Text 18145, 105 rader
Skriven 2008-06-23 14:35:44 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 18122 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
Ärende: Make work
=================
Björn Forsström wrote to Robert Bashe on Monday June 23 2008 at 07:58:

BF>>> Then they spray the dung before they have plowed because they have
BF>>> to plow within, I think it's 3 or 5 days...

RB>> I can't say whether it's applied before plowing or before seeding.

BF> Is this normal for you, not knowing what you're talking about?

Are you a farmer who has applied such things and is it really important when
this junk is applied? As for not knowing what you're talking about, I bow to
your excellence in that subject.

RB>> One way or another, shit is shit and piss is piss and both are
RB>> "chemicals".

BF> [sigh] When I say chemicals I mean stuff that's man-made.

Which is false and misleading. And damned hard to define. For example, urea is
a natural product, but is also synthesized on a large scale for fertilizer.

BF>>> ... and the other stuff (poison) is sprayed the first time when the
BF>>> crop has growned for a month or so.

RB>> Substitute "herbicide" for "poison" and you come close. And
RB>> "pesticide" possibly during the growth period, but far enough in
RB>> advance of harvest that no residues remain on the crop. That's the
RB>> way things are usually done.

BF> How do you know that?

Because I'm a chemist and read/translated research reports in this field for
around 20 years. I figure that's a better basis then a 15-minute search of
Wikepedia.

RB>> Incidently, the toxicological testing that is performed on such crop
RB>> protection agents is not only directed toward determining any
RB>> possible effects on crops (residues due to improper application), but
RB>> is also intended to determine if there is any risk to the people who
RB>> apply such agents, and if so, what protective equipment (gloves, face
RB>> masks) is required. The concentrated agents are often at least
RB>> slightly hazardous to health - particularly the pesticides - but not
RB>> always: still, the industry, the governments and the farmers prefer
RB>> to err on the side of caution.

BF> How do you know that?

Do I have to repeat myself again and again until you accept the facts? I know
because I've worked in the field. What's your excuse?

BF> People does the most funniest things when it comes to making money.

True. That's why governments have laws and regulations to specify what may be
used in and around foodstuffs and edible crops, and why the government
authorities require testing and retesting of active ingredients for, among
other things: acute oral, acute dermal, subacute oral, subacute dermal, chronic
oral, chronic dermal toxicity; skin sensitization, skin and mucous membrane
irritancy, mutagenicity, inhalation, in-vitro, in-vivo, teratogenicity,
pseudoendrocrinicity, neurotoxicity in rats, mice, rabbits, cats (neuro), dogs
and occasionally in human volunteers (irritancy, sensitization).

RB>> P.S. It's sometimes interesting what uses such agents can have... one
RB>> of the active ingredients for pesticides used in gardens
RB>> (imidocloprid) is

BF> According to EPA that is labeled as a potential ground water
BF> contaminant.

Potential = possible. And then there's the question about levels. A lot of the
discoveries that various contaminants are present is simply due to the fact
that the analytical techniques have improved to such a point that a few ppb can
now be detected, whereas earlier it was hard to find even several ppm.
Non-scientists then read about this and go into hysterics because they think
the contamination is something brand new, whereas in many cases it's existed
for decades without anyone suffering any particular adverse effects.

Incidently, imidacloprid biodegrades. And I've read of more water wells in
Germany closed by reason of "liquid manure" seepage than due to any
herbicide/pesticide contamination.

RB>> also effective in eliminating fleas and ticks in cats...

BF> Have you tried that on a dog? Don't! Most lilely it will kill it
BF> because they have totally diffrent nervous systems.

They do, and that's why you can't extrapolate the effects of medicines from one
species to another without a great deal of testing.

Incidently, you can kill a cat with phenol, but you as a human can wash your
hands in a dilute solution (which doctors used to do th sterilize them).

BF> We have a Expot for dogs that kills a cat. See what the wrong use of a
BF> chemical can do.

Dogs weigh more than cats (possible overdose) and as noted don't have the same
metabolism. But I really don't understand your comment. We're not talking about
misuse here, but about proper use of pesticides and herbicides. Sure, you can
misuse anything. But if that were a reason to ban everything that can be
misused, we wouldn't be allowed to buy kitchen knives or scissors, much less
cars. Things are always a balance between utility and misuse potential.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)