|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message news: : Generally speaking I would blame whoever *commits* the act of violence - : rather than anyone who told them to do it - or paid them to do it. : you attitude is at odds with English law That's true in many areas. I don't approve of many of my country's laws - and think it is lax in regulating other areas. In this case the main issue is freedom of speech. I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me. I think actions speak lounder than words. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... I think attempts to deal with the problem should attempt to rearrange it so the costs are paid by the consumer. They generally are. Lots of regulations require that sources of polution are controlled to limit their effect. Catalytic converters on cars, sulpher scrubbers on powerstations for example. These add to the costs which are passed onto the consumer. Cars produce a lot of polution and fuel is heavily taxed, justified by the polution impact.. Problem is the poluter pays but the money raised is often not used to clean up the polution and its effects. Also the world ecosystem can handle a level of polution and break down the products, so it is only nessesary to get polution down to a sustainable level. What is needed is a mechanism to permit a reduction of polution to below the recoverable level. To do this is a government level descision, it involves efficient public transport, homes and work location that minimise regular utilitarian travel. Production that is energy and raw resource efficient. A transport system that does not have cars stationary burning fuel unnessesarily. Then perhaps lifestyle, more difficult because one mans luxuary may be another's basic need. One family may happily eat locally produced food, with zero air-mile content but demand an annual holiday in Florida. Another may happily visit the lake district but want really nice food from all over the world. Short of rationing it is difficult to imagine a system that can limit individuals polution contribution to a sustainable level. Perhaps education and a better sense of social responsibility where individuals consider their usage of polution producing products and activities. Always buying locally unless their is a reason not to may be a good start. Taxing is a rather crude mechanism, there is no harm in the family holiday in Florida if that is the most fuel consuming activity in the year. If that is accomapied with 300 mile weekend trips to the families country cottage every week, food from all around the world and excessive mileage between home and work it may not. Eventually though as China and the third world develope, the demand for the cars and air travel will rise forcing up the costs of oil very significantly. The resource is limited so the additional demand will not increase polution but will either significantly drop the ability for the west to use so much or react with the development of re-newable non-poluting alternatives. Given that the USA will feel the impact of the un-availability of fossil fuels we can expect that its technological might will focus on renewable technology, and lower energy needs for the same lifestyle. Someone in the hot south of the USA was telling me that their air-conditioning unit can only achieve a 20F differential between inside and outside temperatures. This has to be a candidate for better insulation regulations on new buildings so that less fuel can achive required comfort and maintain a living standard with less polution. The emphasis being on regulation rather than taxation or penalties, many of the most effective methods are not easily within the scope of individuals. And in the long run more significant than where a punnet of bluebarries come from. Mind you when you cure one problem, you create another. After walking down to the local farmshop for a pound of apples you will have had some exercise and minimised polution. But if you had had a Pizza delivered by van and some of those nice flown in Belgium chocolates you would have had the decency to die before you became a burdon on the state pensions. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes :In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: :: A strange diet "for health reasons". Usually means some illness or :: other. : :Well, not in my case. I'm interested in my health since I appreciate :being healthy - and want it to continue. : In that case I would describe your diet as paranoid. ? I prefer to think of it as preventative medicine. :: That's why environmentally minded people should do their stuff at every :: opportunity. 2M brits refusing to eat air miles WILL have a significant :: effect. : :I'm sure they would - if they could be persuaded. : Starting with you. So far, no success :-| As I mentioned in another post I reckon one of the most effective ways of reducing my blueberry imports would be to provide me with a vendor of frozen UK blueberries. However maybe this would just be treating the symptom ;-) I would support efforts to make sure the "true" cost of food production (i.e. the cost of producing it sustainably) is paid. However I have little interest in attempts to do this by using consumer boycotts of the products in question. For one thing I don't think such an approach will work. For another it fails to get to the root of the problem - which seems to me to be that the full costs of pollution and fossil fuels are not being paid by those who produce them. This affects everything - not just importing fruit. ::: A chose to cause the death of C, remember? :: ::B caused the death of C - by pulling the trigger. :: ::A can only cause B to do something directly if he eliminates B's ::freedom of action - e.g. by drugging or hypnotizing him - otherwise ::B's actions are the result of B's choices. [...] :Claiming that someone else instructed them is not a permitted excuse. : :A president who told an aircraft to nuke London would be /involved/ in :the deaths. : He would, be considered to be primarily responsible by pretty well : everyone on the planet. After all, if he hadn't given the order then : london wouldn't have been nuked. :What would happen to him would depend on the respective :countries legal systems - and probably the outcome of their :conflict. : Maybe. I was discussing the ethics though. A notoriously difficult subject - and probably not one terribly at home on uk.environment.conservation, uk.rec.gardening or uk.rec.natural-history. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... The idea that people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me. I think actions speak lounder than words. Hitler & Stalin & Mau did very well using only words. You have to go back a long way to get to the 'hands on' mass murderers. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : Tim Tyler writes :In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: :: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... :: In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: :: Try it this way Tim. If the plane were pilot less. Not true today, but :: far from impossible. Same for the warehouse, the supermarket, even the :: farm. All done with machines. In such a situation presumably only God :: can be blamed for the whole mess - certainly not the consumer. : :A ridiculous argument. : Actually a very good one. So good you can't answer it. I've already pointed out that aninimate objects have no freedom, and can't be held responsible for their actions. sigh That was precisely the point, which you seem to have completely missed. :: Worse still you peculiar diet isn't likely to let you live :: a longer and healthier life. [...] : :The scientific evidence is against you there. : So how big an experiment on humans on this diet has been completed for : their lifetime and what was the result? No lifetime studies in humans. OK, so not even the evidence you require of pesticides. The results come from other animals - Which animals? Corroborated? Similarity to humans (tricky, no great apes are as carnivorous as homo sap). and from non-lifespan studies in man. Tricky to estimate life extension before death. http://www.calorierestriction.org/ (and its resources) explains the situation regarding the scientific evidence relating to dietary interventions and human aging. Indeed so. Similar effects have been shown for mice fed ad-lib every other day. These mice do NOT show the low weight but DO show the increased life. Recently reported in either new scientist or scientific american. It's not at all as simple as you think. There was also work done on stress which indicates that pathological worrying about your diet increases illness. You are heading along an untested route that is supported by very limited evidence, much of it contradictory. That's your problem. However if you want to live a long time then choose long-lived parents and grandparents. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : Tim Tyler writes :Generally speaking I would blame whoever *commits* the act of violence - :rather than anyone who told them to do it - or paid them to do it. : So it's fine by you if I speak to some of my east end pals and have you : beaten up? : OK. : Fine. I would regard them as being responsible for any resulting injuries - if that's what you meant to ask. Then you are an idiot. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening "Hämisch Macbeth" wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : I think attempts to deal with the problem should attempt to rearrange : it so the costs are paid by the consumer. : They generally are. Lots of regulations require that sources of polution : are controlled to limit their effect. : Catalytic converters on cars, sulpher scrubbers on powerstations for : example. These add to the costs which are passed onto the consumer. Indeed. I'm not sure exactly how much pollution aeroplances generate - but they certainly burn their fair share of irreplacible fossil fuels, and must be spitting out CO2 and worsening the greenhouse effect. I'm not convinced the "true" costs of this sort of operation are currently being paid by anyone - except, perhaps, our descendants. : What is needed is a mechanism to permit a reduction of polution to : below the recoverable level. : To do this is a government level descision, it involves efficient public : transport, homes and work location that minimise regular utilitarian travel. I agree that these problems are government-level ones. : Short of rationing it is difficult to imagine a system that can limit : individuals polution contribution to a sustainable level. What I proposed involves taxing and regulating the producers. If that has the effect of raising prices to the consumer then they will regulate themselves. : Perhaps education and a better sense of social responsibility where : individuals consider their usage of polution producing products and : activities. Unfortunately, "social responsibility" - in the context of buying food - doesn't mix very well with the ability to purchase and eat food anonymously. If all your past purchases were tatooed on your forehead then we could apply social pressure by tut-tuting the over-indulgers - the way that is sometimes done with owners of fur coats - but the sort of monitoring of consumer activity necessary to get such a scheme to work seems prohibitive. The last time I remember a successful consumer-driven effort along such lines was the South African produce boycott. That was regarded as immediately important - and meant relatively little inconvenience to consumers. More recent efforts - such as the one promoting organic produce - have not had the same sort of effect. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message news: : Generally speaking I would blame whoever *commits* the act of violence - : rather than anyone who told them to do it - or paid them to do it. : you attitude is at odds with English law That's true in many areas. I don't approve of many of my country's laws - and think it is lax in regulating other areas. In this case the main issue is freedom of speech. I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me. I think actions speak lounder than words. ah, so it is OK to convince someone to kill someone else, pay them to do it, and walk away knowing that you were only using your freedom of speech and any resulting deaths are not your fault. Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre Jim Webster -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Oz" wrote in message ... Tim Tyler writes In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : Try it this way Tim. If the plane were pilot less. Not true today, but : far from impossible. Same for the warehouse, the supermarket, even the : farm. All done with machines. In such a situation presumably only God can : be blamed for the whole mess - certainly not the consumer. A ridiculous argument. Actually a very good one. So good you can't answer it. I don't see why God should be blamed, after all, He created the Devil to take the rap for things which go wrong like that :-) |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Hämisch Macbeth" wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote: : The idea that people can be imprisoned for things they have said is : abhorrent to me. I think actions speak lounder than words. : Hitler & Stalin & Mau did very well using only words. I don't know to what extent those individuals "got their hands dirty" - but it's certainly possible for world leaders to order deaths - and see others carry them out. Time to invoke Godwin's Law, methinks ;-) -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message news: : Generally speaking I would blame whoever *commits* the act of violence - : rather than anyone who told them to do it - or paid them to do it. : you attitude is at odds with English law That's true in many areas. I don't approve of many of my country's laws - and think it is lax in regulating other areas. But your thinking, that it is only the person who does the final (or initial in the case of farming) act is the only one to blame silly. Your lack of approval goes some way to justifying the existing system - i.e. it doesn't suit oddballs, well it isn't supposed to. In this case the main issue is freedom of speech. I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me. I think actions speak lounder than words. And that you mention it suggest you imagine it might happen except in the most extreme cases; which I very much doubt - but I'd be interested in hearing of a few recent examples. People do pretty much have the freedom to speak in the UK; it's just that they don't always have the freedom to lie - a freedom that probably does help anyone much. How would you feel if all this nutrition advice you've gained from the web turned out to be a load of nonsense and the people who live the longest healthiest lives have never even heard of such stuff? Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Hämisch Macbeth" wrote in message ... Eventually though as China and the third world develope, the demand for the cars and air travel will rise forcing up the costs of oil very significantly. The resource is limited so the additional demand will not increase polution but will either significantly drop the ability for the west to .... This of course if where the myth of "development" is so important to the governments of the west. At present roughly 20% of the global population control 80% of wealth. I suspect that this will stay much as it is. I know of very wealthy folk in some of the poorest countries in the world and their personal consumption is far, far greater than mine. As wealth moves to other places so will poverty. So it seems likely to me that perhaps 20% or so of the global population will own motor vehicles, take foreign holidays, eat imported food, etc. These people are at present mostly white and live in Europe and North America - in another 50 years they will be spread over most of the globe. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening BAC wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : A can only cause B to do something directly if he eliminates B's : freedom of action - e.g. by drugging or hypnotizing him - otherwise : B's actions are the result of B's choices. : So who was responsible for the killing of Charles 1, Cromwell and the : co-signatories of the death warrant, or the executioner who did the : deed (history seems to blame Cromwell)? I don't know. Did the executioner act freely? I don't know. However, he was only allowed to commit regicide without risk of immediate punishment because of the Court's order. I should imagine an executioner who refused to execute the King would have been a marked man in Cromwell's commonwealth. Generally speaking I would blame whoever *commits* the act of violence - rather than anyone who told them to do it - or paid them to do it. Personally, I would 'blame' both, since mens rea applies to the pair of them. Actually, I would blame the instigator of the act rather more than the person who comitted it, since the latter, presumably, would not have acted in the matter if the former had not promoted it. However, that's a matter of opinion. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Oz" wrote in message ... .. You are heading along an untested route that is supported by very limited evidence, much of it contradictory. That's your problem. However if you want to live a long time then choose long-lived parents and grandparents. Now there's an idea for promoting agricultural products. "Adopt a Granny" Use an ancient, but agile, granny to advertise your produce. If there are enough "Tims" living in urban UK you may well be able to sell almost anything this way - "Granny has eaten half a pound of tripe every day of her life". Indeed why produce anything? How about "freshly squeezed country air"? Michael Saunby |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter