Billy wrote:
....
-------

So that is what we were talking about, this crazy organic gardening
thing. You know, the way in which all food was grown before 1945.

false. some food was grown
organically pre 1945, but much
of the rest of it was grown in a
kind of slow motion slash and
burn agriculture. the slash and burn
was not tropical forests, but the
result is still the same, the topsoil
is used up in many places and
there is no cheap fix.

have you made any claims about
pre-history and sustainabilty? other
than your general waving of the word
organic at it, but i suspect that much
of what you think about pre-history
isn't accurate either. i'll admit i don't
know either.


So now you propose that eating the way we did before 1945, and reaping
the benefit of flavonoids as we did before 1945 is some kind of
"organic religion".

it is if science eventually shows that
the pathways that flavonoids take in
the body are not universally beneficial
then my point is valid. i mentioned the
liver in specific because it is vital to
any debate about nutritional health
and various effects from different
sources.

also, there is such a thing as too
much of a substance not being a
good thing. folic acid, vitamin A,
copper, selenium, iron, and many
others, required in small amounts,
but beyond that amount possibly
toxic. what makes you think that
flavonoids escape that type of problem?
do they flush out of the body without
any cellular intervention -- does the
liver not have to regulate them or
their byproducts? i'll admit i don't
know, i'm not sure the science is in
on them completely. or at least i
would be very surprised if any
reputable scientist says they are a
100% solved item. there's much we
still do not know.


----

Then on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:53:45, I try to show carbon sequestration
in the soil, in part by describing the flora and fauna found in good
garden soil,

your effort failed, most people
agree with me that healthy garden
soil does not sequester carbon, for
the most part it cycles it.

if you want to argue that changing
poor soils to better sequesters carbon
then i'll give you that, but that is still a
small and limited amount compared
to what is actually needed. and then,
eventually the poor soil improves to
the point where it mostly cycles carbon
again, but it is not the same degree
of carbon sink as compared to a forest.
but even the mature forest will be a
relatively carbon neutral cycle.

note: there were some interesting
hints in the literature i scanned about
some sequestration by certain bacteria
in soil that already had charcoal/char/etc
in it, but i'm not sure this is a phenomena
that will be repeatable world wide. it
might require tropical jungle conditions
with a certain level of moisture or some
other factors not very transferrable. i.e.
the science is still out on this. a small
glimmer there from what i've seen so far.
i'm always looking for more such hints
of hope.


I repeat. You are either very dense or a troll.

most often i'm amused, but whatever makes
you happy.


songbird