Jim Carlock wrote:

Such as? Can you cite something in particular?

No I will not because you don't really want to know. I'm sure you're
smart enough to find anything to support your beliefs.


And what about the insects and diseases that grow immune to DDT?
Is it right to poison and murder kids and children in your quest to
kill all diseases, all bacteria and all life?

No what abouts. You're not willing even to accept chemicals works so
it's a waste of time to argue.

Go drink a cup of DIET COCA-COLA (or any aspartame chemical,

I average a 2 liter bottle daily of castrated coke (caffine free diet
coke). I hardly ever drink water except at restaurants where water is
free and coke is not. I know people who will not and have read anti
aspartame sites. You can make the arguement that strawberries kill
because test data from lab rats feed strawberries resulted in higher
mortality. Of course if you want to kill yourself by eating
strawberries, you'll have to eat so much that you'll be constantly
crapping.

So go ahead, drink Diet drinks promoted by the
American President, by a Vice President that shoots his friends.
And stand outside for eight hours each day during the hottest days of
the month and we'll see if your here in 4 years.

Been doing that since they introduced it. No just a cup now and then
but pretty much instead of water. Please don't act stupid. Nobody is
going to stand outside in the heat. Why don't you do that and I'll
allow you all the water you want. Now if you had to do that in the
Gulf because of Baby Bushe's ranting then I'm sorry.

Why do you rant instead of discussing rationally?

She wasn't calling you any names. She was just pointing out that you
shut your eyes on purpose to things that occur around you, hoping
that you might acknowledge things your missing.

I hope so and I do acknowledge the disadvantages of chemical. They
just don't outweigh the advantages.

The Pennsylvania Dutch who still live in the horse and buggy era lives
a good life but that's not for me. Also they don't go around preaching
organic like moonies preaching universal church.


Again, your eyes are closed. Look at it this way... "organic" IS
a marketing word and nothing more, when talking about things
on a store shelf.

Since organic carries a premium, isn't it stupid not to grow organic?
It is not stupid because the higher input costs do not justify higher
sale prices. American farmers are not stupid. It's not just chemicals
involved here. You cannot forget economics. Hobby farmers can ignore
economics but not if you are trying to make a living at farming.


Your talking about commercialization and advertising there, and
nothing more. If you buy a bag of bread marked "Organic" and
its produced in the same way the unmarked bags are produced,
but you pay a higher price, what are you talking about? People
tag a bag of bread as "Organic" as a marketing ploy. They put
a higher price on it, and IF they sell more of it, they then mark
ALL their bags with the word. It's 100% legal.

Not any more. To be certified organic, you have to be organic for at
least 3 years. Of course if you're a cook you can always have a cohort
buy the chemicals for you under some fake name and take delivery away
from you farm site. Store your chemicals off site so inspectors won't
find them.

"James" posted:
DDT might have lowered the bald eagle population but without
have using it last century you might have been killed by some
disease carrying insect.

Jim Carlock asked:
Such as? Can you cite something in particular?

"James" replied:
No I will not because you don't really want to know. I'm sure
you're smart enough to find anything to support your beliefs.

I hesitated when I posted and answered for Penelope. I don't
know what she wanted to say. I'll let her answer for herself. My
apologies, even if I correctly worded it.

Anyways, you seemed like you knew the answer to the question
above and I asked for the answer. I wouldn't have asked if I knew.
I'm ignorant about the topic. Only you can answer the question
you left open. Don't play word games. Just answer the question.

Specifically, you wrote:
DDT might have lowered the bald eagle population but without
have using it last century you might have been killed by some
disease carrying insect.

Could you cite where this research was performed? What makes
you even suggest or hint that such a study ever existed? I'm not
telling you how to think or talk. I'll let you do that yourself.

Your statement above insinuates that you know of something that
benefits us all. It even slightly insinuates that DDT saved the human
race. I'm curious as to what you exactly wanted to say and if you
can cite something that will help yourself.

If you don't have anything, then perhaps think a little more before
you post something of the likes. Be prepared to back your opinions
up with fact. That's the message I'm conveying.

Take a moment to re-read the quoted lines above. It leaves the
reader open to alot of ambiguity. Should it have been posted?
Do you really want to stand behind it and support it? IF you want
to support it, feel free to support it. I'm eager to see what YOU
can provide, as it was YOU that made the statement. So either
stand behind it or tell me it was a mistake.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

Jim Carlock wrote:
"James" posted:
DDT might have lowered the bald eagle population but without
have using it last century you might have been killed by some
disease carrying insect.

Jim Carlock asked:
Such as? Can you cite something in particular?

"James" replied:
No I will not because you don't really want to know. I'm sure
you're smart enough to find anything to support your beliefs.

I hesitated when I posted and answered for Penelope. I don't
know what she wanted to say. I'll let her answer for herself. My
apologies, even if I correctly worded it.

Anyways, you seemed like you knew the answer to the question
above and I asked for the answer. I wouldn't have asked if I knew.
I'm ignorant about the topic. Only you can answer the question
you left open. Don't play word games. Just answer the question.

Specifically, you wrote:
DDT might have lowered the bald eagle population but without
have using it last century you might have been killed by some
disease carrying insect.

Well, there are 2 parts. If you're asking about the bald eagle, it's
concluded that DDT caused thinner egg shells which broke easier. That
resulted in population decline which have recovered some since the DDT
ban. I would have to search for a citation which can take me hours so
I can't give you a cite.

The part about DDT and insects - I thinks it's well know that the flea
carried the disease which caused the plague. It's also known the
common house fly can carry deadly diseases. If not for DDT, many
people would have died just from these. After WWII, Gi's deloused
displaced people with DDT. Again I don't have a cite but I'm sure it
can be found or that there are people out there who can. There may or
may not be an organic preventive but in the interest of public health
at the time the benefits of DDT outweighted the harm.

from http://www.illinoisraptorcenter.org/...baldeagle.html

*DDT was originally created in 1873. Only when its use as an
insecticide was discovered in 1939, however, did it come into
widespread use. The scientist who made this discovery was awarded the
Nobel Prize in 1948.

After World War II, it became especially popular due to its
effectiveness against mosquitoes that spread malaria and lice that
carried typhus. The World Health Organization estimated that 25 million
lives were saved because of its use. Problems soon surfaced, however,
as many insects began to develop resistance to the insecticide. It was
also discovered to be highly toxic to fish.

Because it does not break down easily, DDT builds up in the fatty
tissues. Animals that ingest it, carry it for some time. It takes an
animal eight years to metabolize one half of the DDT it consumes.
Birds, like the bald eagle, ingested DDT after eating contaminated
fish. The DDT caused the bird's egg shells to be brittle and thin and
to break easily. Eggs often were broken in the nest when the parents
sat on them during incubation. This was one of the reasons populations
declined to dangerous levels.

DDT was banned in the United States in 1973, although it is still used
in other parts of the world. Birds that migrate to other continents are
still at risk. primary source: University of Oxford, Department of
Chemistry

"James" wrote:
from http://www.illinoisraptorcenter.org/...baldeagle.html
After World War II, it became especially popular due to its
effectiveness against mosquitoes that spread malaria and lice
that carried typhus.

Thanks.

As I typed out my previous response, I thought about misquitoes
as well. There's some misquitoes that travel around giving diseases
in Florida. The first thought that came to mind involved a natural
predator. And there is more than one natural predator. The one
that folks in Florida are familiar with is the lizard. I've seen a lizard
literally jump 6 feet to snatch a bug. The bigger ones end up going
after cockroaches and canibalistic behaviour, you'll find that a
bigger lizard running around with a smaller lizard's tail hanging
out of its mouth. Then there are frogs as well.

So perhaps this has nothing to do with "organic", but it's an argument
against the use of DDT or any other chemical. IF there are a lot of
misquitoes around, set up a pond. You will draw frogs and misquitoes
to the pond. It's quite effective at getting rid of misquitoes in Florida.
And if you need some lizards, selling lizards could become a profitable
business for folks that want to sell lizards. No one ever seems to think
about breeding and selling these little things, they don't make very nice
pets, but with the right advertising, people WILL buy them.

Organic Misquito PacMan...
Get rid of poisonous chemicals. Safe for the family, safe for the
pets, safe for the children and safe for your home. Be adventurous.
Natural Misquito Predator $10.00 for 10 Misquito Munchers.

A Real LIVE Mini Jurasic Park... $50.00
Live Miniature Dinosaurs. Live Hunters.
Predatory extremes. The animals jump 6 feet to catch their misquito.
Natural organic misquoto eradication carnivores.

Thanks for the post.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the newsgroup.

Jim Carlock wrote:

"James" wrote:
from http://www.illinoisraptorcenter.org/...baldeagle.html
After World War II, it became especially popular due to its
effectiveness against mosquitoes that spread malaria and lice
that carried typhus.

Thanks.

As I typed out my previous response, I thought about misquitoes
as well. There's some misquitoes that travel around giving diseases
in Florida. The first thought that came to mind involved a natural
predator. And there is more than one natural predator. The one
that folks in Florida are familiar with is the lizard. I've seen a lizard
literally jump 6 feet to snatch a bug. The bigger ones end up going
after cockroaches and canibalistic behaviour, you'll find that a
bigger lizard running around with a smaller lizard's tail hanging
out of its mouth. Then there are frogs as well.

So perhaps this has nothing to do with "organic", but it's an argument
against the use of DDT or any other chemical. IF there are a lot of
misquitoes around, set up a pond. You will draw frogs and misquitoes
to the pond. It's quite effective at getting rid of misquitoes in Florida.

You have obviously never camped in the heart of the Everglades, as I
have. They do not allow spraying there except at Florida City. You
can almost cut through the cloud of mosquitoes with a knife. Even Florida
City in the summer is almost unbearable.

You may wonder why there is famine in Africa. It is because they do not
have
the chemical insect control to stop the swarms of locusts that devastate
their crops.

I think organic methods have their place in our modern society, and we
should strive
to replace chemicals whenever possible. However, we are still a long ways
away from
eliminating the need for chemicals.


And if you need some lizards, selling lizards could become a profitable
business for folks that want to sell lizards. No one ever seems to think
about breeding and selling these little things, they don't make very nice
pets, but with the right advertising, people WILL buy them.

Organic Misquito PacMan...
Get rid of poisonous chemicals. Safe for the family, safe for the
pets, safe for the children and safe for your home. Be adventurous.
Natural Misquito Predator $10.00 for 10 Misquito Munchers.

A Real LIVE Mini Jurasic Park... $50.00
Live Miniature Dinosaurs. Live Hunters.
Predatory extremes. The animals jump 6 feet to catch their misquito.
Natural organic misquoto eradication carnivores.

Thanks for the post.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the newsgroup.

On 10 Mar 2006 07:22:47 -0800, "James"
wrote:

It might not have helped in floods but it sure did in droughts,

Yes, it was that potent chemical H2O that finally ended the Dust
Bowl.


disease
and insect pests.

Which one? Please, give me a specific disease or insect pest that
you believe can't be controlled except through manufactured
chemicals. I can't effectively debate vague, hand-wavy stuff
like "disease and insect pests". Some are very controllable by
husbandry practices or organic methods; some are more difficult.

One that I've had personal experience with was spit! thrips and
their Weapon of Mass Destruction, Tomato Spotted Wilt virus. It
hit this part of the country hard a few years ago, and as anyone
who has tried to control spit! thrips can tell you, it's almost
impossible to eradicate them. Western Flower spit! thrips are
already highly resistant to many currently registered pesticides,
and they have a very short life cycle.

So, universities and commercial agricultural companies teamed up
and developed several strains of tomatoes that are resistant to
TSWv.


No amount of organic farming could limit locust lost

Poor little lost locust! Maybe it would solve the problem if we
equipped them with little GPS devices and gave them tiny maps.

like a little bit
of poison.

Actually, the FAO has been testing biopesticides spray like a
natural fungus called Metarhizium. It takes several weeks to kill
the locusts, and they spread it to other locusts before they die.
They're also interested in trying IGRs, because they feel the
amount of chemicals it takes to control a plague is dangerous to
the people who live in the sprayed areas.

Chemical spraying also hasn't stopped the plagues, it just
manages to shorten the duration.

I would rather eat a little poison and live instead of
dying of starvation.

It's not an either or situation. You keep trying to polarize the
debate, when more than one person, myself included, has said that
there are times when using chemicals is either unavoidable or
preferable to the alternatives.

Personally I would rather not die of starvation or a cancer
caused by pesticide exposure, but that's just me.

Most of the agronomists I know recommend integrated pest
management systems when possible. Your local extension office can
give you more information on the subject, but the definition is:

"Integrated Pest Management is the coordinated use of pest and
environmental information along with available pest control
methods, including cultural, biological, genetic and chemical
methods, to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment".


You need to embrace the power of "and".


Farmers were able to use a little bit of chemical fertilizer and
produce more than using a train load of manure.

And exactly where did you get your information? C'mon, put up or
shut up, I'm calling you on your bullshit.


The truth is that it varies by crop, and that a gardener or
farmer has to evaluate for themselves which system or combination
of applications will best fit their crops and philosophy


I'm old enough to have
seen train loads of manure.

I saw one last fall. Manure is big business these days.

*dreamy look* I love manure. You know, the best Valentine's Day
present I ever got was a load of mushroom compost.

Way, way better than the severed sexual organs of hormone primed
and pesticide laced plants.

It certainly takes a lot less time to
spread chemical fertilizer than manure.

Now you're comparing apples and oranges. The seasons and methods
of applying the two are different.


Chemicals against diseases allowed crops to live instead of dying
before you even get started.

That's a useless statement. I don't use commercial chemicals, and
my plants grown just fine. Same with the organic farmers at the
Farmer's Market this morning.



I'm not saying there are no downside to chemicals but I'm no _Silent
Spring_ fanatic.

Gosh, no one here would have ever guessed that.

It's a question of the whole picture. DDT might have
lowered the bald eagle population

It was a little more complicated than that, but it serves your
rhetorical purposes to diminish the problems caused by pesticide
residues in the environment. It doesn't strengthen your case, it
makes it weaker.

but without have using it last
century you might have been killed by some disease carrying insect.

Hogwash.

Insect resistance to DDT started less than 10 years after it hit
the market. It was the eradication of malaria in the south that
prevented my potential death*. There are still mosquitoes
capable of carrying malaria buzzing around here.


You got to ask if we would be worrying about West Nile, Killer Bees,
Rocky Mountain Spoted Fever, etc. if we were still using DDT.

No, I don't "got" to ask, because I know we would. What is so
difficult about the concept of developing resistance that you
can't grasp it? And, how, exactly, would DDT use have prevented
Killer bees? Please, lay out a detailed plan of action that would
have prevented the introduction of killer bees, and wouldn't have
wiped out honey bees.

There are more effective and less dangerous products on the
market that might not have ever been developed if we had depended
solely on DDT. As a dog and cat owner, may I say hooray for
Frontline? And may I say how worried I am over reports of flea
resistance last summer? I don't ever want to have to go back to
that endless cycle of spraying poison on the yard and fogging the
house.


Of course you can point out all the things chemicals cannot do but
what's the point?

The point is that there are alternatives to chemicals, and using
them is both cost effective and environmentally friendly. I will
repeat myself and say what I've been saying; and that is that
there are situations where commercially produced chemicals are a
better choice. I'm not anti-commercial chemical, and I have given
examples where I used chemical; but your dogmatic insistence that
organic gardening and farming methods are inherently inferior to
using commercial chemicals is just wrong.


Fact is chemicals work. Also calling people who
disagree with you misinformed tends to make you sound more nutty.

Wow. The irony is staggering.

I'm not calling people misinformed. I'm calling you misinformed.
It was the kindest descriptor I could come up with.


It's only recently that people can afford organic produce and $4
coffee. Just the fact that organic produce costs way more than
non-organic proves chemicals work. These should be no organic premium
if it was such a good system.

sigh

You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make him think.


Penelope, not gonna present an economics lesson, too.

*for which, I'm sure, you're crushingly disappointed.



--
You have proven yourself to be the most malicious,
classless person that I've encountered in years.
- "pointed"

Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
On 10 Mar 2006 07:22:47 -0800, "James"
wrote:

It might not have helped in floods but it sure did in droughts,

Yes, it was that potent chemical H2O that finally ended the Dust
Bowl.

The Dust Bowl ended because the dumb organic farmers left. (joke).
I'm sure even you know that the drought didn't cause the Dust Bowl but
farmers did. If the prairie was left in grass there would have been no
dust bowl.

Guess you don't believe in Wilt-Pruf.


"Integrated Pest Management is the coordinated use of pest and
environmental information along with available pest control
methods, including cultural, biological, genetic and chemical
methods, to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment".


You need to embrace the power of "and".

You need to rant less and stop using wiseass remarks. I missed the
fact that you actually conceded chemicals work.



Farmers were able to use a little bit of chemical fertilizer and
produce more than using a train load of manure.

And exactly where did you get your information? C'mon, put up or
shut up, I'm calling you on your bullshit.

Actually from ag school and on the job. I'm the person who retired in
the business and you like to rant. You started in this thread with an
attack, continued with arrogant and snide remarks which made me think
you're a loon. If you sincerely want to know the facts, you can always
go to ag school.

On 12 Mar 2006 08:01:21 -0800, "James"
wrote:
Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
"James" wrote:

It might not have helped in floods but it sure did in droughts,

Yes, it was that potent chemical H2O that finally ended the Dust
Bowl.

The Dust Bowl ended because the dumb organic farmers left. (joke).
I'm sure even you know that the drought didn't cause the Dust Bowl but
farmers did.

Yes, poor farming practices that were touted by most experts as
sustainable. The minority that expressed concern about soil
erosion were ignored.

You know, sort of like those who point out the danger of relying
entirely on chemical fixes for farming and gardening problems
today.

If the prairie was left in grass there would have been no
dust bowl.

If there hadn't been a drought, there wouldn't have been a Dust
Bowl. The plains were very productive in the twenties, they
helped to turn the US into an agricultural exporter.

Guess you don't believe in Wilt-Pruf.

Guess you're foolish enough to believe a product that temporarily
slows water loss by reducing transpiration is the solution to a
drought of nearly a decade.

But, I have to thank you for the delicious tidbit of irony on
such a glorious sunny spring day. Wilt-Pruf is a natural product
made from pine sap. It's 100% biodegradable.

giggle It's *organic*.


"Integrated Pest Management is the coordinated use of pest and
environmental information along with available pest control
methods, including cultural, biological, genetic and chemical
methods, to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment".


You need to embrace the power of "and".

You need to rant less and stop using wiseass remarks.

I think you mispeeled "you need to stop using facts that refute
my bullshit."


I missed the
fact that you actually conceded chemicals work.

That happens when you snip out all the bits that refute your
arguments.

Farmers were able to use a little bit of chemical fertilizer and
produce more than using a train load of manure.

And exactly where did you get your information? C'mon, put up or
shut up, I'm calling you on your bullshit.

Actually from ag school and on the job. I'm the person who retired in
the business and you like to rant.

I have a degree in Animal Husbandry, and, apparently, I'm the one
who actually paid attention during my agronomy classes. I have
tried to keep up with the literature over the years, too,
although most of my reading is dedicated to the animal end of
things these days.

Once again, productivity of crops varies, some appear to be more
productive with use of manure compost, and others seem to do
better with chemical fertilizers, some benefit from combinations
of the two. There's not much I can find on-line, but here's one
paper that compares manure vs chemical in India.

http://www.journals.cambridge.org/ac...nline&aid=3005

You can see how the various combinations worked in this case. A
dedicated gardener would need to take their local weather,
environment, and soil structure into account to formulate the
best system for themselves.


You started in this thread with an
attack,

No, you started it by attacking organic gardening, an attack
you've continued. You still insist that organic gardening is less
productive, more work, and that chemicals you espouse are
harmless and more helpful. You don't offer any real facts to back
up your accusations, but seem to operate on the principle of
"Because I said so."


continued with arrogant and snide remarks which made me think
you're a loon.

For certain values of loon that mean "disagrees with me".

If you sincerely want to know the facts, you can always
go to ag school.

I already did, but one doesn't need a degree to make any of the
points I have. I've already pointed this out, but it was in one
of those bits you snipped. Google is your friend. Anyone can find
just about all the information they need to successfully prepare
and maintain a garden with either chemicals, by organic methods,
or by a combination of the two.



Penelope

--
You have proven yourself to be the most malicious,
classless person that I've encountered in years.
- "pointed"

Penelope Periwinkle wrote:

But, I have to thank you for the delicious tidbit of irony on
such a glorious sunny spring day. Wilt-Pruf is a natural product
made from pine sap. It's 100% biodegradable.

giggle It's *organic*.

touche

No, you started it by attacking organic gardening, an attack
you've continued. You still insist that organic gardening is less
productive, more work, and that chemicals you espouse are
harmless and more helpful. You don't offer any real facts to back
up your accusations, but seem to operate on the principle of
"Because I said so."

It's certainly more work. Just wait till you're old and feeble. It's
certainly much easier to mix a little generic Roundup and spray. It's
also cheaper because one can get 2 gal. concentrate for around $70 or
less. That is certainly true and because I say so.

Now I didn't say chemicals were harmless. I said the benefits
outweight the harm.

On 12 Mar 2006 14:20:18 -0800, "James" wrote:

Penelope Periwinkle wrote:

No, you started it by attacking organic gardening, an attack
you've continued. You still insist that organic gardening is less
productive, more work, and that chemicals you espouse are
harmless and more helpful. You don't offer any real facts to back
up your accusations, but seem to operate on the principle of
"Because I said so."

It's certainly more work.

No, it's not.


Just wait till you're old and feeble.


I *am* old and feeble! I was just complaining about how long it takes
to recover from an injury anymore. I have to yoga, which I hate,
because I'm so inflexible now.

A few weeks ago I was helping my 13 year old neighbor with a science
project, and she was sitting next to me while we worked on the
computer. She told me, "Your hair is really cool, it's not just blonde
like everybody else, it has all this silver in it." *grumble*



It's
certainly much easier to mix a little generic Roundup and spray. It's
also cheaper because one can get 2 gal. concentrate for around $70 or
less. That is certainly true and because I say so.

Or, you can lay down a little weed paper and mulch and be done for the
season. Newspaper works really well, too. If you prevent the weeds in
the first place, you don't need Round Up to kill them.


Now I didn't say chemicals were harmless. I said the benefits
outweight the harm.

I think that if everyone would make an effort to use just a few less
chemicals there would be a dramatic improvement in our environment. No
extremism, just integrating more organic methods where possible.


Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn"

If you want to give me advice considering I'm using generic Roundup
anyway, you can give me hints on how to get rid of mosquitos, fleas,
and ticks.

No I'm not going to put nets in the bedroom. Just one mosquito
sneaking in the house causes a lot of irratation.

Two days in a row I found a tick on my body. Don't know if they're
from my back yard or the community garden.

James wrote:
If you want to give me advice considering I'm using generic Roundup
anyway, you can give me hints on how to get rid of mosquitos, fleas,
and ticks.

No I'm not going to put nets in the bedroom. Just one mosquito
sneaking in the house causes a lot of irratation.

Two days in a row I found a tick on my body. Don't know if they're
from my back yard or the community garden.




Imported Fire Ants can take care of the tick problem in just a couple of
years. HTH ;-)

Bob

James wrote:
If you want to give me advice considering I'm using generic Roundup
anyway, you can give me hints on how to get rid of mosquitos, fleas,
and ticks.

Planting garlic gets repells fleas, mosquitoes and ticks. Amazing!

Also, mosquitoes seem attracted to dark colors, so get rid of the blue
jeans and dark shirt and wear yellow. However, during the day, bees
might like you and follow you around.

Heat up a small dark tray of water in your house, semi-cover it with
dark colored sticky tape, wipe your armpit with a napkin or tissue,
put the tissue in the warm water. When the mosquitoes dive for it and
get caught in the tape, your problem disappears. You could spit in
the water as well if you didn't eat onions or garlic. A little creativity
works wonders sometimes.

Hope that helps.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

Planting garlic is a myth. I grow 200 elephant garlic plus a few
hardneck garlic. Ticks and mosquitoes just love hiding around the
leaves. Of course eating garlic is different but it makes me fart a
lot. It doesn't stop mosquito from biting my butt.