Some of the reasons I don't spray pesticides ...

Page 3 of 3  


Oh god I'd love to have a greenhouse with a population of newts wandering about in it! Were they Oregon roughskinned newts? I've kept a few in vivariums, they get really tame.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

Cretin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:) i never ever once used any chemical spray, including those which :) are called "natural" like pyrethrin. to me, ANY substance which can kill :) 6-leggers, will also kill 2 and 4 leggers!!! Yet 16 years in the field and have never seen the case :/
:) anti-pesticide fantatics of the garden world.....LET US JOIN TOGETHER!!! only if it is a news group with "organic" in the title :) J/K we likes the diversity....Can't we all just plant along!!!
Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!
It is said that the early bird gets the worm, but it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

The problem is the same. The more pesticide that's used, the more resistant the insects become. That is the main reason for the development of IPM. The commonly used pesticides lose their efficacy after a while. They're running out of pesticides that are toxic enough to kill bugs, but not people.
EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i, too, have a fatal allergy to yellowjackets and hornets; but i also know if you spray for them, you are also taking the terrible chance at killing the bumblebees, the honeybees, and other beneficials. what "I" do is to carry my epipen EVERY WHERE i go AND i also underwent the 5-year venom programme at my local hospital, which means...i still have to go to a hospital after i've been stung, but only to get a heavy duty inhale of oxygen and a 2 hour look-see to make sure my throat doesn't clog up.
all in all, it was worth spending 2 hour segments of my time for 5 years rather than spraying for a bugger who's been on earth way longer than human beans.
p.s. you are wasting your money by hiring orkin or any similar killer company because 1) yellowjackets usually overtake an older existing mole or vole home and therefore it is quite maze-like; and 2) the yellowjackets will just move their queen to another hole and make that their home. how many holes can you hire someone to spray...and kill???

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net said:

Don't know about Orkin, but I will put in a good word for some local pest control guys. We had a tiny baby at home and *several* yellowjacket nests near the front and side porches. Something *had* to be done.
Called a local pest control guy (not someone from the big chains). Watched him through the front window while he smoked the nests, raked them up and into heavy plastic bags, sealed them up and hauled them away. It was worth every penny I paid him just to see that. (He remarked how unusual is was to see so many wasp nests so close together.) Problem solved; other than a few stragglers the next day, they were gone.
Now, I'm sure the guys at the big chains would be pushing to get you set up as a regular customer for all kinds of preventative pesticide applications. (That was the case when I called the company which starts with T and ends in X.) But not every possible solution involves massive amounts of pesticides...
--
Pat in Plymouth MI ('someplace.net' is comcast)

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

My pleasure. The wonderful thing about gardening forums is that there are others with common interests, who derive enjoyment from gardening in similar ways. I'm a fan of both the flora and the fauna.
Your organic greenhouse sounded great. :-)
EV

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you are a great person, ev...and i would LOVE it if you could possibly contact me via private email...my earthlink spam go-getter will say HALT! all spammers who go there...just request to be entered into my address book and then we can communicate more closely without all the nuts. oh!! how do you know that "I" am not a nut?? well...i am, sorta. i am a nut about not adding any more chemicals to the waterways (one thing no one has happened to mention). i'm also a nut against killing the birds, the bees, and any other critter who was here before me (including white-tailed deer). so, if you consider THAT being a nut, by all means, avoid me like the plague...otherwise, dya think we could be gardening buddies?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sherwindu wrote:

Organic certification can be a long arduous process. The requirements are stringent (at least here in Canada).

Are you sure about that? Then how come they keep finding it in fruit ... among other things?
------------- POPs found in all foods: wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/ module5/Jepidemilologyarticle/pesticidesinfoodpdf.pdf [] Based on data from the US Food and Drug Administration, this article provides a brief overview of POPs residues in common foods in the United States food supply. The analysis focuses on 12 chemical compounds now targeted for an international phase out under the Stockholm Convention on POPs. The available information indicates that POPs residues are present in virtually all categories of foods, including baked goods, fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, and dairy products. Residues of five or more persistent toxic chemicals in a single food item are not unusual, with the most commonly found POPs being the pesticides DDT (and its metabolites, such as DDE) and dieldrin. Estimated daily doses of dieldrin alone exceed US Environmental Protection Agency and US Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Control reference dose for children. Given the widespread occurrence of POPs in the food supply and the serious health risks associated with even extremely small levels of exposure, prevention of further food contamination must be a national health policy priority in every country. [] --------------------------------

In actual fact, they do. Here's why.
If someone in India dumped DDT into the ocean, how long do you think it would take to get to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Would you believe less than 2 weeks? It's called The Grasshopper Effect (http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay/article2_e.html ), and it's just one of the ways that toxics travel around the world. This is why DDT, which has been banned in NA since the 70's, is still found in the belugas of the St. Lawrence. This is why they constantly need to replenish the Peregrine Falcons in the wild release programs. Pesticides (and/or their breakdown products) that were used from the 40's to the 70's are still out there in the food chain.
Pesticides permeate every body of water on the planet and are highly detrimental to aquatic life:
http://rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu/edf/text/ddt.html [] Worldwide, levels of DDT are between 1 and 10 ng/l in estuaries and coastal areas, and between 0.1 and 1 ng/l in the open sea (Kennish, 1994). While DDT concentrations in surface waters are largely controlled by the concentration of DDT in the atmosphere, the ocean serves as a sink for DDT (Iwata et al., 1993). [] In the Arctic, the highest concentrations of DDT in surface waters are reported near the Indigirka River in the East Siberian Sea (2.5 ng/l) and in the vicinity of the Ob' River in the Kara Sea (2 ng/l, Melnikov and Vlasov 1992). DDT in belugas generally ranges from 1 to 5 ug/g in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic (Muir et al., 1990; Careau et al., 1992; Schantz et al., 1993). Note that these values are about 1 million times higher than DDT levels in seawater. An average of 58 ug/g was measured in belugas from the St. Lawrence estuary, a high value indicative of past heavy use of DDT as a pesticide in eastern Canada (Muir et al., 1990). New data indicate that the White Sea is similar to the St. Lawrence estuary, with a value of 64 ug/g (Muir and Norstrom, 1994). [] Once ingested, DDT and its metabolites accumulate in the fatty tissues of organisms. Today, birds and mammals continue to retain both DDD and DDE, in part from retention in fat, and in part from uptake of residual contamination. An important concern with DDT is that it becomes concentrated as it is transferred up the food chain. In an aquatic environment, DDT at a concentration of 0.001 to 0.01 ppb (- or m? check), results in a 0.1 ppm concentration in aquatic invertebrates, 0.2 to 2 ppm in fish, and 10 ppm in birds (Edwards, 1973). Because pesticide residues can be transferred to offspring through excretion in the egg, progeny may begin life with an elevated body burden of DDT. [] --------------------------------------- More about Belugas and pesticides: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1995/Suppl-4/deguise-full.html Overhunting in the 1rst half of the century was the probable cause for this population to dwindle from several thousand animals to the current estimate of 500. The failure of the population to recover might be due to contamination by organochlorine compounds, which are known to lead to reproductive failure and immunosuppression in domestic and laboratory animals and seals. [snip] Overall, St. Lawrence belugas might well represent the risk associated with long-term exposure to pollutants present in their environment and might be a good model to predict health problems that could emerge in highly exposed human populations over time. -- Environ Health Perspect 103(Suppl 4):00-00 (1995) ---------------------------------- Organochlorine levels in whales tissue samples from Trent University: http://whale.wheelock.edu/bwcontaminants/results.html ---------------------------------- Global Pesticide Release Database from Environment Canada: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/data/gloperd/basic_knowledge_e.cfm [] Organochlorines, which are stable and vapour-forming, can be carried by air currents for long distances. Eventually they condense and are deposited on land and water, particularly in cold climatic regions. Oganochlorine residues have been detected in air, water, soil, sediment, fish, and birds global wide. They have also been found in remote areas, such as open oceans and polar regions. If they contaminate the food supply of animals, organochlorines become more concentrated as they move up through the food chain. For this reason, the highest levels of organochlorines are found in species at the top of the food chain: human beings, fish-eating birds, and marine mammals. [] -----------------------------
POP's such as aldrine, dieldrine, endrine, chlordane, DDT, heptachlore, hexaclorobenzene, mirex, chlordecone, lindane, and toxaphene, build up in tissues.
---------------- wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/ module5/Jepidemilologyarticle/pesticidesinfoodpdf.pdf All living organisms on Earth now carry measurable levels of POPs in their tissues. POPs have been found in sea mammals at levels high enough to qualify their bodies as hazardous waste under US law, and evidence of POPs contamination in human blood and breast milk has been documented worldwide. There is strong evidence that exposure to even miniscule amounts of POPs at critical periods of development particularly in uterocan cause irreversible damage. The effects of such exposures may take years to develop, sometimes appearing first in the offspring of exposed parents. [] -----------------
As we are at the top of the food chain, humans get the most concentrated doses of contaminants. Among whales, the females are less toxic than the males. Studies revealed that the reason for this is that females release the toxins from their fatty tissues into their milk. (http://whale.wheelock.edu/bwcontaminants/results.html ) It's the same for humans. There are also indications that, due to their interactions inside the body, pesticide cocktails can be more toxic than the same amount of a single pesticide.
---------------------------------- Oraganochlorines in human breast milk: http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/pesthist.htm DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world. When you think about it, human breast fed babies are way up there on the food chain, and are thus very susceptible to the effects of biomagnification and bioconcentration. For persistent compounds like DDT (or other persistent compounds, such as dioxins or PCB's -- see "POPs," below) human milk is the most contaminated of all human foods. Typically, concentrations of organochlorines (such as DDT) in human milk are 10 - 20 times higher than in cow's milk, and prevailing levels are often greater than those allowed in commercial food stuffs.
[] -----------------------------
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/fs09200 / Human exposure to organochlorine pesticides has been documented by studies detecting these compounds in various human tissues, including breast milk. Consumption of contaminated food (including fish and shellfish) is a major route of human exposure to organochlorine pesticides. [] Organochlorine compounds tend to be stored in high-fat tissues within the body, but can be mobilized during lactation or starvation. Levels of some organochlorine compounds in human tissues in the United States do not appear to have declined, at least through the early 1980s. Examples include DDT in breast milk and dieldrin in adipose tissue (fat). [] ---------------------------------
Body stores of pesticide are also associated with breast cancer: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&bp679&ct 190
So why is there that much pesticide in the environment? Who's using it all?
Trends in Pesticide Use: "One major environmental science text book asserts that the average US homeowner uses 2 - 6 times more pesticide per acre than do farmers."
http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/pesttren.htm [] We will focus on farms, because farmers consume (that is, use) about 77% of all pesticides in the US. However, it is important to realize that the problem isn't all related to farm uses. It is estimated that about 10% of the land area in the US (including forests, lawns, etc.) is treated annually with pesticides. Home gardeners are often some of the most extravagant ? and sloppy ? users!) (One major environmental science text book asserts that the average US homeowner uses 2 - 6 times more pesticide per acre than do farmers.) In the US, the total pounds of pesticide active ingredients applied on farms increased 170% between 1964 and 1982 (the increase was 33 fold between 1945 and 1990). These figures related only to the agricultural sector. In evaluating these increases, it is important to remember the increased toxicity of pesticides; one pound of active ingredient for current products is many times greater than one pound for earlier generations of pesticides in terms of toxicity. One might think that this trend was driven by increasing agricultural acreage over this time? Recall, during this time, total acres under cultivation basically decreased , so the increase in pesticide use wasn't driven by increased agricultural acreage. [] ------------------------------
So, obviously, more is less.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use
In the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each hectare of cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare= approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide per acre.
So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes to 2,820 lbs of pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using pesticides, it would be a significant amount not going into the environment.

No amount of pesticide will control the locust infestation plaguing parts of Africa today. And ... That good irrigation is what gets pesticides into the water table:
Pesticides in Ground Water: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw/Pest-GW_2001_Text.html ------------------------- Pesticides found in all the bodies of water on the planet. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/index.html ------------------------- PESTICIDES ANALYZED IN NAWQA SAMPLES: Use, Chemical Analyses, and Water-Quality Criteria http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/anstrat/index.html#t3 -------------------------

The evidence suggests that they ARE being misused. And the more they're misused, the less effective they'll be.

Probably because the pesticides are acting in your yard as well. They're easily airborne.

That is irrefutably true. :-)
For people who persist in spraying, IPM is the better way. Spraying can be cut in half using IPM methods. Better for the environment, the pocket book, and the back.
An entomologist, who works at the big research station near here developing IPM protocols for peaches, told me that the main reason for IPM is that bugs adapt too readily to pesticides. Pesticides work really well for a few years and then start to be less effective as the bugs adapt. The big worry is soon there won't be any pesticides that work. IPM strives to keep pesticide use to a minimum, so that when it is used, it works. The added bonus for growers is lower cost, and better yield.
IPM borrows from successful organic principles, such as predatory control, and the proper timing of applications. Now that the life cycles of pest insects are better understood, controls (natural or otherwise) can be tailored to be more effective.
That's why I try to learn about every single new bug, or problem, that I find. For instance, I found out the plum curculios like the cool, dampness and lack of sun in the middle of the tree. I checked my tree, and the plums on the outside, that get sunshine through most of the day are the healthiest. I think I need to prune my tree to get more light into the middle ... now all I have to do is learn more about proper plum tree pruning.
EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
EV wrote:

Where did that statistic come from?

But they don't use twice as much per acre. Home gardeners might use twice as much pesticide per fruit tree, but they don't have that many trees. They don't grow crops like soybeans and corn and cotton. They also use way too much chemicals on their lawns, but I doubt that even *that* comes to 1/100 of the amount you are saying. Being able to scale a dubious statistic and convert to different units or measure doesn't magically give it credibility.
I have found that non-chemical controls are better at reducing the insect levels to the point where they might be tolerable. Then when you have a major infestation, the chemicals are more effective because they bugs aren't used to them. I'm trying to figure out how this principle relates to apple production in the Upper Midwest.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
zxcvbob wrote:

Did you check this link? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

That isn't going to fly here, Bob. It's a non-argument.

Please don't be coy. Twice as much per tree is still twice as much, whether it's on an acre or not. It all adds up.

Pardon me for saying so, but that's a silly comment. I converted the units because I know that Americans are not familiar with kilograms, and acres are more meaningful to most people than hectares. Whichever units it's described in, the numbers add up to the same amount. I wasn't hiding anything.
I was looking for an overall statistic of pesticide use. Since that doesn't satisfy you, you can go the USGS site where they list close to 200 pesticides and their estimated rate of application, complete with useage maps: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/index.html
I've gone to the individual pesticide useage pages on the USGS site and just added up some of the totals (broken down by crop). I chose the ones that sounded familiar to me. I don't know which are, or aren't, the most heavily used.
These figures represent the total estimated amounts, in lbs, used on all crops (for agricultural use) in a year (1992) in the US. Since not all counties reported, and it is now 12 years later, I expect that the numbers are much higher now. The maps show the distribution of the application if you're interested.
Atrazine: 63,947,512 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/atrazin.html
Alachlor: 25,647,683 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/alclr.html
Captan: 3,774,667 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/captan.html
Diazinon: 1,066,220 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/diaznon.html
Malathion: 2,689,831 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/malthion.html
Maneb: 2,808,304 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/maneb.html
Phosmet: 904,832 lbs per year http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/phosmt.html
That's just 7 of almost 200 pesticides listed by the USGS as being used for ag purposes. Together these pesticides alone come to 97,064,382 lbs of pesticide per year ... almost a BILLION pounds from just 7 pesticides.
Home growers were not surveyed. Also not factored in are the pesticides that people apply to their lawns or for insect control in and around the home. Now, if home gardeners use 2 to 6 times as much pesticide as commercial growers ... even if they constitute a fraction, in acres, of commercial production, it's still a significant amount.
I, too, thought that the figure of 1,410 lbs pesticide per acre sounded high. But when you look at the total use of just 7 or hundreds of pesticides, it doesn't really seem all that implausible.

That's the basic idea behind IPM. So if home growers feel compelled to use pesticides, that's the way to go.

various resources: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=IPM+apples+midwest&btnG=Search&meta ID-93: Midwest Tree Fruit Pest Management Handbook ... Integrated pest management (IPM) disease management guidelines for organic apple production in Ohio. ... Integrated pest management for apples and pears. ... www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id93/app.htm
http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.apples.html http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/index.html
Happy growing, EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
EV wrote:

Yes, I did look at the link, and I believe nationmaster just made up the statistic.

Yes, it does add up. But your original statistic was expressed in in kg/hectare. Home owners do not plant high-density stands of fruit trees. So using twice as much pesticide per tree does not translate to using twice as much per acre.

My point was that if the original statistic is wrong (and I think it is but I don't know (it looks ridiculous)), converting it to different units doesn't make it right.

[snip]
I will study this USGS link, and the others you posted that were in the rest of your message that I trimmed off. Thank-you.
Best regards, Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
zxcvbob wrote:

On their page they give their source as being: Source: World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. via ciesin.org
I checked Ciesen org. It is the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University: http://www.ciesin.org /
Then I clicked through to here for the Environmental Sustainability Index page: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI /
and downloaded a pdf file of their 2002 Environmental Sustainability Report--section 3, Annex 6, "Data Tables". It does confirm the statistic given by nationmaster. Here's the relevent excerpt from the section, plus the Canadian stat for the hosers.
------------ http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/ESI2002_21MAR02c.pdf
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data Variable: PESTHA Name: Pesticide use Units: Kg/Hectare of Cropland Reference Year: 1996 Source World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. [] Canada 644.00 [] United States 1599.00 [] ------------
So the stat of 1599 kg of pesticide used per hectare of ag land really does come from a report by CIESEN at Columbia University, which is, as you know, a highly reputable institution of learning.

This is a moot point, Bob, and beneath a man of your obvious intelligence.

Americans are a ridiculous people. :) But if you actually download the pdf, you'll see that the US, eventhough it uses 1599 kg of pesticide per hectare, is far from the worst pesticide polluter in the world. That's the really scary part. Because there are no borders when it comes to wind/air and water borne pesticides.

You're very welcome. I'm glad that you're interested in being informed by facts and not by conjecture. Sometimes people take a side and stick with it, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Best regards to you too,
EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
EV wrote:

What a crock of shit! No wonder liberals have a bad name.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Diane James wrote:

Thank you for your response. They say that ignorance is bliss, so I'm guessing you must be very happy. :)
Couldn't you have come up with something pithy, dear girl, rather than just a rallying cry to your cronies? Did you expect them to rush out, gang up on me, and pummel me with their words?
I'm sure the USGS (FYI that's the US Geological Survey) is pushing some liberal agenda with their survey of pesticide use too. Why don't you check out their survey of pesticide use? They have nearly 200 commonly used pesticides surveyed and mapped. To get a total of all pesticide use per you'll have to do the math. I'll make it a bit easier for you by providing the link. No need to thank me.
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/index.html
BTW Did you actually read any of my earlier post? The excerpts about the presence of pesticides in human breast milk are from the USGS, as well as a respected American college. Even pesticide pushers, who don't give a crap about other lifeforms, get concerned when it comes to their own children. Be concerned. Be very concerned.
----------------------------- http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/fs09200 / Human exposure to organochlorine pesticides has been documented by studies detecting these compounds in various human tissues, including breast milk. Consumption of contaminated food (including fish and shellfish) is a major route of human exposure to organochlorine pesticides. [] Organochlorine compounds tend to be stored in high-fat tissues within the body, but can be mobilized during lactation or starvation. Levels of some organochlorine compounds in human tissues in the United States do not appear to have declined, at least through the early 1980s. Examples include DDT in breast milk and dieldrin in adipose tissue (fat). [] --------------------------------- Oraganochlorines in human breast milk: http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/pesthist.htm DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world. When you think about it, human breast fed babies are way up there on the food chain, and are thus very susceptible to the effects of biomagnification and bioconcentration. For persistent compounds like DDT (or other persistent compounds, such as dioxins or PCB's -- see "POPs," below) human milk is the most contaminated of all human foods. Typically, concentrations of organochlorines (such as DDT) in human milk are 10 - 20 times higher than in cow's milk, and prevailing levels are often greater than those allowed in commercial food stuffs. [] -----------------------------
HTH :)
EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.