This is not just a vegan study, it is more comprehensive. But do
remember, the lower on the food chain, the higher the concentrations
of chemicals. The exact implications are unknown, except of course for
mercury, which is generally obtained from eating fish.

Many of these chemicals are indeed exposed to these pesticides in eating
vegetarian but not organic foods, and others are in our environment,
that the Bush administration has relaxed regulations about.

For example, the Bush administration has allowed upgrading coal
burning plants without conforming to previous regulations that require
cleaning of chemicals.

It's a wider problem. The good news is the reduction in lead.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,1268539.story

In the largest study of chemical exposure ever conducted on human
beings, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported
Thursday that most American children and adults were carrying in
their bodies dozens of pesticides and toxic compounds used in
consumer products, many of them linked to potential health threats.

The report documented bigger doses in children than in adults of many
chemicals, including some pyrethroids, which are in virtually every
household pesticide, and phthalates, which are found in nail polish
and other beauty products as well as in soft plastics.

The CDC's director, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, called the national
exposure report — the third in an assessment that is released
biennially — a breakthrough that would help public health officials
home in on the most important compounds to which Americans are
routinely exposed.

The latest installment, which looked for 148 toxic compounds in the
urine and blood of about 2,400 people age 6 and older in 2000 and
2001, is "the largest and most comprehensive report of its kind ever
released anywhere by anyone," Gerberding said. Findings were broken
down by age group and race.

At Thursday's news conference, CDC officials emphasized the good
news: Steep declines were found in children's exposure to lead and
secondhand cigarette smoke.

Lead levels in children have dropped significantly over several
years, which Gerberding called an "astonishing public health
achievement" attributable largely to its removal from gasoline and
paint.

About 1.6% of young children tested from 1999 to 2002 had elevated
levels of lead, which could lower their intelligence and damage their
brains, compared with 88.2% in the late 1970s and 4.4% in the early
1990s.

But the discovery of more than 100 other substances in humans,
particularly children, distressed environmental health experts.

"The report in general shows that people — kids and adults — are
exposed to things that aren't intended to be in their body," said Dr.
Jerome A. Paulson, an associate professor of pediatrics at the George
Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences who
specializes in children's environmental health. "In and of itself,
that is a concern. Whether it's harmful or not we can't tell from
this particular study."

The new data in the 475-page report reveal how "we have fouled our
own nest," Paulson said. "We contaminated the environment
sufficiently that there are measurable amounts of potentially toxic
substances in people — kids and adults."

The CDC did not try to gauge the health threat the chemicals might
pose. A measurable amount of a compound in a person's body does not
mean it causes disease or other damage, the agency noted.

For many compounds in the report, experts have little information on
what amounts may be harmful or what they may do in combination.

"We are really at the beginning of a very complicated journey to
understand the thousands of substances we are exposed to," said
Thomas Burke, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health.

The discovery of pyrethroids in most people is especially important,
as no one had looked for them in the human body before. Pyrethroids
are synthetic versions of natural compounds found in flowers, and
they have been considered safer than older pesticides, such as DDT
and chlordane, that build up in the environment and have been banned
in the United States.

But in high doses, pyrethroids are toxic to the nervous system. They
are the second most common class of pesticides that result in
poisoning. At low doses, they might alter hormones. The compounds are
used in large volumes in farm and household pesticides and are
sprayed by public agencies to kill mosquitoes.

Pyrethroids "were a step forward [from DDT and other banned
pesticides], but now we're beginning to understand that while they
don't persist in the environment, many of us are exposed," Burke
said. "We don't quite know what those levels mean."

Eleven of 12 phthalates tested were higher in children than adults.
All of the phthalates but one are used in fragrances. In animal
tests, and in one recent study of human babies, some of the compounds
have been shown to alter male reproductive organs or to feminize
hormones.

Representatives of the chemical and pesticide industries praised the
study, saying that human biomonitoring is the best available tool to
measure exposure. They echoed the CDC in saying that discovery of the
chemicals in the human body did not automatically mean they posed a
threat.

The report demonstrates "that exposure to these man-made and natural
substances is extremely low," said American Chemistry Council
spokesman Chris VandenHeuvel.

The CDC's Gerberding said that "for the vast majority" of the 148
chemicals in the report, "we have no evidence of health effects."

Many toxicologists and environmental scientists disagree.

Studies of animals, and in some cases people, suggest that most of
the compounds can affect the brain, hormones, reproductive system or
the immune system, or that they are linked to cancer. "These are some
bad actors," Burke said.

Many of the compounds have not been studied sufficiently to know what
happens with chronic exposure to low doses. "No evidence of health
effects does not imply that they are not harmful," Paulson said. "It
just means we don't know one way or another."

Environmental groups have called for U.S. law to require chemical
companies to test industrial compounds more comprehensively, a
proposal similar to one that the European Parliament is to debate in
the fall.

The evidence that many contaminants amass in children more than in
adults could mean that they are exposed to larger amounts — perhaps
from crawling, breathing more rapidly or putting items in their
mouths — or that their bodies are less able to cope with or
metabolize them.

In the womb and in the first two years after birth, children undergo
extraordinary cell growth, from brain neurons to immune cells, so
there are more opportunities for toxic compounds to disrupt the
cells, Paulson said. Animal tests show that fetuses and newborns are
the most susceptible to harm from many chemicals.

In the CDC study, one of every 18 women of childbearing age, or 5.7%,
had mercury that exceeded the level that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency deemed safe to a developing fetus.

Tests on schoolchildren show that mercury exposure in the womb can
lower IQs, with memory and vocabulary particularly impaired.

The CDC plans to expand the national chemical report to more than 300
compounds in two years and about 500 in four years. An estimated
80,000 chemicals are in commercial use today.

Beach Runner wrote:
> This is not just a vegan study, it is more comprehensive.

Vegans are a marginalized group. Nobody makes meaningful study of vegans.

> But do remember, the lower on the food chain, the higher the concentrations
> of chemicals.

Then one should eat more meat since meat is higher in the food chain.

> The exact implications are unknown,

Especially by violent misanthropes like you who threaten others rather
than substantiating your wild claims.

> except of course for
> mercury, which is generally obtained from eating fish.

Bullshit. Mercury is pervasive throughout the environment for natural
and human-related reasons. According to the EPA's National Emissions
Inventory of 1999,

...[C]oal-fired electrical utilities are the largest source of
anthropogenic mercury, releasing 40 percent of mercury from
human sources, followed by industrial boilers (5 percent),
hazardous waste incinerators (5 percent), and chlorine
production (5 percent).

Ingestion of food contaminated with mercury is not limited to fish.
Mercury also affects crops irrigated with contaminated water (and most
groundwater is contaminated because you need electricity) and/or treated
with organic mercury-based fungicides.

> Many of these chemicals are indeed exposed to these pesticides

WTF are you talking about?! Pesticides are, by and large, chemical-based
(exempting biopesticides from the discussion since people don't normally
seek out and eat nematodes).

> in eating vegetarian but not organic foods,

Organic foods are every bit as tainted as conventional foods. The only
differences are that organic production allows the use of NATURAL
versions of the chemically-identical counterparts allowed in
conventional agriculture; organic pesticides and agents are unregulated,
while synthetic conventional ones are; and organic crops aren't tested
for pesticide or chemical residues like conventional crops are.

-------------
Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and
many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention:
The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries –
including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect
once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list
included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*...
http://www.nex.org.br/english/ denucias_envenenamento.htm

[Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target
species, including humans.]

An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned
because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its
initials: DDT.
http://www.epa.gov/history/pub lications/formative6.htm

[DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.]

Organic pesticides kill fish:
While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only
slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other
animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very
toxic to fish*.
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsh eets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species.]

Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods
grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free":
Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone
*kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California,
an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all
pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call
their produce "pesticide free."
http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocp mag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cf m?fuseaction=publication_detai ls&id=1677

Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its
conventional counterpart:
Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
*eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."

Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals*.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/ articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm

Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a
variety of species including humans:
There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the
ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate
is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic
invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data
on the potential hazards posed by this material to the
*slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in
an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this
material, applicators in some counties are required to consult
EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate.
http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm

Organic pesticides ARE toxins:
Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic
farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills
pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even
though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has
questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of
various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that
paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper
compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the
environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the
pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on
a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to
mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them
around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it
can still *pack a nasty punch*.
http://www.springledgefarm.com /glossary.htm

.....
Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
*eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."

Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals*.

-------------

You violent little idiot.

> and others are in our environment,
> that the Bush administration has relaxed regulations about.

No regulations have been relaxed.
https://www.nationalreview.com/adler...0409150552.asp

> For example, the Bush administration has allowed upgrading coal burning
> plants without conforming to previous regulations that require cleaning
> of chemicals.

You're talking out of your ass, as usual.

<...>

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> This is not just a vegan study, it is more comprehensive.
>
>
>
Vegans are a marginalized group. Nobody makes meaningful study of vegans.
>
>> But do remember, the lower on the food chain, the higher the
>> concentrations
>> of chemicals.
>
>
> Then one should eat more meat since meat is higher in the food chain.
>
Perhaps I said it backwards. Thank you.
>> The exact implications are unknown,
>
>
> Especially by violent misanthropes like you who threaten others rather
> than substantiating your wild claims.
>
>> except of course for
>> mercury, which is generally obtained from eating fish.
My only treat ws over your personal attacks over my son's sexuality.
>
>
> Bullshit. Mercury is pervasive throughout the environment for natural
> and human-related reasons. According to the EPA's National Emissions
> Inventory of 1999,
>
And we are well warned that fish are a prime source.
> ...[C]oal-fired electrical utilities are the largest source of
> anthropogenic mercury, releasing 40 percent of mercury from
> human sources, followed by industrial boilers (5 percent),
> hazardous waste incinerators (5 percent), and chlorine
> production (5 percent).
>
> Ingestion of food contaminated with mercury is not limited to fish.
> Mercury also affects crops irrigated with contaminated water (and most
> groundwater is contaminated because you need electricity) and/or treated
> with organic mercury-based fungicides.
>
And coal fired plants. Why did Bush, your hero, rescind the laws to
make them cleaner?
>> Many of these chemicals are indeed exposed to these pesticides
>
>
> WTF are you talking about?! Pesticides are, by and large, chemical-based
> (exempting biopesticides from the discussion since people don't normally
> seek out and eat nematodes).
>
>> in eating vegetarian but not organic foods,
>
>
> Organic foods are every bit as tainted as conventional foods. The only
> differences are that organic production allows the use of NATURAL
> versions of the chemically-identical counterparts allowed in
> conventional agriculture; organic pesticides and agents are unregulated,
> while synthetic conventional ones are; and organic crops aren't tested
> for pesticide or chemical residues like conventional crops are.
>
No it's not. They use other alternatives.
> -------------
> Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and
> many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention:
> The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries –
> including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect
> once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list
> included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*...
> http://www.nex.org.br/english/ denucias_envenenamento.htm
>
> [Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target
> species, including humans.]
>
> An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned
> because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its
> initials: DDT.
> http://www.epa.gov/history/pub lications/formative6.htm
>
> [DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.]
>
> Organic pesticides kill fish:
> While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only
> slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other
> animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very
> toxic to fish*.
> http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsh eets/HGIC2756.htm
>
> [Fish are a non-target species.]
>
> Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods
> grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free":
> Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone
> *kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California,
> an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all
> pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call
> their produce "pesticide free."
> http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocp mag/pestruth.html
> See also:
> http://www.hudson.org/index.cf m?fuseaction=publication_detai ls&id=1677
>
> Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its
> conventional counterpart:
> Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but
> "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
> sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
> agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
> *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
> and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."
>
> Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
> sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic
> to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
> small mammals*.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/ articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm
>
> Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a
> variety of species including humans:
> There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the
> ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate
> is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic
> invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data
> on the potential hazards posed by this material to the
> *slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in
> an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this
> material, applicators in some counties are required to consult
> EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate.
> http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm
>
> Organic pesticides ARE toxins:
> Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic
> farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills
> pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even
> though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has
> questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of
> various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that
> paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper
> compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the
> environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the
> pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on
> a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to
> mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them
> around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it
> can still *pack a nasty punch*.
> http://www.springledgefarm.com /glossary.htm
>
> ....
> Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but
> "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
> sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
> agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
> *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
> and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."
>
> Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
> sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic
> to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
> small mammals*.
>
> -------------
>
> You violent little idiot.
>
>> and others are in our environment, that the Bush administration has
>> relaxed regulations about.
>
>
> No regulations have been relaxed.
> https://www.nationalreview.com/adler...0409150552.asp
Yes he has. He has said upgraded coal plants don't need to conform to
clean air laws. And reduced the requirements that cars become more fuel
efficient.

>
>> For example, the Bush administration has allowed upgrading coal
>> burning plants without conforming to previous regulations that require
>> cleaning of chemicals.
>
>
> You're talking out of your ass, as usual.
Hardly, read the newspapers.
>
> <...>

I still think you are only here to cause trouble.

Your personal attacks on family members are inappropriate.

Beach Runner wrote:
<...>
>>> This is not just a vegan study, it is more comprehensive.
>>
>>
>> Vegans are a marginalized group. Nobody makes meaningful study of vegans.
>>
>>> But do remember, the lower on the food chain, the higher the
>>> concentrations
>>> of chemicals.
>>
>> Then one should eat more meat since meat is higher in the food chain.
>
> Perhaps I said it backwards.

No perhaps about it. You *did* say it backwards.

>>> The exact implications are unknown,
>>
>> Especially by violent misanthropes like you who threaten others rather
>> than substantiating your wild claims.
>>
>>> except of course for
>>> mercury, which is generally obtained from eating fish.
>
> My only treat

It wasn't a treat, it was a violent threat. You're not a humane,
compassionate person. You resorted to threatening another person with
the use of violent physical force rather than using truth or logic.

>> Bullshit. Mercury is pervasive throughout the environment for natural
>> and human-related reasons. According to the EPA's National Emissions
>> Inventory of 1999,
>
> And we are well warned that fish are a prime source.

Because of your electric demand, dummy. You appear to be in the Tampa
area (though not originally; remind me sometime to tell you why you
should leave the Gulf Coast rather than be part of the growing problem
with our environment). Your power comes from coal. IGCC is certainly
cleaner than other coal technology, but it still emits mercury into the
environment.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/TEEVPowerPlantsPolk.cfm

mercury emissions (on coal) without controls were half the
potential release based on mercury levels in the coal....
Mercury emissions were not regulated, but measurements taken
showed that the IGCC removed about half of the mercury
constituent in coal feedstocks.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/cctc/summari...ampaedemo.html

>> ...[C]oal-fired electrical utilities are the largest source of
>> anthropogenic mercury, releasing 40 percent of mercury from
>> human sources, followed by industrial boilers (5 percent),
>> hazardous waste incinerators (5 percent), and chlorine
>> production (5 percent).
>>
>> Ingestion of food contaminated with mercury is not limited to fish.
>> Mercury also affects crops irrigated with contaminated water (and most
>> groundwater is contaminated because you need electricity) and/or
>> treated with organic mercury-based fungicides.
>
> And coal fired plants. Why did Bush, your hero, rescind the laws to
> make them cleaner?

He has rescinded no law. Tell me specifically which one(s) he has.

>>> Many of these chemicals are indeed exposed to these pesticides
>>
>> WTF are you talking about?! Pesticides are, by and large,
>> chemical-based (exempting biopesticides from the discussion since
>> people don't normally seek out and eat nematodes).
>>
>>> in eating vegetarian but not organic foods,
>>
>> Organic foods are every bit as tainted as conventional foods. The only
>> differences are that organic production allows the use of NATURAL
>> versions of the chemically-identical counterparts allowed in
>> conventional agriculture; organic pesticides and agents are
>> unregulated, while synthetic conventional ones are; and organic crops
>> aren't tested for pesticide or chemical residues like conventional
>> crops are.
>
> No it's not.

I have written the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Organic does NOT mean chemical- or pesticide-free.

>> -------------
>> Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and
>> many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention:
>> The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries –
>> including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect
>> once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list
>> included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*...
>> http://www.nex.org.br/english/ denucias_envenenamento.htm
>>
>> [Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target
>> species, including humans.]
>>
>> An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned
>> because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its
>> initials: DDT.
>> http://www.epa.gov/history/pub lications/formative6.htm
>>
>> [DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.]
>>
>> Organic pesticides kill fish:
>> While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only
>> slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other
>> animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very
>> toxic to fish*.
>> http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsh eets/HGIC2756.htm
>>
>> [Fish are a non-target species.]
>>
>> Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods
>> grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free":
>> Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone
>> *kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In
>> California,
>> an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all
>> pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call
>> their produce "pesticide free."
>> http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocp mag/pestruth.html
>> See also:
>> http://www.hudson.org/index.cf m?fuseaction=publication_detai ls&id=1677
>>
>> Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its
>> conventional counterpart:
>> Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but
>> "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
>> sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
>> agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
>> *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
>> and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."
>>
>> Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
>> sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic
>> to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
>> small mammals*.
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/ articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm
>>
>> Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a
>> variety of species including humans:
>> There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the
>> ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate
>> is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic
>> invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data
>> on the potential hazards posed by this material to the
>> *slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in
>> an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this
>> material, applicators in some counties are required to consult
>> EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate.
>> http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm
>>
>> Organic pesticides ARE toxins:
>> Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic
>> farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills
>> pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even
>> though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has
>> questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of
>> various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that
>> paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper
>> compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the
>> environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the
>> pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on
>> a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to
>> mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them
>> around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it
>> can still *pack a nasty punch*.
>> http://www.springledgefarm.com /glossary.htm
>>
>> ....
>> Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but
>> "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
>> sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
>> agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
>> *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
>> and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."
>>
>> Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
>> sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic
>> to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
>> small mammals*.
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> You violent little idiot.
>>
>>> and others are in our environment, that the Bush administration has
>>> relaxed regulations about.
>>
>> No regulations have been relaxed.
>> https://www.nationalreview.com/adler...0409150552.asp
>
> Yes he has.

No, he has not. Read the column.

>>> For example, the Bush administration has allowed upgrading coal
>>> burning plants without conforming to previous regulations that
>>> require cleaning of chemicals.
>>
>> You're talking out of your ass, as usual.
>
> Hardly, read the newspapers.

You read them and tell me SPECIFICALLY what he's repealed or rescinded.

>> <...>
>
> I still think you are only here to cause trouble.

Straightening out your disinformation isn't trouble.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> Organic foods are every bit as tainted as conventional foods.
How can this be if they are not sprayed directly?

> ... NATURAL versions of the chemically-identical counterparts ...
Where is the NATURAL [sic] verison of DDT found in Nature?

> In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, ...
Sulfur is an element, NOT an organic compound, nor organic pesticide.
To real chemists, "organic" refers to carbon-based compounds.

> Copper sulphate ...
Is not natural, and does not occur in Nature.

> You violent little idiot.
And usual embarrassed himself in public, as usual.

> You're talking out of your ass, as usual.
... and you are what comes out if it, as usual.

Laurie

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
.. .
> But do remember, the lower on the food chain, the higher the
> concentrations
> of chemicals.
Guess again. Fat-soluble toxic chemicals tend to increase in
concentration as one goes "up" the "food chain", since each trophic level
eats many times its own weigh of the lower trophic level.
It's called "biological amplification".
http://www.webref.org/chemistry/b/bi...lification.htm

Laurie