"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...

Women in USA get prostate cancer? I blame GM foods.

LOL :-)) Good one!

M

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:

: Fortunately:

: 1) It reduces by biological action quite quickly over time.
: 2) Few will move to new growth (ie, stays on the leaf it fell on) and so
: goes when the leaf senesces.
: 3) There are strict timings for spray to harvest intervals.
: 4) Pesticides these days are stunningly non-toxic to humans. This is
: very good for those who apply them.

``Study says pesticides may be linked to cancer

A federal study says North Carolina farmers and their wives are more
likely to get prostate cancer than nonfarming couples.''


LOL!!! Must be powerful stuff. Do the men go through the menopause as well?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

"Victor Meldrew" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

You miss the point, 'organic' plants are also full of insecticides and
fungicides, naturally evolved to be super efficient at such stuff as
mimicking animal hormones, (see the recent news on soy milk

What news on soya milk would that be?


The report that the babies of vegans fed on it have a 5x incidence of
genital defects compared to those given cows milk.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Victor Meldrew writes

What news on soya milk would that be?

Warnings from the UK Food Agency.

also on Radio four on Saturday morning they had the farming programme
looking at gm soya in Argentina.
The Argentinians give free soya to the poor and the BBC produced this long
list of dangers from eating soya, especially for the young, the male,
females of breeding age and damned near everyone else as well.
I am afraid it amused me no end, I await the repost of the vegetarian
pro-soya tendancy

Jim Webster

Its natural, so it must be good for you?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
Its natural, so it must be good for you?

so is uranium and evolution

people who believe in bizarre high oestrogen diets are going to have reduced
breeding and will slowly disappear, thus raising the average IQ a few more
points

Jim Webster

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
"Victor Meldrew" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

You miss the point, 'organic' plants are also full of insecticides and
fungicides, naturally evolved to be super efficient at such stuff as
mimicking animal hormones, (see the recent news on soy milk

What news on soya milk would that be?


The report that the babies of vegans fed on it have a 5x incidence of
genital defects compared to those given cows milk.



the only problem with that is that to get a proper comparison you would have
to forcibly replace cows milk with soya milk for the children of normal
parents. After all anyone brought up on a vegan diet is going to be at risk
of more problems than mere soya

Jim Webster
--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

In article , Tumbleweed
writes

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:

: Fortunately:

: 1) It reduces by biological action quite quickly over time.
: 2) Few will move to new growth (ie, stays on the leaf it fell on) and so
: goes when the leaf senesces.
: 3) There are strict timings for spray to harvest intervals.
: 4) Pesticides these days are stunningly non-toxic to humans. This is
: very good for those who apply them.

``Study says pesticides may be linked to cancer

A federal study says North Carolina farmers and their wives are more
likely to get prostate cancer than nonfarming couples.''


LOL!!! Must be powerful stuff. Do the men go through the menopause as well?

Yes, all men do and in a few sad cases it lasts from cradle to coffin!
;-)


--
Five Cats

In uk.rec.gardening Old Codger wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote:
: In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:

: : 4) Pesticides these days are stunningly non-toxic to humans.
: : This is very good for those who apply them.
:
: ``Study says pesticides may be linked to cancer
:
: A federal study says North Carolina farmers and their wives
: are more likely to get prostate cancer than nonfarming couples.''
:
: - http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp...5&nav=2gQcFfJ3

: That page specifically references methyl bromide.
: This thread is about glyphosate.

The post I responded to was about pesticides.

Methyl bromide is used to control insects, nematodes,
weeds, and pathogens. It seems relevant of a thread with
"The dangers of weed killers" in its title.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed wrote:

: You miss the point, 'organic' plants are also full of insecticides and
: fungicides, naturally evolved to be super efficient at such stuff as
: mimicking animal hormones, (see the recent news on soy milk, killing insects
: etc.
: When a random sample of around 50 of these chemicals was tested to the same
: standards as man-made pesticides, 50% of them were found to be toxic, in
: fact *much more* toxic than would be allowed for man-made chemicals. Thus
: the man made pesticides about which you complain are less toxic than half
: these naturally ocurring chemicals. You complain about 'junk' when you refer
: to man-made chemicals that have undergone rigorous testing, yet you eat
: plants full of hundreds of untested, probably more dangerous chemicals, with
: no worries.

It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins. Specific
enzymes exist to detoxify plant toxins that were naturally in our diet -
and they have worked well enough to get us this far.

The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed
wrote:

: You miss the point, 'organic' plants are also full of insecticides and
: fungicides, naturally evolved to be super efficient at such stuff as
: mimicking animal hormones, (see the recent news on soy milk, killing
insects
: etc.
: When a random sample of around 50 of these chemicals was tested to the
same
: standards as man-made pesticides, 50% of them were found to be toxic,
in
: fact *much more* toxic than would be allowed for man-made chemicals.
Thus
: the man made pesticides about which you complain are less toxic than
half
: these naturally ocurring chemicals. You complain about 'junk' when you
refer
: to man-made chemicals that have undergone rigorous testing, yet you eat
: plants full of hundreds of untested, probably more dangerous chemicals,
with
: no worries.

It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

And plants have evolved to produce better toxins - because they don't want
to be eaten. To counter this humans have bred plants that are rather
better to eat than the wild ones and developed technologies to make farming
and food processing more efficient.

Specific
enzymes exist to detoxify plant toxins that were naturally in our diet -
and they have worked well enough to get us this far.

No they haven't. There are 6 billion people on this planet - without
efficient agriculture, i.e. depending on our "natural wits (and enzymes)"
there would be at most a few hundred million.


The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.

Of course not - they've not evolved to harm anything that eats them, indeed
they've been designed not to.

All in all it's better to eat meat - animals generally defend themselves by
running away rather than producing toxins, so all you need is a means of
catching them.

Michael Saunby

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed
wrote:
It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

no, our digestive tracts have evolved to cope with SOME natural toxins.
Also the plants and their toxins are still evolving

It is a bit tricky for, for example, Europeans to have evolved to cope with
Soya.Biologically we have not had time

JimWebster

Tim Tyler writes

Methyl bromide is used to control insects, nematodes,
weeds, and pathogens. It seems relevant of a thread with
"The dangers of weed killers" in its title.

About as relevant as the use of arsenic to cure syphilis.

In any case you also haven't read the subject box.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Tim Tyler writes

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins. Specific
enzymes exist to detoxify plant toxins that were naturally in our diet -
and they have worked well enough to get us this far.

The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.

Toxins are toxins, no matter where they come from.
The biochemical degradations pathways are the same.

Note that unbiodegradeable pesticides have been banned for decades,
since the DDT scare regulations in the early 70's.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed
wrote:

: You miss the point, 'organic' plants are also full of insecticides and
: fungicides, naturally evolved to be super efficient at such stuff as
: mimicking animal hormones, (see the recent news on soy milk, killing
insects
: etc.
: When a random sample of around 50 of these chemicals was tested to the
same
: standards as man-made pesticides, 50% of them were found to be toxic, in
: fact *much more* toxic than would be allowed for man-made chemicals.
Thus
: the man made pesticides about which you complain are less toxic than
half
: these naturally ocurring chemicals. You complain about 'junk' when you
refer
: to man-made chemicals that have undergone rigorous testing, yet you eat
: plants full of hundreds of untested, probably more dangerous chemicals,
with
: no worries.

It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

In which case we probably don't regard the food source as toxic at all. Or
not - in which case the toxins remain toxic to humans, and we presumably
have learned to avoid ingestion, or to process the food so as to reduce the
toxicity to levels we consider acceptable. Similar to how we might deal with
foods we know to have been treated with 'artificial' toxins, really.

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed
wrote:
It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

no, our digestive tracts have evolved to cope with SOME natural toxins.
Also the plants and their toxins are still evolving

Er, surely a toxin is only a toxin if our digestion can't cope with it
and it poisons us. Anything we can successfully digest and either
metabolise or excrete is, almost by definition, not a toxin.

--
Chris Green )