Yes, I did look at the link, and I believe nationmaster just made up the
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.
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.
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:
Then I clicked through to here for the Environmental Sustainability Index
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.
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Name: Pesticide use
Units: Kg/Hectare of Cropland Reference Year: 1996
Source World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC:
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,
Thank you for your response. They say that ignorance is bliss, so I'm guessing
must be very happy. :)
Couldn't you have come up with something pithy, dear girl, rather than just a
cry to your cronies? Did you expect them to rush out, gang up on me, and pummel
with their words?
I'm sure the USGS (FYI that's the US Geological Survey) is pushing some liberal
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
get a total of all pesticide use per you'll have to do the math. I'll make it a
easier for you by providing the link. No need to thank me.
BTW Did you actually read any of my earlier post? The excerpts about the
pesticides in human breast milk are from the USGS, as well as a respected
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.
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:
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
being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast
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.
And you should try a fresh Honeycrisp apple, if you're ever in the
northern Midwest in September. (They also store very very well, but the
supply is limitted so there's never any available by October.)
Two steps ahead of you. Getting my first decent size crop from my Honeycrisp
this year. It is a great apple. I have some other excellent apples, like
Ashmead Kernel, Spigold, all great apples.
You must be absolutely correct. After all, my own garden, prolific with
delicious produce, probably exists only in my imagination. That is why I
start getting telephone calls in March and April from friends asking if
I'm planning to plant certain things this year and requesting to be put on
the list, some of those garden themselves.
There are those on this group who have been to my web page from 2002 and
seen what my garden is like and know from that, and their own experiences,
that organic works.
As for it's being "the latest craze," it's a practice that has been in
place for far longer than there have been television, radios, or even
presses. But you probably aren't aware of that. You seem determined to
insult it totally as if all the good it produces doesn't exist. To each
his own. You use chemicals, I do not. That is the way of the world. The
objection on my part is that you come across as totally against it when it
has proven in a very high percentage of home gardens to be effective.
That commercial farms are converting speaks for itself . . . for those who
wish to hear and to listen. One thing for certain, the chemical-producing
companies are not going to tout its benefits.
If I were ever ready to call someone stupid, you are getting close.
Obviously you cannot read. I grew up in eastern Washington which has been
stated in this thread. Not only have I eaten of the most delicious apples
on the face of the planet, but I have picked some as well. My own
grandparents had a variety of apple trees in their yard, in the heart of
the best apple-producing area of the world. My childhood is the basis of
all apple tasting, because I've had the best.
Your comment about my own apple tasting really reveals to me that you just
go off un-informed and not wanting to be informed. You come across as a
truly sad person, and I suspect you have many inter-personal problems with
others based on your inability to listen. Your opinions seem to be the
only ones that matter and everyone who thinks differently must be
silenced. I'll bet you voted for our current president and plan to do so
I don't recall saying anything about either of those affecting blood
pressure, only that oat bran will lower cholesterol, based on it absorbing
it so it never gets into the bloodstream. Not only it that highly
documented by credible sources, but it has been proven correct over and
over in the lives of friends as they start practicing it. As I said in my
last response to you, you do tend to read into writings things that are
not there. This comment only serves to prove my point!
Taking with your cereal is rather deceptive and only minimally effective;
make your cereal oat bran and you'll see a difference in your test results.
As for your blood pressure, I'm not at all surprised that yours is high.
If you simply enjoyed life and adapted a more encompassing attitude about
life around you, it would very likely become closer to what would be
normal. If your doctor were to read your responses in this thread, there
is no doubt in my mind that the same doctor would tell you that you, not
the meds, must do the bulk of correcting the problem. Meds can help, but
the patient must change their lifestyle which, in your case, might mean to
not spend so much of your energy trying to be angry with everyone in the
world. Just look at how much negative energy you have created and
expended on this thread . . . one can only imagine what you do with the
rest of your life. Instead of coming back with insulting remarks to me
about this, try seriously evaluating my comments regarding this with an
open mind for several days. More importantly, practice it . . . instead
of just reacting to contradict someone, think about what they have said,
find what there is that you agree with and concentrate on that instead of
attacking ideas (and even people). You will be a much happier person, as
will those around you, and your blood pressure will start coming down.
Try it, you will be amazed.
Again, you have taken something said and turned it into something entirely
different. What I said, and clearly written, was that doctors are too
quick to reach for prescription pads and not taking advantage of natural
methods and incorporating them whenever possible. When I had a physical
several years ago, my cholesterol was very high on the test, repeat "on
the test." They scheduled me with the specialist who spoke with me and
reached for his prescription pad. I told him to take another test, that I
knew it would be down 40 points from where it was several weeks ago when
the blood test was taken. He didn't believe me but could clearly see that
I was unwilling to take meds that were going to potentially damage my
liver, cause dizziness, etc., on the basis of *ONE* blood test. You see,
I knew how I ate the days before that test and, after getting the results,
went back to my oat bran muffins (made with oat bran, no flours), skim
milk, orange juice, and sliced banana breakfast. He ordered a second blood
test . . . and, just as I said, my cholesterol was down a bit over 40
My point was that many times meds are prescribed when they may not need to
be, and often could be prescribed in smaller doses if they really are
needed. However, you (generic you) would prefer to reach for a pill than
change your (generic your) life style. It's like that with gardening, see
a bug, grab the spray; don't identify the bug and see if there are natural
predators for it and utilize those. It doesn't take much in the way of
effort to reach for a pill bottle or a spray can. We human beings are
very much on the lazy, I don't want to be bothered, side.
a lazy gardener, letting the beneficials and birds
take care of the bugs, and just enjoying the garden
(after supplementing the soil every fall/spring
with organic material to keep the soil healthy)
To quote you on your subsequent posting:
"The first fall I had this house, the apple crop was abundant (I have
several trees) but the coddling moths loved the apples so it was quite a
chore to have any pie or sauce and I just didn't pick from the trees to
eat as I had in my childhood."
I guess you forgot about the coddling moths.
It may have been around for many years, but now it's getting a lot more
You obviously have not read all my postings. I use as many organic methods
practical ( sticky traps, mulch piles, etc.). I have never insulted it.
Just the way
certain people are telling us we MUST go over to it completely. I try and
minimal spraying to save my fruit. I don't particularly like spraying
but I have found the organic sprays do not do the complete job.
If you are talking about the Washington Red Delicious, I have to believe
your exposure to other varieties is very limited. Even the growers in
are finally waking up and starting other varieties like Fuji and Gala
public is tired of the nice shinny red apples that taste like cardboard.
Maybe so, but those are not the Washington Apples we buy in the Midwest.
Here we go with the insults again.
Oh, and I suppose yours is the only truth.
Actually, I voted for Gore. Surprised?
Hey, you are in this thread, as well. I just don't like people taking
to a fanatical extreme. Organics has a place in this world, but it is not
total solution. When they come out with an organic spray that kills Codling
Moths, Plum Curculio, etc., I'll stop spraying the chemicals.
Well, we are really getting off topic for a gardening forum. Let's drop
Just like there are no magic pills for every malady, there are no effective
organic cures yet for every pest. If you are willing to accept that, we can
put this thing to rest.
NOTE: I said "The first fall I had this house ..." Obviously, I had no
control over what happened to the trees, or their care, before I owned it
and took possession of it *and* the apple trees!
Did that go right past you?
OK. Are you saying now that you are not getting any attacking pests on your
trees? If not, what percentage of apples are attacked? Are you spraying
organic stuff, and what is it?
Glenna Rose wrote:
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.