wrote in message
ups.com...
"The only way to test whether a substance is safe to ingest is to (can
you
guess?), INGEST IT. This is how new medicines are tested. "

Ever hear of lab tests using animals? You're probably against that
too. And if we follow your silly logic to it's logical conclusion,
then lots of things are suddenly on the banned list. Things like air
freshner, household cleaners, plastics, even the clothes your wear,
because no one has eaten them. LOL


It might help to know how old you are. Part of your misunderstanding may
stem from having missed many years of chemical industry shenanigans.

Lab animal tests are not reliable, but chemical makers have great fun with
the idea, in two ways. If a regulatory agency like the EPA uses animals to
test a chemical and finds that it's harmful, the chemical industry responds
that you cannot extrapolate those test results to humans because we respond
to substances differently than some animals.

Paradoxically, the chemical industry will use animal tests to "prove" that
their products are safe. They want it both ways, demeaning the results of
tests when it's convenient, and worshipping the results when they feel like
it. This nonsense has been going on since the 1960s. The industry made it
more convenient for itself back then, by passing legislation (whose name I
forget, but can find out) which makes the "inert" ingredients exempt from
most tests. As I'm sure you know, many of those inert ingredients are known
to be harmful. Toluene, for example.

You point out that some household products can be harmful, and you're right.
So can table salt and toothpaste in sufficient quantities, and athletes
sometimes drop dead from drinking way too much water before an event. But
with pesticides and herbicides, you're dealing with a product that is almost
impossible to control. Thugs put little flags on the lawn warning people to
stay off of them for 24 or 48 hours, but it's already been shown that the
chemicals are still present on the surface. Nonsense.

To make matters worse, many lawn chemical thugs hire idiots to do the
application. My wife was fortunate enough to be home one day when a Chem
Lawn monkey was about to spray herbicide on the neighbor's lawn, adjacent to
our vegetable garden, with a strong wind blowing constantly toward the
garden. When she went out to stop him, he told her it was perfectly safe FOR
USE ON FOOD CROPS. Read that again.

In NY, the thugs are required to provide the exact names of the crap they're
applying, if ANYONE asks. We got the names, did a little research, and found
that they were NOT approved for use anywhere near food crops. The owner of
the local franchise lied to us when we called him about it. Based on this,
we went to our town justice and obtained an injunction against the company
and the neighbor, which prohibited them from applying any kind of chemical
on one side of their property. The injunction ordered the police to arrest
either party if the rule was violated.

So, don't tell me what you know unless you can provide proof from sources
completely independent of your industry.

Heh, chowder head. It's not "my industry", I have no connection to the
lawn care business. But neither I nor most the rest of the world
considers those who use pesticides to be thugs. It's just another
example of how extreme your silly ideas are and why no one takes guys
like you seriously. I don't advocate the over use of pesticides. But
properly used, they are reasonably safe.

"When she went out to stop him, he told her it was perfectly safe FOR
USE ON FOOD CROPS. Read that again. "

That could be true. Maybe you should find out what it was before
jumping to conclusions. Of course you don't care what the chemical is,
you know it's unsafe right? Sounds like you like to pay 3X for organic
produce too. Most people choose to buy the std produce, knowing that
it too is reasonably safe, except for extremists like you. If
agriculture went where you'd like to take it, we'd all be paying 3X for
food. That would divert money that could be well spent on healthcare,
or education where it would have certain benefit, and send it down an
environmental extremist's rat hole. Sounds like you're perfectly
willing to eliminate farm chemicals and watch millions in poor
countries starve to death.

So stop using home cleaning products, shampoo, sun screen and a
thousand other things too, cause they all have chemicals in them.
Then crawl back into your cave and leave the rest of us alone. Sorry,
gotta go now, I'm gonna go spray the weeds in my driveway!

wrote in message
oups.com...

Heh, chowder head. It's not "my industry", I have no connection to the
lawn care business. But neither I nor most the rest of the world
considers those who use pesticides to be thugs.

If you know the product is harmful and you sell it anyway, you are a thug.
If you don't know enough about what you're selling and it is, in fact,
harmful, you are doing business irresponsibly, and you are a thug. Only one
way out: If you believe in the safety of a product based only on what the
manufacturer tells you, you are an idiot, not a thug.


It's just another
example of how extreme your silly ideas are and why no one takes guys
like you seriously. I don't advocate the over use of pesticides. But
properly used, they are reasonably safe.

Who told you they were reasonably safe? You don't have the resources
available to determine that on your own.



"When she went out to stop him, he told her it was perfectly safe FOR
USE ON FOOD CROPS. Read that again. "

That could be true. Maybe you should find out what it was before
jumping to conclusions.

Due to the presence of 7' high corn and 6' high bean poles, it was obvious
that there was a food garden. It was also obvious that wind would carry the
spray right onto the garden, and that the moron did not realize this. There
was no time to do research, professor. It had to be stopped. And, as it
turned out, it was good he was stopped because what he was applying was NOT
safe for food crops. Only an idiot would've let him continue.

Get it now?


Of course you don't care what the chemical is,
you know it's unsafe right?

No, I don't assume everything is unsafe. I evaluate what's necessary to use,
and balance the risk. Lawn chemicals are unnecessary. They are intended
primarily for people who have unrealistic expectations. The primary market
is people too young or too intellectually lazy to have any awareness of the
known risks.

As far as the risk, I only trust sources independent of the people who make
or sell the chemicals. If you suspected there was a safety problem with your
car, you would be more likely to trust information from an independent
source than from the car maker. There's no reason to deal differently with
chemicals, unless your attitude is culturally or politically tainted, as
yours is.


Sounds like you like to pay 3X for organic
produce too.

If your grocery store charges 3X more for organic, you're being raped. Some
organic products will be that much higher, but based on my visit to the
store last week, carrots were about 20 cents more for a 3 lb bag, lettuce
was 2.09/lb for organic, 1.79 for regular. Bought the regular because there
was only one organic head left and it was the wrong kind. Oh yeah....I'll
buy regular produce. Farmers are much more likely to use chemicals correctly
than are homeowners or the Chem Lawn thugs.


Most people choose to buy the std produce, knowing that
it too is reasonably safe, except for extremists like you. If
agriculture went where you'd like to take it, we'd all be paying 3X for
food.

Who told you to say that? Farmers now use far less chemicals than many years
ago. The cost isn't so significant to them that it would jack up the price
of food as you say it will. The two largest contributors to agricultural
chemical pollution now are homeowners and golf courses. You really ought to
read more.


That would divert money that could be well spent on healthcare,
or education where it would have certain benefit, and send it down an
environmental extremist's rat hole. Sounds like you're perfectly
willing to eliminate farm chemicals and watch millions in poor
countries starve to death.

Chemical companies sell products to poor countries which have been
prohibited from use here, including DDT in some cases. That's a good reason
to put the brakes on those practices.

"carrots were about 20 cents more for a 3 lb bag"

Now you've really got me laughing. Twenty cents more for 3lbs of
organic carrots? Maybe if they're trying to get rid of them, but
certainly not typical.

"Oh yeah....I'll buy regular produce."

WHAT? Almost all of them have been treated with pesticides and/or
herbicides! So, now what is unacceptable for me to use to spray a few
weeds with is OK to spray a crop with and eat? See, this is a classic
example of whacko's. They come to some crazy justification in their
own minds, then rationalize their behavior. Some of the products
you're eating may have been sprayed with Roundup, just like I just used
on my driveway.

"The cost isn't so significant to them that it would jack up the price
of food as you say it will."

Yeah, right. I'd like to see you grow thousands of acres of soybeans
without using any chemicals. You're in the dream world. Without the
chemicals, a lot of people in the world would be paying 3X for food and
others would be starving. But I don't worry too much about that
happening, cause kooks like you won't ever be in control.


" Chemical companies sell products to poor countries which have been
prohibited from use here, including DDT in some cases. That's a good
reason
to put the brakes on those practices. "

So, I was right, you are willing to see people in poor countries starve
and die from malaria to support your extremist views. BTW, isn't it
time for you to go to a PETA meeting or Earth Liberation Front meeting?
You know those guys that like to destroy property, burn builidings and
businesses down, because the folks that have a different view are just
"thugs"?

wrote in message
ups.com...
"carrots were about 20 cents more for a 3 lb bag"

Now you've really got me laughing. Twenty cents more for 3lbs of
organic carrots? Maybe if they're trying to get rid of them, but
certainly not typical.

It's typical here. As I told you, if you're paying 3 times more for
***ALL*** organic produce, or even 2 times more, you're being raped. Your
store is charging you for the word "organic", as opposed to just passing
along its real cost. Let's not debate this further. I've been in the grocery
biz for 25 years. The margin between normal and organic produce has been
shrinking for quite some time, as organic farms build fertility levels
(which takes a few years) and decrease production costs to remain
competitive.


"Oh yeah....I'll buy regular produce."

WHAT? Almost all of them have been treated with pesticides and/or
herbicides! So, now what is unacceptable for me to use to spray a few
weeds with is OK to spray a crop with and eat? See, this is a classic
example of whacko's. They come to some crazy justification in their
own minds, then rationalize their behavior. Some of the products
you're eating may have been sprayed with Roundup, just like I just used
on my driveway.

If it's a choice between salad or no salad, and there is no organic lettuce,
I'll buy regular lettuce. Besides, I'm a gardener. I'm familiar with which
crops actually require more chemicals than others. Let's see where you are
on that spectrum. Which three COMMON produce items are most heavily treated?


"The cost isn't so significant to them that it would jack up the price
of food as you say it will."

Yeah, right. I'd like to see you grow thousands of acres of soybeans
without using any chemicals. You're in the dream world. Without the
chemicals, a lot of people in the world would be paying 3X for food and
others would be starving. But I don't worry too much about that
happening, cause kooks like you won't ever be in control.

What business are you in?




" Chemical companies sell products to poor countries which have been
prohibited from use here, including DDT in some cases. That's a good
reason
to put the brakes on those practices. "

So, I was right, you are willing to see people in poor countries starve
and die from malaria to support your extremist views. BTW, isn't it
time for you to go to a PETA meeting or Earth Liberation Front meeting?
You know those guys that like to destroy property, burn builidings and
businesses down, because the folks that have a different view are just
"thugs"?


You have quite a reading comprehension problem. How old are you?

"If it's a choice between salad or no salad, and there is no organic
lettuce,
I'll buy regular lettuce. "

I see, so it's OK to put chemicals on food that goes in your mouth,
it's just not ok for some of us to do it with lawns. Maybe that makes
sense to you, but not to me or most people.


"Besides, I'm a gardener. I'm familiar with which crops actually
require more chemicals than others. "

Wow, with credentials like that, why should anyone doubt that you know
how easy it is to commercially grow thousands of acres of wheat,
soybeans and corn without chemicals.


"What business are you in?"

That's none of your business


"How old are you? "

Old enough to know an environmental whacko when I see one.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"If it's a choice between salad or no salad, and there is no organic
lettuce,
I'll buy regular lettuce. "

I see, so it's OK to put chemicals on food that goes in your mouth,
it's just not ok for some of us to do it with lawns. Maybe that makes
sense to you, but not to me or most people.

Do you think they're the same chemicals?



"Besides, I'm a gardener. I'm familiar with which crops actually
require more chemicals than others. "

Wow, with credentials like that, why should anyone doubt that you know
how easy it is to commercially grow thousands of acres of wheat,
soybeans and corn without chemicals.

My credentials go further than yours. I actually read, and absorb what I've
read. If you wanted to know how commercial crops were managed, you could
find out. Or, I should say, a child could help you, if he or she had the
patience.



"What business are you in?"

That's none of your business


"How old are you? "

Old enough to know an environmental whacko when I see one.


As I said, you have a political and cultural agenda.

Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message


Old enough to know an environmental whacko when I see one.



As I said, you have a political and cultural agenda.



But no newsreader, common usenet etiquette, or the common sense to quote
in his replies...

wrote:
Sorry,
gotta go now, I'm gonna go spray the weeds in my driveway!

I don't like pesticides so I pour gasoline on them, then light
them on fire.

I see, so it's OK to put chemicals on food that goes in your mouth,
it's just not ok for some of us to do it with lawns. Maybe that
makes
sense to you, but not to me or most people.

"Do you think they're the same chemicals?"

No, I don't think it, I know it to be true. There are some chemicals
that are used in both environments. Glyphosate (Roundup) is a good
example of one.


"As I said, you have a political and cultural agenda. "

That's real special coming from a guy who uses the word "thugs"
repeatedly to refer to lawn care professionals who use chemicals to
treat lawns. BTW, how did the PETA and ELF meetings go?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I see, so it's OK to put chemicals on food that goes in your mouth,
it's just not ok for some of us to do it with lawns. Maybe that
makes
sense to you, but not to me or most people.

"Do you think they're the same chemicals?"

No, I don't think it, I know it to be true. There are some chemicals
that are used in both environments. Glyphosate (Roundup) is a good
example of one.

Name 10 chemicals that are NOT used in both environments, and tell me where
you found out about them. You have until 6:30 AM Friday.



"As I said, you have a political and cultural agenda. "

That's real special coming from a guy who uses the word "thugs"
repeatedly to refer to lawn care professionals who use chemicals to
treat lawns. BTW, how did the PETA and ELF meetings go?


What's the deal here? Are you alienated from one of your children because
you like to go fishing? I have nothing to do with either of the
organizations you mentioned. Who told you to mention them? You certainly
didn't come up with them by yourself.

"Name 10 chemicals that are NOT used in both environments, and tell me
where
you found out about them. You have until 6:30 AM Friday."

Gee, I feel for you. You've gotten so confused, now you're arguing
with yourself. When I said you were irrational because you would eat
crops that were treated with chemicals, but think anyone who uses them
on lawns is a thug, you retorted with:

"Do you think they're the same chemicals?"

But now you say:

"Name 10 chemicals that are NOT used in both environments"

Try not to think about that reversal and contradiction. It could be
like matter meeting anti-matter. Your brain may explode or something.

"I have nothing to do with either of the
organizations you mentioned. Who told you to mention them? You
certainly
didn't come up with them by yourself."

And now we can add paranoia to the mix!

It's just another
example of how extreme your silly ideas are and why no one takes
guys
like you seriously. I don't advocate the over use of pesticides.
But
properly used, they are reasonably safe.

Who told you they were reasonably safe? You don't have the resources
available to determine that on your own.


Any decent veterinarian will explain to you how Scotts 4-step program,
especially "Step 2" is believed to be extremely bad for pets. I can't
remember the pathophysiology as it was explained to me, but if anyone
is interested I can find out.

Jo

"Any decent veterinarian will explain to you how Scotts 4-step program,

especially "Step 2" is believed to be extremely bad for pets. "

You mean like this vet from the Univ of Illinois, College of Veterinary
Medicince? Here's what he has to say:


"However, for pet owners who want to spruce up their yards and prefer
to use lawn care
products, reading the label and using the products properly is the key
to keeping pets safe.
According to Dr. Petra Volmer, veterinarian and toxicologist at the
University of Illinois
College of Veterinary Medicine in Urbana, problems usually arise only
when people apply
lawn care products incorrectly or when a pet is accidentally sprayed or
allowed on a freshly
sprayed lawn too soon.

Most lawn care products fall into three categories: fertilizers,
insecticides, and herbicides. "If
you use these products correctly and read the label, most really do not
cause a problem,"
says Dr. Volmer. "In general, most residential-use products have low
toxicity."


Or how about this from the good old ASPCA:

"4.What about pesticides and fertilizers that might be in the garage or
tool shed?

Make sure your pets do not go on lawns or in gardens treated with
fertilizers, herbicides or insecticides until the time listed on the
label by the manufacturer. If you are uncertain about the usage of any
product, contact the manufacturer for clarification before using it.
Always store pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides in areas that are
inaccessible to your pets.

The most serious problems resulting from fertilizer ingestion in pets
is usually due to the presence of heavy metals such as iron. Ingestion
of large amounts of fertilizer could cause severe gastric upset and
possibly gastrointestinal obstruction.

The most dangerous forms of pesticides include: snail bait containing
metaldehyde, fly bait containing methomyl, systemic insecticides
containing disyston or disulfaton, zinc phosphide containing mole or
gopher bait and most forms of rat poisons. When using pesticides place
the products in areas that are totally inaccessible to your companion
animals. Always store pesticides in secured areas."


Seems neither the veterinarian from the Univ of Illinois vet school,
nor the ASPCA think typical lawn products are "extremely bad" for your
pet. Now don't get me wrong. I try to limit how much
herbicide/pesticide I use for a number of reasons. And I make sure to
follow the label directions and keep pets off it for a reasonable
amount of time after application to minimize exposure. I exceed the
recommended minimum times to stay off. That makes sense. Alarmists
who think anyone who applies any chemical to a lawn is a "thug", in my
view, are just as whacko as people who use these products needlessly.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Name 10 chemicals that are NOT used in both environments, and tell me
where
you found out about them. You have until 6:30 AM Friday."

Gee, I feel for you. You've gotten so confused, now you're arguing
with yourself. When I said you were irrational because you would eat
crops that were treated with chemicals, but think anyone who uses them
on lawns is a thug, you retorted with:

"Do you think they're the same chemicals?"

But now you say:

"Name 10 chemicals that are NOT used in both environments"

Try not to think about that reversal and contradiction. It could be
like matter meeting anti-matter. Your brain may explode or something.

"I have nothing to do with either of the
organizations you mentioned. Who told you to mention them? You
certainly
didn't come up with them by yourself."

And now we can add paranoia to the mix!


My chemical question, and my "who told you to say that" comment are
justified because I realized yesterday that I was dealing with a Limbaugh
clone. Most of them have been put back in storage since the election this
past November, but apparently, some remain activated, like you. If you think
about it, I'm doing you a favor. If I can help you break your link to the
mother ship, the resulting knowledge you gain may save your life someday.

So, about the 10 chemicals: You said some are used on both food and
ornamental crops. To test your knowledge, if any, I'm curious if you're
familiar with 10 which are NOT shared between the two industries. Then, in
lesson two, we'll discuss WHY they are not shared.

The PETA/fishing question: There has to be some reason you jumped to that
conclusion, so I took a shot and guessed that you've been attacked by
someone close to you, probably for an innocent activity like fishing. If
this is NOT the case, than you are simply spouting what you've been told to
by....whom? Rush? Savage?