It is currently Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:51 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 5:00 am
Posts: 1
I would like to add a few comments to the article “Clearing the Air about Pesticide Hazards.

I am a consultant to the pesticide industry including those who develop, test, manufacture, and sell organic products as well as products which are exempt from registration. I also consult with those who sell more conventional products.

I also am a gardener and user of products which have met the certifications necessary for compliance with the Oregon Tilth Certified Organic (OTCO) compliance.

While it is true there are many scary facts about pyrethrum and PBO, this is also true regarding almost any chemical or pesticide. The issue is the dose, the risk reward ratio, and the alternatives. Does this mean that in all cases and for all uses we should not use and recommend pyrethrum? If so, I could not agree with this.

It has been stated that the alternative cedar products work as well as pyrethrum for controlling mosquitoes. Are there any published studies confirming this? Can anyone please provide a reference?

It is true that some stores companies falsely label and sell products as organic when they are not. However, responsible players will seek out the OTCO compliance and there products will bear the OTCO label.

I was surprised to see pyrethrum with PBO categorized in the same hazardous category as diazinon, Dusrban, Sevin, and Orthene. I think this overstates the risk of pyrethrum and PBO and understates the risk with the other products.

In summary, I think that in many cases products meeting the OTCO standards are useful and appropriate. Further, I think this is often the case for the backyard gardner and for specialty agriculture. However, it is also true that there are clear and necessary times to use other pesticides. When we do, we should have a clear understanding of the risks and hazardous in their use as well valid scientific data confirming how and when they are applied.

Larry Nouvel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Pesticide Use
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:33 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Dallas,TX
You make a good moderate case for your view; your words are obviously considered and measured. However, as one who has suffered from the misuse of pesticides (and I am far from alone) by end users who do not read the labels and apply the products improperly I must disagree.

The overwhelming amounts of glyphosate, diazinon, lindane, DDT and other pesticide residue in our water systems and air negate the argument for "intelligent" use of the products for me. Using a "prescribed dose" of pesticide is the same for me as being a "little" pregnant or "almost" sick. It is a fallicy and I have been unable to find true justification for any use of synthetic pesticides because natural materials and methods work more effectively in the final analysis.

I find this to be the same logic used by conventional physicians who treat symptoms instead of causes. This approach overwhelmingly results in more harm than good in the long term.

Thank you for your input on the forum. I hope you will continue to participate so that we can pursue intelligent exchanges and convert you to our way of thinking. Epiphany comes in many forms at many times. I hope yours comes soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:57 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
I would like to take issue about a comment concerning scientific study, documentation, etc.
We live in a world fuzzy science. Large companies - food, plastics, drug, meat, fertilizer, and chemical to name a few - manipulate science to justify the use and safety of their products. Doctors set standards for the practice of medicine and 87% of those doctors work for drug companies. I am just an ole country boy but that ls like putting the fox in the hen house.
Not only is this bad and dishonest but they will not expose the other industries. You are not going to see medicine tell their patients that beef has chemicals that cause young women to develop at earlier age, or that antibiotics from animals cause bacteria to become resistant, or that plastics and styrofoam that meat is wrapped in out gas into the meat and cause depression and cancer.
How about floride in the water prevents cavities. Floride is a toxic waste from the fertilizer industry and the people were duped in to believing that this would prevent cavities. There was not one study to confirm this. The excuse for this was from young men from the Hereford TX area during WWII that had no cavities. Later it was proved that it was not the floride but that Hereford has a high amount of calcium in the land and before WWII people didn't consume food from other areas of the US or foreign countries. It was the calcium that prevented cavities. In fact if you have ever seen teeth affected by floride you can see how ugly and stained they appear. There have been comparisons of communities with and with out floride and there is no differences in cavitiy levels.
My point is that anything (including science) can be manipulated to make people accept what ever a company is selling.
We have found in this area that corn meal kills fungus in lawns. A man west of the Metroplex tried it on his toenail fungus and it cleared it up. Others tried it and it worked for them. I will take this kind of "science" over your double blind ,etc,etc, etc any day of the week because individuals don't have a reason to lie but your companies have an agenda to cover up or make things look better to sell a product.
We are dying from cancer and heart disease, we have depression, learning disabilities, alzheimers, degenerative diseases, and many other diseases and all we get are studies that cover up and ignore the causes.
I have no problem accepting "studies" from honest people as opposed to large multinational companies.
For my money I want to be "natural" and not have to worry about the next condition or disease that some drug company will make money. If we miss a few bugs we are still ok. Besides when we plant you should always plant 3 times what you want - "one for you and two for the critters"
Also if we use organic products - fertilizers, trace minerals, etc we won't need any of your chemicals.
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:07 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:45 pm
Posts: 2884
Location: San Antonio,TEXAS
Lnouvel said..."However, it is also true that there are clear and necessary times to use other pesticides."

This is where you'll get just about 100% disagreement at DirtDoctor.com. If you're coming to this forum to convert us back to using chemical herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide, you're not going to enjoy being here.

Certainly you are welcome to ask questions and post helpful suggestions here, but if all you want to do is promote the theme of "better living through chemicals," you'll find your visits here to be very antagonistic and frustrating.

_________________
David Hall
Moderator
Dirt Doctor Lawns Forum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: pesticides, etc.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 5:48 pm
Posts: 806
Location: Weatherford,TX
AMEN to Robert & Dchall! A lot of "proof" provided by "engineers" & "scientists" is total bunk! :P :roll:

_________________
The "soap" you use is normally chemicals, etc. Use real SOAP !!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:29 pm
Posts: 125
Location: Rowlett TX
I am a convert to organic gardening. My reasons for trying it were a combination of trying to improve my landscape and thinking to myself "Hmmm... I just sprayed XYZ yesterday and I am barefoot in the lawn... I wonder?" and more importantly, my daughter follows my habit of walking barefoot...

I have a scientific background as well as a technology sales background and have published peer-reviewed research and i know the game back to front so I think I will just go ahead and piss everyone off by pointing out where both the chemical companies and the organic church are often on the one hand irresponsible and on the other foolish.

I'll go in reverse order first and slam those of us who believe in going organic because we do a wonderful job of marginalizing a fabulous argument by presenting it stupidly very often, not always, but far too often.

Big multinational corporations are not inherently evil. That is foolish and idealistic to the point of absurdity. A corporation that is beholden to it's shareholders to turn a profit has a job to do. They should be doing so within the rules, they should be doing so responsibly and when they find out or suspect that their product is dangerous they need to take the lead in cleaning up thier own mess. When they do not, we should immediately deliver them to the ninth concentric circle of class-action lawsuit hell. (Can I get an amen Phillip Morriss et al???). Forget conspiracy theories, focus on their actual screwups to beat them.

However, when the Organic lobby leads with "Corporations are evil, all chemicals are evil, yada, yada and etcetera" we may as well organically raise free range Unicorns because we are not dealing with reality.

The part that pisses me off? You only have to resort to that nonsensical, off-point conspiracy theory stuff when you have a lousy argument and we have a wonderful argument. (I loved the Fluorine story - perfect example of reason over emotion and a great example of how we accept the norm as fact without evidence)

It is quite well documented that using natural predators of undesirable insects has a better long-term cost effectiveness and overall effectiveness than using chemicals that did not quite make the grade in the germ warfare Ph.D. program. If we can show that a compound breaks down into the soil and groundwater into elementss that are either proven or suspected to be unsafe the argument is at an end - if we show an alternative that works without the same dangers.

I worked tobacco fields as a high school kid in Kentucky (yes, still go barefoot but relented and conformed on the whole 'No matter how cute cousins are, they are still off limits' notion - that was tough, I have some hot cousins) and got sick a few times after they sprayed and we had to work in the fields. OK, poor example when they use poison for healthier tobacco but at least the tobacco is optional. I would politely invite the chemical companies to examine my (and your own!) local water quality report or ahve it tested - see those lovely, unregulated but damned sure in your water treats like the lovely garbage in my 'superior' water supply. Please tell me how wonderful it is that my local water has unregulated amounts of Simazine from herbicide runoff in addition to such tasty treats as Bromodichloromethane and it's delightful cousin Dibromochlormethane. Yum! Just toss in some Vodka and an olive and you have a Martini you can't pronounce.

How about fertilizer? You can document what chicken manure slurry ferts do for a poor soil cornfield and it By-God works. You can compare yields and show that a natural alternative works equally well in comparison to chemical alternatives. Funny how that chicken-poop results in worms incrasing 400% in a year while the the chemi's seem to drive them out (what do worms know, they miss the commercials).

Likewise a million other examples - check my formerly blackspot and thrip infested roses on the ornamentals board and tell me that switching to organic after years of systemic pesticide/fungicide didn't work....

You resort to calling the other side names and proclaiming that the other side is evil if and only if your argument sucks and you can't win on facts.

Wake up - 90% of people are pragmatic, show them something that works and they will use it, show them two that work and explain with FACTS that one is less likely to cause funny looking children and they will be responsible. If you expect everyone to do the thing you deem right because it is moral without demonstrating effectiveness then well... you are going to be a very depressed person.

Organic proponents need only calmly and reasonably explain easily documented, common-sense, scientifically sound biological ecosystem principles such as the soil food web, the importance of biological pest controls in any natural ecosystem and other biologically sound, been around for a billion years concepts whose longrange effects are well known. Or we can be emotional and lose the middle 80% who has no clue why we are concerned and views us as moderately dangerous.

OK - now that I owe all my friends here the first round next time we go out for a beer...

Chemical companies, thy shall be shat upon as well.

First, Kudos. There have been good things done by the Monsanto's of the world and there are very surely many folks working for and investing in such companies who truly would like to see world food production equal world food needs. There have been advances in agriculture over the past century where such firms intended to do great good, succeeded, and truly did not anticipate the negative consequences that occur when you screw with a perfect biological ecosystem. Improving on God always seems possible and always involves an "OOOPS, missed that!" later on. Fair enough? (Hint, God is smarter, piss Him off and he generally whacks you over the head pretty hard)
DDT was too rough on Eagles, they are pretty cute unless you are a trout so we outlawed that and got safe pesticides like Dursban. OOOOPS, sh!t, we missed a few nasty side effects on that one too. Okay, we'll pull that and now here is a safe pesticide you can use and we are pretty sure it won't kill you since nobody has proved it will or can for another 10 years, try it! Heck, it took $300M to develope it for DOD and they decided it killed too slow but was hell on skeeters.

I do not believe that large corporations are inherently evil. I do believe they are inherently irresponsible and that may be just as bad. Been there, done that OK? When you have to meet a number to make your quarter and you are in sales then by-God you sell the new product and proclaim that it kicks the snot out of sliced bread and whatever was considered wonderful before that. When it flops, you brush it off and sell the next new product. It is a nasty, no-win business when you are selling and frankly I am glad to be out of it. I've been there - not in Chemis but I sold to chemical firms and helped them figure out how to get their product to market as efficiently as possible and I went out and drank with their sales guys - they had the same pressures I did and I promise you - they were given a very carefully edited script to turn to when negatives came up, that is sales, that is why I quit and got the hell out and started my own company and why I am happy having a few million less in stock options and a lot more ability to look my kid in the eye.

Here is why the chemical companies are a problem - they have to be very selective in what they say because they are accountable to shareholders wallets before shareholder's health. Wrong? He!! yes it's wrong but it is fact.

How do we change it? Well, there are two approaches I see frequently:

1. Use poor science and lots of emotion and make an empassioned appeal that the evil chemical companies are out to take over the world and are Satanic demons. I do not advocate that approach.

2. Kill them with logic, attack them with truth, bug the ever-lovin sh!t out of them at every turn when they are irresponsible and call them on it when they don't do right.

I'm not sure if anyone is reading this rant any longer but i'll illustrate some examples of how intelligent, pragmatic, calm reason can beat 8 figure marketing budgets. I can sum it up in 1 word. ASK!

Pesticide XYZ is unveiled. What do you do? Screaming and yelling will fail and make you look stupid and any halfway decent marketing person will be able to marginalize you as a slightly deranged 'environmental whacko' who is off his/her meds.

Instead....
"Well, that is interesting, this new compound kills bug ABC at a 95% rate resulting in a 21.2374% increase in crop yield, wow that is great! ...but i am curious. (Good debater's codephrase for 'I am about to pull your pants down and whip you like you stole in front of God and everyone')
What happens to the numbers of that pest in year 10 of that regimen? (If they have 10 years of data, ask about year 15) ...their response is "We are not sure yet but we EXPECT.... Ok, fine, I expected to be taller and better looking and that did not work out either.

"What does this compound do to populations of (insert good bug here) ?"

"What does that compound metabolize into over time and how persistent are those compounds in the soil and groundwater that i have to drink???"

"Golly, isn't that metabolite shown to have a distinct correlation to 3-headed kids?"

"Isn't that metabolite chemically very similar to compund Q that has been shown to accumulate in the liver and has been linked to shrinking of the male genitalia?" (OK, sales guy in me isn't dead - that one can be complete horse-puckey but makes all the tripods in the audience listen).

Hmmmmm... so in your 4 years of data it has not been proven that this chemical is carcinogenic and you are not sure what the toxic level in groundwater is but thus far nobody has proven conclusively that it kills people in a direct causal relationship?"

" OK, how does this control method compare to releasing Trichogramma, Delphastus, and various Hippodamia species of predatory insects (which yer stuff kills, Bubba) in the crop since we know that those insects are safe? Oh, no data? Hmmmmmm"

Ok, enough ranting.

My point, in summary, is this...

If we want to win the debate then there are realities we need to accept.
1. The average schmoe can't, and would not want to be able to even pronounce the ingredients in most chemical compounds. He also could give a crud what you or I think is harmonious with nature - he has a critter and wants it to die.

2. The same Schmoe, while completely devoid of proper organic idealogy does have an IQ in excess of room temperature - give him an option that works and tell him he is making the planet safer and he'll go for it, spray something safer and go back to his 5th beer for the second half - don't confuse him with a political debate, tell him "This stuff will kill yer critter and keep little Sally from giving you grandkids who are uglier than you". He'll understand that, he is fond of Sally.

3. Recognize that we live in a world where investors demand performance, empty bellies demand food and disinterested third parties demand facts. Our argument is gold-friggen-plated guys, argue on the merits and save the idealogy for people who care - yes everyone should, no they really won't. Want to win? Present a specific plan that works acceptably well and ask questions - the other guy has a crummy argument and the best marketing people in the world. Argue emotionally and they will eat you up like a ladybug on an all-you-care-to-eat aphid buffet, stick to the facts, ask the right questions and stay cool and you may as well drop fireants in their shorts - they are screwed because their argument has more holes than the digestive tract of a milky spore infested grub.

Last, but certainly not least - there are a lot of facts out there that are tremendously embarassing for the chem producers. Call them on it! When they say "Product QXY is safe!" do not get upset... politely, calmly, reasonably ask them "I understand that this is not proven to kill people yet, but isn't your data and research the same as it was for Dursban 5 years before you discovered the problems with that?" Then fill a glass with their stuff, the other with blended lady bugs, hand them their glass, smile, offer a toast and drink up. Being right is nice, that and $3.50 will get you a coffee at Starbucks (which is okay since you went there for the coffee grounds as a nitrogen source for your compost and the triple latte was a charade). Want to see your neighborhood organic? Have the best yard, teach your neighbors what works and research the hell out of the negative effects of artificial 'cures' on your ecosystem and spread the word carefully.

FWIW I have neighbors who come to me for lawn/garden care suggestions because their wife is pissed about their mess of a yard and want one like mine. THAT is someone who Monsanto can't touch when i get hold of them - I can point out each issue, explain a cure, why it works and throw in "Oh, by the way, little Tommie will be able to play in the yard and be completely safe!" (until the little monster hits puberty, looks at my daughter and discovers that the biological control for such pests is 200 pounds of me - my vermicomposting bin will leave no trace).

THAT is how we win.

So my challenge to every organic gardner is this: Go do the homework, find out what the actual, documented, factual problems are with the chem companies mistakes over the past 50 years and then compare an organic cure. KNOW why you argue the point you argue and if you don't know ASK and find out. You will find that the facts - not politics, not theory and not opinion - back the argument for organics. THEN TELL SOMEONE! Most importantly, make darned sure you have the best looking landscaping on your street and POLITELY and nicely reach out to your neighbors to help them solve thier yard issues with organics - leave the politics home, our methods work better so focus on the effectiveness first and let the goodness be a side benefit and people will listen.

Do I have any friends left or did I piss off everyone?

Free beer at Chuck's place for the next organic gardening party - just be sure the beer winds up in my compost pile and not the perfectly biologically filtered Koi pond.

I absolutely would love it if some of the chem companies reps would come here and scientifically debate who is right. If they do so, treat them with respect and stick to facts - a Chem-rep coming here is like a French guy wearing a peace symbol walking into a Marine bar and shouting "Vive le France!!!!!" Be kind and polite in your words, brutal in your logic and let's see who wins on the merits.

(I am sooooooooooooooo willing to debate this one devoid of emotion or politics.)

Monsanto et al - I dare you. Present each and every agricultural product you sell and why you think it is best and let's see who can PROVE they are right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:41 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Austin
Chuck, that was a fabulous post. Personal anecdote in support: my husband comes from a typical American family (i.e. see bug, spray poison). He learned about animal care and ranching from some types who thought that stuffing the animals with high-protein processed foods and spraying the fields with as many chemicals as possible was the only way to go. In addition, he is as stubborn a human as I have ever met -- once he gets an idea in his head, heaven help the person who tries to convince him otherwise! Now, after seeing what we can do without any harmful chemicals (including healthier horses and healthier us), he was out in the dark last night spraying organic fertilizer with bacteria and micro-nutrients on our hay field. One dedicated convert down, a few million more to go :)

Judith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: rant
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 5:48 pm
Posts: 806
Location: Weatherford,TX
Chuck, loved your rant. It was very informative & I agree with your statements regarding corporations. I was also there although in the manufacturing process. You had a good mix of humor which made the rant easier to read. Keep in mind that sometimes people give opinions & fact on this board without elaborating, listing researce, etc., etc. I think opinion has a lot to do with personal experience. Whatever; glad your all natural!

_________________
The "soap" you use is normally chemicals, etc. Use real SOAP !!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:42 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:45 pm
Posts: 2884
Location: San Antonio,TEXAS
So, Chuck. I'm still a little hazy still on your position.
Are you pro-organic or anti?
:shock: :D 8) :wink:

_________________
David Hall
Moderator
Dirt Doctor Lawns Forum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:29 pm
Posts: 125
Location: Rowlett TX
LOL, Ok so I type fast when I get annoyed.

Here's the thing - I am all for organic and love what it has done for my yard and really want to see organic methods become dominant. It is not unusual around here for someone to ask a question about a chemical product and get bashed for being stupid and for not caring about killing the planet etcetera.

Does it really matter? Well, yeah, it does and here is why.

One of these days we will get a visitor to this forum who has been farming with chemicals for decades. He's going to know that certain chemicals are excellent at doing exactly what they claim to do and know little or nothing about their downside.

So he's going to chat with another farmer who went organic and has gotten great returns due to the higher demand/prices and lower costs.

Then he's gonna get interested and come here to learn more and ask a question like "Well, I've been curing X with Y for 20 years, is this a bad thing or is there a better alternative and why???"

Someone is going to jump all over him, call him stupid, tell him he is part of the evil conspiracy to destroy the world and generally dump all over him. He'll do one of two things - go ask someone else or figure 'screw that, those guys ain't worth talking to'. So yeah, someone will finish their post with a satisfied feeling of "I TOLD HIM!" and the Monsanto and Dow reps will laugh with him and say "We coulda told ya those guys were kooks... now look what we have this year to increase your yields!"

Great opportunity blown, 10,000 acres continue getting chemicals they really don't need but hey, he got told what an evil jerk he was. He probably knows some folks at the chemical companies and has for years and knows full well that they are decent guys and will resent insults toward them.

On the other hand, if someone is just starting to unlearn everything they were ever taught about agriculture and is starting to learn a better way then each and every organic gardener has an opportunity to help that person figure out what to do to get the same (actually better) results with lower costs and less toxins.

To have passion for organics and to be deeply troubled by toxic chemicals is quite reasonable and with each new piece of research or experimentation in my own yard I am more convinced - but I'm easy - I like to learn this stuff and enjoy biology. The average guy has far less interest than most of us and the professional has kids to feed - for them we are only going to see a conversion to organic if our message is presented as carefully as the competition's and a recognition that sometimes the answer is 'Hmmm... I'm not sure what to substitute, let's check on that"

And ya know what? it should be easier, we have a better case to present and it really should not be a close contest if we stick to logic, reason and take a little care to explain the reasons why we are against the use of a product as a practical matter - the conclusion will be pretty obvious once the facts are in front of them.

While we are on the subject here's another one that bugs me...

I heard someone say not to buy organics at Lowes because Lowes also sells chemis. THAT is counter-productive. Lowes has organics, Home Depot does not so i go to Lowes and make a point to grab something from the organic section whether I need it or not. Why? Well think it over - if the organics sell faster than the chemis then the battle for shelf space starts going green. If 'purists' refuse to support Lowe's decision to introduce organic alternatives then guess what, back to chemicals. Worse yet, most homeowners don't know about the organic only places, nor do they care. But they do shop at Lowes don't they? A few thousand people each week walk past that organic section and if a dozen stop and actually read the label and figure "Hmm... sounds better than the chemical stuff" then that is the best advertising organics are getting.

Oh well, maybe this makes sense and maybe not... I am attacking this one from a sales and amrketing perspective - got a great product that is a niche player and want to see it increase market share - that takes exposure and that takes proving it is better to folks who have used the same thing for 20 years - they need a REASON to change and we have reasons... we just need to explain them to the folks who don't know with a little tact and discretion. Being right is fine, I'm after right and effective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Peace
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:33 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Dallas,TX
Hey, guys, I think chuck's on OUR side... the side of people, plants, animals, universe...oh yeah, and also the side of reason. And he's given us all some things to think about. Let's do that, shall we?
Kathe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Chuck and chemicals
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:58 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
Chuck and his logic is good. His discussion about Lowes is "right on" and getting the average beer drinking football fan to change is important because they don't have much of a life in the thinking department - pay the bills, watch tv and drink another brew.
I do have another opinion about corporations. I know how the politics works and I know that they have to respond to their share holders, but.......................I am getting to old to put up with compost.
Lets take a few examples of the lack of coporate integrity.
MTBE - toxic byproduct of gasoline. Oil companies begged congress to put this in gasoline as they said it would reduce imports from middle east. This was put in the gasoline in the metroplex in 1996 and the ozone went up dramatically and asthma increased by over 20% in a few weeks. There were studies by Fort Worth and other people about how bad this stuff was and nothing happened. Christie (sp) Todd-Whitman (the governor from NJ) had studies done how bad this stuff was and then she became head of the EPA and this stuff was wonderful.
We now have MTBE in all bodies of water and it is causing cancer and other health problems. The oil companies looking at billions of dollars in law suits and no begging and crying to congress that the government made them put this nasty stuff in the gas and they should be relieved of paying money in compensation.
GUESS WHOS POCKET THE MONEY WILL COME OUT OF ---- BEND OVER FOLKS.
Rocket fuel in lettuce form CA
Flame retardent in human breast milk
Teflon in water in Ohio River (close to Parkersburg WV where I was raised)for over 20 years
Syntex phamaceutical company made batch of baby formula that was defective - taken off the shelves of US and destroyed - right ---- wrong - was sold in third world countries to women who could not afford the product and when it was used up their babies starved because their breast milk had dried up.
Trace minerals sold as supplements to help us live better but because they are in metallic form our bodies can't absorb them. Vitamins that are considerd to be bed pan pellets becasue our digeastive system can't absorb them.
Baby formula in can that has less vitamins and minerals than Purina rat food. Why do they call it Simalac because it is lacking even the basic vitamins and minerals.
Fluoride in the water - doesn't prevent cavities - well documented as to its uselessness. ("How to Save Your Teeth" Toxic-Free Preventive Dentistry by David Kennedy DDS) Also know to cause depression in people. You know depression - biological shortage of Prosaic
Soy beans by Monsanto - now 80% GMO. This was not genetically modified to be healthier for the end user, it was modified with petunia gene to tolerate more Round up herbicide so farmers will spend more money on chemicals and you get more Round up in your system and guess what - Round up has been linked to cancer.
Grained fed chemical beef has been know for years to cause health problems besides being unhealthy. We now know beyound a doubt that grass fed non chemical dairy and beef is healthy. Do you see the industry changing, except by small cattle raisers like my self.
Radiation to make milk, beef , fruits and vegetables last on the shelf for 2 or 3 months and you are not going to be told about which product got irradiated. You are not going to be told which crops are GMO. This is due to the fact the large multinational companies work with and buy the the best government that can be had.

Bottom line is this - large corporations are out to make money and as a US citizen I am in favor of free enterprise (it has made us a great country that I don't want to see come to an end), but where do we draw the line when corporate responsibility ends in the name of profits at the expense of US and world population.
I have mentioned only a few of the corporate irresponsibilites and many I have mentioned do not have a thing to do with organic gardening but I think this forum and Howard Garrett stand for more than organic and inorganic issues (besides organic growing has to take inorganics and switch them into a form that is beneficial to us).
We may have to kiss Bubba's butt, but it is time we kick (by education, law suits or what ever) corporate butt to tear down or build up (actually help them) the quality of our lives and that of the rest of the world.
Thank God the Europeans and Japanese are refusing GMO's and chemical meats.
Remember how the political system works. I, as a company or organization, donate money to both political parties. That way I can't loose when it comes to government sponsored welfare. This was demonstrated recently by ADM who is buying up ethanol plants to make ethanol to be added to gasoline - which causes air pollution. They donated to both parties and therefore couldn't loose when it came time to collect their I-owe-yous!!!!!
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:39 pm
Posts: 532
Location: Lavon,Texas
Chuck IS on our side. Yes, his posts do, at times become lengthy, but read them, study them and most of all, believe them. His rose pictures are postive proof that organics are better then the chemicals!!
So Chuck, keep up the great work of promoting organics over chemicals and the word will be a better place to live, for all of us. Remember that we are converting the world, one person at a time, from the dreaded chemicals to the much better organic approach.

_________________
Greg...
Converting one person at a time to Organics, the only way to go!! [ ME ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:29 pm
Posts: 125
Location: Rowlett TX
Agree with you Robert - Corporate goals and the right thing often do not intersect... or even show up on the same map.

That's why folks like you and I who give a c*** and can actually make heads or tails from the gobbledy gook they put out need to be very aware of what's going on and willing to pop up and politely call 'bovine compost accelator' when a corporation makes a poor ethical choice that screws us and our kids....

Just so's i'm real clear - I say go after them, go after them smart, put as much fact behind our argument as possible and then ask pointed questions in a calm manner and make'm answer.

Personally I think we'll win out - the thing we often miss (my opinion) is that the perception out there is that organics are less effective but safer alternatives and the reality is that they are MORE effective. I am a cynic, I believe in the inherent laziness of man - give'm a better product and they buy it.... we got us a better product boys and girls :-).

At the same time, i welcome the chem companies to debate it here or anywhere else - In a civil, reasonable and fair fashion, not because I am on their side but because I am extremely confidant that in such a debate we can give them a polite, civil, about behind the woodshed cut me a switch and bend over a$$-whipping because they have a great PR team and a lousy case... Bad arguments oft repeated become facts in people's minds - refuting that is hard but I feel certain it is doable when we fight smart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:29 pm
Posts: 125
Location: Rowlett TX
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
http://www.dirtdoctor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2322

I think if we try to find out as much as we can about each compound commonly used and then give people a better regimen it works.

Might be that most people are not like me and hearing "Organic good, chemical bad" will suffice... assuming i am just a butthead the other approach will allow the organic newbie to understand WHY we feel that way.

OK, I am a butthead - but I'm a butthead on the side of organic gardening :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by eWeblife