author: John Devereux

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
In article <3e3e8917$[email]>, Harry Muscle wrote:

The key words would be "digital pot".


author: "Harry Muscle"

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
"John Fields" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Ohms
I
values
However,
was
with a

Actually, the final product is going to be a lamp dimmer.  However, it's a
fluorescent lamp dimmer.  I'm trying to dim a Lutron 3 wire dimming ballast.
Instead of trying to figure out exactly how to control the special three
wire setup (I could, apparently it's a lot simpler than I thought) I would
like to control the special dimmer that's already designed by Lutron to work
with their ballast.

I can do this one of two ways.  If the slider on the dimmer is a simple
potentiometer, I would like to swap it out for a pot that I will
control.  If the slider is a little more complicated (or if the pot is
unaccesible) I'm thinking of using servo to control the slider.  I would use
the variable resister in a PWM circuit to control the position of the servo.

Thanks for any input,
Harry

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


author: Roger Hamlett

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
"Boris Mohar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Ohms
I
values
However,
was
with a
It depends how accurate this needs to be, the timescales at the points, and
where the 'resistor' needs to be relative to ground or the supply rails.
The simplest solution, is the Xicor X9C503, which just requires a pulse
train fed to it's 'clock' pin, and the switch can control the direction
control pin. This chip has an internal counter, and counts 'up' if the U/D
pin is high, and down if it is low. It gives 100 'steps', with the 503
version having a nominal end resistance of 50K ohms. These allow the end
point voltages to be between -5, and +5v.
The alternative would probably be another digital potentiometer, combined
with a tiny processor (like a PIC12C508). No other parts needed at all (the
PIC has an internal oscillator), and can read the input from the switch. The
latter solution, allows other pots to be used, with many packages having a
couple of pots in one package. A few are available with higher end point
voltages than the Xicor design.
The third method, is to do this with a simple 'ramp' generator, controlling
the gate voltage on a FET. This gives less accuracy, and is difficult to mak
e completely stable, but is very cheap. :-)

Best Wishes


author: robert

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
Boris Mohar wrote:

these have limits on the end-to-end voltage, no? so it mayn't be a
solution, for examle, in a lamp dimmer.

say more about the intended application.

-- rob


author: John Fields

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:35:53 -0500, "Harry Muscle" <fake@[email]>
wrote:

---
I don't know a thing about dimmable fluorescent ballasts, but I found
this link; maybe it'll help...

http://misty.com/people/don//f-dim.html


subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
"robert" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

Actually, the final product is going to be a lamp dimmer.  However, it's a
fluorescent lamp dimmer.  I'm trying to dim a Lutron 3 wire dimming ballast.
Instead of trying to figure out exactly how to control the special three
wire setup (I could, apparently it's a lot simpler than I thought) I would
like to control the special dimmer that's already designed by lutron to work
with their ballast.

I can do this one of two ways.  If the slider on the dimmer is a simple
potentiometer, I would like to swap it out for a digital pot that I will
control.  If the slider is a little more complicated (or if the pot is
unaccesible) I'm thinking of using servo to control the slider.  I would use
the digital pot in a PWM circuit to control the position of the servo.

Thanks for any input,
Harry

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


author: Spehro Pefhany

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:03:38 GMT, the renowned robert <[email]>
wrote:

...and we'll probably try to talk you out of doing it this way- often,
if not usually,  there's a better way than simulating a variable
resistance.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


author: Katarzyna M Paprzycka

subject: Poznan Studies, vol. 37, Table of Content

text:
Dear Netters,

Sorry for possible cross-posting but this is the only way to reach all
interested parties.

It is my pleasure to announce that Poznan Studies has published its
37th volume:

THE SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY OF AGNES HELLER (edited by John Burnheim)

Below, you will find its table of content.  The summary of the book can
be found at the International Philosophical Preprint Exchange
(ftp Phil-Preprints.L.Chiba-U.ac.jp or gopher apa.oxy.edu).

For more information, contact

Katarzyna Paprzycka      [email]
Marcin Paprzycki         [email]
Leszek Nowak             [email]

THE SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY OF AGNES HELLER
Edited by John Burnheim
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities
Volume 37
Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi 1994.
___________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________________

  John Burnheim
          Introduction

  Mihaly Vajda
          A Lover of Philosophy -- A Lover of Europe

  Phillippe Despoix
          On the Possibility of a Philosophy of Values. A Dialogue
          within the Budapest School

  Martin Jay
          Women in Dark Times: Agnes Heller and Hannah Arendt

  Johann P. Arnason
          The Human Condition and the Modern Predicament

  Richard J. Bernstein
          Agnes Heller: Philosophy, Rational Utopia and Praxis

  Zygmunt Bauman
          Narrating Modernity

  Peter Beilharz
          Theories of History -- Agnes Heller and R.G.Collingwood

  Richard Wolin
          Heller's Theory of Everyday Life

  Paul Harrison
          Radical Philosophy and the Theory of Modernity

  Arthur J. Jacobson
          The Limits of Formal Justice

  Peter Murphy
          Civility and Radicalism

  Peter Murphy
          Pluralism and Politics

  Victoria Camps
          The Good Life: A Moral Gesture

  Laura Boella
          Philosophy Beyond the Baseless and Tragic Character of
          Action

  Gyorgy Markus
          The Politics of Morals

  Agnes Heller
          A Reply to My Critics

  The Bibliography of Agnes Heller


author: Joseph M Guthrie

subject: Re: Info on Cheap Microcontrollers ...

text:
Try Basic STAMPS or SPLAT

Gerald Gutierrez <[email]> wrote in article
<6fmng9$r65$[email]>...
microcontrollers.
about
an
perhaps

HC11, I
production
web ).
Companies or


author: pearl

subject: Re: Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:jxaGd.10231$[email]...

'What is Organic Farming?

Organic farming is a form of agriculture which does not use synthetic inputs
such as pesticides and fertilizers because of the disruptive effects that the
synthetic chemicals can cause on the ecological balance considered essential
to maintain a sustainable system indefinitely.

Organic farming thus differs from other alternative agriculture systems that
allow the minimal use of these inputs, and itï¿½s from this difference that
organic farming gets its name. However, organic farming is not just
farming without chemicals. Organic growers focus on using techniques such
as crop rotation, proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic
matter into the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum
plant growth and minimize pest problems. Application of organic pesticides
are considered a last resort and used sparingly.

All agricultural systems disrupt the natural environment to some extent;
organic agriculture aims to minimize this disruption and to enhance natural
biological cycles. For example, organic farmers emphasize the importance
of a healthy soil to promote a diverse biological population, including
earthworms and microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria that are
beneficial to plants.
...'
 http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
..'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Briefing_Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.

Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.

Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.

Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.

Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.

Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm


author: usual suspect

text:
peril wrote:

Organic farming uses identical natural forms of pesticides and
fertilizers to those allowed in conventional agriculture. There is
little difference between pyrethrum (organic pesticide) and pyrethrin
(synthetic version). Pyrethrum is classified by US EPA as a human
carcinogen.

Organic pesticides and fertilizers create the same ecological woes as
their conventional counterparts.

Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans):
     One of organic farming's most widely used
     pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human
     carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental
     Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after
     pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two
     different sets of laboratory rodents.
     http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2001/jun_8_01.htm

Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents
(and humans):
      Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot
      of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr.
      Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major
      features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and
      tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these
      results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental
      pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's
      disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will
      continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine
      which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the
      PD-inducing effects of pesticides.
      http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/F/20022444.html

Organic pesticides affect more than just target species:
      Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets.
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/org_land_care/which.html

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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

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/publications/formative6.htm

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

Snip rest of your dishonest organic industry propaganda. There's no
fucking difference, Les, except that in the US conventional crops are
tested for residues (organic crops AREN'T, even though they may be
sprayed with up to seven-times as many applications of pesticides) and
that conventional pesticides and fertilizers are tested for safety and
standardization before use and therefore are known quantities.


text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:jtWGd.27615$[email]...

'Derived from the painted daisy, Chrysanthemum cinerariifolium,
pyrethrins are considered one of the most important natural insecticides.
When you must use a broad spectrum insecticide in the vegetable garden
or lose the crop, this is one of the best choices. Of low toxicity to mammals,
they kill insects quickly. In sunlight they break down and are non-toxic
within a day or less. For best results apply it in the late afternoon or evening.
Use pyrethrins for the hard-to-kill pests such as beetles, squash bugs, and
tarnished plant bugs.'
http://www.iserv.net/~wmize/insctd.htm

'While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the
chrysanthemum, they were chemically designed to be more toxic
with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists,
increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability to
detoxify the pesticide.
....'
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Synthetic%20Pyrethroids.pdf

'Why are organic pesticides preferred by some gardeners?
They *breakdown rapidly* in the environment after application,
they act to prevent further insect feeding and many have a
low toxicity to people and animals.'
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/newsrel/2000/aug00/aug0007.html

Organic, as well as synthetic pesticides, are applied on a calendar basis in
conventional farming, not as a last resort, the safest, minimally, as in organic.

Organic (system):

.. ; minimize pesticide use'

'-Conventional

Synthetic chemicals may be toxic to many nontargets (beneficial insects,
pets, humans, birds, fish, and other wildlife)

Take control; eliminate pests

calendar based applications

All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; greater use increases risk

Composted municipal sewage may bring heavy metals

Runoff with soluble nutrients and pesticides can wash into waterways after rain

-Organic

Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant
health to avoid the need for treatment

All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials

Composted municipal sewage not allowed; manure must be composted to
avoid active disease bacteria; assess compost quality before use

Runoff can occur with any materials, but less with organic matter that binds
nutrients to soil.'

'What is Organic Farming?

Organic farming is a form of agriculture which does not use synthetic inputs
such as pesticides and fertilizers because of the disruptive effects that the
synthetic chemicals can cause on the ecological balance considered essential
to maintain a sustainable system indefinitely.

Organic farming thus differs from other alternative agriculture systems that
allow the minimal use of these inputs, and itï¿½s from this difference that
organic farming gets its name. However, organic farming is not just
farming without chemicals. Organic growers focus on using techniques such
as crop rotation, proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic
matter into the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum
plant growth and minimize pest problems. Application of organic pesticides
are considered a last resort and used sparingly.

All agricultural systems disrupt the natural environment to some extent;
organic agriculture aims to minimize this disruption and to enhance natural
biological cycles. For example, organic farmers emphasize the importance
of a healthy soil to promote a diverse biological population, including
earthworms and microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria that are
beneficial to plants.
..
In the box at right <below> are the principles of organic farming as
stated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM, from Organic Farming 1990).

Principles of Organic Farming
ï¿½
To produce food of high nutritional quality in sufficient quantity;
ï¿½
To work with natural systems rather than seeking to dominate them;
ï¿½
To encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming
system, involving microorganisms, soil flora and fauna, plants and
animals;
ï¿½
To increase and maintain the long-term fertility of soils;
ï¿½
To use as far as possible renewable resources in locally organized
agricultural systems;
ï¿½
To work as much as possible within a closed system with regard
to organic matter and nutrient elements;
ï¿½
To give all livestock conditions of life that allow them to perform
all aspects of their innate behavior;
ï¿½
To avoid all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural operations;
ï¿½
To maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its
surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats;
ï¿½
To allow agricultural producers an adequate return and satisfaction
from their work including a safe working environment;
ï¿½
To consider the wider social and ecological impact of the farming system.

 http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
..'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Briefing_Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.

Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.

Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.

Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.

Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.

Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths
due to the application of pesticides in organic farming, usual liar.


text:
peril wrote:

Because pyrethrum is very lethal.

	Pyrethrum labeled carcinogenic
	Pyrethrum, one of the most widely used organic pesticides, has
	been declared a likely human carcinogen by an EPA scientific
	advisory committee. Apparently, this conclusion was reached some
	time ago, but is only seeing the light of day as a result of a
	lawsuit challenging the EPA's findings. The case is Jim J.
	Tozzi, et al, v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. One of
	the plaintiffs is a manufacturer of pyrethrum.
	http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_short_cuts_9/

See also: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D21D.htm

Especially if you enjoy growing tumors.

Because some gardeners are prone to believing pseudoscience and organic
propaganda at face value.

Most DON'T. See below, twat.

*Many* have low toxicity, lol?? Keep reading.

Ipse dixit. You're making categorical claims about farming practices
with which you have ZERO first-hand experience or knowledge, Lesley. You
were wrong about the lack of dead animal matter (fish emulsion, fish
meal, bone meal, blood meal) used in organic farming. You're wrong about
the use of pesticides, too.

Organic farmers may have a goal or a theory, but, just like you vegans,
they don't seem to attain it *in practice*. Stop acting indifferent
toward *results* and stop parroting the platitudes of what they *seek*
to do because they seldom accomplish it.

That doesn't mean zero use.

So are organic pesticides.

Including organic pesticides.

Striving is different from achieving.

Pyrethrum, an organic pesticide, is listed by EPA as a human carcinogen.

Ipse dixit.

Just the natural versions of the same chemicals. Rather than pyrethrINS,
organic farmers use pryrethRUM -- a known human carcinogen. Organic
farmers also use other toxins containing sulphur and copper which build
up in soil and water, poisoning birds and fish and other animals.

Organic chemicals disrupt the ecosystem, too, Les.

<...>

I did and you snipped it, Chelsea. Restore:
Organic pesticides and fertilizers create the same ecological woes as
their conventional counterparts.

Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans):
     One of organic farming's most widely used
     pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human
     carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental
     Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after
     pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two
     different sets of laboratory rodents.
     http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2001/jun_8_01.htm

Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents
(and humans):
      Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot
      of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr.
      Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major
      features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and
      tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these
      results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental
      pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's
      disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will
      continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine
      which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the
      PD-inducing effects of pesticides.
      http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/F/20022444.html

Organic pesticides affect more than just target species:
      Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets.
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/org_land_care/which.html

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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

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/publications/formative6.htm

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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
End restore.


text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:g59Hd.28542$[email]...

Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths
due to the application of pesticides in organic farming, usual liar.


text:
STUPID peril wrote:

Edit your reply line. It's too long.

What do you have to say about the *intentional* deaths organic farmers
cause to animals?

I gave you several examples, but you keep snipping them. References to
"NON-TARGET SPECIES" are to CDs, dummy.

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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, dummy.]

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/publications/formative6.htm

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

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species, dummy.]

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

The ball is back in your court, you stupid fucking idiot.


author: Rudy Canoza

text:
pearl wrote:

What the FUCK do you think they apply the stuff for in
the first place, stupid twat Lesley?  TO KILL VARMINTS!

God DAMN, you are just a fucking clod.


text:
STUPID "usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:SCxHd.32463$[email]...

Evidence?

You've given NO EVIDENCE of collateral deaths due to
the application of pesticides *in organic farming*, usual liar.


text:
"Rudy Canoza" <[email]> wrote in message news:hgaHd.324$[email]...

Not vertebrates.  And while insect deaths are regrettable,
we have to eat to survive.

Projection.


text:
peril wrote:

Why do they apply pesticides in the first place, dummy?

What about fish? What about humans? What about birds? Those are ALL
vertebrates. References to "NON-TARGET SPECIES" are to CDs, dummy.

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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, dummy.]

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/publications/formative6.htm

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

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species, dummy.]

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

GFY, Lesley.


text:
pearl wrote:

What about fish? What about humans? What about birds? Those are ALL
vertebrates. References to "NON-TARGET SPECIES" are to CDs, dummy.

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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, dummy.]

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/publications/formative6.htm

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

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species, dummy.]

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

The ball is back in your court, you stupid fucking idiot.

   And while insect deaths are regrettable,

He's spot-on.


text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:OHzHd.32504$[email]...

To control insects, not vertebrates, child.

Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths
due to the application of pesticides in organic farming, usual liar.


text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:TiyHd.34774$[email]...

Evidence that happens IN ORGANIC FARMING?

Evidence that happens IN ORGANIC FARMING?

Evidence that happens IN ORGANIC FARMING?


text:
~~peril~~ wrote:

Vertebrates are among the "NON-TARGET SPECIES" mentioned below, dummy.

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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, dummy.]

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/publications/formative6.htm

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

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species, dummy.]

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

See above, nitwit. Pay attention to stuff like this:
     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*.

Why do *organic farmers* use dangerous copper- and sulphur-based
fungicides instead of safer products like Mancozeb which have shorter
half-lives and are much less toxic to non-target species over the course
of multiple applications?


text:
pearl wrote:

Those are ALL vertebrates. References to "NON-TARGET SPECIES" are to
CDs, dummy.

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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, dummy.]

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/publications/formative6.htm

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

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species, dummy.]

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

GFY, Lesley.


text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:HKzHd.32506$[email]...

'What is Organic Farming?

Organic farming is a form of agriculture which does not use synthetic inputs
such as pesticides and fertilizers because of the disruptive effects that the
synthetic chemicals can cause on the ecological balance considered essential
to maintain a sustainable system indefinitely.

Organic farming thus differs from other alternative agriculture systems that
allow the minimal use of these inputs, and itï¿½s from this difference that
organic farming gets its name. However, organic farming is not just
farming without chemicals. *Organic growers focus on using techniques such
as crop rotation, proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic
matter into the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum
plant growth and minimize pest problems.  Application of organic pesticides
are considered a last resort and used sparingly.*

All agricultural systems disrupt the natural environment to some extent;
organic agriculture aims to minimize this disruption and to enhance natural
biological cycles. For example, organic farmers emphasize the importance
of a healthy soil to promote a diverse biological population, including
earthworms and microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria that are
beneficial to plants.
..
In the box at right <below> are the principles of organic farming as
stated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM, from Organic Farming 1990).

Principles of Organic Farming
ï¿½
To produce food of high nutritional quality in sufficient quantity;
ï¿½
To work with natural systems rather than seeking to dominate them;
ï¿½
To encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming
system, involving microorganisms, soil flora and fauna, plants and
animals;
ï¿½
To increase and maintain the long-term fertility of soils;
ï¿½
To use as far as possible renewable resources in locally organized
agricultural systems;
ï¿½
To work as much as possible within a closed system with regard
to organic matter and nutrient elements;
ï¿½
To give all livestock conditions of life that allow them to perform
all aspects of their innate behavior;
ï¿½
To avoid all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural operations;
ï¿½
To maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its
surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats;
ï¿½
To allow agricultural producers an adequate return and satisfaction
from their work including a safe working environment;
ï¿½
To consider the wider social and ecological impact of the farming system.

 http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
..'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Briefing_Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.

Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.

Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.

Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.

Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.

Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths
due to the application of pesticides in organic farming, usual liar.


text:
peril wrote:

Instead, it uses equally lethal NATURAL inputs.

Vertebrates are among the "NON-TARGET SPECIES" mentioned below, dummy.

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 ï¿½
      including Brazil ï¿½ 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, dummy.]

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/publications/formative6.htm

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

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/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species, dummy.]

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 donï¿½t call
     their produce "pesticide free."
     http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&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

Which are also used in organic farming, just the non-standardized
"natural" versions which are every bit as toxic as the synthetic.

Absolutely. Organic is no different than conventional.

"Aims" aren't the same as "facts." Organic agriculture is predicated on
lofty theories, but in practice it never measures up to those theories.

     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*.

Why do *organic farmers* use dangerous copper- and sulphur-based
fungicides instead of safer products like Mancozeb which have shorter
half-lives and are much less toxic to non-target species over the course
of multiple applications?


author: Justin Wigg

subject: Teacher In Space Experiments on STS-26

text:
Just going through some general data for STS-26 and noticed that there were
two SSIP (Shuttle Student Involvement Program) experiments flown on STS-26.

Were these the same or similar to the SSIP activities scheduled for Christa
McAuliffe on STS-51L?  Were they televised experiments for use by school
students in a one-g environment?  Thanks...


author: Richard Glueck

subject: Re: Teacher In Space Experiments on STS-26

text:
No, they were student experiments carried aboard Discovery totally independent
of the TIS program.  SSIP was Student Space Involvement Program, which was
managed both by NASA and the NSTA.  It offered kids at various levels an
opportunity to design experiments to be carried into space, and to design
futuristic space stations and communities.  They also had a nice art
component.  It is now called NSIP and managed through another educational
agency.


text:
"Richard Glueck" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
independent

What is the NSTA exactly?  (I'm guessing something like National Science
Teachers Assoc?)  So SSIP and TIS aren't/weren't necessarily tied in
together?


text:
Justin:    You hit it right on the head; National Science Teachers Association.
No, the two programs were entirely separate, althought the SSIP program was an
avenue to pull kids interests back into space flight, and to encourage them to
continue the wonderment aspect of space adventure.  Naturally, this was a part
of the TIS program as well, but SSIP was a follow on.
    BTW, McAulliffe's journal and broadcasts from space were to be her
contribution to the TIS program.  Nothing bad for the late Christa, but many of
the other prosoed experiments and activites which were to go into space with the
other "finalists" were far more inventive and scientific than the one that got
chosen.


text:
"Richard Glueck" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Association.

Well at least I got *something* right!  :-)

was an
them to
part

Thanks for the clarification Richard.  I always had the the impression that
SSIP *was* the TIS project.

many of
with the
got

Anywhere I can look to see what experiments were to be conducted by
McAuliffe and what was proposed by others in the TIS project/program?


author: David Sander

subject: Just checking in...

text:
...and from what I can see, there's an awful lot of noise going on here
at the moment. Goodness gracious, and quite a few absentees, too -
little wonder.

Oh well.

Anyway, just wanted to a) see who was still here, and b) find out if
anyone was heading to Toronto for the World Science Fiction Convention
being held at the end of September.

I'm sending a sample DVD of a special demo sequence of Man Conquers
Space on the invitation of TorCon organizers, which they'll be screening
at some point during the proceedings.

It won't be anything like a whole film, instead it's a special
demonstration sequence running about 4 minutes, in the finished feature
film's 2.35:1 ratio with proper editing and everything.

Anyway, just interested.

David


author: Henry Spencer

subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
In article <[email]>,
David Sander  <[email]> wrote:

Still here, modulo a vacation or two... and will be at the Worldcon.


author: Michael Gallagher

subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:51:29 GMT, David Sander
<[email]> wrote:

Haven't had time to visit a lot lately, but I have dropped in.  Have
fun in Toronto; I'm off to Maine in nine days!


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
David Sander wrote:

Bugger ... end of *August* ... *beginning* of September. Sorry about that.

David


author: Andre Lieven

subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
David Sander ([email]) writes:

I will be there. I haven't missed a Worldcon since 1999, when
Australia was a bit too wet to drive to... <g>

And, overall, it'll be my... twentieth Worldcon... Gads.

Cool. I'll keep an eye on the schedule.

Sounds good.

Andre


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
Henry Spencer ([email]) writes:

Kewl. Wanna meet up ? <g>

Andre


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:05:35 GMT, David Sander
<[email]> wrote:

Same time as I'll be tooling around Maine and New Brunswick; couldn't
make it if I wanted to.  But have a good time.


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
David Sander ([email]) writes:

Ah... I missed that, too, since I'm used to just thinking of it being
" Worldcon Time "... <g>

Andre


author: John Beaderstadt

subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
[email] (Andre Lieven) on 6 Aug 2003 14:25:15 GMT,
which said:

Hmm...  What are the dates?

---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor:  "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
In article <bi4c45$jss$[email]>,
Andre Lieven <[email]> wrote:

Hmm, do we want to try to have an s.s.h get-together at the Worldcon?
The social calendar is looking crowded already, but I could try to
squeeze that in...


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
John Beaderstadt ([email]) writes:

Aug 28-Sept 1. Check www.torcon3.on.ca.

Also, while the memberships are now at the " at the door " rates,
there are some people who buy their memberships three years out,
for the discounts, and who then, if/when circumstances are such as
they can't go, then sell their membs for lower then at-the-door
prices.

And, I even saw a teevee commercial for the Worldcon, aired on
their media sponsor, Space, The Imagination Station ( Our S-F
channel ), last night.

I am *so* looking forward to this... :-)

Andre


subject: Re: Just checking in...

text:
Henry Spencer ([email]) writes:

That could also depend on how many from here will be there...

But, if the usual Worldcon logistics are followed, there will be
a " voodoo board ", with an alphabetical listing of all memberships,
with a place to place notes to anyone on said list, and pins to push
in by the recipient's name, to let them know that someone left them
a message...

Worldcons are lovely events, but vacations, they're surely not... <g>

I'll be on site, as of Wednesday afternoon. Strathcona Hotel.

Andre


author: yelxol

text:
An Apoligia That Medical Mistakes Made In Private Medical Practices Or
Medical Clinics Cause 480,000 Deaths Each Year*

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported in 1999 and in 2001 that U.S.
medical providers are killing about 100,000 hospital patients every
year. The CDC estimates the cost of these physician-related incidents
at $4.5 billion and the rate of iatrogenic infections has increased
36% in the past 20 years.
The above quoted numbers used by the IOM and the CDC were taken from
‘inpatient’ hospital records, where the patient’s
progress, regression or incidents are supposedly kept in a very
detailed chart. This facilitates – or at least should simplifies
– one’s ability to trace the cause of an adverse event.
However, even with dependable and accurate charts, the IOM estimates
the 100,000 figure may “underestimate the size of the
death-by-medical-mistake problem”. [1]
The Institute of Medicine states: "Most errors and safety issues go
undetected and unreported, both externally and within health care
organizations." and "Silence surrounds this issue."
Nonetheless, there are 33,600,000 total hospital admissions per year,
so the estimated 100,000 deaths attributable to mistakes are
approximately 1:336.
However, these numbers only include hospital admissions, not visits to
private clinics and physicians’ offices, and since the question
of iatrogenic infection of HPV would, in most cases, involve those
private clinics and physician’s offices, one can make a few
logical assumptions, (because data is simply not available).
Based on the fact that once an MD is licensed to practice in a state,
there is no oversight of what is done in his/her office, it is easily
comprehendible that the level of standards associated with the
examining rooms, the staff, the techniques, the medical devices and
the physicians affiliated with private practices and clinics would be
found far below those in a highly regulated hospital environment.
Hospitals are required to meet rigorous guidelines in order to pass
accreditation standards set by, for example, The Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Hospitals are also
held to high standards by state and federal agencies.
In addition, because of the fact that hospitals have substantially
larger budgets, economies of scale dictate that there are far greater
resources available for achieving and maintaining considerably higher
standards than the offices of private physicians
Nonetheless, even though there approximately are 21.3 times as many
visits [2] to private medical offices and clinics as there are
hospital admissions (716 million compared with 33.6 million), private
doctor’s offices and clinics have no need to worry about a
surprise visit – or, for that matter, even a scheduled one.
Put another way, annual hospital admissions are only 4.7% the number
of yearly visits to private physicians and clinics. Even so, there is
virtually no oversight accountability for private physicians and
clinics. We must simply trust that they will ‘do the right
thing’.
Thus far, there has been no study or attempt to assimilate data that
would give us the numbers of deaths caused by the errors of medical
providers in private practices and clinics.
However, based on the elements reported above, one could easily assume
there are ‘deaths-by-medical-mistake’ which result from
errors made in the private medical sector. Though it would certainly
be outlandish to project the same 1:336 ratio from the hospital
report, we suggest that an estimate can be determined by extracting
surgical and intensive care ‘incidents’.
According to figures compiled from the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS), surgery and ICU patients comprise as much as 55% of
all patients admitted to U.S. hospitals.
If we subtract this 55% from the estimated 100,000 hospital related
deaths, it leaves us with 45,000, or a ratio of 1:747. But in an
effort to be conservative, we will use half of this ratio, which would
have the effect of actually doubling the number to 1:1494.
Using this conservative estimate, and figures extrapolated from the
CDC and the NCHS, we estimate there are approximately 480,000 deaths
each year in the U.S. that are a result of medical mistakes made in
private medical practices or medical clinics.
In that the vast majority of invasive, potentially infectious
examinations are gynecological, it is reasonable that at least 75%, or
approximately 360,000 of these victims are women.
As Dr. William Jarvis of the CDC says: "If you don't do good
(infection) surveillance, you don't detect infections, which means
they don't exist and you look great…"
On the other hand, “If you don’t ever do any (infection)
surveillance, you don’t ever detect any infections.”
Therefore, unless a comprehensive process is put in place that will
monitor the examining rooms, the staffs, the techniques, the medical
devices and the physicians affiliated with private practices and
clinics, women will continue to become unnecessarily infected at the
hands of their medical providers.

Dr. Robert A. Weinstein, director of infectious diseases for the Cook
County Bureau of Health Services in Chicago, says that “hands
are the most dangerous thing” in the health care environment.
Duke University Medical Center found that just 17% of physicians
treating patients in an intensive care unit washed their hands
appropriately.
Whether they are the hands of a person affiliated with a hospital, the
hands of a private physician or one of his/her assistances, makes no
difference. However, there is one element that is different. Almost
all those who acquire the symptoms of an HPV infection (or any other
pathogenic infection) visit the office of a private physician or a
clinic… not a hospital.
Therefore, it is quiet obvious that infectious diseases are more
likely to be contracted in the setting of private practice.

 [1]  The author interjects that the IOM’s extremely unassertive
words do not bring the proper emphasis to this subject. MOST medical
mistakes are not recorded in patient records. This is based on
observation as an employee of a major hospital, where the author
worked as a OR prep tech, which necessitated visits with all patients
the night before surgery. This often included long
‘coffee’ visits and conversations with the nurses on duty
– whose job was to keep the charts.
[2]  21.3 x as many reasons there should be accreditation standards
and on-site reviews of private medical providers.

*From “Cervical Cancer is an Infectious Disease Caused by
HPV”


author: Vaughn Simon

subject: Re: An Apoligia That Medical Mistakes Made In Private Medical Practices Or Medical Clinics Cause 480,000 Deaths Each Year*

text:
"yelxol" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

“”.’’s’s  – >‘’.
‘deaths-by-medical-mistake’ ‘incidents’.t…"
‘coffee’

Dear yelxol;

     Do you have a point?  Do you want to share it?  Does it have anything
to do with dentistry?

Until then...
Vaughn


author: Joel M. Eichen

text:
yelxol <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

How do they handle the traffic jam of hearses around that place?


text:
"Joel M. Eichen" <[email]> wrote in message news:<as90ef$oulq0$[email]>...

Good one. It is true. You DDSs do have a sense of humor... but just a
sense of it.  : )
DO you sing when you perform procedures?


text:
yelxol <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

*******

REPLY:

I am pretty serious when evaluating or treating teeth .......

I disapprove of that stuff ........

Joel

**********


text:
"Joel M. Eichen" <[email]> wrote in message news:<asgalb$q2o03$[email]>...
You much about dental implants? I had one that 'went bad' and had to
have (I think it was called) a bone graft and skin graft. The guy
said, of course, it was my fault. But the other specialist, who ended
up putting in a bridge, said the 'hole' for the implant was drilled
too close to the front (outside) of my mouth.
I'm still pissed off.


text:
yelxol <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

You wrote:

REPLY:

Yes I much about dental implants, but first why are we talking like the Lone Ranger and Tonto?

Nah ,,, happens ....... poor blood supply (that day) or a few too many microbes floating around .....

OUCH!!!!!!!

I hate drilling too much to the front.

Front OF WHAT???????

Yup ... keeps Social Security rates down ..........


text:
"Joel M. Eichen" <[email]> wrote in message news:<asgtsa$qi10c$[email]>...
Attributal to a long day, I suppose... and old age.
The outer gums.


author: Kevin Lim

subject: Cybergenics Phase I

text:
Hi everyone,

I have been weight training for about 6 months.  I have researched Cybergenics
and have my mind set on to try the Phase I program.  Has anyone tried any
Cybergenics' packages???  Any response whether for or against is welcome!

Email me at [email] or simply repost using this subject title!

Thanks for the anticipated response!

Kevin Lim


author: Jason Edwards

subject: Re: Cybergenics Phase I

text:
Kevin Lim ([email]) wrote:
: Hi everyone,

: I have been weight training for about 6 months.  I have researched Cybergenics
: and have my mind set on to try the Phase I program.  Has anyone tried any
: Cybergenics' packages???  Any response whether for or against is welcome!

: Email me at [email] or simply repost using this subject title!

: Thanks for the anticipated response!

: Kevin Lim

Cybergenics is one of the biggest scams to jump on the fitness band
wagon. The cybergenics program works not because of the supplements, but
because of the stringent exercise and nutrition guidelines. The
supplements do ABSOLUTELY nothing. You could go on the exercise and
nutrition part of the program, minus the supplements, and get the same
results. If you ever take a close look at the BEFORE and AFTER pictures
in the Cybergenics ads, you will see that the people already have quite a
lot of lean muscle mass but are FAT. After they finsih the program, they
gain very little muscle mass, but lose a significant amount of fat. They
also make sure the person is extremely tanned to bring out details. The
Cybergenics company used to say it was the only way to get steroid-like
results naturally. I can guarantee you, the results you will obtain on
Phase One won't even come close to what you will experience on a proper
steroid cycle. To sum up, the supplements in Cybergenics do nothing. The
are a waste of money. Hard work, dedication, proper eating and exercise
are the only way you are going to succeed. The ads may look good, but
they are extremely misleading.

Jason E.

By the way, if you want more info on bodybuilding related topics, read
misc.fitness. You will get a lot more info there then you will here.


author: Rick Dickert

subject: Re: Cybergenics Phase I

text:
In article <32jmtv$[email]> Jason Edwards,
[email] writes:

I did the Cybergenics thing about two years ago, and the weight training
program is absolutely <<INCREDIBLE>>. I agree, that even if you did none
of the supplements, you would make gains with that program.

One line that was particularly memorable out of the Cybergenics program
book said that if you did the leg workout properly, you would not be able
to stand up for about 20 minutes (!)

But the bottles of supplements were cute (especially the stuff with the
eye dropper that went under your tongue)

Rick Dickert
netmail to [email] or [email]
------------------------------------------------
"I stand behind all of my misstatements" - Dan Quayle
------------------------------------------------


author: Daniel Liebster

subject: Re: Cybergenics Phase I

text:
Also remember that This company just had to shell out 1.5 million
to the FTC for fraudulent advertising.

---

	Belts?Belts??? We don't need no stinkin' belts!

Dan Liebster  Bellcore  [email]  201.829.4797


author: Chris Malcolm

subject: Absorbing Vit E thru skin

text:
I read a few months back a claim in this group that Vit E in oily form
could not be absorbed thru the skin, so topical skin application was a
waste of time. I recently had an opportunity to try an experiment.

It is my habit to apply vit E oil to open wounds. I have noted that it
very quickly and dramatically reduces the severe sharp pain that often
accompanies deep cuts, in a minute or two. I don't know what component
of the oil is responsible for this effect.

I recently scalded the back of my hand with boiling stew. I chilled it
with iced water for a few hours. Whenever it started to warm up, it
began to hurt badly with the same kind of sharp pain, and carrying
around a jug of iced water was getting annoying, so after a few hours,
I tried applying vit E oil. It took about 40 minutes to begin to
remove the pain, and it proceeded gradually, rather than the dramatic
one or two minutes of an open wound. (Of course the pain might just
have gone away at this time anyway.)  It took about 4 hours for the
oiliness to be completely absorbed by the skin, leaving no visible or
feelable residue.

No blistering developed. Now, a few days later, there is a lot of
slightly raised reddish blotching which itches slightly. Oddly some of
the blotching traces the outlines of the major veins under the skin.
Is that because the proximity of the veins caused those places to be
less efficiently chilled by the iced water?


author: Mark Thorson

subject: Re: Absorbing Vit E thru skin

text:
In article <[email]>,
Chris Malcolm <[email]> wrote:

The pain of burns is increased by exposure to air.  When you put
the vitamin E oil on your hand, that excludes the air, reducing the
pain.  Butter would have had the same effect.


author: Dennis W. Elenburg

subject: Re: Absorbing Vit E thru skin

text:
In article [email], [email] (Mark Thorson) writes:

I'd suggest using some melaleuca oil (or even aloe vera) instead of
butter.  I always put melaleuca oil on a burn as fast as possible, and
unless it is very severe burn it won't even blister.  Melaleuca oil is
probably 5-7 times as potent as aloe vera, but aloe vera is also
soothing.  I put pure melaleuca oil on the burn initially, then I
follow it up with a products called Mela-Gel that has a lot of other
soothing ingredients like wheat germ oil, cocoa butter, beeswax,
vitamin D-2, vitamin A, etc.  It is the best first aid topical
gel I've used.  Email for details if you need 'em.

*******************************************************
| Dennis Winn Elenburg | email = [email] |
| Dallas, Texas  USA   | phone = (214)604-6944        |
*******************************************************


author: FRED W. BACH

subject: Re: Absorbing Vit E thru skin

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Mark Thorson) writes...
#In article <[email]>,
#Chris Malcolm <[email]> wrote:
#>
#>I recently scalded the back of my hand with boiling stew. I chilled it
#>with iced water for a few hours. Whenever it started to warm up, it
#>began to hurt badly with the same kind of sharp pain, and carrying
#>around a jug of iced water was getting annoying, so after a few hours,
#>I tried applying vit E oil. It took about 40 minutes to begin to
#>remove the pain, and it proceeded gradually, rather than the dramatic
#>one or two minutes of an open wound. (Of course the pain might just
#>have gone away at this time anyway.)  It took about 4 hours for the
#>oiliness to be completely absorbed by the skin, leaving no visible or
#>feelable residue.
#
#The pain of burns is increased by exposure to air.  When you put
#the vitamin E oil on your hand, that excludes the air, reducing the
#pain.  Butter would have had the same effect.
#
#

  Having begun as a skeptic, and having tried the experiment many times,
 I am certain that Vitamin E, applied locally or taken internally, does
 reduce blistering for me.  If I take it, the blister goes down, and when
 it wears off, the blister comes up again.   About 400 units Vitamin E
 seems to do the trick for me for about 12 hours.  And, if I take vitamin E
 beforehand, I can stand a lot more sun before I show signs of burning.

  Your mileage may vary.  It doesn't work for everybody.

 Fred W. Bach ,    Operations Group        |  Internet: [email]
 TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility)    |  Voice:  604-222-1047 loc 327/333
 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS            |  FAX:    604-222-1074
 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   V6T 2A3
  Damien says " If you don't STAND for SOMETHING, you'll FALL for ANYTHING "
 These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
 They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.


author: Daniel Ansari

subject: Re: Absorbing Vit E thru skin

text:
In article <32r74f$[email]>,
Dennis W. Elenburg <[email]> wrote:

Mr Elenburg, _please_ stop advertising your products in this newsgroup
unless you make it clear to readers about the intention of your posts!
You've been trying to get customers from sci.med, too, I've noticed.


subject: Re: Absorbing Vit E thru skin

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (FRED W. BACH) writes:

Interesting. I discovered by repeated experiment a non-blistering
effect of E I have never seen reported: if taken internally (I use a
1000IU daily dose) it greatly reduces (usually to zero) the blistering
that otherwise occurs when unaccustomed hard manual labour is engaged
in, such as chopping wood, sawing logs, or digging trenches. The same
goes for foot blisters on long walks.


author: rmacfarl

subject:
Newswise: Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated
	Maize

text:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/550327/

Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated Maize

Newswise — Maize was domesticated from its wild ancestor more than
8700 years according to biological evidence uncovered by researchers
in the Mexico’s Central Balsas River Valley. This is the earliest
dated evidence -- by 1200 years -- for the presence and use of
domesticated maize.

The researchers, led by Anthony Ranere of Temple University and
Dolores Piperno of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History,
reported their findings in two studies -- “The Cultural and
chronological context of early Holocene maize and squash domestication
in the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexcio” and “Starch grain and
phytolith evidence for early ninth millennium B.P. maize from the
Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico” -- being published in the PNAS
Early Edition, March 24.

According to Ranere, recent studies have confirmed that maize derived
from teosinte, a large wild grass that has five species growing in
Mexico, Guatemala and Nicaragua. The teosinte species that is closest
to maize is Balsas teosinte, which is native to Mexico’s Central
Balsas River Valley.

“We went to the area where the closest relative to maize grows, looked
for the earliest maize and found it,” said Ranere. “That wasn’t
surprising since molecular biologists had determined that Balsas
teosinte was the ancestral species to maize. So it made sense that
this was where we would find the earliest domestication of maize.”

The study began with Piperno, a Temple University anthropology alumna,
finding evidence in the form of pollen and charcoal in lake sediments
that forests were being cut down and burned in the Central Balsas
River Valley to create agricultural plots by 7000 years ago. She also
found maize and squash phytoliths -- rigid microscopic bodies found in
many plants -- in lakeside sediments.

Ranere, an archaeologist, joined in the study to find rock shelters or
caves where people lived in that region thousands of years ago. His
team carried out excavations in four of the 15 caves and rock shelters
visited in the region, but only one of them yielded evidence for the
early domestication of maize and squash.

Ranere excavated the site and recovered numerous grinding tools.
Radiocarbon dating showed that the tools dated back at least 8700
years. Although grinding tools were found beneath the 8700 year level,
the researchers were not able to obtain a radiocarbon date for the
earliest deposits. Previously, the earliest evidence for the
cultivation of maize came from Ranere and Piperno’s earlier research
in Panama where maize starch and phytoliths dated back 7600 years.

Ranere said that maize starch, which is different from teosinte
starch, was found in crevices of many of the tools that were
unearthed.

“We found maize starch in almost every tool that we analyzed, all the
way down to the bottom of our site excavations,” Ranere said. “We also
found phytoliths that comes from maize or corn cobs, and since
teosinte doesn’t have cobs, we knew we had something that had changed
from its wild form.”

Ranere said that their findings also supported the premise that maize
was domesticated in a lowland seasonal forest context, as opposed to
being domesticated in the arid highlands as many researchers had once
believed.

“For a long time, I though it strange that researchers argued about
the location and age of maize domestication yet never looked in the
Central Balsas River Valley, the homeland for the wild ancestor,” said
Ranere. “Dolores was the first one to do it.’

In addition to Ranere and Piperno, other researchers in the study
included Irene Holst of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
Ruth Dickau of Temple, and Jose Iriarte of the University of Exeter.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, National
Geographic Society, Wenner-Gren Foundation, Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and
the Temple University College of Liberal Arts.


author: [redacted]

subject:
Re: Newswise: Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated
	Maize

text:
On Jul 26, 9:13 am, pete <[email]> wrote:

Isn't "ancestors of the Clovis people" most-precise?  That would imply
that they are not-Clovis, but are some group of peoples that
eventually ended up in New Mexico region and became Clovis.  I don't
think it fair to call them "Siberians," especially if future-evidence
proves they migrated from some other part of Asia.  (I am not yet
buying any of the speculation about European migration to the New
World pre-14 kya.)

Pete, as far as I can tell, you are discussing the difference between
"culture" and "a tradition."  ??  That is, a "tradition" would be
identified as a long-term method of producing some artifact in a very
similiar fashion with the same materials, and therefore delineating
the culture and time period of its existence. However, "culture" still
remains a fuzzy concept, and even today with written histories we
can't define a culture in its entireity.  I think you already know all
that....

Anyway, I wait with baited breath to see if science can push back the
time boundary of North American human occupation.  Some writers are
already saying that humans first came to the continent some 30 kya.
Cf. Meadowcroft and Monde Verdi....   I am still a believer in the
Bering Strait Land Bridge crossing, although I am tending towards the
use of water craft to get people down the coast so rapidly.  The
reality will probably fall inbetween, with some groups traveling by
craft down the coast, and others vectoring across the land and into
the interior of the continent before heading south.

The Clovis point must have been used to hunt the megafauna, since they
are concurrent.

regards
--calder


author: pete

subject:
Re: Newswise: Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated
		Maize

text:
[email] wrote:

OK

And the other thing is,
there was more than one large migration from there to here.
You can't say whether or not one from 14 kya
contained the ancestors
of the people who started the Clovis tradition.


text:
rmacfarl wrote:

Ancestry is about genetics;
traditions and cultures aren't.

"Clovis First" seemed reasonable when it was hypothesised;
now it doesn't.


text:
On Jul 26, 5:25 pm, pete <[email]> wrote:

yup. agreed.  thx


text:
On Jul 25, 8:51 pm, pete <[email]> wrote:

Even if the culture was of local origin, the originators of the
culture had to come from somewhere. Surely it's OK to call them Clovis
people, or the ancestors of the Clovis people...,


text:
rmacfarl wrote:

By the same reasoning it would also be OK to call them Mohawks
or the ancestors of the Mohawks.

Clovis is the oldest identified North American culture.
That's what it is.


text:
On Mar 30, 11:43 am, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

Anne is still active on other internet fora, especially
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/palanthsci/ which she moderates
very effectively with a waggle of her fearsome cyber-finger. If you're
not a member, you should join, as it has the best mix of serious and
lay discussion on the subject I've found (and no @#$% AAH)...

Ross Macfarlane


text:
On Mar 27, 11:17 pm, Paul Crowley <[email]> wrote:

Fool.

Name one other species can identify thousands of individual plant and
animal species by name.

No, I would call brains & gluteii maximi exaptions for space travel,
ballet and brain surgery.

You should try using yours for their exapted purposes. The top one's
for thinking, the bottom one's for spewing $#!t.