Pesticides, politics and oral favors
 

A little something for the kiddies, like trader4, who have their heads in
the sand, or elsewhere.....

EPA Won't Restrict Toxic Herbicide Atrazine, Despite Health Threat
White House documents obtained by NRDC reveal that industry influenced the
decision. The EPA has decided not to limit one of the nation's most widely
used weed-killers, a chemical that, according to several recent studies,
threatens human health and the environment. The October 2003 decision --
which the EPA was required to make under a court-approved consent decree
reached with NRDC in 2001 -- will allow Syngenta, the main manufacturer of
atrazine, and other companies to continue to sell the chemical in the United
States with no significant restrictions.

The rest:
http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/natrazine.asp

Oh, wow imagine that! The govt allowed industry to "play a role in
shaping the EPA decision." I would have thought they would just take
input from guys like Doug Kanter, after all, he's quite an expert.
He's a real renaissance man who can tell everyone how to have a
beautiful lawn without any chemicals, calls lawn care professionals
thugs, and even has time to advocate poisoning neighbors pets and
making bigotted remarks about the handicapped. Why should anyone doubt
Doug? LOL

Good, I"m glad the government has allowed the continued use of atrazine.
Big Brother has taken too many pesticides off the shelf that were effective
and left us with pesticides which are ineffective except with multiple
applications instead of one or two around a home site. I wish they'd bring
back Dursban; it was great for treating large areas of unwanted bugs with a
single application..

On 28 Jun 2005 18:21:55 -0700, wrote:

Oh, wow imagine that! The govt allowed industry to "play a role in
shaping the EPA decision." I would have thought they would just take
input from guys like Doug Kanter, after all, he's quite an expert.
He's a real renaissance man who can tell everyone how to have a
beautiful lawn without any chemicals, calls lawn care professionals
thugs, and even has time to advocate poisoning neighbors pets and
making bigotted remarks about the handicapped. Why should anyone doubt
Doug? LOL


Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ!

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:30:34 GMT, "evolutionman 2004"
wrote:

Good, I"m glad the government has allowed the continued use of atrazine.
Big Brother has taken too many pesticides off the shelf that were effective
and left us with pesticides which are ineffective except with multiple
applications instead of one or two around a home site. I wish they'd bring
back Dursban; it was great for treating large areas of unwanted bugs with a
single application..



Nice to see evolution is taking us back to Neanderthals....

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jun 2005 18:21:55 -0700, wrote:

Oh, wow imagine that! The govt allowed industry to "play a role in
shaping the EPA decision." I would have thought they would just take
input from guys like Doug Kanter, after all, he's quite an expert.
He's a real renaissance man who can tell everyone how to have a
beautiful lawn without any chemicals, calls lawn care professionals
thugs, and even has time to advocate poisoning neighbors pets and
making bigotted remarks about the handicapped. Why should anyone doubt
Doug? LOL


Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ!

Actually, I *did* post the article. But, trader4 is young, and has missed 40
years worth of chemical industry antics. He doesn't understand how they
operate. Not only that, but he doesn't understand how legislation (and
legislators) are manipulated by the industries which are affected by
potential new laws.

"Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ! "

Now that Kanter has posted that he did in fact make the post, so who's
the ignorant one now, Putz?

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ! "

Now that Kanter has posted that he did in fact make the post, so who's
the ignorant one now, Putz?


Let's see who's thinking clearly today. Bless the assembled masses with your
conclusions from the following:

If a chemical company says they used rats to test for safety, they consider
the results valid.

If someone else uses rats, and finds the exact same chemical to be unsafe,
the chemical company says "That's not valid because rats respond differently
than humans".

This has been going on for 4 decades. What do you make of this riddle?

The message .com
from contains these words:

"Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ! "

Now that Kanter has posted that he did in fact make the post, so who's
the ignorant one now, Putz?

It's still you, I'm afraid. You accused him of making certain other
posts, all of which were faked by a troll.

Janet,

On 30 Jun 2005 08:10:02 -0700, wrote:

"Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ! "

Now that Kanter has posted that he did in fact make the post, so who's
the ignorant one now, Putz?
I haven't read anything like an admission...care to repost with the
complete header?

Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On 30 Jun 2005 08:10:02 -0700, wrote:

"Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ! "

Now that Kanter has posted that he did in fact make the post, so who's
the ignorant one now, Putz?

I haven't read anything like an admission...care to repost with the
complete header?

Go hump a tree stump, Tom.

:)

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message .com
from contains these words:

"Perhaps you could display a little more than ignorance of Usenet and
check some of the postings from Kanter. Just an ounce of skill and
you'd find he's being spoofed...PUTZ! "

Now that Kanter has posted that he did in fact make the post, so who's
the ignorant one now, Putz?

It's still you, I'm afraid. You accused him of making certain other
posts, all of which were faked by a troll.

Janet,

The poor child can't tell the difference between one of my real posts (like
the one that started this thread), and the obnoxious series of racist
messages that HE floated under my name several weeks ago. I'd imagine he
must've had a devil of a time in school with those questions which asked
"Which thing does not belong with the others, and showed pictures of a
bicycle, a car, a train and a pencil.

"I haven't read anything like an admission...care to repost with the
complete header? "

Why don't you learn to use the internet like the rest of us, instead of
expecting someone else to do it for you. Ever hear of Google? It's
not hard to find if you look instead of shooting off your mouth.

The message .com
from contains these words:

"I haven't read anything like an admission...care to repost with the
complete header? "

Why don't you learn to use the internet like the rest of us, instead of
expecting someone else to do it for you.

This is usenet, where other people include the attribution of posts
they quote, and indents identify quoted sections.

Janet