zxcvbob wrote:

EV wrote:

zxcvbob wrote:

EV wrote:

So, obviously, more is less.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

In the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each
hectare of cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare=
approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide
per acre.

Where did that statistic come from?


Did you check this link?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

Yes, I did look at the link, and I believe nationmaster just made up the
statistic.

On their page they give their source as being:
Source: World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001,
Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. via ciesin.org

I checked Ciesen org. It is the Center for International Earth Science
Information Network at Columbia University:
http://www.ciesin.org/

Then I clicked through to here for the Environmental Sustainability Index
page:
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/

and downloaded a pdf file of their 2002 Environmental Sustainability
Report--section 3, Annex 6, "Data Tables". It does confirm the statistic
given by nationmaster. Here's the relevent excerpt from the section, plus
the Canadian stat for the hosers.

------------
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indic...2_21MAR02c.pdf

2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: PESTHA
Name: Pesticide use
Units: Kg/Hectare of Cropland Reference Year: 1996
Source World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC:
WRI, 2000.
[]
Canada 644.00
[]
United States 1599.00
[]
------------

So the stat of 1599 kg of pesticide used per hectare of ag land really does
come from a report by CIESEN at Columbia University, which is, as you know,
a highly reputable institution of learning.


So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes
to 2,820 lbs of pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using
pesticides, it would be a significant amount not going into the
environment.

But they don't use twice as much per acre.


That isn't going to fly here, Bob. It's a non-argument.


Home gardeners might use twice as much pesticide per fruit tree,
but they don't have that many trees.


Please don't be coy. Twice as much per tree is still twice as much,
whether it's on an acre or not. It all adds up.

Yes, it does add up. But your original statistic was expressed in in
kg/hectare. Home owners do not plant high-density stands of fruit
trees. So using twice as much pesticide per tree does not translate to
using twice as much per acre.

This is a moot point, Bob, and beneath a man of your obvious intelligence.


They don't grow crops like soybeans and corn and cotton. They also
use way too much chemicals on their lawns, but I doubt that even
*that* comes to 1/100 of the amount you are saying. Being able to
scale a dubious statistic and convert to different units or measure
doesn't magically give it credibility.


Pardon me for saying so, but that's a silly comment. I converted the
units because I know that Americans are not familiar with kilograms,
and acres are more meaningful to most people than hectares. Whichever
units it's described in, the numbers add up to the same amount. I
wasn't hiding anything.

My point was that if the original statistic is wrong (and I think it is
but I don't know (it looks ridiculous)), converting it to different
units doesn't make it right.

Americans are a ridiculous people. But if you actually download the pdf,
you'll see that the US, eventhough it uses 1599 kg of pesticide per
hectare, is far from the worst pesticide polluter in the world. That's the
really scary part. Because there are no borders when it comes to wind/air
and water borne pesticides.


I was looking for an overall statistic of pesticide use. Since that
doesn't satisfy you, you can go the USGS site where they list close
to 200 pesticides and their estimated rate of application, complete
with useage maps:

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/index.html


[snip]

I will study this USGS link, and the others you posted that were in the
rest of your message that I trimmed off. Thank-you.

You're very welcome. I'm glad that you're interested in being informed by
facts and not by conjecture. Sometimes people take a side and stick with
it, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Best regards to you too,

EV