In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:
, many of
them toxic in varying degrees to many species.
But the obvious thing to do is eat more meat. Once it's been killed most of
your problems with regard to its defence mechanisms are over :-))

Jim Webster
The posting of a livestock farmer :-)

Regards

Bob

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

In article ,
Tim Tyler wrote:


Strawberries are one of the most pesticide-infected types of produce.
They don't have natural toxins in. They are "designed" to be eaten by
mammals like us. The fungicides sprayed on strawberries are toxic to
animals like us. http://www.pesticideinfo.org/PCW/DS.jsp?sk='1016'
lists the crap sprayed on strawberries. There can be no contest here.
--
And I manage to grow them without a hint of pesticides.

Regards

Bob

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote:
..

Strawberries aren't meat. I rest my case. Try bacon.

Michael Saunby
It's also high in carcinogens from the smoking process.

Regards

Bob

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

In article ,
BAC wrote:

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.

TBH there will have been no pressure to make us more able to cope
withthese toxins, unless they had been potent enough to kill off
individuals before they breed.

Regards

Bob

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes

:By contrast, the artificial toxins have been designed to be tasteless and
:invisible to consumers.

: One thing I am certain about, and that is that smell and taste features
: absolutely nowhere in anyone's selection procedure for pesticides. The
: infinitesimal residues (if any) left by the time you eat it are only
: detectable (if at all) by hugely sophisticated analytical equipment.

: Just to give you some idea I have visited a site where they could test
: at these levels. They had three areas, with separate doors to the
: outside and staff from each area were not allowed to touch each other
: until their shift had finished. This was because if one of the 'low
: level detection' area walked through the 'high level' area (where the
: test applications were made) then they would totally trash the analysis
: just from particles they picked up walking through.

: As any farmer would tell you, many sprays smell 'rather strongly'.

: So you are quite incorrect.

Reading comprehension problems? Or are you just a troll?

Ahhh, you don;t like being wrong then?

:Strawberries are one of the most pesticide-infected types of produce.
:They don't have natural toxins in.

: I very much doubt that. When I grew them nothing much but the odd slug
: ate them, which is always a giveaway.

I presume you were growing them on your own private planet - where
there are no birds.

Never had a problem with birds, the dogs ate them avidly though.

:They are "designed" to be eaten by mammals like us.

: The fruits maybe. That doesn't mean they aren't toxic. I expect there is
: a fair bit of oxalic acid in them just the same.

The most toxic bit is probably the seeds - but very few of them are
digested.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'll bet there is oxalic acid in them.

:The fungicides sprayed on strawberries are toxic to
:animals like us.

: Fungicides are toxic to fungi.
: That's why they are called fungicides.

Because something is toxic to one kingdom that doesn't mean it
isn't toxic to other ones.

Pretty well everything is toxic at some level, even water, so that's
unimportant.

The question is how big a difference in toxicity is there?
For insecticides it is usually very wide, that's why there is an OP that
kills mites (varoah) but not the bees.

For weedkillers the safety margin is typically very wide, on account of
plants being very different to humans, and for fungi it's much the same.

Of course organic growers are restricted to using nasty heavy metals
(like copper) at high doses to control fungi and these rather
unselective pesticides certainly don't have good safety margins.

Let's take an old fungicide (from the early 80's) propiconazole:
[Because it's one we used a lot]

The full rate was about 250gm/Ha (although like many we saved money by
using half rates) or 25 milligrams/sqm.

A decent crop of wheat will give 800gm /sqm, but most of the spray will
hit the leaves (which is intended) so let's say 8 milligrm hits the ears
(a tad optimistic).

That means we are applying 10mg/kg of wheat.

Now I can't remember if you were allowed to spray wheat in ear with this
product, but let's say you did, and you broke all the regulations and
sprayed just before the combine went in (totally pointless, but makes
the maths easier). Then you get the wheat (just sprayed, remember) and
eat it. How much would you need to reach the no effect level?

Well for dogs the no effect level is 1.9mg/kg bodyweight.
So for a 75kg human that's about 140mg so you would have to eat 14kg of
this wheat daily to reach the no effect level. That's a heck of a lot of
wheat, you couldn't remotely do it. Further you would have to eat all
the husk because the vast majority of the spray (well over 90%) will be
on the husk as it can't reach the grain. If you made it into flour (when
all the outer coats of the grain are also removed) then the level would
be even lower still.

The allowed daily intake (which has safety margins on safety margins,
and why not) is 0.04 mg/kg bw. That's 3mg/day. Even that requires you to
eat all the wheat and husk from 3kg of wheat off this just this minute
sprayed field, I doubt you could do that, either. That's how stunningly
safe fungicides are typically.

Compare that to an organic approved dose of copper oxychloride at about
10kg/Ha (or more). That is it's applied at some 40+ times the dose of
propiconazole. It's so old it doesn't have an ADI or a no effect level
quoted. It is, however, non-biodegradeable, accumulative and very poorly
excreted. The toxic doses are given though.

For the copper: 800mg/kg (LD50) or enough to kill over 100 people/Ha.
Propiconazole: 1517mg/kg (LD50) or enough to kill 1 person/Ha.

but propiconazole is NOT accumulative, IS biodegradeable and IS
excreted, unlike copper oxychloride.

Don't even DARE to look at the organic approved insecticdes. I would
refuse to use them they are so dangerous to the spray operator.

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

Robert Seago writes

On strawberries:

And I manage to grow them without a hint of pesticides.

I believe you, I doubt you are growing a 25ac field of them though.

The dynamics of pest infestation are quite interesting.

Typically, when a plant emerges, there are few pathogens about.

Then a race develops.
A few residual pathogenic spores (or insects) must find a susceptible
plant before they expire (the spore/insect that is), and mount a
successful attack on the plant.

From observations at the field scale before effective pesticides were
available the 'typical' success rate for these initial foci varied from
under 1 to 10/Ha.

So if you have a field in the 2-10 Ha range you are guaranteed to get
infected. If you are a gardener with 10 sqm (1/1000th Ha) then you would
be very unlucky to get hit.

Typically the foci spread pretty rapidly, depending on the number of
'offspring' and the generation time. So in a few weeks one pest has
become thousands (or millions) and the foci are a metre or two across
(which is when you notice them).

At this point the general infection level jumps up a gear if the pest
can spread by air. Generally insects spread much more slowly than fungi.

Even so, your garden plot may well miss the next infection cycle. This
is particularly true for insects, because most can home in on the smell
of host plants. They are MUCH more attracted to 25ac of crop than 10 sqm
of garden plot (which they may well not even detect). For fungi, you are
now getting quite likely to be attacked.

The next infection cycle pretty well trashes the field if not
controlled. The crop is a write off, and you just made a big loss.

Your garden is probably still OK, and although eventually probably gets
attacked, by then the season is over, or nearly so.

Never confuse the rate of pest attack between field scale and garden
scale.

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

On Fri, 23 May 2003 08:41:21 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Robert Seago writes

On strawberries:

And I manage to grow them without a hint of pesticides.

I believe you, I doubt you are growing a 25ac field of them though.

The dynamics of pest infestation are quite interesting.

Typically, when a plant emerges, there are few pathogens about.

Then a race develops.
A few residual pathogenic spores (or insects) must find a susceptible
plant before they expire (the spore/insect that is), and mount a
successful attack on the plant.

From observations at the field scale before effective pesticides were
available the 'typical' success rate for these initial foci varied from
under 1 to 10/Ha.

So if you have a field in the 2-10 Ha range you are guaranteed to get
infected. If you are a gardener with 10 sqm (1/1000th Ha) then you would
be very unlucky to get hit.

Typically the foci spread pretty rapidly, depending on the number of
'offspring' and the generation time. So in a few weeks one pest has
become thousands (or millions) and the foci are a metre or two across
(which is when you notice them).

At this point the general infection level jumps up a gear if the pest
can spread by air. Generally insects spread much more slowly than fungi.

Even so, your garden plot may well miss the next infection cycle. This
is particularly true for insects, because most can home in on the smell
of host plants. They are MUCH more attracted to 25ac of crop than 10 sqm
of garden plot (which they may well not even detect). For fungi, you are
now getting quite likely to be attacked.

The next infection cycle pretty well trashes the field if not
controlled. The crop is a write off, and you just made a big loss.

Your garden is probably still OK, and although eventually probably gets
attacked, by then the season is over, or nearly so.

Never confuse the rate of pest attack between field scale and garden
scale.

How tall the tales.
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote:
.

Strawberries aren't meat. I rest my case. Try bacon.

Michael Saunby
It's also high in carcinogens from the smoking process.


So? Don't smoke (your bacon) if you fear it's bad for your health.

Anything wrong with green bacon?


Michael Saunby

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
A toxin is something toxic which poisons us. If it doesn't poison us
(i.e. is successfully managed by our digestion) then it's not a toxin.

That's something else. That is 'detoxifies'.

No, you're just avoiding the issue. If it doesn't poison us it
*isn't* a toxin.

Mind you - don't forget the dose.
Very few things are completely non-toxic - not even water.

Quite, but that's not a very helpful way to go is it, if your argument
is that *everything* is a toxin then trying to produce weedkillers (or
whatever) that aren't toxic is going to be a bit difficult.

--
Chris Green )

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:
, many of
them toxic in varying degrees to many species.
But the obvious thing to do is eat more meat. Once it's been killed most
of
your problems with regard to its defence mechanisms are over :-))

Jim Webster
The posting of a livestock farmer :-)


to right

you are what you eat, plenty of vegetables makes you a fat bullock
:-))
Jim Webster

Regards

Bob

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
A toxin is something toxic which poisons us. If it doesn't poison us
(i.e. is successfully managed by our digestion) then it's not a toxin.

That's something else. That is 'detoxifies'.

No, you're just avoiding the issue. If it doesn't poison us it
*isn't* a toxin.

Wrong.

Many, almost certainly all, toxins have a no effect level despite being
toxins. If they have no effect, they aren't poisoning us.

So things that don't poison us at some dose can still be toxins, and
often are.

Mind you - don't forget the dose.
Very few things are completely non-toxic - not even water.

Quite, but that's not a very helpful way to go is it,

That may be, but that's how it's defined.
Doubtless confuses lots more people than just you.

if your argument
is that *everything* is a toxin then trying to produce weedkillers (or
whatever) that aren't toxic is going to be a bit difficult.

Precisely. That's why you find more useful definitions like approved
dose, effective dose, noel, adi and LD50, which include an effect (or
lack of it) and a dose, used by people who know enough and want to
discuss it sensibly.

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

In article ,
"Michael Saunby" wrote:

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote:
.

Strawberries aren't meat. I rest my case. Try bacon.

Michael Saunby
It's also high in carcinogens from the smoking process.


So? Don't smoke (your bacon) if you fear it's bad for your health.

Anything wrong with green bacon?

It doesn't taste as good.

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

: Our taste buds do their best to warn us about many plant toxins.

: so you don't eat peppers?

I often go easy on many pungent fruit and vegetables.

I'm not sure what your point was - since the fruiting bodies of
many peppers are neither particularly pungent nor terribly toxic.

Jalapenos are most definitely highly 'pungent', but not toxic.

Red kidney beans (a tad undercooked) are not at all pungent, and very
toxic.

Taste, and bitterness, are a crude and fallible test for toxicity.
Much better to know what is and isn't particularly toxic.


Another survival strategy, followed by rats, for example, is to eat small
amounts of a wide variety of foodstuffs, rather than concentrate on large
amounts of one particular foodstuff. This is thought to reduce the risk of
ingesting a fatal dose of toxin.

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes

:Numerous pesticides are concentrated in animal fat.

: No, just DDT.

Perhaps you'd like to broaden that to all the chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides - methoxychlor, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphene,
endrin, heptachlor, lindane, etc?

For example, I just cited a paper showing pesticides based on
hexachlorocyclohexane isomers are also concentrated in animal fat.
[PMID: 11763262]

....and don't tell me these are more banned pesticides.

Some of them are still registered for use - e.g. in Canada.

: Halogenated hydrocarbons may be measured in concentrations of
: hundreds-fold greater than those in blood of the same individuals.''

: DDT, there you go. Banned in the early 70's.

Halogenated hydrocarbons covers a lot more than just DDT.

So much for your pesticides not being concentrated in animals thesis.

A major toxic pesticide, plainly concentrated in animal fat.

You will be permitted to aruge that DDT is not a relevant
pesticide when it disappears from our environment and soils.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:

: Beta-carotene (Vitamin A)
: Liver damage, yellowing of the skin (may also increase risk of lung
: cancer in smokers), birth defects

: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulate

Beta carotene is *not* vitamin A.

Excess beta carotene does not cause liver damage or birth defects.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/