So I now understand why asbestos is so toxic. When animals breathe it in
it
is like tiny knives or needles in the lung of the animal. As white blood
cells
and other cells come in contact with the asbestos fiber its ends are so
sharp
as to cut or pierce the cells and thus lending those cells prone to a
mutation
of cancer forming area. And the fact that this asbestos, once in the
lungs
is almost impossible to get out of the lung.

But I wonder about plants. I used to bury old fiberglass in the ground
and
especially with new trees or transplants because fiberglass is really a
form
of sand material and plants surely love some sand in clay soils.

But what about asbestos burial around plants. Do the plants like the
asbestos?
Or is asbestos just like another clay itself?

And if asbestos is buried in the ground will that render it less toxic
over time?

Anyone have experience on these issues raised.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Asbestos is a mineral, it comes from the ground, and you can put it in the
ground.
And it has been in the ground for a long time, not in a form plants can use
as nutrients.
Since it came from the ground, putting it back doesn't change it.
Probably would make a good drainage material for plants.
Note that fiberglass is not natural, but man made. It is formed from
natural materials. The asbestos is processed as it comes from the ground
like cotton yarn from cotton plants.


--

Henry Boyter, Jr.
PhD Chemist

http://www.itt.edu/staff/boyter/links/index.html
The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Boyter and
are provided for informational purposes only and
should not be used as advice. No warranty or
expression of professionalism is implied.






"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
So I now understand why asbestos is so toxic. When animals breathe it in
it
is like tiny knives or needles in the lung of the animal. As white blood
cells
and other cells come in contact with the asbestos fiber its ends are so
sharp
as to cut or pierce the cells and thus lending those cells prone to a
mutation
of cancer forming area. And the fact that this asbestos, once in the
lungs
is almost impossible to get out of the lung.

But I wonder about plants. I used to bury old fiberglass in the ground
and
especially with new trees or transplants because fiberglass is really a
form
of sand material and plants surely love some sand in clay soils.

But what about asbestos burial around plants. Do the plants like the
asbestos?
Or is asbestos just like another clay itself?

And if asbestos is buried in the ground will that render it less toxic
over time?

Anyone have experience on these issues raised.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Henry Boyter wrote:

Asbestos is a mineral, it comes from the ground, and you can put it in the
ground.
And it has been in the ground for a long time, not in a form plants can use
as nutrients.
Since it came from the ground, putting it back doesn't change it.
Probably would make a good drainage material for plants.
Note that fiberglass is not natural, but man made. It is formed from
natural materials. The asbestos is processed as it comes from the ground
like cotton yarn from cotton plants.

--

Henry Boyter, Jr.
PhD Chemist

http://www.itt.edu/staff/boyter/links/index.html
The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Boyter and
are provided for informational purposes only and
should not be used as advice. No warranty or
expression of professionalism is implied.


Henry I appreciate your comments. But I want to say something about
your humanity and my humanity in connection with being a scientist.
For I fancy that you consider yourself a scientist and I no doubt feel
myself a scientist.

My concern is that a scientist should never be stooping to the fear
of lawyers or lawsuit or the justice system. I feel that you should have
given your comments above but never have stooped to the add on of
the legal caption.

You see, Henry. I believe you denigrate and lower science and scientists
when you throw in this "fear of legal system".

I believe the internet and sci newsgroups in particular are far above
legalities.
In that if a scientist expresses his or her opinion that the legal system
should
never be invoked. Truth of science is far above legal systems in the world.
Science is far above lawyers, judges, courts and anything of the legal system.

I seem to have trouble saying what is on my mind about your caption. But
it troubles me to see any scientist render his or her opinion and then have
to end their thoughts with a legal warning.

Science is the single greatest truth on Earth. And I have often written that
Science is God and God is Science. Which is true in Atom Totality theory for
we are just a tiny speck of God itself which is one atom.

So, Henry, I appreciate your comments on asbestos. But I feel that since you
are a scientist, that you denigrate science itself when you end your Freedom
of Speech, your mind, your opinion with some legalistic caption.

To me, that is like entering church and praying to God and at the end add on a

legalistic jingo.

Science is freedom-of-speech. I do not like seeing scientists cobbled by legal

systems.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I am now running a test on whether plants with fiberglass in their soil grow
better
than those without. I figure the fiberglass allows more air to the root system
than
the pure clay soils.

Also, many years ago I observed raspberry plants and they seem to like trashy
garbaged soil rather than normal soil. They even liked asphalt shingles in the
soil rather than normal soil.

Has anyone made a test on why some plants like petroleum products such as
asphalt shingles near to them?

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Are you gonna eat that stuff ?

Not me.


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
I am now running a test on whether plants with fiberglass in their soil
grow
better
than those without. I figure the fiberglass allows more air to the root
system
than
the pure clay soils.

Also, many years ago I observed raspberry plants and they seem to like
trashy
garbaged soil rather than normal soil. They even liked asphalt shingles in
the
soil rather than normal soil.

Has anyone made a test on why some plants like petroleum products such as
asphalt shingles near to them?

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Matilda Zuckerman" wrote in message
et...
Are you gonna eat that stuff ?

Not me.


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
I am now running a test on whether plants with fiberglass in their soil
grow
better
than those without. I figure the fiberglass allows more air to the root
system
than
the pure clay soils.

Also, many years ago I observed raspberry plants and they seem to like
trashy
garbaged soil rather than normal soil. They even liked asphalt shingles
in
the
soil rather than normal soil.

Has anyone made a test on why some plants like petroleum products such
as
asphalt shingles near to them?


I have raised crops next to oil well were oil was spilled on the groud. It
takes about 5 years for the bactera to break it down to the point you can't
tell were it was. Salt water spills are another thing altogeater. In sandy
soil it takes a long time to wash it out of the soil and clay soils it takes
longer than my lifetime.

Asphalt shingles wouldn't have much effect on soil. Asphalt has been sprayed
on soil to control weeds and to warm up soil causing it to warm up about a
week earlier in the spring. It is not cost effective in the 50's and it
wouldn't be environmentally acceptable today.


Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

Matilda Zuckerman wrote:

Are you gonna eat that stuff ?

Not me.


I have eaten plenty of wildraspberries growing in manmade dump sites abandoned.
I consider the entire plant as a screening or sieve of any trash in
the soil and that the berry itself is as clean and pure as one grown in an
organic orchard.

Now, your reply got me to thinking as to why perhaps raspberries love
trashpiles.

Consider entropy, the measure of disorder. And consider that plain dirt
soil at a given place or site is near to its lowest entropy.

Hard to believe that trash contains alot less entropy, a lot less disorder.
And that trash and garbage contain alot of order and thus energy.
Trash such as plastics and glass and metal and asphalt and paper
and wax and discarded kitchen wastes.

And so, if any one of us were a plant, we would love to have that
supplemented into the soil around us because that more ordered energy
will be broken down and in the breakdown will nourish the plants.

Also, trash and garbage aerate the soil more than normal soil.

I believe that is some of the answer to the question as to whether plants
like trash and garbage put into the soil.

There should be some means of quantifying and researching the above
questions.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archie, you are the king of trash pile entropy!!!!

How many citations have you gotten for not cleaning up your yard and does
your excuse hold up in court? Your yard isn't filthy, you're just doing an
experiment in trash pile entropy! Maybe you're really the result of secret
government gene splicing experiments with a pack rat?

Do tell us more about your "Speck Theory" of the universe!

We all could use a good laugh! :-)


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
...


Matilda Zuckerman wrote:

Are you gonna eat that stuff ?

Not me.


I have eaten plenty of wildraspberries growing in manmade dump sites
abandoned.
I consider the entire plant as a screening or sieve of any trash in
the soil and that the berry itself is as clean and pure as one grown in an
organic orchard.

Now, your reply got me to thinking as to why perhaps raspberries love
trashpiles.

Consider entropy, the measure of disorder. And consider that plain dirt
soil at a given place or site is near to its lowest entropy.

Hard to believe that trash contains alot less entropy, a lot less
disorder.
And that trash and garbage contain alot of order and thus energy.
Trash such as plastics and glass and metal and asphalt and paper
and wax and discarded kitchen wastes.

And so, if any one of us were a plant, we would love to have that
supplemented into the soil around us because that more ordered energy
will be broken down and in the breakdown will nourish the plants.

Also, trash and garbage aerate the soil more than normal soil.

I believe that is some of the answer to the question as to whether plants
like trash and garbage put into the soil.

There should be some means of quantifying and researching the above
questions.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...


Now, your reply got me to thinking as to why perhaps raspberries love
trashpiles.

Hard to believe that trash contains alot less entropy, a lot less
disorder.
And that trash and garbage contain alot of order and thus energy.
Trash such as plastics and glass and metal and asphalt and paper
and wax and discarded kitchen wastes.

Hmmm, now why do I get an image of you in the picturesque wasteland of
your backyard in an old horse-trough bath wondering how much water you're
slopping over the sides while munching toxic raspberries and discussing
chaos theory with the resident critters.

Mr. Plutonium,
are you saying that you would never threaten legal action against
someone for what they say? Just curious.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Henry Boyter wrote:

Asbestos is a mineral, it comes from the ground, and you can put it in the
ground.
And it has been in the ground for a long time, not in a form plants can use
as nutrients.
Since it came from the ground, putting it back doesn't change it.
Probably would make a good drainage material for plants.
Note that fiberglass is not natural, but man made. It is formed from
natural materials. The asbestos is processed as it comes from the ground
like cotton yarn from cotton plants.

--

Henry Boyter, Jr.
PhD Chemist

http://www.itt.edu/staff/boyter/links/index.html
The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Boyter and
are provided for informational purposes only and
should not be used as advice. No warranty or
expression of professionalism is implied.


Henry I appreciate your comments. But I want to say something about
your humanity and my humanity in connection with being a scientist.
For I fancy that you consider yourself a scientist and I no doubt feel
myself a scientist.

My concern is that a scientist should never be stooping to the fear
of lawyers or lawsuit or the justice system. I feel that you should have
given your comments above but never have stooped to the add on of
the legal caption.

You see, Henry. I believe you denigrate and lower science and scientists
when you throw in this "fear of legal system".

I believe the internet and sci newsgroups in particular are far above
legalities.
In that if a scientist expresses his or her opinion that the legal system
should
never be invoked. Truth of science is far above legal systems in the world.
Science is far above lawyers, judges, courts and anything of the legal system.

I seem to have trouble saying what is on my mind about your caption. But
it troubles me to see any scientist render his or her opinion and then have
to end their thoughts with a legal warning.

Science is the single greatest truth on Earth. And I have often written that
Science is God and God is Science. Which is true in Atom Totality theory for
we are just a tiny speck of God itself which is one atom.

So, Henry, I appreciate your comments on asbestos. But I feel that since you
are a scientist, that you denigrate science itself when you end your Freedom
of Speech, your mind, your opinion with some legalistic caption.

To me, that is like entering church and praying to God and at the end add on a

legalistic jingo.

Science is freedom-of-speech. I do not like seeing scientists cobbled by legal

systems.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Zachary wrote:

Mr. Plutonium,
are you saying that you would never threaten legal action against
someone for what they say? Just curious.


Think of how a Pragmatist would answer you on your specific
question, which was lifted out of context.

But in context to that specific post which I replied, I have this answer.
It is an annoying nuisance
for anyone to cite legal captions in sci. newsgroups.
Science should and must be the highest
form of freedom of speech.

For anyone to end his comments or thoughts in sci. with a legalistic-caption is
similar to someone going to Church and devoutly religious and ending each
prayer with a similar legalistic jingo.

Science is the highest form of anything. Not courts, not lawyers, not legal
systems, not Supreme Courts, not religion, not police, not armies. Science
is the highest because it is the closest to the truth.

God is Science, and Science is God. And so to participate in sci newsgroups
and ending your contribution with some legalistic jingo is lowering and
blasphemous and hypocritical. Don't even bother to make a comment in
science or about science if you fear the legal system. Because then you are
saying a legal-system is above science when it never is. Unless of course
you talk about sci.legal. But the world has not begun the science of legal
systems which is an offshoot of sociology, economics and politics.

What I am saying is that don't bother to post in any science newsgroup if
you are gripped with fear of lawsuits and feel you have to end your post
with a legal warning.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I don't know if I'm asking a pragmatist or not. I was asking you.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Zachary wrote:

Mr. Plutonium,
are you saying that you would never threaten legal action against
someone for what they say? Just curious.


Think of how a Pragmatist would answer you on your specific
question, which was lifted out of context.

But in context to that specific post which I replied, I have this answer.
It is an annoying nuisance
for anyone to cite legal captions in sci. newsgroups.
Science should and must be the highest
form of freedom of speech.

For anyone to end his comments or thoughts in sci. with a legalistic-caption is
similar to someone going to Church and devoutly religious and ending each
prayer with a similar legalistic jingo.

Science is the highest form of anything. Not courts, not lawyers, not legal
systems, not Supreme Courts, not religion, not police, not armies. Science
is the highest because it is the closest to the truth.

God is Science, and Science is God. And so to participate in sci newsgroups
and ending your contribution with some legalistic jingo is lowering and
blasphemous and hypocritical. Don't even bother to make a comment in
science or about science if you fear the legal system. Because then you are
saying a legal-system is above science when it never is. Unless of course
you talk about sci.legal. But the world has not begun the science of legal
systems which is an offshoot of sociology, economics and politics.

What I am saying is that don't bother to post in any science newsgroup if
you are gripped with fear of lawsuits and feel you have to end your post
with a legal warning.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Asbestos is a mineral, it comes from the ground, and you can put it in the
ground.
And it has been in the ground for a long time, not in a form plants can use
as nutrients.
Since it came from the ground, putting it back doesn't change it.
Probably would make a good drainage material for plants.
Note that fiberglass is not natural, but man made. It is formed from
natural materials. The asbestos is processed as it comes from the ground
like cotton yarn from cotton plants.


--

Henry Boyter, Jr.
PhD Chemist

http://www.itt.edu/staff/boyter/links/index.html
The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Boyter and
are provided for informational purposes only and
should not be used as advice. No warranty or
expression of professionalism is implied.






"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
So I now understand why asbestos is so toxic. When animals breathe it in
it
is like tiny knives or needles in the lung of the animal. As white blood
cells
and other cells come in contact with the asbestos fiber its ends are so
sharp
as to cut or pierce the cells and thus lending those cells prone to a
mutation
of cancer forming area. And the fact that this asbestos, once in the
lungs
is almost impossible to get out of the lung.

But I wonder about plants. I used to bury old fiberglass in the ground
and
especially with new trees or transplants because fiberglass is really a
form
of sand material and plants surely love some sand in clay soils.

But what about asbestos burial around plants. Do the plants like the
asbestos?
Or is asbestos just like another clay itself?

And if asbestos is buried in the ground will that render it less toxic
over time?

Anyone have experience on these issues raised.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Are you gonna eat that stuff ?

Not me.


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
I am now running a test on whether plants with fiberglass in their soil
grow
better
than those without. I figure the fiberglass allows more air to the root
system
than
the pure clay soils.

Also, many years ago I observed raspberry plants and they seem to like
trashy
garbaged soil rather than normal soil. They even liked asphalt shingles in
the
soil rather than normal soil.

Has anyone made a test on why some plants like petroleum products such as
asphalt shingles near to them?

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Matilda Zuckerman" wrote in message
et...
Are you gonna eat that stuff ?

Not me.


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
I am now running a test on whether plants with fiberglass in their soil
grow
better
than those without. I figure the fiberglass allows more air to the root
system
than
the pure clay soils.

Also, many years ago I observed raspberry plants and they seem to like
trashy
garbaged soil rather than normal soil. They even liked asphalt shingles
in
the
soil rather than normal soil.

Has anyone made a test on why some plants like petroleum products such
as
asphalt shingles near to them?


I have raised crops next to oil well were oil was spilled on the groud. It
takes about 5 years for the bactera to break it down to the point you can't
tell were it was. Salt water spills are another thing altogeater. In sandy
soil it takes a long time to wash it out of the soil and clay soils it takes
longer than my lifetime.

Asphalt shingles wouldn't have much effect on soil. Asphalt has been sprayed
on soil to control weeds and to warm up soil causing it to warm up about a
week earlier in the spring. It is not cost effective in the 50's and it
wouldn't be environmentally acceptable today.


Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger