zhanataya wrote:
=

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:10:07 GMT, animaux
wrote:
=

Not only dangerous, they are saying levels more toxic than toxic waste=
dumps. I
do agree all this grand standing is politically motivated, only becau=
se
politicians are always motivated by politics!

We use tons and tons and tons of synthetic weed and feed products on o=
ur soils.
They are just now exposing what inert matter goes into these products =
to make a
bag weight 40 pounds. A lot of cadmium, arsenic, boron, and many othe=
r toxic
waste products which I don't have dedicated to memory just now.

The levels of atrazine, which is the herbicide found in most weed and =
feed
products has been in the water for years. The organic community has k=
nown about
this non-listed, sometimes toxic waste filler in synthetic fertilizers=
for a
long time. I recall posting it to this very newsgroup at least 7 year=
s ago.
But people laughed and Riley made his usual snipes. Now we have kids=
with
unexplained cancers and toads, frogs and other life showing up with bi=
rth
defects.

Eh.
=

I'm not poo-pooing the seriousness of the problem or the possible
consequences to the swimmers. I guess I'm just jaded. I don't trust
anything I read in the paper anymore. It seems to me we don't get
news, we get the reporters opinion of the news, and the same for those
talking heads on tv that pass themselves off as reporters.
=

I think we could do a lot towards lessening the problem with
gardening/agriculture chemicals runnoff and contamination if the storm
drains were connected to the sewer system and went through treatment
plants. But I'm afraid the cost would rival the defense budget.

Especially now.

Zhan

-- =

J Kolenovsky, A+, Network +, MCP
=F4=BF=F4 - http://www.celestialhabitats.com
=F4=BF=F4 - http://www.hal-pc.org/~garden/reference.html