What is the chemical argument really about ?

Discussion in 'Planting, growing, nurturing Plants' started by milifestyle, May 3, 2009.

?

What is the chemical argument really about ?

  1. I don't believe chemicals cause health (or environmental) problems ?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. I don't care if they cause health (or environmental) problems !

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. We are a free country and i can use whatever is made available for me to use !

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. If these chemicals were bad i couldn't buy them from the supermarket.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. I don't use chemicals (in the permaculture/horticulture environment)!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The chemical debate continues...

    When arguing against the use of chemical use there is an overall clear view that chemicals pose a potential health risk at all levels.

    When arguing for the use of chemicals it would appear the "why" does not always surface.

    This poll is for my own personal research.
     
  2. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    not enough options michaelangelica,

    this is a pro and con argument not even a debate realy, as the pro group are supported by false science and the need for greed, we can grow without any artificial chemical applications it is that easy. we never had it back in the 40's & 50's.

    i believe after much research my lifestyle disease was caused by chemical residues in so called fresh produce and that that same produce (vege's, fruit) is not fresh nor does it contain the full package of vitamins and trace elements as they are all monocropped. the fresh meats/eggs/chooks/milk in supermarkets i can't eat due to the amount of antibiotics they use to make the creature grow faster.

    len
     
  3. arlyn9391

    arlyn9391 New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?


    There are a lot of chemical. A chemical substance is a material with a specific chemical composition. And a chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions and that have a unique and defined chemical structure. :?:




    _________________
    Scotsman Ice Machine
     
  4. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    Presumably, CuSO4 (copper sulphate) isn't a chemical

    :lol:
     
  5. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    ????

    not sure where this came from but yes i would say it is a chemical, now where does it pop up in our food chain or lives?

    tia

    len
     
  6. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    it's an 'approved' pesticide for organic farmers.

    if the dichotomy is chemicals vs. no-chemicals and organic-good vs not-organic-bad, how does a person who might sit on the no-chemicals/organic-good side of that argument define copper sulphate?
    surely it's an inorganic chemical poison.

    perhaps we need to define terms
     
  7. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    ahh the plot thickens my friend, i keep telling people the organc standard is corrupt this came about when people judging by their own merits, and farmers not living in our communities so they keep their contract with us to provide safe nourishing food.

    so the call to gov' was "we can't trust farmers we need certification to keep the bastards honest" so to say.

    now before gov' can regulate something they need to identify it don't they? well tehy wnet to their pie in sky science friends and said "identify organic" so we can regulate it and patent the name. so science came back with their normal "educated guess" and said "if it contains carbon it is then organic", getting the picture? that makes a lot of sins none sins doesn't it.

    so as i had already heard from growers, the only real diffreence between organic standard and conventional standard is the witholding period, they can use the same nasties, and in the end who says at what length of time food becomes safe after spraying it? the gov' of course and who did they turn to find that educated guess, you guessed it science. see the circle of profits and greed. then when we get sick the same chem' co's make the chems' to keep us alive (that's another story or circle) so we can continue to eat that certified organic and conventional food, there's the bigger circle.

    this is not about what some individual organic farmer with ethics may do this is about what they can do.

    now most if not all of us grow lots of vege's fruit etc.,. without any need for chem' applications why can't farmers do likewise?

    len
     
  8. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    ta - let me try it differently
    I defy any person to eat "chemical-free" food


    the definition by _chemists_ of 'organic' chemicals as those that contain carbon is fair enough; it's a useful way of distinguishing them from the ones that don't contain carbon ('inorganic'...ie. like copper sulphate) - but I can agree with you that it's silly to take that particular definition and apply it to what does or doesn't constitute "organic" farming...it would mean you could drown your farm in a mile deep of benzene (contains carbon = 'organic' in the strict chemical definition) and be deemed to engaged in an "organic" practice.

    but since copper sulphate doesn't contain carbon it doesn't come under what you've raised about questionable formulation of standards.

    But it is widely considered an acceptable substance for use in organic farming/gardening/what-have-you...at the same time as being about as 'chemical' a _poison_ as you can find.

    it's sad that you're down on scientists, permaculture (whether its adherents realise it or not) uses 'the scientific method' - i wouldn't describe permaculture as being "pie in the sky"
     
  9. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    not all science just the false science of food growing with chemicals to make profit for multi-nationals.

    as for permaculture, i've asked or said it before it realy needs to et down to grass roots level, using applied common sense for teh common man, until it does it is just another fad hippy sort of thing that some people have heard about but don't want to know about. i said it all in my objective essay.

    len
     
  10. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    fairy nuff - i've read some of pieces on your site, i'll get to that one eventually
     
  11. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    If i can think back to my High School days... I think CuSO4 is a "Mineral" :? .

    Organic has three definitions...

    Organic 1. Of or containing Carbon

    Organic 2. Organic matter as in compost, mulches, etc,

    Organic 3. Chemical & Synthetic promotent free

    I try to use these terms to avoid confusion...

    Organic 1. Originating in Nature (Manipulated)

    Organic 2. Compost

    Organic 3. Certified Organic (whether formally certified or not)
     
  12. Ichsani

    Ichsani Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    Ahhhh, whats in a name?

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    I think you are right Milifestyle - it is a mineral

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    For me - this 'chemical' debate refers to something about challenging the idea that just because we can - doesn't mean we should (ie that its automatically 'better' because 'we' have worked something out - no matter how crudely its applied)

    It goes something like this:......"just because we can pretend that nitrogen is only fixed from the atmosphere using our fancy pants chemistry - doesn't mean that we are more efficient than the microbes that have been doing it since long before we rocked up (with far less energy than we use by the way)........ nor does it mean that the way 'we' do it now is the ultimate and 'right' way to go about it, just because we can - doesn't mean that it is best......"

    ... I fear that that is perhaps too philosophical? :book: :smilebox:

    :lol:

    Cheers
    Ich
     
  13. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9114&hilit=glyphosate&start=30

    Starting in the 1900s and really getting into swing with WW2 chemists started making a new class of chemicals. Chemicals that the Earth had never seen before. These are the chemicals that worry me and worried Rachel Carson when she invented "ecology" and the "environment" movement single-handedly with her book Silent Spring Rachel Carson was literate, and a good communicator-rare in a scientist- and a well educated biologist.
    She was actively, under-handily, undermined by chemical companies in her day, and she is still being pilloried by many chemical multi-nationals even now who want to re-write history.
    Many of the chemicals she talked about have been banned but many are still with us. Some literally in the bodies of mammals. Some, now being re-branded sold as cures for malaria or whatever.

    With the way mass media is controlled by just a few companies, counting their pennies; multinationals are finding it even easier to get their point of view across; even to the extent of filming segments for the nightly news. Many have better equipped and resourced media departments than large national Television Stations. Exxon, for example, makes about $US40+ Billion a year, a lot more than any media conglomerate- even Fox.

    TV news has been dumbed down to a series of the odd press releases, "infomercials", "Isn't it Awful!" , "Poor her/me" segments and sport-people and other celebrity gossip/trivia.
    Soon the internet will go the same way as we forget words, and radio and all tune into into video. I noticed one clip I saw at a friend's place last night had had 50 million hits

    As for science and explaining when a chemical isn't a chemical forget it. :bear:
     
  14. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    I agree with Michael we need to distinguish between naturally occuring chemicals and synthetic man made chemicals.

    Most of these synthetic chemicals are derived from oil. Because they do not occur in nature the human body has not evolved to deal with them.

    A large part of the problem is the quantity of them we are exposed to

    Yes some naturally occuring sustances are toxic but on the whole we avoid them - wheras we are literally flooded with the synthetic type :evil:
     
  15. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    Frosty - this was close to my point...define what's under discussion

    one can call CuSO4 a mineral if one wishes, it certainly makes it easy to distinguish from vegetables and animals

    by some odd rationale I might choose to define it as a flummery but where does that get anyone?

    CuS04 is a chemical
    H3CH2COH is also a chemical (_and_ it's "man-made"!)

    Cu is a chemical
    S is a chemical
    O is a chemical

    they're all naturally occurring...CuSO4 as well, as natural as, well a very natural thing

    and it's been around for yonkey's dears, so some might argue the body has had time to evolve to deal with it...and that rationale certinaly allows a distinction between so-called "man-made chemicals"...but it's a distinction without a difference.

    call it what you like, it's still a poison and millions of years of evolution isn't going to save you if you're silly enough to ingest it

    surely the real issue is not so much the process by which a chemical came into existance but the manner in which it is being used. "Chemicals" is, for some, a convenient short-hand for describing their enemy, but it obscures meaningful debate, is hackneyed and desperately needs to be replaced.
     
  16. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    on copper sulphate I would dispute it is a poison

    like many substances it CAN be toxic in excess

    but if you suffer with a copper deficiency it is the remedy -I took 2mg a day for months as tests showed I was low in copper

    and my British Alpine goats grazing on our copper deficient land need about 1 gram each a day to keep them in good health. ) goats and particularly black goats have a high need for copper )

    frosty
     
  17. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    We know what CuSO4 is.

    What we don't know is what CuSO4 becomes when mixed with an unknown chemical.

    We know that too much lead in the system causes all sorts of problems from miscairage to birth defects and learning difficulties. We know to avoid lead.

    How do we know that by mixing chemicals in the environment we are not mixing up a brew that mirrors the effects of lead?

    Asbestos is a naturally occuring substance too. Left untouched in the environment i don't believe it causes any problems. Once we mine it and manipulate it for our own use it becomes toxic - not by magic. We just should have left it where it was.
     
  18. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    all good questions, all good points

    my beef is not with the core issue

    it's that the core issue is being poorly named and that that, in itself, causes confusion

    perhaps we could call the core issue "Paris Hilton"

    I can anticipate your frustration, your wailing and gnashing of teeth as all and sundry completely side-step the core issue and instead opine about what a [_____] Paris Hilton is and how on earth did that little [_____] get into pictures (well, we all know that one! nudgenudgewinkwink) and how the hotels aren't that great anyway and, do you see how this has got _nothing_ to do with the core issue?
     
  19. Dalzieldrin

    Dalzieldrin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?


    I can't agree with this - by this logic we should eschew the use of water

    it is by far the deadliest substance on the planet!

    too little of it and you die
    too much of it and you die
    (incidentally, you can say precisely the same thing about oxygen)
    you only need it about an inch deep and you can drown in it (strictly speaking, you don't even need that much)
    think of how many people die in floods, in tsunamis, in cyclones, hurricanes etc etc etc etc
    and this stuff is freely available to children!!!
    Won't somebody think of the children???

    yes, asbestos fibre is dangerous stuff if not handled correctly...should it have been left in the ground? well, i guess if the _only_ way it could _ever_ have been handled was a way in which caused the dangerous fibres to be released, then perhaps there's a good argument for steering clear of it...but, wow, what a brake to put on humanity and its development!

    "hey, i see you've invented fire. ouch it burns...that's enough of that"
     
  20. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: What is the chemical argument really about ?

    "The only problem with life is death..." Not sure who was quoted as saying that (Might have been yogi)

    I often wonder if anyone in the chemical processing (or use) industry has ever attended the funeral of a child or young family member who has died of cancer or other disease and thought "Did my actions assist in this unnecessary loss of life" or would they have thought... "It is all for the development of humanity..." a necessary sacrifice perhaps ?

    Or perhaps i'm the ony one who changes the nappies of an adult or older child (as I do with my 10 year old daughter) and wonder if their (my) previous use of chemicals prevented their (her) DNA from forming as it should...
     

Share This Page

-->