Homestead mailing list

["Jerry W. Shepperd" <shepperd AT austincc.edu>]

Rob sent a link to a very informative article on the drought in the 
Midwest.  Other parts of the US are also experiencing drought of 
epidemic proportions.  However, we want to move my 94 year old 
Mother-in-law in with us, and we need to modify the roofline and back 
of the house to accommodate a handicap bathroom, but have not been 
able to do anything other than dig a couple of deep holes in the 
ground, because we have had too much rain.  We are moving into the 
normally dry season, so maybe we will get the job done this summer.

Jerry Shepperd


London Independent
The wrath of 2007: America's great drought

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles



Published: 11 June 2007

America is facing its worst summer drought since the Dust Bowl years 
of the Great Depression. Or perhaps worse still.

From the mountains and desert of the West, now into an eighth 
consecutive dry year, to the wheat farms of Alabama, where crops are 
failing because of rainfall levels 12 inches lower than usual, to the 
vast soupy expanse of Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida, which has 
become so dry it actually caught fire a couple of weeks ago, a 
continent is crying out for water.
Read the rest of the article at: 
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2643033.ece 
> From genegerue AT ruralize.com  Tue Jun 12 08:05:22 2007
Return-Path: <genegerue AT ruralize.com>
X-Original-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (fed1rmmtao104.cox.net [68.230.241.42])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B784C014
        for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:05:21 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net
        (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP
        id 
<20070612120520.DSDS6662.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net AT fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>
        for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:05:20 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([68.230.49.246])
        by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp
        id Ac5L1X00G5JiXV80000000; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:05:20 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8EB8747F-C633-4CF1-965D-93BD98D68432 AT ruralize.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: Homestead <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
From: Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:05:20 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
Subject: [Homestead] Natural pesticides versus artificial pesticides,
        in humans
X-BeenThere: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: <homestead.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead>
List-Post: <mailto:homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:05:22 -0000

Bev, and any other chemists on the list, what is your reaction to this?

June 12, 2007,  12:43 am
Mother Nature=92s Pesticides

By John Tierney

Tags: DDT, pesticides, Rachel Carson

When I posted on research by Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold showing =20=

that humans ingest a lot more natural pesticides than synthetic =20
pesticides, I expected a sequel to the earlier denunciations from =20
Rachel Carson=92s admirers. (To answer their most frequent question: =20
No, I am not accepting bribes from chemical companies.)

But I was pleasantly surprised by the latest round of comments. Yes, =20
some readers did object, and some echoed Ms. Carson=92s argument that =20=

the synthetic pesticides are more of a menace. But the debate was =20
dominated by readers like Andrew, Dennis Mangan, Doc Individ and =20
Btavshanjian. They concentrated on the chemistry of toxins instead of =20=

making generalizations about nature or corporations. And when you =20
make a dispassionate comparison of natural versus synthetic =20
pesticides, Mother Nature doesn=92t come out so well.

Rachel Carson was naive to assume there were =93few=94 natural =20
carcinogens, and she was also naive to assume that evolution had made =20=

us =93accustomed=94 to these chemicals. Dr. Ames and Dr. Gold explain =
why =20
we never had a chance to get accustomed:

    Humans have not had time to evolve a =93toxic harmony=94 with all =20=

their dietary plants. The human diet has changed markedly in the last =20=

few thousand years. Indeed, very few of the plants that humans eat =20
today, e.g., coffee, cocoa, tea, potatoes, tomatoes, corn, avocados, =20
mangoes, olive and kiwi fruit, would have been present in a hunter-=20
gatherer=92s diet. Natural selection works far too slowly for humans to =20=

have evolved specific resistance to the food toxins in these newly =20
introduced plants.

Of course, our ancestors did develop defenses against toxins. But why =20=

assume these defenses work only against natural toxins? Dr. Ames and =20
Dr. Gold don=92t buy that assumption:

    Humans have many natural defenses that buffer against normal =20
exposures to toxins and these are mostly general, rather than =20
tailored for each specific chemical. Thus they work against both =20
natural and synthetic chemicals. Examples of general defenses include =20=

the continous shedding of cells exposed to toxins. The surface layers =20=

of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, intestine, colon skin and lungs are =20=

discarded every few days; DNA repair enzymes, which repair DNA that =20
was damaged from many different sources; and detoxification enzymes =20
of the liver and other organs which generally target classes of =20
chemicals rather than individual chemicals. It makes good =20
evolutionary sense to conclude that human defenses are usually =20
general, rather than specific for each chemical. The reason that =20
predators of plants evolved general defenses is presumably to be =20
prepared to counter a diverse and ever-changing array of plant toxins =20=

in an evolving world.

Dr. Ames and Dr. Gold have also addressed the objection that =20
synthetic pesticides have peculiarly dangerous properties:

    DDT was unusual with respect to bioconcentration, and because of =20=

its chlorine substituents it takes longer to degrade in nature than =20
most chemicals; however, these are properties of relatively few =20
synthetic chemicals. In addition, many thousands of chlorinated =20
chemicals are produced in nature. Natural pesticides also can =20
bioconcentrate if they are fat-soluble. Potatoes, for example, =20
contain solanine and chaconine, which are fat-soluble, neurotoxic, =20
natural pesticides that can be detected in the blook of all potato =20
eaters. High leels of these potato neurotoxins have been shown to =20
cause birth defects in rodents, although they have not been tested =20
for carcinogenicity.

To repeat, Dr. Ames and Dr. Gold are not suggesting that you stop =20
eating potatoes or fear the plethora of natural pesticides in the =20
produce department. The doses are generally too small to pose a risk. =20=

But if, as the scientists estimate, these natural pesticides are =20
10,000 times more plentiful in your diet than synthetic ones, why =20
worry so much about the chemicals that don=92t come from Mother Nature?

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/mother-natures-=20
pesticides/