On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:29:57 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
wrote:

Charlie was forced to post this in: rec.gardens

On Tue, 29 May 2007 01:48:27 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
wrote:

Apparently the small stuff does bother you or you wouldn't resort to
the name changing game when addressing me. That's newbie stuff.

You can try the tough act, the USENET warrior routine, all the puffing
and posturing, but you just don't have it man.

ROFL... My apology for changing your name Charlie. It's a bad habit. I was
not huffing and posturing. I guess I just don't have it.

Nah... you're alright. For a violet-hater. ;-)

Sounds like you might be from my part of the country, at least you
referenced Mo Botanical Gardens. Relax, I greatly value my privacy and
regionality is about as far as it goes.

Anyhows, a little poke in the eye and banging on pots keeps us all
entertained and learning. Thats how things have always worked in my
family, everyone has the freedom to scream and yell and vent. After
the dust settles, we find we have come to some sort of agreement that
is equitable for all involved.

Be Careful, there are zealots running around with sticks and pots

Charlie

In article 1,
"Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" wrote:

as far as I know my birth is
legitimate.

Is that wiggle room?

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Fools are the victims? Maybe victims of advertising, but that's about as far
as you can stretch that idea. Michael has a choice to not use chemicals in
his yard. Nobody's putting a gun to his head, except his partner, who's got
issues with unimportant details.

Joe, how long you been gardening? How long have you lived with open
ground around you? Some people since before they can remember and some
people have just moved out of the projects.

Maybe you enjoyed doing other things before you learned the pleasures of
gardening. What ever it was, you didn't learn gardening from divine
revelation, you had to invest some time. We are all responsible for tons
of information that mostly eats up our time remembering where to find it
much less remembering what it is. If nothing else we all read at
different rates. So give Michael a break and help fast-track him to a
sane environment instead of ****ing him off at you and the row you
represent.

Unless you have a representative from Cargill or Monsanto in front of
you, don't stomp him. If you do, save some for me.

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

"Bill Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Fools are the victims? Maybe victims of advertising, but that's about as
far
as you can stretch that idea. Michael has a choice to not use chemicals
in
his yard. Nobody's putting a gun to his head, except his partner, who's
got
issues with unimportant details.

Joe, how long you been gardening? How long have you lived with open
ground around you? Some people since before they can remember and some
people have just moved out of the projects.

Maybe you enjoyed doing other things before you learned the pleasures of
gardening. What ever it was, you didn't learn gardening from divine
revelation, you had to invest some time. We are all responsible for tons
of information that mostly eats up our time remembering where to find it
much less remembering what it is. If nothing else we all read at
different rates. So give Michael a break and help fast-track him to a
sane environment instead of ****ing him off at you and the row you
represent.

Unless you have a representative from Cargill or Monsanto in front of
you, don't stomp him. If you do, save some for me.

- Bill


I've been gardening for about 35 years. I digested news about chemicals for
several years before that. To me, there was never any connection between
gardening and chemicals. Although I think "Crockett's Victory Garden" is one
of the most useful books ever written for new gardeners, I was surprised to
see how often he suggested dousing things with chemicals.

In article 1,
"Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens

Do you seriously believe there is a global
conspiracy to threaten the health of children by using Roundup and/or lawn
chemicals for sport?

If it affects their bottom line? Oh yeah.

Nor does the USDA.

You mean that government agency that is the recipient of so much
purchase political pressure and recipient of grants from ADM, Cargill,
and Monsanto? That USDA?
Remember the tobacco companies who made billions by avoiding the nasty
little fact that their product kills people or worse, leaves them in
agony.

However, you have piqued
my curiosity enough to do some research. Your Wikipedia link, while
somewhat informative, did little to enforce your argument.
Meantime I'll see if Missouri Botanical Garden has an alternative to
the Roundup to kill my violets.

There you go. That's the way. Takes time to do it smart.

Title: POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

Authors
Loague, Keith - STANFORD UNIV. CA
Corwin, Dennis

Submitted to: Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences
Publication Type: Popular Publication
Publication Acceptance Date: August 1, 2004
Publication Date: December 1, 2005
Citation: Loague, K., Corwin, D.L. 2005. Point and nonpoint source
pollution. In: M.G. Anderson (ed.) Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK. Chapter 94: 1427-1439.

Michael

While your at it Michael look at the Wikipedia article on Roundup.

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

It is balanced 'tween "pushers" and "greens".

Then you may want to tale a look at

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm

If a small amount chemical will kill you dead quickly, the USDA and the
FDA will probably, reasonably protect you from it. The scary part is
"Body Burden" http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/ where really very small
amounts of chemicals can work together synergistically to bring you
down. My favorite (?) example is thalidomide which took years to get off
the market, even when it should have been obvious that it was causing
monstrously malformed babies.

Look forward to you kickin' some newbie butt.

- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

"JoeSpareBedroom" expounded:

I've been gardening for about 35 years. I digested news about chemicals for
several years before that. To me, there was never any connection between
gardening and chemicals. Although I think "Crockett's Victory Garden" is one
of the most useful books ever written for new gardeners, I was surprised to
see how often he suggested dousing things with chemicals.

Jim Crockett's Victory Garden was my first vegetable gardening book,
but even back then I was reading Organic Gardening and Farming and
knew Jim's use of chemicals was a Bad Thing. Jim died of cancer at
age 64 (which is looking younger and younger every day to me!). Ya
gotta wonder......
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

"Ann" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" expounded:

I've been gardening for about 35 years. I digested news about chemicals
for
several years before that. To me, there was never any connection between
gardening and chemicals. Although I think "Crockett's Victory Garden" is
one
of the most useful books ever written for new gardeners, I was surprised
to
see how often he suggested dousing things with chemicals.

Jim Crockett's Victory Garden was my first vegetable gardening book,
but even back then I was reading Organic Gardening and Farming and
knew Jim's use of chemicals was a Bad Thing. Jim died of cancer at
age 64 (which is looking younger and younger every day to me!). Ya
gotta wonder......
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

Yeah..I wonder about his death, too. I still use that book as my calendar.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 09:58:17 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

1) The only way to know that a substance is safe is to test it by purposely
exposing people to it. You will not see that happen in your lifetime,
especially not with children. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the USDA or
any other agency thinks. None of these things can be correctly tested.

You keep repeating this so often, I'll bet you thought it up yourself.

The Clinton administration did place a moratorium on voluntary human
pesticide testing in 1998. But you're saying they are not allowed to
use the data collected from accidental exposures?

Bob

No, because it would not be an accurate survey and certainly not a
scientific double blind study. The industry would laugh at it.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 15:21:22 -0400, Ann wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" expounded:

I've been gardening for about 35 years. I digested news about chemicals for
several years before that. To me, there was never any connection between
gardening and chemicals. Although I think "Crockett's Victory Garden" is one
of the most useful books ever written for new gardeners, I was surprised to
see how often he suggested dousing things with chemicals.

Jim Crockett's Victory Garden was my first vegetable gardening book,
but even back then I was reading Organic Gardening and Farming and
knew Jim's use of chemicals was a Bad Thing. Jim died of cancer at
age 64 (which is looking younger and younger every day to me!). Ya
gotta wonder......

Wow, I never knew he was that young! That's horrible.

"jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 09:58:17 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

1) The only way to know that a substance is safe is to test it by
purposely
exposing people to it. You will not see that happen in your lifetime,
especially not with children. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the USDA
or
any other agency thinks. None of these things can be correctly tested.

You keep repeating this so often, I'll bet you thought it up yourself.

The Clinton administration did place a moratorium on voluntary human
pesticide testing in 1998. But you're saying they are not allowed to
use the data collected from accidental exposures?

Bob

No, because it would not be an accurate survey and certainly not a
scientific double blind study. The industry would laugh at it.

The industry AND its opponents would laugh at it, and they'd be right to do
so. Both sides have also said that it was invalid to test chemicals on
animals. You have to have followed this back to the early 1970s to see the
entirety of the testing farce.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
Charlie was forced to post this in: rec.gardens


Nah... you're alright. For a violet-hater. ;-)

LOL... I think they are a nuisance. I'll give 'em this. They are really
nice when in bloom.


Sounds like you might be from my part of the country, at least you
referenced Mo Botanical Gardens. Relax, I greatly value my privacy
and regionality is about as far as it goes.

I'm not real picky about people knowing my location. I live in the St.
Louis area.


Anyhows, a little poke in the eye and banging on pots keeps us all
entertained and learning. Thats how things have always worked in my
family, everyone has the freedom to scream and yell and vent. After
the dust settles, we find we have come to some sort of agreement that
is equitable for all involved.

I really agree with this. During a heated debate sometimes I have to take
pause and seriously listen to what the other people around me are saying.
I
tend to be stubborn and sometimes need to be called to task now and then.
My SO has always said I'm a handful.

Just a handful? Tell him I'm sorry for him.



I made a funny.


It's the same in ever ng I post in. So far I don't think I've seen any
zealots here. There were 3 of you that really went after the Roundup
issue
and I'm going to research it more. In the meantime I'll dig up all the
violets and send 'em to Fragile Warrior

Michael

You can't research these products. There is no data. In order to test things
like this, you need hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer to be dosed
with chemicals. Now, think hard. If Monsanto or Dow somehow came up with
that many volunteers, what kinds of people do you think they might be, and
how would that affect the research?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

You can't research these products. There is no data. In order to test things
like this, you need hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer to be dosed
with chemicals. Now, think hard. If Monsanto or Dow somehow came up with
that many volunteers, what kinds of people do you think they might be, and
how would that affect the research?




A reference that one of you (Bill, I think) gave yesterday said,
"Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a cup can
be lethal."

Were they just pulling numbers out of their ass? (actually, I think they
were, but I'm not the one who posted it)

That's why I like old fashion chemicals that have been around for 40
years rather than the brand new exotic pesticides that Bayer makes.
There's enough anecdotal data to actually mean something. ;-)

C10H6Cl8 Bob

On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:59:14 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

You can't research these products. There is no data. In order to test things
like this, you need hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer to be dosed
with chemicals. Now, think hard. If Monsanto or Dow somehow came up with
that many volunteers, what kinds of people do you think they might be, and
how would that affect the research?




A reference that one of you (Bill, I think) gave yesterday said,
"Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a cup can
be lethal."

Were they just pulling numbers out of their ass? (actually, I think they
were, but I'm not the one who posted it)

That's why I like old fashion chemicals that have been around for 40
years rather than the brand new exotic pesticides that Bayer makes.
There's enough anecdotal data to actually mean something. ;-)

Roundup was invented in 1970. Is 37 years enough anecdotal evidence
for you?

John

John Bachman wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:59:14 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

You can't research these products. There is no data. In order to test things
like this, you need hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer to be dosed
with chemicals. Now, think hard. If Monsanto or Dow somehow came up with
that many volunteers, what kinds of people do you think they might be, and
how would that affect the research?



A reference that one of you (Bill, I think) gave yesterday said,
"Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a cup can
be lethal."

Were they just pulling numbers out of their ass? (actually, I think they
were, but I'm not the one who posted it)

That's why I like old fashion chemicals that have been around for 40
years rather than the brand new exotic pesticides that Bayer makes.
There's enough anecdotal data to actually mean something. ;-)

Roundup was invented in 1970. Is 37 years enough anecdotal evidence
for you?

John


Sure. My point was that one can't say there is no data and then quote
toxicity statistics. If there is no data, then there's no basis for the
toxicity claims. Since this is absurd, apparently there *is* useful
anecdotal evidence.

I'm not trying to defend the use of synthetic chemicals so much as poke
holes in the sanctimonious pontifications of the intellectually
dishonest. Self-righteousness and dishonesty is a combination that
****es me off on any topic.

(and I don't trust Bayer)

Bob

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
John Bachman wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:59:14 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

You can't research these products. There is no data. In order to test
things like this, you need hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer
to be dosed with chemicals. Now, think hard. If Monsanto or Dow somehow
came up with that many volunteers, what kinds of people do you think
they might be, and how would that affect the research?


A reference that one of you (Bill, I think) gave yesterday said,
"Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a cup can
be lethal."

Were they just pulling numbers out of their ass? (actually, I think they
were, but I'm not the one who posted it)

That's why I like old fashion chemicals that have been around for 40
years rather than the brand new exotic pesticides that Bayer makes.
There's enough anecdotal data to actually mean something. ;-)

Roundup was invented in 1970. Is 37 years enough anecdotal evidence
for you?

John


Sure. My point was that one can't say there is no data and then quote
toxicity statistics. If there is no data, then there's no basis for the
toxicity claims. Since this is absurd, apparently there *is* useful
anecdotal evidence.

I'm not trying to defend the use of synthetic chemicals so much as poke
holes in the sanctimonious pontifications of the intellectually dishonest.
Self-righteousness and dishonesty is a combination that ****es me off on
any topic.

(and I don't trust Bayer)

Bob

To simplify this, I will call all research on animals "rumors", because both
the chemical companies and their loudest critics have said that animals
react differently to toxins than we do. Although the results of animal
research are tabulated as "data", it does not necessarily qualify as useful
data to predict human sensitivity to toxicity.

Since we now agree that there is no data, we can see that it is foolish to
assume garden chemicals are safe. You can also say it's foolish to assume
they are unsafe, and we will agree to differ in that regard.