in
that death-dealing and misery for so many decades?

Shall we go into the the fact that Our Constituton has been shredded
and what exactly are those who took The Oath to Defend going to do
about this?

Do you want to encourage all this standing up, for which those of us
who do "stand up" here are soundly criticized for being OT?.  Makes me
no nevermind, I'm ready to go anytime.

 

>Billy ain't figured this one out as yet.   This is childish play, you bet,
>but has he answered the question, Of course not,  because he cannot. it is a
>lie and he is weasling on it.

Of course this baited game of yours is childish play, yet you've
opened the gate for more serious play.

You've neglected to address your eco lunatic fringe remarks as of yet,
more denigration of those who believe differently than you.

'Twas ever thus.

>Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken sh.t  attack he pulled on
>Florabloom.  He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to
>shoulder to that?

Why must you persist in using belittling terms/name-calling?  BTW, you
want to talk about BIG lying and BIG attacking innocents and BIG death
and horror?  Do you support that of which I insinuate?

You ignore, or choose not to understand, that for which I stand
shoulder to shoulder with Billy, and you  continue to frame your
replies to suit your needs and try to put words in my mouth.

Chickenshit attacks?  New here, aren't you?  I don't see you defending
people from attacks by shel and his ilk.  So let's not be giving me
the rundown and lessons.

>Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying,
>hell,  a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got
>some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which
>one, don't care   but  to launch into a diatribe such as he did and
>attack  a FNG for asking a question?  naaa.  No man gets to do that without
>some consequence.

Really?  That is bullshit and gets into areas that lie outside the
scope of the supposed discussion of this newsgroup, discussions for
which we are regularly chastised.

BTW, ifn's ya don't care, why ya' be speculating and diagnosing Billy
so often, Hmm?

>Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY  support from this group.

Yeah, like this is is really important life stuff.  You chose to take
it to a higher level.

And....good on ya' for chastising all the rest of the posters here
that aren't standup folk like yourself.  Lot's of folk around the
world play nice and get napalmed and droned for it.

>You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being
>a advocate.

Can't I?  That is a BS statement and you know it.  Must I advocate on
the behalf of every downtrodden and f.cked-over individual of whom I
am aware or whom I am indicated?

I stated that I advocate for those that are unable and/or unwilling to
advocate for themselves....and you know damn well I meant, so let's
not distort it.  Life stuff, not bullshit Usenet slights and slurs and
all that happy horseshit.

Again, you are opening a can of sh.t stew into which I am not going to
go into any further with you.

>Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie.

Only two options, Boss?

......... all the same to me Gunner.

Charlie
Billy - 01 Jul 2009 08:09 GMT
> >> As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
> >> themselves and need not my defense.  What I will do is stand shoulder
[quoted text clipped - 129 lines]
>
> Charlie

The problem is Charlie is that you're being real, and gunnie is just
gamin'. If you presented him with 6 megapixel reality, he would just
say,"Who you gonna beleive, me, or your own lyin' eyes". He's like the
Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

He really isn't worth your time, Charlie. You can't go after every dog
that barks at you.

He doesn't know the English language.
He doesn't know how to frame an argument.
When presented with overwhelming evidence from two internationally
recognized experts, first he says he'll prove them wrong, then he
realizes the task that he has set for himself, and, instead, wants you
to re-invent the wheel. And when backed into a corner he
moves the goal posts, equivocates, and obfuscates.
The only thing that he has going for him is the good will of the people
he argues with.
He is obviously a self made loner.
Piss on him.

And will you come back to the garden, Charlie? The cabbages miss you;O)
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://www.map-uk.org/regions/opt/news/view/-/id/348/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Wilson - 01 Jul 2009 14:59 GMT
sometime in the recent past Billy posted this:

>>>> As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
>>>> themselves and need not my defense.  What I will do is stand shoulder
[quoted text clipped - 139 lines]
> He is obviously a self made loner.
> Piss on him.
But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a pissing contest with a
skunk."

> And will you come back to the garden, Charlie? The cabbages miss you;O)

Signature

Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

Billy - 01 Jul 2009 16:18 GMT
> But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a pissing contest with a
> skunk."

But if you do, piss with the wind, not into it;O)
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://www.map-uk.org/regions/opt/news/view/-/id/348/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 01 Jul 2009 20:23 GMT
>> But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a pissing contest with a
>> skunk."
>
> But if you do, piss with the wind, not into it;O)

or wrestle with a group of pigs
mleblanca - 04 Jul 2009 03:02 GMT
Not responding to anyone in particular in this "debate"\but
googling    Chemical fertilizer effects on soil microbes
brought a lot of interesting stuff (good scientific word: stuff)

For great general information ( and there is a LOT of info
here:

www.answers.com/topic/fertilizer

I didn't read much of the blog/opinion sites.
There is a great deal of study being done in China.
I found these of interest:

www.agnet.org/library/tb/174/

(Combined use of Chemical and Organic Fertilizer and/or Biofertilizer)

also:

www.organiclandcare.org/education/Effects%20%20some%20synthetic%20fertilizers.pdf

Happy researching
Emilie]
NorCal
Billy - 04 Jul 2009 06:48 GMT
In article
<0e00ee76-478a-4eb6-9bab-2117ab1258b0@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> Chemical fertilizer effects on soil microbes
> brought a lot of interesting stuff (good scientific word: stuff)

Sometimes what you need most is new eyes. Thanks.
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Wilson - 26 Jun 2009 15:19 GMT
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:

> Ahhh!  It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
> read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> your friend Billy. As well,  I have to laugh about your use of the word use
> "citations"
Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My dictionary includes ! 6.     a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7.     a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context
And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe' residues
you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it curious that no
matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal, you will find
people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I call that 'The
Lemming Effect.'

 as well as the way you attempt to "bait"  someone. You have
> obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.
>
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
> In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
> - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Signature

Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

gunner - 27 Jun 2009 18:55 GMT
As well,  I have to laugh about your use of the word use
>> "citations"

Wilson potificates;  Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My
dictionary includes ! 6. a
> passage cited; quotation.
> ! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context

> And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
> residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it
> curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal,
> you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I
> call that 'The Lemming Effect.'

How's that dictionary working out for ya.  Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you
cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also
recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff.  " I think I
can tell that you've probably ".  I'm sure it is all well meaning and
supportive
for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff  never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular
word or phrase in context".  "In context " being the key words here.
Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information
and information  taken out of context are two of the biggest  faults about
the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on
this NG.  These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact.  Then
repeated in other papers as verified fact.  I don't mind casual language,
yet  I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an
informational role.  To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to
check the Bull sh.t artist; .
i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives,
a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the
door.  Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately"  You see you do not
clarify what you are talking about in regards to  the "safe"
residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" .  are you are discussing
the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards .  Since the many diverse
Organic
organizations use the EPA allowable limits.  If you recall
we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as
the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site.  We can assume the EPA
standards, yes? But one should not assume.

BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy
outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced.
What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the  Oxford English Dictionary
perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have
been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary
would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted.
But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
liked to say,  "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. "  Yes,
wilson,  I find it curious also.  There is always such gross generalization
applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of
substance.  It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self
righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to
recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I
meant".  That
is across the board not just your little group.  Otherwise, how do I put
this... your
wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation
and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present
your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly
don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced
here.  i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links
especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference
link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and in
just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as
saying
one should not compare the two.  A very incongruent message to send  which
told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one
should
not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post
decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world  like I do"
trivial BS.  You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our  "facts" in proper context.  A healthy sustainable world
is a very good goal,  but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will
go back to the idyllic good old days.  Lets learn to use what information we
have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain  how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without  all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?
Billy - 27 Jun 2009 19:26 GMT
> As well,  I have to laugh about your use of the word use
> >> "citations"
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
>
> apostrophes?

pg. 26
Negative impacts on the soil food web
Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does
to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these
microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient
system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it
regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job,
feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the
activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the
nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web
brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_
pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening
becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microbes-Gardeners-Guide-Soil/dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr=1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do,
but I'll be back to play with you ;O))
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Billy - 28 Jun 2009 01:52 GMT
In article
<wildbilly-DDCB0E.11262627062009@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,

> > I'm still awaiting someone to explain  how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
> > organisms." without  all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do,
> but I'll be back to play with you ;O))

Well shister, were you happy with the answer? It what way does it fall
short of your expectations? What else may I explain to that pea size
brain of yours, hmmmm?
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 28 Jun 2009 07:48 GMT
> Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
> Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
> University, law

Finally!   Thank you, Billy,that was not hard was it?  now I know who to
look up and
find his bona fides and what actual research he bases his thesis on.  I can
finally  verify  this  bold comment.  So I will check to see if this
statement is based on actual research or just  opinion.

What else can you do for this peabrain? You can damn well wait until I get
back to my computer.  I don't spend my life in front of it like you do DS.
Billy - 28 Jun 2009 18:27 GMT
> > Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
> > Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>  Finally!   Thank you, Billy,that was not hard was it?
Hard? I posted it within seconds of seeing your post. You are easy to
deal with gunny, when you step out of your cloud of acronyms, and
innuendoes.
---

cite |s?t|
verb [ trans. ] (often be cited)
1 quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of
an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work.
€ mention as an example : medics have been cited as a key example of a
modern breed of technical expert.
€ Law adduce a former tried case as a guide to deciding a comparable
case or in support of an argument.

I hope this clears up your confusion with the English language.
> now I know who to
> look up and
> find his bona fides and what actual research he bases his thesis on.  I can
> finally  verify  this  bold comment.  So I will check to see if this
> statement is based on actual research or just  opinion.
Got to admire the brave face you put on, gunny. Go gettem boy. Have fun
;O)

> What else can you do for this peabrain? You can damn well wait until I get
> back to my computer.  

Ah, some people want too much. You aren't getting a wee bit testy are
you, gunny?

When you return, I may not be available (us DSs have demanding
schedules, y'know), so let me now direct you off into the writings of
Joe Schwarcz.

Schwarcz is one of North America's foremost educators and is the
director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, which is
dedicated to demystifying science for the public, the media, and
students. Schwarcz is also a professor in the chemistry department and
teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School.

He may even be able to rouse that dormant organ between your ears, gunny.

Quotes from Joe Schwarcz:
1) Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with
potential environmental and health consequences.

2) When they are not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own
chemical weapons.  Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants
which may contribute to human health.  Organic pears and peaches are
richer in these compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and
lycopene.
When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests.  If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.

3) Synthetic fertilizers, with their high levels of nitrogen, potassium
and phosphorus, encourage rapid growth, but this results in more water
being taken up from the soil.  The produce is bigger, but it is bigger
because it has a higher water content. Organic crops, fertilized with
manure, take up nitrogen more slowly and have a lower water content.  In
a sense they are more concentrated in flavourful compounds.

Some, but certainly not all, studies have shown that organically grown
foods are higher in antioxidants.  This isn't surprising because crops
left to fend for themselves without outside chemical help will produce a
variety of natural pesticides, some of which just happen to have
antioxidant properties.
. . . . According to a four year long study carried out at the
University of Newcastle, organic food is some 40% richer in antioxidants.

If cost is not an issue, organic may indeed be an appropriate choice.  
There is no doubt that it is environmentally a more sound practice.

4) All ways of reducing pesticide risk are examined, with great emphasis
on Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, which is aimed at reducing the
reliance of pesticides as the sole approach to pest management.  IPM is
geared towards taking action only when numbers of pests warrant it and
uses a mix of biological, physical and chemical techniques.  (This is
Canadian, not American)

But can even such a rigorous system ensure that we will have no
consequences from the use of pesticides?  Absolutely not.  There may be
subtle effects in humans that show up only after years of exposure.

One of the developing concerns about the use of insecticides and
herbicides is a possible effect on the immune system.  Laboratory
evidence indicates impaired activity of immune cells after exposure . . .

5) Analytical chemists, armed with their gas chromatographs and mass
spectrometers, heightened our fears by revealing that it was not only
farmers or agro-chemical producers who were exposed to pesticides, we
all were!  Residues of these chemicals were found on virtually
everything we ate.

6) Would a pesticide-free world be better?  For people who have to
handle pesticides occupationally, and for the environment, yes.

7) The World Health Organization estimates that there are roughly three
million cases of pesticide poisoning world wide every year, and close to
a quarter million deaths!

Pesticide companies, in some cases, pay their salespeople on commission
so it is in their interest to push product even when it may not be
necessary.  In Sri Lanka pesticides are advertised on radio to the
public, often painting an unrealistic picture of magical, risk-free crop
protection.

Even though there may be no immediate effects of such exposure, there
are enough studies suggesting a link between pesticide use and
neurological problems, developmental delays, Parkinson's disease and
cancer to cause concern.

An often-quoted study at Stanford University found a link between
Parkinson's disease and domestic pesticide use.  People with as few as
thirty days of exposure to home insecticides were at significantly
greater risk; garden insecticides were somewhat less risky.  Because of
the large variety of products available, the researchers were not able
to zero in on any specific ingredients.

Great caution must be used with insecticides in the home and I think
their use during pregnancy should be totally avoided.

These quotes were taken from writings posted here in rec.gardens.edible.
You should be able to find them in "Google Groups".

> I don't spend my life in front of it like you do DS.

Why use acronyms as a crutch? Don't you want to write the words? The
sentence is a little longer, but it gives clarity to your thoughts, when
you have any. Thanks, anyway, for the compliment,
yes, I am a "Darling Stud" ;O)
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Wilson - 27 Jun 2009 22:32 GMT
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
> As well,  I have to laugh about your use of the word use
>>> "citations"
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
> liked to say,  "it don't count for a hill of beans" .
Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points
you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this instance,
'my dictionary' was http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations.
However, if I go to my hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
copyright 1988, pg. 243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt,
quote.' Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts. If
you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking. My
spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone.

The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit
picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to
yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure.

> To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. "  Yes,
> wilson,  I find it curious also.  There is always such gross generalization
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> apostrophes?

Signature

Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

gunner - 28 Jun 2009 07:38 GMT
> sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
> and Wilson retorted with :
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old
instructor
>> liked to say,  "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

> Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points
> you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this
> instance, 'my dictionary' was
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my
> hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg.
> 243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.'

My point exactly Mr. Wilson,    a citation is a quote, not a reference.  You
cite facts,  events, etc, in a writing but  If you are quoting a paper or a
book,  you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing,

Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
> attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts.
> If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking.
> My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone.

ahh this was a bit confusing at first, MS OS yes?  yea it doesn't like
colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for
a professinal audience but if that is all ya got I am good with that, Mr.
Wilson!

> The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit
> picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to
> yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure.

Suffice it to say,  you ain"t got nothing of substance?
Good.  I have always found when you put your nose into a fight that wasn't
yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it
smacked.
Billy - 28 Jun 2009 18:40 GMT
> > sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
> > and Wilson retorted with :
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> cite facts,  events, etc, in a writing but  If you are quoting a paper or a
> book,  you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing,
Good god man, you must be dummer than dirt.
cite |s?t|
verb [ trans. ] (often be cited)
1 quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of
an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work.
€ mention as an example : medics have been cited as a key example of a
modern breed of technical expert.
€ Law adduce a former tried case as a guide to deciding a comparable
case or in support of an argument.

So says the dictionary that came with my Mac.

or
(n) citation, cite, acknowledgment, credit, reference, mention,
quotation (a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
quoted passage)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cite

Do you not understand English, gunny? What is your native tongue?

> Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
> > attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for
> a professinal audience
Yeah, they wouldn't let you get away with that crap.
> but if that is all ya got I am good with that,
Well, I guess you'll shortly be speaking to yourself then gunny.
> Mr. Wilson!
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it
> smacked.
Brave words, gunny, but just words. Wilson simply sees what the rest of
us see, a clever, self absorbed, narcissistic, bag of wind (gave you the
benefit of the doubt there).
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 29 Jun 2009 16:41 GMT
OMG, you buffoons can't even get an insult right! Ya confused the sensory
basics i.e.  instead of "you enjoy listening to your self ...., You could
say "I enjoy reading what I wrote"  but that doesn't have the same effect
does it, cuz ya should be proof reading what crap you both are writing.
kinda like Billy's  "citations".

Back OT , I  can discount your author, Lowenfels, the one with the "soil
foodweb" .  Like all your "citations" to date,  this is just conjecture, he
lists no studies or research papers to show mineral salts kill micro
organisms.  His hook is the "soil foodweb" banner which is hyping the ACCTs.
.  Like selling bibles at a Billy Graham crusade.

Billy,  I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should  understand
this;  I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal
hyper BS obfucating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific
papers/research  showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts
kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and
the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the
argument from authority.  If one of your "citations"  knows it to be true,
then there is a study/paper on it,  otherwise it is an unsubstantiated
opinion.

Stop your habit of throwing out a lot of BS and stupid personal attacks  to
cover your propaganda.    Now if you will excuse me, I have more important
things to do, you once again cut into my allotted research time with your
fantasy theories. Show me or shut up!
Billy - 29 Jun 2009 18:42 GMT
> OMG, you buffoons can't even get an insult right! Ya confused the sensory
> basics i.e.  instead of "you enjoy listening to your self ...., You could
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> things to do, you once again cut into my allotted research time with your
> fantasy theories. Show me or shut up!

Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't
enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see.
You don't like my authorities? What have you got?
Never mind. We have more important things to do, than give you a chance
to see your name in lights.
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 30 Jun 2009 03:56 GMT
Gunner challenges:

Billy,  I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should  understand
this;  I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal
hyper BS obfuscating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific
papers/research  showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts
kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and
the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the
argument from authority.  If one of your "citations"  knows it to be true,
then there is a study/paper on it,  otherwise it is an unsubstantiated
opinion.

Billy again pussyfoots, counters with even more BS:

> Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't
> enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see.
> You don't like my authorities? What have you got?
> Never mind. We have more important things to do,.........

WE?  Are you in one of your Sybil personality modes again?

>than give you a chance
> to see your name in lights.

Once again your definition of an authority is BS ( scream louder, I'm on the
Internet) .  Unless you can give a valid reference to a scientific paper or
some such research that one of your "citations" has actually accomplished or
perhaps has knowledge of .....you make a false statement.  It is certainly
not out of the character for you to do that, you show a history of making up
facts as you preach.  When that doesn't seem to work,  you attack ( which is
more of your wussy Internet persona).

I am sure your first reference was a very good lawyer ( soil food web??? do
check out where Dr. Ingram is working these days) and I'm sure some  the
second might be some fine master gardener.   I have not read the latter
because as I said, I am not going to be your book reviewer.  You
procrastinate again, son.  We both know the  reason.  Regardless,  you still
cannot back up your lie(s)  and you have been played into saying it so much,
you own this one.  Mineral salts do not kill micro organisms any more than
manures do. You cannot  justify this lie,  no matter how hard you try nor
how much you squawk.

Go back to your pretend Google book of the month review club and play up to
your fan base.  Seems they buy into your BS.

Gunner
You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some
of the time ... then there is Billy... who just hasn't got a clue.
Billy - 30 Jun 2009 06:36 GMT
> Gunner challenges:
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some
> of the time ... then there is Billy... who just hasn't got a clue.

I've given you two authorities for my position, gunnie. One , Jeff
Lowenfel, Harvard University, geology; Northeastern University, law, and
two, Dr. Joseph Schwarcz, the new chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, the
director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, a
professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and
alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School.

Where is your degree from gunnie? Get help, you're sick.
Signature


- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

gunner - 02 Jul 2009 21:12 GMT
> I've given you two authorities for my position, gunnie. One , Jeff
> Lowenfel, Harvard University, geology; Northeastern University, law, and
> two, Dr. Joseph Schwarcz, the new chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, the
> director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, a
> professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and
> alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School.

You are quite fickle, billy, and very comedic.  The first source doesn't
give any proof that
of mineral salts kill micro organisms and his analogy of table salt and
slugs is
quite laughable.  Course your source has no commerical interests does he?

As to the second source, isn't Dr Joe the one you and "your group" went
to great lengths to denounce, calling him a Monsanto shrill? Why the sudden
turn-about?
Short term memory loss?  Do you think he supports your  use of scary numbers
and false statistic fringe think?

Actually I find he is very anchored and mainstream,  he certainly
dismissed "your group" fringe think and you are still cherry picking  his
comments.  That whole debacle was quite entertaining.

So enough of your silly games billy.  As both of us know, mineral
fertilizers do not kill SOMs when properly applied.  You haven't found a
peer reviewed
scientific paper to prove this and you won't.  I'm stepping out of this
thread and letting you get back to your sermons. This one quite exhausted
its purpose.

But do yourself a favor, when a man is asking advice to help his
family, don't climb his a.s, espcially with BS lies.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.