I remember that. Wasn't it about coffee? One day, it's good for you, the
next day, it will kill you. And then the next day, it's off to some other
substance. French fries, apples, lawnmower exhaust in California
............... you name it.
No, neither...it's how science and in particular, testing works...
You do the best you can w/ what you have at the time. If later work
turns up something else, you incorporate that as well.
That people (and companies _are_ people at the bottom) make either
ill-advised statements or that others may take statements out of context
or simply try to find any weakness in one is also a fact of life.
That the second study may subsequently be shown to be either invalid or
superseded by later data and tests/studies is also quite possible and a
very frequent event, too.
In short, any one test/study/claim is only one piece of any evaluation
of any product.
As purely a point of reference, I'm guessing you don't have any
involvement w/ agricultural production nor in the production of a major
portion of your own? (I'm not planning a bash here, just trying to
actually establish some context for discussion.)
"Major" production depends on the whims of the weather and the friggin'
deer, but I've been a fanatical vegetable gardener for 30+ years. I'm not
involved with any sort of commercial production, other than giving away a
lot of herbs to a friend who runs a small restaurant.
OK, that's what I had figured, maybe.
Turn that into _having_ to produce enough to feed you and your family
reliably every day of the year or in producing enough product to sell to
be able to pay the daily bills and provide a comfortable standard of living.
Our family has made our living farming for right at 100 years now in
middle of US. Changes are phenomenal in practice and scope in the time
since my grandfather homesteaded here. W/o any commercial herbicides
production costs would skyrocket and yield would be dramatically reduced.
It's kinda' like solar or wind power generation -- a good thing but the
energy density is so low as to make it a very hard economic replacement
for all higher-density generation techniques. While you're growing some
veggies and all, we're providing the wheat, etc., that you need for the
bread to put that tomato into a sandwich...
All true, but this doesn't address the fact that homeowners use chemicals
they know little or nothing about. I've heard neighbors say "If they sell
it, it must safe, right?" Homeowners do not NEED chemicals to make a living.
Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second. Used
to be factories.
Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn chemicals.
If you have data to prove them wrong, I'd love to see it. If not, you should
be able to imagine how they'd determine such a thing.
It was either in the Chicago Tribune or NY Times last summer. I don't pay
for archive access for either of them, but if you do, the article should be
easy to find.
I'm curious, though: What would be your reason for doubting this?
Well, given that you have it second (or third) hand through a newspaper
article, not even the actual report itself, what could there _possibly_
be to doubt?
I'm saying I think the fact there may be more "point sources" in
homeowners is one thing, but what it really means in terms of actual
contamination may (and probably is) something different entirely.
I'd have to read the report to see what they actually said to comment
further. I don't accept every blind usenet post as gospel for some
Logically, then, nothing anyone learned before the internet existed is
valid. Very interesting.
In SOME, but NOT ALL places people live, what's poured into the soil will
end up their drinking water eventually.
TRUE OR FALSE?
I am already getting old (58), and am in the process of dying (heart
disease). My days are too full to give any of my time to endless pointless
arguments about "it ain't fair", or "the way it SHOULD be". Because of a
brain injury, reading is not one of my hobbies. But, I do stay very busy
with the others. I think reading is for people who don't know how to do
Funny when they did studies on the "organic" and "natural" products, tests
showed very little difference between them and regular products. In fact,
they found poisons in them, and a lot were grown with the aid of plain old
But, I guess human waste costs more than fertilizer, hence the spike in
I just wonder if the taste is different ................
Many years ago, the chemical industry purchased certain legislators so they
could arrange for so-called "inert" ingredients to be exempt from safety
testing. These ingredients are often found in "organic" garden chemicals.
Matter of fact, one of them is the reason Roundup is funny stuff:
"Animal however, do not utilize such an enzyme and it is now thought that
Roundup's toxicity is attributable to the surfactant component
polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) in the formulation. The toxicity profile is
similar to that of other surfactant substances and is limited to cases of
exposure by ingestion."
I'll leave it up to the idiots here to figure out what a surfactant is.
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.