|
Pesticide foodstuff database
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/
-- Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -Philo of Alexandria |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ,
Bill who putters wrote: http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/ This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make informed decisions. -- - 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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"Billy" wrote in message ... In article , Bill who putters 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? |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ,
"gunner" wrote: http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/ By and large. So what does that have to do with the Pesticide Action Network? 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. -- - 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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"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? |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"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. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"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.. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
Charlie wrote in message ... 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. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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" |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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? |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
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" . Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this instance, 'my dictionary' was http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg. 243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.' Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts. If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking. My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone. The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure. 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? -- Wilson N44º39" W67º12" |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"Wilson" wrote in message ... sometime in the recent past gunner posted this: and Wilson retorted with : ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,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" . Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this instance, 'my dictionary' was http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg. 243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.' My point exactly Mr. Wilson, a citation is a quote, not a reference. You cite facts, events, etc, in a writing but If you are quoting a paper or a book, you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing, Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts. If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking. My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone. ahh this was a bit confusing at first, MS OS yes? yea it doesn't like colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for a professinal audience but if that is all ya got I am good with that, Mr. Wilson! The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure. Suffice it to say, you ain"t got nothing of substance? Good. I have always found when you put your nose into a fight that wasn't yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it smacked. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
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 Finally! Thank you, Billy,that was not hard was it? now I know who to look up and find his bona fides and what actual research he bases his thesis on. I can finally verify this bold comment. So I will check to see if this statement is based on actual research or just opinion. What else can you do for this peabrain? You can damn well wait until I get back to my computer. I don't spend my life in front of it like you do DS. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote: 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 Finally! Thank you, Billy,that was not hard was it? Hard? I posted it within seconds of seeing your post. You are easy to deal with gunny, when you step out of your cloud of acronyms, and innuendoes. --- cite |s?t| verb [ trans. ] (often be cited) 1 quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work. € mention as an example : medics have been cited as a key example of a modern breed of technical expert. € Law adduce a former tried case as a guide to deciding a comparable case or in support of an argument. I hope this clears up your confusion with the English language. now I know who to look up and find his bona fides and what actual research he bases his thesis on. I can finally verify this bold comment. So I will check to see if this statement is based on actual research or just opinion. Got to admire the brave face you put on, gunny. Go gettem boy. Have fun ;O) What else can you do for this peabrain? You can damn well wait until I get back to my computer. Ah, some people want too much. You aren't getting a wee bit testy are you, gunny? When you return, I may not be available (us DSs have demanding schedules, y'know), so let me now direct you off into the writings of Joe Schwarcz. Schwarcz is one of North America's foremost educators and is the director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, which is dedicated to demystifying science for the public, the media, and students. Schwarcz is also a professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School. He may even be able to rouse that dormant organ between your ears, gunny. Quotes from Joe Schwarcz: 1) Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with potential environmental and health consequences. 2) When they are not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own chemical weapons. Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants which may contribute to human health. Organic pears and peaches are richer in these compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and lycopene. When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety. 3) Synthetic fertilizers, with their high levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, encourage rapid growth, but this results in more water being taken up from the soil. The produce is bigger, but it is bigger because it has a higher water content. Organic crops, fertilized with manure, take up nitrogen more slowly and have a lower water content. In a sense they are more concentrated in flavourful compounds. Some, but certainly not all, studies have shown that organically grown foods are higher in antioxidants. This isn't surprising because crops left to fend for themselves without outside chemical help will produce a variety of natural pesticides, some of which just happen to have antioxidant properties. .. . . . According to a four year long study carried out at the University of Newcastle, organic food is some 40% richer in antioxidants. If cost is not an issue, organic may indeed be an appropriate choice. There is no doubt that it is environmentally a more sound practice. 4) All ways of reducing pesticide risk are examined, with great emphasis on Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, which is aimed at reducing the reliance of pesticides as the sole approach to pest management. IPM is geared towards taking action only when numbers of pests warrant it and uses a mix of biological, physical and chemical techniques. (This is Canadian, not American) But can even such a rigorous system ensure that we will have no consequences from the use of pesticides? Absolutely not. There may be subtle effects in humans that show up only after years of exposure. One of the developing concerns about the use of insecticides and herbicides is a possible effect on the immune system. Laboratory evidence indicates impaired activity of immune cells after exposure . . . 5) Analytical chemists, armed with their gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers, heightened our fears by revealing that it was not only farmers or agro-chemical producers who were exposed to pesticides, we all were! Residues of these chemicals were found on virtually everything we ate. 6) Would a pesticide-free world be better? For people who have to handle pesticides occupationally, and for the environment, yes. 7) The World Health Organization estimates that there are roughly three million cases of pesticide poisoning world wide every year, and close to a quarter million deaths! Pesticide companies, in some cases, pay their salespeople on commission so it is in their interest to push product even when it may not be necessary. In Sri Lanka pesticides are advertised on radio to the public, often painting an unrealistic picture of magical, risk-free crop protection. Even though there may be no immediate effects of such exposure, there are enough studies suggesting a link between pesticide use and neurological problems, developmental delays, Parkinson's disease and cancer to cause concern. An often-quoted study at Stanford University found a link between Parkinson's disease and domestic pesticide use. People with as few as thirty days of exposure to home insecticides were at significantly greater risk; garden insecticides were somewhat less risky. Because of the large variety of products available, the researchers were not able to zero in on any specific ingredients. Great caution must be used with insecticides in the home and I think their use during pregnancy should be totally avoided. These quotes were taken from writings posted here in rec.gardens.edible. You should be able to find them in "Google Groups". I don't spend my life in front of it like you do DS. Why use acronyms as a crutch? Don't you want to write the words? The sentence is a little longer, but it gives clarity to your thoughts, when you have any. Thanks, anyway, for the compliment, yes, I am a "Darling Stud" ;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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote: "Wilson" wrote in message ... sometime in the recent past gunner posted this: and Wilson retorted with : ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,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" . Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this instance, 'my dictionary' was http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg. 243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.' My point exactly Mr. Wilson, a citation is a quote, not a reference. You cite facts, events, etc, in a writing but If you are quoting a paper or a book, you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing, Good god man, you must be dummer than dirt. cite |s?t| verb [ trans. ] (often be cited) 1 quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work. € mention as an example : medics have been cited as a key example of a modern breed of technical expert. € Law adduce a former tried case as a guide to deciding a comparable case or in support of an argument. So says the dictionary that came with my Mac. or (n) citation, cite, acknowledgment, credit, reference, mention, quotation (a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cite Do you not understand English, gunny? What is your native tongue? Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts. If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking. My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone. ahh this was a bit confusing at first, MS OS yes? yea it doesn't like colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for a professinal audience Yeah, they wouldn't let you get away with that crap. but if that is all ya got I am good with that, Well, I guess you'll shortly be speaking to yourself then gunny. Mr. Wilson! The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure. Suffice it to say, you ain"t got nothing of substance? Good. I have always found when you put your nose into a fight that wasn't yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it smacked. Brave words, gunny, but just words. Wilson simply sees what the rest of us see, a clever, self absorbed, narcissistic, bag of wind (gave you the benefit of the doubt there). -- - 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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
OMG, you buffoons can't even get an insult right! Ya confused the sensory basics i.e. instead of "you enjoy listening to your self ...., You could say "I enjoy reading what I wrote" but that doesn't have the same effect does it, cuz ya should be proof reading what crap you both are writing. kinda like Billy's "citations". Back OT , I can discount your author, Lowenfels, the one with the "soil foodweb" . Like all your "citations" to date, this is just conjecture, he lists no studies or research papers to show mineral salts kill micro organisms. His hook is the "soil foodweb" banner which is hyping the ACCTs. .. Like selling bibles at a Billy Graham crusade. Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal hyper BS obfucating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true, then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Stop your habit of throwing out a lot of BS and stupid personal attacks to cover your propaganda. Now if you will excuse me, I have more important things to do, you once again cut into my allotted research time with your fantasy theories. Show me or shut up! |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote: OMG, you buffoons can't even get an insult right! Ya confused the sensory basics i.e. instead of "you enjoy listening to your self ...., You could say "I enjoy reading what I wrote" but that doesn't have the same effect does it, cuz ya should be proof reading what crap you both are writing. kinda like Billy's "citations". Back OT , I can discount your author, Lowenfels, the one with the "soil foodweb" . Like all your "citations" to date, this is just conjecture, he lists no studies or research papers to show mineral salts kill micro organisms. His hook is the "soil foodweb" banner which is hyping the ACCTs. . Like selling bibles at a Billy Graham crusade. Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal hyper BS obfucating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true, then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Stop your habit of throwing out a lot of BS and stupid personal attacks to cover your propaganda. Now if you will excuse me, I have more important things to do, you once again cut into my allotted research time with your fantasy theories. Show me or shut up! Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see. You don't like my authorities? What have you got? Never mind. We have more important things to do, than give you a chance to see your name in lights. -- - 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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
Gunner challenges:
Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal hyper BS obfuscating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true, then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Billy again pussyfoots, counters with even more BS: Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see. You don't like my authorities? What have you got? Never mind. We have more important things to do,......... WE? Are you in one of your Sybil personality modes again? than give you a chance to see your name in lights. Once again your definition of an authority is BS ( scream louder, I'm on the Internet) . Unless you can give a valid reference to a scientific paper or some such research that one of your "citations" has actually accomplished or perhaps has knowledge of .....you make a false statement. It is certainly not out of the character for you to do that, you show a history of making up facts as you preach. When that doesn't seem to work, you attack ( which is more of your wussy Internet persona). I am sure your first reference was a very good lawyer ( soil food web??? do check out where Dr. Ingram is working these days) and I'm sure some the second might be some fine master gardener. I have not read the latter because as I said, I am not going to be your book reviewer. You procrastinate again, son. We both know the reason. Regardless, you still cannot back up your lie(s) and you have been played into saying it so much, you own this one. Mineral salts do not kill micro organisms any more than manures do. You cannot justify this lie, no matter how hard you try nor how much you squawk. Go back to your pretend Google book of the month review club and play up to your fan base. Seems they buy into your BS. Gunner You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time ... then there is Billy... who just hasn't got a clue. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ,
"gunner" wrote: Gunner challenges: Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal hyper BS obfuscating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true, then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Billy again pussyfoots, counters with even more BS: Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see. You don't like my authorities? What have you got? Never mind. We have more important things to do,......... WE? Are you in one of your Sybil personality modes again? than give you a chance to see your name in lights. Once again your definition of an authority is BS ( scream louder, I'm on the Internet) . Unless you can give a valid reference to a scientific paper or some such research that one of your "citations" has actually accomplished or perhaps has knowledge of .....you make a false statement. It is certainly not out of the character for you to do that, you show a history of making up facts as you preach. When that doesn't seem to work, you attack ( which is more of your wussy Internet persona). I am sure your first reference was a very good lawyer ( soil food web??? do check out where Dr. Ingram is working these days) and I'm sure some the second might be some fine master gardener. I have not read the latter because as I said, I am not going to be your book reviewer. You procrastinate again, son. We both know the reason. Regardless, you still cannot back up your lie(s) and you have been played into saying it so much, you own this one. Mineral salts do not kill micro organisms any more than manures do. You cannot justify this lie, no matter how hard you try nor how much you squawk. Go back to your pretend Google book of the month review club and play up to your fan base. Seems they buy into your BS. Gunner You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time ... then there is Billy... who just hasn't got a clue. I've given you two authorities for my position, gunnie. One , Jeff Lowenfel, Harvard University, geology; Northeastern University, law, and two, Dr. Joseph Schwarcz, the new chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, the director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, a professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School. Where is your degree from gunnie? Get help, you're sick. -- - 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 |
Pesticide foodstuff database
As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that themselves and need not my defense. What I will do is stand shoulder to shoulder with them and throw rock. No one is on Bill's ass, he did help Martin, kinda. This is all Billy's doing. Like I said, good you show your Bud some support and I would like to believe you really standup for the underdog. I see no one did for Martin ( florabloom) Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Your man has a CS Bully personality. Billy ain't figured this one out as yet. This is childish play, you bet, but has he answered the question, Of course not, because he cannot. it is a lie and he is weasling on it. Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken shit attack he pulled on Florabloom. He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to shoulder to that? Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying, hell, a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which one, don't care but to launch into a diatribe such as he did and attack a FNG for asking a question? naaa. No man gets to do that without some consequence. Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY support from this group. You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being a advocate. Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article , Charlie wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:35:06 -0700, "gunner" wrote: As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that themselves and need not my defense. What I will do is stand shoulder to shoulder with them and throw rock. You pick and choose and selectively delete most of the reply to continue your argument with Billy. My reply was to clarify things between us, not necessarily to further your argument with Billy. No one is on Bill's ass, he did help Martin, kinda. Not so. You aren't on Bill's ass, but not so. I already pointed to references in the other group. Big picture, Gunner, big picture. You are a big picture guy, aren't you? This is all Billy's doing. Like I said, good you show your Bud some support and I would like to believe you really standup for the underdog. "I would like to believe that you really standup for the underdog" ? There you go again with your condescension and insinuating that I lie and twist the meaning and application of advocacy. I would like to believe that you are not condescending, demeaning and more arrogant then I, but I'm having trouble with that, Gunner. I see no one did for Martin ( florabloom) Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Your man has a CS Bully personality. Let's not demean Billy nor I by calling him "my man", or making yourself look like some kind of antediluvian. Whose "man" are you? Shall I speculate upon this? Shall we comment upon your personality? Or mine? Again, let's not use me to further your problem with Billy. Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Really? And for whom should we stand up? And against whom should we stand when we believe a horrendous wrong has been committed? And against whom do we throw rock? And whose convictions and beliefs are we to accept, or have shoved down our throats or up our butts in order to stand up for the right people? Do we really want to go there, Gunner? Should we go into the role of America and the death and misery it has dealt to so many innocents and the roles which each of us played in that death-dealing and misery for so many decades? Shall we go into the the fact that Our Constituton has been shredded and what exactly are those who took The Oath to Defend going to do about this? Do you want to encourage all this standing up, for which those of us who do "stand up" here are soundly criticized for being OT?. Makes me no nevermind, I'm ready to go anytime. Billy ain't figured this one out as yet. This is childish play, you bet, but has he answered the question, Of course not, because he cannot. it is a lie and he is weasling on it. Of course this baited game of yours is childish play, yet you've opened the gate for more serious play. You've neglected to address your eco lunatic fringe remarks as of yet, more denigration of those who believe differently than you. 'Twas ever thus. Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken shit attack he pulled on Florabloom. He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to shoulder to that? Why must you persist in using belittling terms/name-calling? BTW, you want to talk about BIG lying and BIG attacking innocents and BIG death and horror? Do you support that of which I insinuate? You ignore, or choose not to understand, that for which I stand shoulder to shoulder with Billy, and you continue to frame your replies to suit your needs and try to put words in my mouth. Chickenshit attacks? New here, aren't you? I don't see you defending people from attacks by shel and his ilk. So let's not be giving me the rundown and lessons. Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying, hell, a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which one, don't care but to launch into a diatribe such as he did and attack a FNG for asking a question? naaa. No man gets to do that without some consequence. Really? That is bullshit and gets into areas that lie outside the scope of the supposed discussion of this newsgroup, discussions for which we are regularly chastised. BTW, ifn's ya don't care, why ya' be speculating and diagnosing Billy so often, Hmm? Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY support from this group. Yeah, like this is is really important life stuff. You chose to take it to a higher level. And....good on ya' for chastising all the rest of the posters here that aren't standup folk like yourself. Lot's of folk around the world play nice and get napalmed and droned for it. You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being a advocate. Can't I? That is a BS statement and you know it. Must I advocate on the behalf of every downtrodden and ****ed-over individual of whom I am aware or whom I am indicated? I stated that I advocate for those that are unable and/or unwilling to advocate for themselves....and you know damn well I meant, so let's not distort it. Life stuff, not bullshit Usenet slights and slurs and all that happy horseshit. Again, you are opening a can of shit stew into which I am not going to go into any further with you. Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie. Only two options, Boss? ......... all the same to me Gunner. Charlie The problem is Charlie is that you're being real, and gunnie is just gamin'. If you presented him with 6 megapixel reality, he would just say,"Who you gonna beleive, me, or your own lyin' eyes". He's like the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno He really isn't worth your time, Charlie. You can't go after every dog that barks at you. He doesn't know the English language. He doesn't know how to frame an argument. When presented with overwhelming evidence from two internationally recognized experts, first he says he'll prove them wrong, then he realizes the task that he has set for himself, and, instead, wants you to re-invent the wheel. And when backed into a corner he moves the goal posts, equivocates, and obfuscates. The only thing that he has going for him is the good will of the people he argues with. He is obviously a self made loner. **** on him. And will you come back to the garden, Charlie? The cabbages miss 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://www.map-uk.org/regions/opt/news/view/-/id/348/ http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn |
Pesticide foodstuff database
sometime in the recent past Billy posted this:
In article , Charlie wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:35:06 -0700, "gunner" wrote: As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that themselves and need not my defense. What I will do is stand shoulder to shoulder with them and throw rock. You pick and choose and selectively delete most of the reply to continue your argument with Billy. My reply was to clarify things between us, not necessarily to further your argument with Billy. No one is on Bill's ass, he did help Martin, kinda. Not so. You aren't on Bill's ass, but not so. I already pointed to references in the other group. Big picture, Gunner, big picture. You are a big picture guy, aren't you? This is all Billy's doing. Like I said, good you show your Bud some support and I would like to believe you really standup for the underdog. "I would like to believe that you really standup for the underdog" ? There you go again with your condescension and insinuating that I lie and twist the meaning and application of advocacy. I would like to believe that you are not condescending, demeaning and more arrogant then I, but I'm having trouble with that, Gunner. I see no one did for Martin ( florabloom) Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Your man has a CS Bully personality. Let's not demean Billy nor I by calling him "my man", or making yourself look like some kind of antediluvian. Whose "man" are you? Shall I speculate upon this? Shall we comment upon your personality? Or mine? Again, let's not use me to further your problem with Billy. Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Really? And for whom should we stand up? And against whom should we stand when we believe a horrendous wrong has been committed? And against whom do we throw rock? And whose convictions and beliefs are we to accept, or have shoved down our throats or up our butts in order to stand up for the right people? Do we really want to go there, Gunner? Should we go into the role of America and the death and misery it has dealt to so many innocents and the roles which each of us played in that death-dealing and misery for so many decades? Shall we go into the the fact that Our Constituton has been shredded and what exactly are those who took The Oath to Defend going to do about this? Do you want to encourage all this standing up, for which those of us who do "stand up" here are soundly criticized for being OT?. Makes me no nevermind, I'm ready to go anytime. Billy ain't figured this one out as yet. This is childish play, you bet, but has he answered the question, Of course not, because he cannot. it is a lie and he is weasling on it. Of course this baited game of yours is childish play, yet you've opened the gate for more serious play. You've neglected to address your eco lunatic fringe remarks as of yet, more denigration of those who believe differently than you. 'Twas ever thus. Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken shit attack he pulled on Florabloom. He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to shoulder to that? Why must you persist in using belittling terms/name-calling? BTW, you want to talk about BIG lying and BIG attacking innocents and BIG death and horror? Do you support that of which I insinuate? You ignore, or choose not to understand, that for which I stand shoulder to shoulder with Billy, and you continue to frame your replies to suit your needs and try to put words in my mouth. Chickenshit attacks? New here, aren't you? I don't see you defending people from attacks by shel and his ilk. So let's not be giving me the rundown and lessons. Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying, hell, a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which one, don't care but to launch into a diatribe such as he did and attack a FNG for asking a question? naaa. No man gets to do that without some consequence. Really? That is bullshit and gets into areas that lie outside the scope of the supposed discussion of this newsgroup, discussions for which we are regularly chastised. BTW, ifn's ya don't care, why ya' be speculating and diagnosing Billy so often, Hmm? Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY support from this group. Yeah, like this is is really important life stuff. You chose to take it to a higher level. And....good on ya' for chastising all the rest of the posters here that aren't standup folk like yourself. Lot's of folk around the world play nice and get napalmed and droned for it. You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being a advocate. Can't I? That is a BS statement and you know it. Must I advocate on the behalf of every downtrodden and ****ed-over individual of whom I am aware or whom I am indicated? I stated that I advocate for those that are unable and/or unwilling to advocate for themselves....and you know damn well I meant, so let's not distort it. Life stuff, not bullshit Usenet slights and slurs and all that happy horseshit. Again, you are opening a can of shit stew into which I am not going to go into any further with you. Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie. Only two options, Boss? ......... all the same to me Gunner. Charlie The problem is Charlie is that you're being real, and gunnie is just gamin'. If you presented him with 6 megapixel reality, he would just say,"Who you gonna beleive, me, or your own lyin' eyes". He's like the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno He really isn't worth your time, Charlie. You can't go after every dog that barks at you. He doesn't know the English language. He doesn't know how to frame an argument. When presented with overwhelming evidence from two internationally recognized experts, first he says he'll prove them wrong, then he realizes the task that he has set for himself, and, instead, wants you to re-invent the wheel. And when backed into a corner he moves the goal posts, equivocates, and obfuscates. The only thing that he has going for him is the good will of the people he argues with. He is obviously a self made loner. **** on him. But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a ****ing contest with a skunk." And will you come back to the garden, Charlie? The cabbages miss you;O) -- Wilson N44º39" W67º12" |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article ,
Wilson wrote: But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a ****ing contest with a skunk." But if you do, **** with the wind, not into it;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://www.map-uk.org/regions/opt/news/view/-/id/348/ http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn |
Pesticide foodstuff database
"Billy" wrote in message ... In article , Wilson wrote: But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a ****ing contest with a skunk." But if you do, **** with the wind, not into it;O) -- or wrestle with a group of pigs |
Pesticide foodstuff database
I've given you two authorities for my position, gunnie. One , Jeff Lowenfel, Harvard University, geology; Northeastern University, law, and two, Dr. Joseph Schwarcz, the new chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, the director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, a professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School. You are quite fickle, billy, and very comedic. The first source doesn't give any proof that of mineral salts kill micro organisms and his analogy of table salt and slugs is quite laughable. Course your source has no commerical interests does he? As to the second source, isn't Dr Joe the one you and "your group" went to great lengths to denounce, calling him a Monsanto shrill? Why the sudden turn-about? Short term memory loss? Do you think he supports your use of scary numbers and false statistic fringe think? Actually I find he is very anchored and mainstream, he certainly dismissed "your group" fringe think and you are still cherry picking his comments. That whole debacle was quite entertaining. So enough of your silly games billy. As both of us know, mineral fertilizers do not kill SOMs when properly applied. You haven't found a peer reviewed scientific paper to prove this and you won't. I'm stepping out of this thread and letting you get back to your sermons. This one quite exhausted its purpose. But do yourself a favor, when a man is asking advice to help his family, don't climb his ass, espcially with BS lies. |
Pesticide foodstuff database
Not responding to anyone in particular in this "debate"\but
googling Chemical fertilizer effects on soil microbes brought a lot of interesting stuff (good scientific word: stuff) For great general information ( and there is a LOT of info he www.answers.com/topic/fertilizer I didn't read much of the blog/opinion sites. There is a great deal of study being done in China. I found these of interest: www.agnet.org/library/tb/174/ (Combined use of Chemical and Organic Fertilizer and/or Biofertilizer) also: http://www.organiclandcare.org/educa...ertilizers.pdf Happy researching Emilie] NorCal |
Pesticide foodstuff database
In article
, mleblanca wrote: Chemical fertilizer effects on soil microbes brought a lot of interesting stuff (good scientific word: stuff) Sometimes what you need most is new eyes. Thanks. -- - 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://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter