"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
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?

Yes, that is correct in the sense that there is very little of the chemical
present.
The point is that after treatment with a typical "medication", there is even
less of the "medicine" left.
The predominant effect, even though still negligible, is from the carcinogen
inherently in the lettuce.

Just enough, say, to use as the basis for a specious argument?

You appear not to have grasped the point. Tant pis. I am tired of
hammering it.

Academic really - I grow my own lettuces for the opiates

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 ).

Your attempts at humour escape me.

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..

I fear you appear to have run out of steam.

Franz