Re: email list suggestion - organic or not .....
- To: Charles Dills
- Subject: Re: email list suggestion - organic or not .....
- From: S* S*
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:22:33 -0800 (PST)
I just remember women had more DDT in milk than safe for babies and many
bird deaths read slilent spring. I glad we don't have to fight the chemist
again on this one.
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999,
Charles Dills wrote:
> >And there's my second "rub". They know all about the 'cides and
> >how "safe" they are. But history is proving that some/much of what
> >education/research has "tested and proved safe" is not. NOT in the
> >long run. DDT. Dioxin. Dieldrin. Lindane. Etc.
>
> +++++---------------------
> Yes, I', a chemist. Safety often becomes political, not
> scientific. We tend to blame the bottles of chemicals rather than the
> ignorami that won't or can't read a label and follow instructions.
> DDT probably saved more lives than any other chemical. It
> almost eliminated malaria! I remember pictures of whole villages in
> Italy being treated with DDT in a barn. They had blowers and blew the
> stuff down their necks, up their sleeves, up their pant legs.
> Pictures showed a column of people moving through a barn between
> people with the blowers. There was such a white fog that you could
> hardly make anything out.
> Now, if you remember, DDT was banned because the brown
> pelican eggs were too fragile to survive incubation. I don't know of
> any human problem with it. The problem was that it appeared so safe
> that people grossly overused it. And the excess got washed into the
> streams and thence to the ocean.
> We thought of the ocean as an infinite dump. DDT is insoluble
> in water, but it is fat-soluble. So the particles floated around
> until they encountered a moving piece of fat we call a fish. It would
> then dissolve in the fish which in turn got eaten by the brown
> pelican.
> The knee-jerk reaction. BAN DDT! No one said , "Let's use it
> according to instructions, maybe even license people to use it
> correctly!". No, no, no, it must be banned. In my opinion,that's was
> not very clever!
> *****---------------
> >
> >What is worse, the insects are adapting - because of insect numbers
> >and anatomy and their short life spans - to the 'cides. Are humans ?
> >who knows which human survivors are surviving the "safe, tested"
> >University products being applied to our foods and adapting to them,
> >and which are still operating on inherited good genes ?
>
> +++++-------------
> I don't think the insects are "adapting" to the insecticides.
> Those that are susceptible are not reproducing, leaving the resistant
> ones to reproduce. So, yes, the gene pool does a shift, but I don't
> think they are "developing" any resistance that wasn't already there!
> I'm confident that since there is money to be made and there
> are millions of chemists, we will keep ahead of the gene pool shift.
> ---Chas---
>
> ******************************************************************
> It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles E. Dills 1371 Avalon San Luis Obispo CA 93405
> [Mac] cdills@fix.net 805-544-1731
> cdills@fix.net http://www.fix.net/~cdills/ No size limit.
> I now have a domain name www.charlies-web.com
> Eudora 1.5.4 Netscape Navigator 3.0 Pagemaker 6.5
> Photoshop 5.0 Microsoft Word (Mac) 6.01 System 7.6.1
> Climate, Calif-med 30-80 deg 20 inches rain in winter!
> I can be forgetful. If I fail to do something I promised, tell me!
> ******************************************************************
>
>
Sal Schettino,Organic Farmer,don't panic eat organic,sals@rain.org
or check out my homepage: http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html .
