"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:37:22 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Perhaps you should drop them an email and ask them to answer your
specific question, I'm sure they'll be only too pleased to oblige.

I have done so. They did not tell me anything I did not know before. Their
reply did not include a scientific definition of the term "organic
gardening".



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.

As it happens, Phurnacite ( at least the modern version of it )
contains no additives or cements at all - so the only issue of concern
would be the concentration of residues in the ash.

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".

Ah Franz....I was trying to put thoughts into your mind - is that too
a technique guaranteed to fail?

Of course the *atmosphere* will be given a burden of possibly harmful
gases.

OK, so can you now see a correlation forming here?

No. I was referring to the ash which has now magically become
"not-organic"

Let's take a pile of coal and set it burning.
If left alone is would produce a pile of ashes which would be
considered fit for organic use.


If, however, you tossed a plastic bottle on the fire, you'd render the
ashes unsuitable for organic use. This is because the coal ashes would
be contaminated with the residues of the burnt plastic ( complete
conversion requires a high temperature, controlled burn ).

It might and it might not.

Assuming you could supply that, the emissions of the gas produced
would mean that in order to attain your pile of ash you would still
have unnecessarily contaminated the atmosphere.

That is not disputed.

Maybe that's why the concept of organic gardening seems to evade you -
it's more than picking packets off a shelf, you have to think a bit
further down the line.

I know reasonably well how to conduct an organic gardening programme. I
know that I have to follow the rules as laid down by the Soil Association.
What I don't know is how to deal with a problem not alrady coped with by the
pronouncements of the Soil Association, since they do not give a suitable
definition to guide me. Do I have to run to the guru each time I have a
problem? What if the guru is less than perfect one some sbtle point? Ifa
definition had existed, I might have solved such a problem for myself (if I
were an organic gardener).

Franz