"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
informed decisions.

I thought you distrusted the Fed?

By and large. So what does that have to do with the Pesticide Action
Network?

It is just good to see PAN agrees with the Fed and their database , but
most importantly that the findings show we are all safe.
My first thoughts were these Guys had an agenda and were going to push
Precautionary Principles.

I'm sure that the big lobbies that spread lots of cash around, aren't
too happy with them.

Chemical companies want to sell. Framers don't want to test.
Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands just want subsidies.

I do have to ask, do these pickup lines still work? True, their totally
diversionary, but they both also seem so, I don't know.... irrelevant.

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and
such.

another info site on chemicals:
http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/
you can use your zip to drill down to see whats is in your area, even gets
down to specific issues.

& If you promise not to nit-pick,
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6075 has some very good background
facts. Some still floats around the Internet discussions a bit,
......But do check out Dr. Ames, he has a lot more to say about pesticides,
quite illuminating, not casually dismissed.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and
such.

I'm sure, there are lots of good reads, like John Yoo and the torture
briefs (also Cal Berkeley). It's nice to have an argument before cites
are given. What do you have to say. Where is the site for the government
database on pesticides? Where is the PAN site that says all pesticides
are safe?

Precautionary Principles, are you out of your mind, Dow, Monsanto,
Bayer, Nisus, and Novartis would break their political legs. Cargill,
and Archer Daniel Midlands profit handsomely from corn, and soybean
supports, which allows them to make cheap food like stuff, for
consumption.

http://www.ewg.org/node/26928 is a nice toxic read, as is
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/....publhealth.25
..101802.123020
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-...s-Linked-to-La
sting-Neurological-Problems-for-Farmers-337-1/
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/200...es_pesticides/
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/c_2.htm

And did you ever consider that if we didn't do the same monocultures in
the same place most of the pesticides wouldn't be needed, under the most
conservative of judgments. GMO crops are no more productive than
standard crops, but some do allow more pesticide be used. And how about
the increase in diabetes since we started eating faux foods 30 years
ago? Prior to that they were called imitation foods.

So gunner, make your argument, and present your citations. If you've
been to school, you should know how it works.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins
and
such.

You are aware that the PAN database IS the USDA's PDP?

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
.... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

gunner wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Gunner--

Really good post.

People generally aren't generally smart enough to quantify such data.
Most people can't tell the difference in meaning between Parts per
hundred million and percent. The perception is.....If there is ANY of it
present it's going to kill you.

EJ in NJ

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/acknowledgements.jsp

METHODOLOGY
Q: What data is shown here and where did it come from?
A: USDA¹s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) cross-referenced with toxicology1
data from EPA and other authoritative listings.
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/methodology.jsp

Great, since it's government information, you shouldn't have a problem
with it;O)

TOXICOLOGY: MAKING SENSE OF PESTICIDES
What¹s On My Food? also contains toxicological information for most
pesticides tested by USDA, and for many of the pesticide residues
(chemicals found on foods that may be different from the actual
pesticides used). The toxicological information here is pulled from
www.PesticideInfo.org, a comprehensive database that we've developed and
maintained for ten years.

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

Certainly makes me glad that I grow as much as I can. I'll read it when
I can but it still doesn't answer the questions below.

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."
The EPA under Bush was a joke and we all know that the USDA isn't to aid
consumers, it's meant to aid agriculture (marketers).


Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.
1% of what? How much does it take before there is a response? A response
to the one isolated chemical, or to the stew of chemicals in the food
chain and in the environment??
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years
And dioxin is measured in femtograms (10^-15 g). Which would equal
6 millionths of a sec.

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
Yes, and the renowned Frederick Seitz said that "Global Warming" isn't
man made. Yada, yada, yada. There are lots of scientists. You have to
take a poll and measure their quality.
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...e-n-ames-stron
g-views-on-origins-of-cancer.html?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
1994? you might say so.
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.
Lots of cow patties out the
EXCLUSIVEŠPentagon Pundits: New York Times Reporter David Barstow Wins
Pulitzer Prize for Exposing Military¹s Pro-War Propaganda Media Campaign
Pundits-double-web

In his first national broadcast interview, New York Times reporter David
Barstow speaks about his 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of the
Pentagon propaganda campaign to recruit more than seventy-five retired
military officers to appear on TV outlets as military analysts ahead of
and during the Iraq war. This week, the Pentagon inspector general¹s
office admitted its exoneration of the program was flawed and withdrew
it.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/8...imes_reporter_
david

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...29climate.html

Lots of people are playing fast and loose with critical facts. I just
reads them the way that I sees them.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.
The governors of West Virginia always call me an environmental
extremist. You¹ve got to be an extremist in order to achieve things.
You¹ve got to be ready to make enemies in order to accomplish something.
And it¹s absolutely necessary that the people here today continue to
demonstrate against this highly destructive practice.

- REP. KEN HECHLER (94 years old)

"The only congressman who marched with Martin Luther King in Selma,
Alabama, was this hillbilly from West Virginia . ."
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/29/coal


Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
"I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit."
-- Mel Brooks
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames

http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html

Bruce is going on 81 and has done good work. That said science has a
difficult time adding up total exposure and the possible impact. I'd
hazard a guess that our immune systems are strengthened and weakened by
impact of all our sensual imputes.

Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know.

Gardening and invoking mother nature I believe is a good thing. Belief
system raises it complexities. Love and gratefulness for sustenance
primary sometimes expressed as saying grace in one way or another.

Looking at the fancy Ames graph I noticed no mention of Alpha or Beta
Naphthalene which caused a hot spot for bladder cancer in Pennsville
NJ. Rural area with A Dupont Plant providing employment not far from
here it smelled like death and it was the most frequent sample turned
over to the next shift. .

Exposure to harmful or helpful mediums seem to be secretive. Vit D,
Vit K and Resveratrol along with family interaction seems good.
Allopathy good for burns and accidents only. Yea that¹s me. YMMV. Fresh
home nibbling has to be superior but I may be wrong. Energy more
direct in a way from the earth and sun.

Bill whose sister is a MD and Husband a Virologist.

Small birds happy singing or protecting.

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

http://www.youtube.com/usnationalarchives

"Bill who putters" wrote in message
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames

http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html

Bruce is going on 81 and has done good work. That said science has a
difficult time adding up total exposure and the possible impact. I'd
hazard a guess that our immune systems are strengthened and weakened by
impact of all our sensual imputes.

Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know.


No doubt. I am hoping they get the operating manual and troubleshooting
guide on Man written soon..

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

snipped
I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the Lithium.
There are better class of drugs these days for your condition. Hopefully one
of them can balance your mood swings and attention span out a bit better.
With the proper care and counseling you should make a full recovery.

I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.

Charlie wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:20:00 -0700, "gunner"
wrote:


"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

snipped
I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the
Lithium.
There are better class of drugs these days for your condition. Hopefully
one
of them can balance your mood swings and attention span out a bit better.
With the proper care and counseling you should make a full recovery.

I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.


Oh very good, the meds insult (always very funny and insightful),
right before somehow working in a Nazi reference.

Oh wait, so sorry, I did......Godwin's Law invoked.

Charlie

So YOU can make sense out of his rambling BS and the stupid wiki links or
you just a fan of his?

Regardless that was rich Charlie , I will try to work that one in the next
time. I'm sure there will be more BS coming out of eco fringe element .
It almost is like an OCD.

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:48:20 -0500, Charlie wrote:


Seriously, Gunny...your insults are juvenile, (along with those of the
rest of the people in this thread who made similar pejorative remarks
about people with whom they disagree and don't understand, people who
may not always play well with the rest of you kids) with your
references to mental illnesses and meds and loons and such.

I'm sorry, I said this thread when I meant to indicate the other group
and that thread in which you and bob and kate and mic were holding
forth.

You can attribute this oversight, or mistake, to lack of medication
and ability to clarify thoughts, if you choose, Gunny.

Charlie

Charlie, I aint no Gunny. I 'm a Gunner, a Warrant Officer. I was an E7
Promotable (9 years) when I was appointed, then commissioned RA 6 months
later. Army also, but I was adopted because of so many joint assignments.

BTW, Dr of sorts... no! but I do understand more than a bit of MH issues.
FWIW I am a licensed counselor in WA State, well for the next month anyway,
getting too expensive to stay current when you are doing free work. I have
been the Court Appointed Guardian for 3 MH persons so far and as an advocate
working issues for a few others over the years, I have been an advocate
working for the last year an a half on a host of issues ranging from the
IRS, INS, The State of CA, the Federal Government, Medicare/Medicaid and 3
Insurance companies for this one person. as well as dealing with 5 doctors.
She is
Bi Polar since teens. last year she went down that road and I didn't think
she was coming back this time.
Was talking to the IRS for a couple of hours just Yesterday AM on her
issues.

I am not the Dr guy one needs, I 'm the guy that plowed through the
bureaucracy
and get stuff done my friend so they can get to the Dr guy. As you can
perhaps sense, I don't win a lot
of brownie points for style, but I get a job done in record time. So you
may feel that I am
insensitive,.... I do not..., may not be considered PC, but a far cry from
being insensitive to the plight of other.

I do apologize to you if you are afflicted and felt dissed. That you came
to
his defense, good on you so I will tell you first, I am going to break up
with him, he is getting way too needy and honestly, I think he is seeing
another NG.

Who is Kaiser? mein Fuhrer? Are you talking
growing Meds? as in Humbolt Co, or the other holistic ayurveda thing such
as for Diabetes? Regardless, Use caution with the Shaman craft.

sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"
Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context
And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe' residues
you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it curious that no
matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal, you will find
people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I call that 'The
Lemming Effect.'

as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court










--
Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"

Wilson potificates; Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My
dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context

And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it
curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal,
you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I
call that 'The Lemming Effect.'


How's that dictionary working out for ya. Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you
cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also
recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff. " I think I
can tell that you've probably ". I'm sure it is all well meaning and
supportive
for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular
word or phrase in context". "In context " being the key words here.
Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information
and information taken out of context are two of the biggest faults about
the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on
this NG. These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact. Then
repeated in other papers as verified fact. I don't mind casual language,
yet I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an
informational role. To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to
check the Bull Shit artist; .
i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives,
a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the
door. Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately" You see you do not
clarify what you are talking about in regards to the "safe"
residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" . are you are discussing
the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards . Since the many diverse
Organic
organizations use the EPA allowable limits. If you recall
we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as
the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site. We can assume the EPA
standards, yes? But one should not assume.


BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy
outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced.
What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have
been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary
would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted.
But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. " Yes,
wilson, I find it curious also. There is always such gross generalization
applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of
substance. It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self
righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to
recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I
meant". That
is across the board not just your little group. Otherwise, how do I put
this... your
wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation
and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present
your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly
don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced
here. i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links
especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference
link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and in
just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as
saying
one should not compare the two. A very incongruent message to send which
told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one
should
not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post
decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world like I do"
trivial BS. You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our "facts" in proper context. A healthy sustainable world
is a very good goal, but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will
go back to the idyllic good old days. Lets learn to use what information we
have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"

Wilson potificates; Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My
dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context

And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it
curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal,
you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I
call that 'The Lemming Effect.'


How's that dictionary working out for ya. Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you
cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also
recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff. " I think I
can tell that you've probably ". I'm sure it is all well meaning and
supportive
for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular
word or phrase in context". "In context " being the key words here.
Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information
and information taken out of context are two of the biggest faults about
the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on
this NG. These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact. Then
repeated in other papers as verified fact. I don't mind casual language,
yet I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an
informational role. To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to
check the Bull Shit artist; .
i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives,
a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the
door. Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately" You see you do not
clarify what you are talking about in regards to the "safe"
residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" . are you are discussing
the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards . Since the many diverse
Organic
organizations use the EPA allowable limits. If you recall
we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as
the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site. We can assume the EPA
standards, yes? But one should not assume.


BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy
outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced.
What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have
been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary
would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted.
But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. " Yes,
wilson, I find it curious also. There is always such gross generalization
applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of
substance. It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self
righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to
recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I
meant". That
is across the board not just your little group. Otherwise, how do I put
this... your
wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation
and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present
your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly
don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced
here. i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links
especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference
link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and in
just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as
saying
one should not compare the two. A very incongruent message to send which
told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one
should
not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post
decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world like I do"
trivial BS. You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our "facts" in proper context. A healthy sustainable world
is a very good goal, but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will
go back to the idyllic good old days. Lets learn to use what information we
have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

pg. 26
Negative impacts on the soil food web
Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does
to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these
microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient
system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it
regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job,
feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the
activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the
nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web
brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_
pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening
becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do,
but I'll be back to play with you ;O))
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

pg. 26
Negative impacts on the soil food web
Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does
to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these
microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient
system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it
regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job,
feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the
activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the
nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web
brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_
pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening
becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do,
but I'll be back to play with you ;O))

Well shister, were you happy with the answer? It what way does it fall
short of your expectations? What else may I explain to that pea size
brain of yours, hmmmm?
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn