In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
:: Tim Tyler writes
::It does seem likely that these statistics are unlikely to cover many of
::the slower deaths from pesticide exposure.
:
:: What slower deaths?
:: Give me a government website giving these consumer deaths.
:
:Ones from pancreatic cancer - for example:
:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ed&list_uids=1
:2594778&dopt=Abstract
: sigh Pancreatic cancer mortality and organochlorine pesticide
: exposure in California, 1989- 1996.
:...or liver cancer:
:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ed&list_uids=1
:0620518&dopt=Abstract
: sigh Cancer mortality and environmental exposure to DDE in the United
: States.
: These are OC's banned in the early 70's you prat.
You asked for:
"slower deaths from pesticide exposure"
When I give you "slower deaths from pesticide exposure" you now
say that's not what you wanted after all.
I wish you could learn to say what you *actually* want.
Please don't call me a prat. Such name calling reflects poorly on you.
::It's true. Science doesn't offer certainty - and there are a very
::large number of ways in which human health can be adversely affectd -
::it's impossible to test them all - and testing is usually the only
::way to be at all sure.
:
:: Certainty is NOT the same as 'the levels of safety are well known'.
:: Nobody can ever be certain about anything, so it's a moronic thing to
:: say.
:
:I'm merely pointing out that the safely of pesticides remains
:open to doubt.
: Idiot, everything remains open to doubt, that proves nothing.
: Now you really are clutching at straws.
:Government regulators have demonstrably been wrong before on the
:subject - with unpleasant consequences.
: Indeed, but on pesticides in the last 10 years?
I don't know of any quite so spectacular errors recently - but these
are early days. You're hardly giving much of a chance for their
errors to be exposed ;-)
::Of course there are ethical problems associated with testing
::pesticides on humans. This makes things even harder - often
::the very tests that are most needed can't legally be performed.
:
:: They aren't needed. [...]
:
:Not if you simply put your trust in the government regulators
:as guardians of the truth, no.
: Excessively paranoid is how the chemical manufacturers describe them.
I'm sure the chemical manufacturers would be happier if their products
could go straight onto the market - with no enforced testing at all.
:They have a lot of pesticides to examine - and don't have
:unbounded resources.
: They do have unbounded resources, the chemical companies pay for it all.
Reference to a dictionary should quickly resolve this issue.
:I expect to see more mistakes - though perhaps not quite on the
:grand scale of previous screw-ups.
: Scale is important. Minor 'mistakes' in the usual refinement of
: knowledge are to be expected. However I do not expect these to harm
: consumers, the animal testing and the very large safety margins should
: see to that.
I'm a good deal less confident than you. I think many people today
in the UK are suffering from exposure to pesticides. Pinning their
symptoms on the pesticide makers may represent a challenge, though.
[...]
::Detergents are often poisonous.
:
:: Yet you wash your veg for ten minutes in them.
:
:Uh - how do you know how I treat my vegetables!?!
:
:I never put my vegetables anywhere near detergents.
: Ah, so the URL suggesting you should was to mislead others.
: Right.
What URL are you referring to?
::I can easily believe more effort is put into testing pesticides
::than detergents - but that hardly means that they are safe.
:
:: It does, because they must pass ALL the tests to be approved.
:
:You presume an exhaustive set of tests. A false presumption.
: It's as exhaustive as can reasonably be done.
: Much more exhaustive than is needed.
: Covers the arses of the pesticide directorate.
Arses that have been exposed in the past, I note.
::: They have been performed in a range of mammals and appropriate safety
::: levels set. If you followed your dictum then we should not be using any
::: modern plastics, paints and other things found in life. Indeed many of
::: them have been shown to be toxic, yet they are still used because people
::: want their utility.
::
::I don't mind other people eating pesticides - if they choose to.
:
:: Remember antibiotics are a pesticide, too.
:
:Of sorts.
: Nope, they are.
That's what "of sorts" means.
:: One little pill probably contains more than a lifetimes exposure to
:: pesticide residues.
:
:On what scale?
: Take your pick, total active or therapeutic dose.
So - you're talking "grams"?
I don't believe it - this is a nonsense statistic.
::Basically what I want is more ability to control my own level
::of pesticide consumption - so I can down-regluate it in areas
::I am concerned about.
:
:: Then don't buy organic. [...]
:
:You seem to have "a thing" about organic produce.
:
:It seems to be contrary to the evidence suggesting pesticide residues
:are lower on organic produce.
: It's very rarely tested, and rarely for organic pesticides.
Doesn't it need to pass through much the same regulatory testing as
everything else intended for human consumption?
::Doing that today would restrict the diversity of foods available
::in my diet.
:
:: Tough. Grow your own food.
:
:Yes, I do. I just have not yet managed to grow *all* my own food.
: Eat a smaller range or change your diet or get a bigger plot.
I'm working on the last one. It's not just size, though - it's time -
since the garden also needs working.
[...]
:: At 50M quid a hit, more than has been spent on plant toxin research
:: since the dawn of time, it's most certainly not minimal but (in the view
:: of manufacturers) excessive overkill.
[...]
::and the risk could be made many times lower.
:
:: How do you know?
:
:It stands to reason that we are not yet on the pinaccle of pesticide
:safety.
: We may or may not be. I would hope for improvements, but many agchem
: companies are cutting down on research due to the very high cost of
: approvals.
Any research is likely to build on the knowledge we already have.
Unfortunately one of the documents cited here recently suggested
global pesticide poisonings were still on the rise. That
doesn't bode terribly well for safety.
However in the long term, I'm optimistic - we will figure out
how to avoid poisoning ourselves eventually.
:We are still in the biotech dark ages - there's very much we
:don't know - and ignorance is dangerous.
: Biotech? You approve of GM cultivars?
: I am amazed.
: But yes, they could well help.
I merely mean "biological technology". Perhaps I should have
used the term "biological science" instead.
FWIW, I think GM cultivars will prove to be of great importance
and significance.
However, many of the same sorts of safety issues surrounding
pesticides will apply there - a healthy level of paranoia
may be beneficial there also.
::: 1) I could select less toxic plant foods.
::: 2) I could use low toxicity cultivars.
::
::Well only up to a point - eventually you will run out of less-toxic
::foods to switch to.
:
:: Indeed, but you could influence it.
:
:I do try to do that. I also try to have a very diverse diet -
:in an attempt to prevent too much of any one thing causing harm.
: What crops are you growing this year [...]
Some of the things I've grown (or am growing) this year:
Basil, Broccoli, Cabbage (black), Cabbage (red), Celery,
Chervil, Chickory, Chickpea, Chop Suey, Collard, Coriander,
Corn salad, Cress (curly), Cress (land), Cress (water),
Fennel, Flax, Kale (red russian), Lettuce, Mibuna, Mizuna,
Mustard (red), Mustard (yellow), Mustard (spinach), Pak
Choi, Spinach (perpetual), Radish, Rape, Rape (salad),
Rocket (salad), Rocket (wild), Sesame, Sunflower, Texel,
Turnip, Alfalfa, Aduki, Clover (red), Fenugreek, Lentils
(puy), Mung, Pea, Soya, Amaranth, Buckwheat, Corn, Kamut,
Quinoa, Rye, Spelt, Wheat, Raspberries, Taeberries,
Loganberries, Wolfberries, Black Currants, Gooseberries,
Hazel nuts, Apricots, broad beans, peas, onions, garlic,
purple sprouting broccoli, swiss chard.
: and what percentage of your total food intake (calories) do home
: grown crops amount to?
Most of my calorie intake comes from fruit, nuts, oils and seeds.
I hardly grow any of them. The fruit I grow are almost all berries.
I estimate I currently grow about 10% of my calories for the year -
if that.
::: Noting the strong relationship between plant toxins and pest resistance
::: (it's why the toxins are there in the first place) it would almost
::: certainly be safer to use plants bred for low toxin production and use
::: the much safer pesticides to control the pests.
: Left in case you figure out an answer.
It's possible. I believe what I said on this point before was that
I thought in the long term such a strategy might produce beneficial
results - but that we didn't currently know enough to implement it
safely.
As I mentioned, the supposed plant toxins have some beneficial side
effects. "Hormesis" - as it's sometimes called. Engineering or breeding
them out without proper understanding of their roles may prove
counter-productive.
::The natural toxins have been around longer,
::our bodies have had a chance to get used to them -
::and there has been more opportunity for study.
:
:: 1) So what if they have been around longer. Think strychnine.
:: 2) Our bodies didn't evolve to consume a small range of food plants.
:: Take out the brassicae and solanum groups and there isn't much left.
:: 3) There has been virtually NIL study on plant toxins.
:
:: So wrong on all three counts.
:
:We know a fair bit indirectly about plant toxins from the study of
:human nutrition.
: Actually we no sod all.
You like leaving out qualifications, don't you? ;-)
:It may not have been medicine's most explored area - but
:to say we know "virtually NIL" on the subject seems like
:an overstatement to me.
: Give me some examples of LD50, noel and content of a few food plant
: toxins then.
Some other day, perhaps - since doing so would prove nothing.
::: Eating healthy meat and veg is, and pesticides help enormously here.
::: Not only that, but the abundance of food available today is DIRECTLY
::: the result of the introduction of safe effective pesticides.
::
::...amongst many other modern farming techniques - including the
::use of machinery -
:
:: Irrelevant. It does nothing more than could be and was done by hand
:: (better).
:
:You're mistaken there...
: Hardly, I am a farmer.
Think for a moment about what you're saying, then.
::and things like a global market in seeds and produce.
:
:: That's always been there (not that it has any relevance to your
:: submission).
:
:...and there.
: You are still wrong. Like most farmers I know a lot about seed
: development and production.
Perhaps read your own words again, then. You are apparently
claiming that a global market in seeds and produce existed before
the birth of the universe.
::I suspect that eventually mechanical barriers to pests will eventually
::make many of today's pesticides redundant.
:
:: Dream on, you have no idea what you are talking about.
:
:Rather obviously, I'm talking about growing a greater proportion of
:things "under glass" - or in controlled environments.
: To feed the world?
Yes.
: speechless at the stunning level of ignorance
Don't underestimate technological progress.
:You may have noticed that there's been something of a trend in that
:direction over the last hundred years.
: Not in the UK, it's almost zero now other than for cut flowers.
....and watercress, and tomatoes - and an increasing number of other
things.
: Far too expensive.
Expense is one of the main problems - but prices are falling. I expect
them to continue to do so.
--
__________
|im |yler
http://timtyler.org/