[Homestead] Natural pesticides versus artificial pesticides, in humans
EarthNSky
erthnsky at bellsouth.net
Tue Jun 12 18:52:30 EDT 2007
Clansgian at wmconnect.com wrote:
>> Bev, and any other chemists on the list, what is your reaction to this?
>
> Not a chemist.
>
> 'James was a chemist
> But now he is no more
> For what he thought was H20
> Was really H2SO4'
Oh Sh$%%^&&***!!!!!
>
>
> Not a chemist, but the premise of that article is pure BS and the writer must
> surely be on the take from chemical companies or else permanently brain
> damaged by their products.
I agree.
>
> The human chemistry rids itself of toxins by means of 'chemical channels'.
> There is a specific chemical reaction, for example, to heavy metals. The body
> knows perfectly well how to rid itself of arsenic, lead, mercury, etc. and
> those elements in their toxic form are present in food and water and always have
> been. Nor are the effects cumulative. If you are exposed to levels of arsenic
> below what the chemical channel can handle, it is exactly the same as if you
> were not exposed at all.
Sorry James, you will have to prove this to me..
>
> Gardens raised for food (as opposed to 'for sale') need only address
> substantial damage and needn't worry about cosmetic damage. Most industrial
> agribusiness toxins dispensed are to prevent cosmetic damage and don't improve the
> quality of the food a bit.
That, we can agree on, 100%.
James already mentioned the big 'natural' groups of pesticides, the
nightshades, the nicotines, the pyrethrins, rotenone, BT etc. But one
thing I have found that he did not mention is that natural 'cides tend
to have 'evolved' to be species specific, where commercial 'cides take a
shotgun approach.
Bev
--
Bevanron of EarthNSky Farm Sleep well tonight, for somewhere in the
ocean's depths, MY son is protecting YOUR freedom.
More information about the Homestead
mailing list