On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


For sure, I'm well aware that nature has its own arsenal of nasties -
but that's the whole point, it's nature. The biggest killer of all by
far is life itself. Got anything I can put on that?
And bunging yet more chemicals onto an already carcinogenic vegetable
does what, exactly?

It depends on the chemical.

'Nuff said!
Not today, thanks.

But as a rough and ready rule, not much as far
as eating it is concerned. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the pesticide
typically adds to the lettuce's "badness" only slightly in comparison with
its inherent "badness", both of which are in any case pretty well negligible
in practice.

Oh, so it's not THAT carcinogenic then? Just a little bit perhaps?
Just enough, say, to use as the basis for a specious argument?
Academic really - I grow my own lettuces for the opiates

[snip]

Which is perhaps the best reason I've yet seen not to compound the
problem by adding yet more chemicals or otherwise monkeying about with
nature.

But you are adding more chemicals. You (the metaphorical "you") add those
which the afficionados have pronounced to be on the side of the angels.

Horse shit.
And lots of it ( plenty of flies, not too many angels ).

And you are in fact continuously monkeying about with nature. Otherwise you
would not have had such a plethora of varieties of runner beans or tomatoes
to choose from.

As opposed to dead birds/fish etc etc etc..

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk