This is John Hilliard's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following John Hilliard's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
John Hilliard
Recent Activity
The EPA, USDA and FDA actually do insure the safety of our food, and they tell us our foods are safe to eat. These respected government scientists will be very interested in the news that we are being poisoned. It is alarmist and irresponsible to feed the public hysteria. Most of us are being deceived by news reports that something contains the presence of a "chemical". There is not much to be said to you about thus subject except to try to be aware that many environmental groups raise money and gain members by spreading exaggeration. Who is checking to see if your food is safe? Its not the National Organic Program. Organic farmers have resisted the testing of their products. It seems the program is going to start some tiny testing of organic products- but the organic lobbyist are fighting it. They are not too interested. And as for testing organic pesticides along synthetic pesticides- when is that going to happen? On April 15, 2011 the National Organic Program decreed that if an organic farmer finds out that his product is full of GM material, they can just sell it without declaring it on the label.
Yes, Alice, I saw it when it came out. The problem with this type of study is it tests for presence of a chemical. That is meaningless. Dr. Ames tells us the dose makes the poison . Look at what the respected anti-nuclear activist' Dr. Helen Caldicott states (just as the PAN article): "It takes only one radioactive atom, one cell and one gene to initiate a cancer". That just not true. This does not survive scrutiny when you consider the thousands of radioactive elements in our bodies. We must estimate the risk per event. Or simply: what's the dose? There are nearly 8000 radioactive events taking place in our bodies every second. Our bodies contain Potassium 40, Carbon 14, Rubidium 87, Lead 210, Uranium 238, Radium 226, Radium 228, and Trinium 3H. Amazingly, we are fine. Everyone on the planet contains these radioactive elements. Some are primordial. Yet , Cancer death rates have been falling overall since the 50s. You know that, right? Even when the EPA, USDA and FDA were nowhere to be found. The dose makes the poison. I take 87 mg aspirin daily, but 325mg would impair my kidney transplant and lead to renal failure. Its the dose. A group at MIT is studying Homesis- that low doses can produce a response, like arsenic and Rasputin's alleged immunity to arsenic.
LCFwino- please tell me you didn't mean this: "If you cannot consume it directly, you shouldn't be spraying it on plants which you will consume." If you think that, we need to talk. I think it is time for you to grow a nice "feed a family" size garden. Or come visit our garden and we'll walk you through it.
Joseph, as I mentioned above, I understand the EU tested wine for pesticides and came up with nothing. I am in Krakow now, but when I get back to the states this will be a subject of investigation to find those studies. They are important to address this issue. And I am underwhelmed by everyone's lackadaisical attitude about a known and sustantial risk (alcohol) while worrying about what maybe non-existent risks. When Dr. Bruce Ames, one of the principle researchers in the field, originated his widely used Ames test for carcinogenic chemicals, he was surprised that about half of synthetic chemicals were positive. And perturbed. So he started testing "natural" chemicals, and about half of those were carcinogenic. Cancer Institutes worldwide generally are not in step with the public hysteria on this subject. They believe, in general, like Dr. Ames: eat several servings of fruits and vegetables regardless if conventionally grown or not. Pesticides in food are hyper controlled in California. The EPA, FDA and USDA study and test quarterly our food with special attention to foods like apple juice eaten my children. They state on their website our food is safe. Look at their work, it is published. Pesticide fears are the fashion of the urban atheist, their new religion with a heaven (the horrible old days when we lived to 30 yrs) and a hell (conventional farmers killing us with pesticides).
The benefits of glyphosate are many: prevent soil erosion from tearing up the soil with mechanical weeders pulled by fossil fuel burning tractors, avoid tearing open the soil- soil "beings" don't like having their homes torn up, glyphosate can be applied once by a small fuel efficient ATV whereas mechanical removal has to done over and over and please realize diesel tractors make lots of CO2 and many particulates into the air, glyphosate is generally eaten by soil "beings" within a few days whereas the tractor exhaust is ours to keep warming the planet for posterity. Tractors are huge things and environmentally "expensive" as they are the product of giant factories with parts moving to and fro. Lubricants dripping. Have you compared the environmental impact between glyphosate and mechanical weeding? Many of us think, not believe as you do, we think glyphosate is better for the environment. I understand the EU ceased testing wine for pesticides when they repeatedly found none. This is not surprising to a viticulturalust. But my instincts tell me something: bewary when the emotional heat is has taken on a religious fervent. You flick away his insights. You assume you know more than Dr. Smart. I know him. From the way you laugh at his comments, you are doing yourself and your readers a great diservice. He is a sensible man with depth of knowledge of glyphosate. He probably thinks your understanding of his subject the same as we feel when a politician says he uses "the google".
You worry about "chemicals" when we all learned in chemistry class that everything is a chemical. So- which chemical concerns you? There is one chemical you should not ignore. It is actually present in each glass of wine you drink, in the amount of about 14 percent. 14% is a huge dose especially compared to the presence of the "chemicals" you fear, which are present, if at all, are present much less than 0.001%. And many of those are potential dangers, not known dangers like alcohol. I think it is irresponsible to society to mention "chemicals" and ignore the huge number on the label: 14%. Alcohol is a known carcinogen and teratogen. It is the main risk factor in wine. It is actually in your glass. You ignore a known for a potential. You are being hysterical, darling.
John Hilliard is now following The Typepad Team
Jul 1, 2011