"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:01:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



I have been searching for long for precise definitions, but every time I
come across only wishy-washy ones like that porposed by you higher up in
this thread.

I gave you the name of the formal association for organic gardening,
if you choose not to delve further that's your business.

I had hoped it might not be necessary to say it yet again, but here goes:
I possess a considerable amount of the literature of the Soil Association.
I have read it all avidly. I have studied their website. It is all very
interesting to read, but nowhere did I find a definition of what the actual
formal definition of "organic gardening" is, except perhaps "To follow the
rules laid out by the Soil Association". That is *not* a scientific
definition.

I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware processed coals like this
contain additives in order to regulate their burn. I know for sure
that there's a substantial difference in the quality of the ash from
plain old coal.
I wouldn't recommend coal ash on the garden anyway.

I would have thought that if anything was organic, coal was. Now do you
understand my problem?

No, I don't.
Not all coal is 'coal'. Your bog-standard lump of house coal, straight
out of the ground, is coal. The stuff that's been formed into neat
little ovals may well contain additives that enhance or retard its
speed of burn.

That might or might not be true. I suspect that it contains only a cement
to allow the dust to hang together.
But if you are unhappy, please feel free to replace the word "Phurnacite" by
the word coal and reread the whole thread.


It would be considered organic.
If you chucked a plastic bottle into the converter you'd render the
coke inorganic.

In spite of the fact that the plastic yields only gases in its combustion
product, and therfore leaves no residue in the solid ash?

In other words it doesn't matter what you chuck into the atmosphere.
That kind of negates the principle a bit, don't you think?

Please don't put words into my mouth. It is a technique which is guaranteed
to fail.
It was the *coke* which you said wouild magically be rendered "inorganic".
Of course the *atmosphere* will be given a burden of possibly harmful gases.

Franz