Norminn wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Norminn wrote:

HomeDecoy wrote:


Can anyone tell me how to safely get rid of a bees nest in the
ground? So far I've taken a hose and left it going for a bit right
inside the nest. That seemed to cut down on some of them. I want to
make SURE they don't come back.
Winter is coming up so I'm figuring that after the first frost I
can maybe dig the area up and remove the nest or something?
Can anyone suggest anything to kill them or make sure they don't
return without dumping chemicals into the ground? It's right in the
garden that we're hoping to bring back to life. (Previous owners
let it go without tending for 5 years and likely never noticed the
bees.)

If your critters are yellow jackets, they can be very dangerous.


Only
stinging insects that pursue victim.


Manifestly not true. For example, Africanized bees will pursue up to
300 yards.


Oops! Forgot about those, and we have them in Florida now. Any
others?

I think carpenter ants. But it's hard to tell.

clipped


Not really. You're a victim of scare mongering. Sevin is less toxic than
Cherrios in 7-Up.

From Pesticide Information Office Extension Services of Cornell, Michigan
State, Oregon State, and UC Davis, funding via USDA.

"No reproductive or fetal effects were observed during a long-term study of
rats which were fed high doses of carbaryl [Sevin]. The evidence for
teratogenic effects due to chronic exposure are minimal in test amimals.
Birth defects in rabbit and guinea pig offspring occurred only at dosage
levels which were highly toxic to the mother. A 1980 New Jersey
epidemiological study found no evidence of excess birth defects in a town
sprayed with carbaryl for gypsy moth control. There is only limited evidence

Your Cheerios and 7-Up do that?

that carbaryl causes birth defects in humans. The EPA has concluded that
carbaryl does not pose a teratogenic risk to humans if used properly "

Always the big "if", which is not what most people do.

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...baryl-ext.html

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:50:16 -0400, Tom The Great
wrote:

On 15 Sep 2006 10:07:10 -0700, "HomeDecoy"
wrote:

Can anyone tell me how to safely get rid of a bees nest in the ground?
So far I've taken a hose and left it going for a bit right inside the
nest. That seemed to cut down on some of them. I want to make SURE they
don't come back.
Winter is coming up so I'm figuring that after the first frost I can
maybe dig the area up and remove the nest or something?
Can anyone suggest anything to kill them or make sure they don't return
without dumping chemicals into the ground? It's right in the garden
that we're hoping to bring back to life. (Previous owners let it go
without tending for 5 years and likely never noticed the bees.)


Remember to always follow directions/codes/common sense:

I had yellow jackets, a lot, nested under some mulch. I used some
carpenter bee powder (I had for the carpenter bees that attack my
deck), and dusted their enterence. The Yellow Jackets swarmed for a
while and when I checked back later, I found many dead ones. I then

You know, I was reading this, with CSI Miami in the background, and I
turned to look at the TV, and they were in an airboat after a plane
crash or something, and the blond guy spotted a survivor, and I
thought, "One of the yellow jackets survived!"

I have to learn to compartmentalize.

dusted again for safe measure.

This is what I did, not a how-to for you.

tom @ www.NoCostAds.com

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:07:19 -0400, "RBM" rbm2(remove
wrote:

It works on yellow jackets. I think rodents have a few more brain cells

I was going to say the same thing, but you have a lot more experience
than I.

Still, mice and maybe other rodents are very smart. When too many
mice got killed on my second floor, they stopped coming up here. They
routinely change the places they go to avoid dangers. The Tom and
Jerry cartoons probably aren't far off. Of course they use lab-size
rats in mazes and time them, and watch them get better each time they
run the maze. I guess they can change the maze and the rat is still
faster for having trained in the other maze. Aren't beavers and
groundhogs rodents. They live in society and share responsibilities.
One does't think of moles as being smart, but maybe they are too.


I was amazed however when a guy in the old fraternity house we lived
in threw a shoe or boot at a mouse, hit it, and killed it. I didn't
think they were killed that easily. Then he took it to the cat, which
may have been sleeping. The cat gradually opened its eyes, looked for
a second or two at the mouse, and then zip, quickly used its paw to
scoop it into his mouth. Only the tail was out of his mouth.

"RayV" wrote in message
ups.com...

RBM (remove this) wrote:
If you take a clear plastic or glass bowl, place it over their hole and
press it tightly to the ground, so they can't walk under the edge, put a
weight of some sort on it to keep it in place, they will starve to death.
Do
this at night when they've all gone back into the nest and are not
active.
As long as they can see sunlight, they don't dig themselves a new exit
hole



will this work for rodents or just insects?

On 15 Sep 2006 10:07:10 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"HomeDecoy" quickly quoth:

Can anyone tell me how to safely get rid of a bees nest in the ground?
So far I've taken a hose and left it going for a bit right inside the
nest. That seemed to cut down on some of them. I want to make SURE they
don't come back.
Winter is coming up so I'm figuring that after the first frost I can
maybe dig the area up and remove the nest or something?
Can anyone suggest anything to kill them or make sure they don't return
without dumping chemicals into the ground? It's right in the garden
that we're hoping to bring back to life. (Previous owners let it go
without tending for 5 years and likely never noticed the bees.)

Fill the hole with water to drive out the tenants, then pour in dirt
to make mud. They won't be back.


--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.net...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HomeDecoy" wrote in message
ooglegroups.com...

wrote:

Water? Even water is a chemical, technically. What aspect of
"chemicals" don't you want? Use Sevin dust. It breaks down nicely
after a little while.

Haha true. I guess I'm looking for something that can go in the
ground
but not cause long-term damage to the soil so that we can grow
things
there again.


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT
want
to
use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None of them
ever
has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not possible.

Horse-puckey. Sevin is perfectly safe when used as directed.

Horse-puckey. No substance can be considered safe in or around food
unless
it is tested on humans. You may find one or two instances of that
happening,
but they were rare, and the practice is now illegal.


You can go on thinking that if it makes you feel better... and I'll
continue
to use Sevin in my vegetable garden.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Go on thinking what? That these things cannot be tested properly? Is that
specifically what you're referring to?

Go on thinking that Sevin isn't safe.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


I see you haven't given this any thought since a year ago, when I provided
you with more than enough information to snap you out of your torpor. I
don't care WHAT you believe, but don't go telling amateurs something's safe
unless you have proof, which doesn't exist.



Well, the guy IS still alive...

You would have a much better chance of getting him to stop using
Dihydrogen Monoxide on his plants - there is a lot more empirical
evidence showing the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure to plants &
animals.

In fact, a study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and
Matthew Kulick found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens
participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support
an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Sevin, well... not so much if any empirical evidence.



Rob

"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.net...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HomeDecoy" wrote in message
news:1158340981.301708.231130@k70g2000cwa. googlegroups.com...

wrote:

Water? Even water is a chemical, technically. What aspect of
"chemicals" don't you want? Use Sevin dust. It breaks down
nicely
after a little while.

Haha true. I guess I'm looking for something that can go in the
ground
but not cause long-term damage to the soil so that we can grow
things
there again.


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT
want
to
use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None of
them
ever
has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not possible.

Horse-puckey. Sevin is perfectly safe when used as directed.

Horse-puckey. No substance can be considered safe in or around food
unless
it is tested on humans. You may find one or two instances of that
happening,
but they were rare, and the practice is now illegal.


You can go on thinking that if it makes you feel better... and I'll
continue
to use Sevin in my vegetable garden.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Go on thinking what? That these things cannot be tested properly? Is
that
specifically what you're referring to?

Go on thinking that Sevin isn't safe.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


I see you haven't given this any thought since a year ago, when I
provided you with more than enough information to snap you out of your
torpor. I don't care WHAT you believe, but don't go telling amateurs
something's safe unless you have proof, which doesn't exist.

Well, the guy IS still alive...

You would have a much better chance of getting him to stop using
Dihydrogen Monoxide on his plants - there is a lot more empirical evidence
showing the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure to plants & animals.

In fact, a study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and
Matthew Kulick found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating
in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban
on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Sevin, well... not so much if any empirical evidence.
Rob

People drown in dihydrogen monoxide. Very dangerous stuff.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:51:04 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

"HomeDecoy" wrote in message
roups.com...
wrote:
Water? Even water is a chemical, technically. What aspect of
"chemicals" don't you want? Use Sevin dust. It breaks down nicely
after a little while.

Haha true. I guess I'm looking for something that can go in the ground
but not cause long-term damage to the soil so that we can grow things
there again.


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT want to
use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None of them ever
has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not possible.

Grab a copy of Stossel's new book. He cites studies which show that
people are more apt to be poisoned by nature's own pesticides than by
any man-made artificials. http://tinyurl.com/rc93k

But I'm against killing bees. Using water to drive them out is a much
better play, IMO.


--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:47:43 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

Go on thinking that Sevin isn't safe.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

I see you haven't given this any thought since a year ago, when I provided
you with more than enough information to snap you out of your torpor. I
don't care WHAT you believe, but don't go telling amateurs something's safe
unless you have proof, which doesn't exist.

Some more books for you to ponder at Amazon or the library, Joe:

Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_,
Crichton's _State of Fear_

but if you're really into fear, try Kaplan's _The Coming Anarchy_.



--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:56:41 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"HeyBub" quickly quoth:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT
want to use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None
of them ever has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not
possible.

The only pesticide I can think of that has never been shown to be harmful to
humans in any concentration (less than 100%, and at that level people do die
from being smothered) is DDT. You can get it if you try hard enough.

RIGHT! Go back and look at the research done since the 60s. It was
safer than many of the current pesticides. Rachel Carson's _Silent
Spring_ has been found to be totally wrong but before that as a
result, world governments had banned a perfectly harmless product.

Nearly three million people die of malaria each year. I hope she can
sleep nights.

I used chlordane, etc. safely for years, too. Just pay attention to
the instructions and bury what you need to so pets don't get into it.
Billions of dollars worth of homes have been lost to termites since it
was banned.


--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

Just talked with my brother-in-law tonight. He had a nest and used
Sevin a short time ago and the Sevin worked for him.

I had a few ground nests last year, one was big enough that the Sevin
wasn't working (or at least not as fast as i wanted), so I got out the
gasoline.

Here's some tips for gassing the nest-

get a small glass jar- i used a small 8-12 oz empty salsa jar. using a
small container has several benefits- you know exactly how much gas you
are dumping into the nest, so you don't have a giant explosion near you
when you torch it. Also, you don't have a gas can to move away before
lighting a match. I just took the small jar of gas to the nest, dumped
it in, tossed the jar away from me, and threw a match on it. If you
use a small amount, it should burn up.

In my mind, this is a way to be sure that you get them all, including
unhatched bees.

The last nest I did this to was probably the somewhere between the size
of a softball and a bowling ball.

I have also found that sometimes skunks or racoons will come during the
night and dig up the nest, or at least open it up a little for you to
dump or spray something on it. I don't know which critters do the
digging, but it usually happens overnight. I have had this happen
several times, usually in the fall, when the nights get cooler.

good luck!

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:47:43 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

Go on thinking that Sevin isn't safe.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

I see you haven't given this any thought since a year ago, when I provided
you with more than enough information to snap you out of your torpor. I
don't care WHAT you believe, but don't go telling amateurs something's
safe
unless you have proof, which doesn't exist.

Some more books for you to ponder at Amazon or the library, Joe:

Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_,
Crichton's _State of Fear_

but if you're really into fear, try Kaplan's _The Coming Anarchy_.


No fear involved. My comment is purely rational, at least to anyone with any
science education at all. And, that doesn't mean sitting in the classes.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:51:04 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

"HomeDecoy" wrote in message
groups.com...
wrote:
Water? Even water is a chemical, technically. What aspect of
"chemicals" don't you want? Use Sevin dust. It breaks down nicely
after a little while.

Haha true. I guess I'm looking for something that can go in the ground
but not cause long-term damage to the soil so that we can grow things
there again.


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT want
to
use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None of them ever
has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not possible.

Grab a copy of Stossel's new book. He cites studies which show that
people are more apt to be poisoned by nature's own pesticides than by
any man-made artificials. http://tinyurl.com/rc93k

Stossel!??! He's been discredited many times over for completely twisting
this kind of information.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:11:16 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:47:43 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

Go on thinking that Sevin isn't safe.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

I see you haven't given this any thought since a year ago, when I provided
you with more than enough information to snap you out of your torpor. I
don't care WHAT you believe, but don't go telling amateurs something's
safe
unless you have proof, which doesn't exist.

Some more books for you to ponder at Amazon or the library, Joe:

Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_,
Crichton's _State of Fear_

but if you're really into fear, try Kaplan's _The Coming Anarchy_.

No fear involved. My comment is purely rational, at least to anyone with any
science education at all. And, that doesn't mean sitting in the classes.

It doesn't appear that you delved into any of the books at all. The
first two try to show people that their ecological fears are
unfounded, as does Stossel's.

Kaplan's is an eye-opener to what's really going on in the world from
a political standpoint.

I urge you to check out each and every one.


--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:11:16 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:47:43 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

Go on thinking that Sevin isn't safe.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

I see you haven't given this any thought since a year ago, when I
provided
you with more than enough information to snap you out of your torpor. I
don't care WHAT you believe, but don't go telling amateurs something's
safe
unless you have proof, which doesn't exist.

Some more books for you to ponder at Amazon or the library, Joe:

Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_,
Crichton's _State of Fear_

but if you're really into fear, try Kaplan's _The Coming Anarchy_.

No fear involved. My comment is purely rational, at least to anyone with
any
science education at all. And, that doesn't mean sitting in the classes.

It doesn't appear that you delved into any of the books at all. The
first two try to show people that their ecological fears are
unfounded, as does Stossel's.

Kaplan's is an eye-opener to what's really going on in the world from
a political standpoint.

You seem to have missed something. Agricultural chemicals cannot be tested
for safety on human beings, like medicines. And, both the manufacturers and
their most vocal critics agree that you cannot extrapolate squat from animal
testing.

No testing, no proof either way. Thanks for playing.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:12:08 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Grab a copy of Stossel's new book. He cites studies which show that
people are more apt to be poisoned by nature's own pesticides than by
any man-made artificials. http://tinyurl.com/rc93k

Stossel!??! He's been discredited many times over for completely twisting
this kind of information.

g Stossel was tried and found guilty of things by folks with
something to hide. He also admitted (openly in his first book) to
failing to check a researcher's facts regarding pesticides (the
researcher forgot to check for them) and got nailed for it...ONCE.
He was since promoted to higher office in ABC News. From Wikipedia:
"Stossel has won many awards, including 19 Emmy Awards. One year,
according to Stossel in his book Give Me A Break, "I got so many
Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech 'for not
having an entry in this category.'" Stossel has been honored five
times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.
Among his other awards are the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local
Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award."

That BOTH of his books continued on the Best Seller lists for long
periods of time is proof enough that the public didn't buy any of the
attempted guilt trips imposed by those he caught with their hands in
the cookie jars and those with other agendas. He's a Libertarian and
both the Reps and Dems hate that.

Open your mind and seek the truth, Joe.


--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:12:08 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Grab a copy of Stossel's new book. He cites studies which show that
people are more apt to be poisoned by nature's own pesticides than by
any man-made artificials. http://tinyurl.com/rc93k

Stossel!??! He's been discredited many times over for completely twisting
this kind of information.

g Stossel was tried and found guilty of things by folks with
something to hide. He also admitted (openly in his first book) to
failing to check a researcher's facts regarding pesticides (the
researcher forgot to check for them) and got nailed for it...ONCE.
He was since promoted to higher office in ABC News. From Wikipedia:
"Stossel has won many awards, including 19 Emmy Awards. One year,
according to Stossel in his book Give Me A Break, "I got so many
Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech 'for not
having an entry in this category.'" Stossel has been honored five
times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.
Among his other awards are the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local
Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award."

That BOTH of his books continued on the Best Seller lists for long
periods of time is proof enough that the public didn't buy any of the
attempted guilt trips imposed by those he caught with their hands in
the cookie jars and those with other agendas. He's a Libertarian and
both the Reps and Dems hate that.

Open your mind and seek the truth, Joe.

It doesn't matter. As I keep teaching you, there is no testing of
agricultural chemicals on human beings. If you think they can be deemed safe
without testing, then I would guess that you are choosing this path because
you are one of the "perfect lawn junkies", and you MUST create your own
reality to justify your use of chemicals.

HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT
want to use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None
of them ever has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not
possible.

The only pesticide I can think of that has never been shown to be harmful to
humans in any concentration (less than 100%, and at that level people do die
from being smothered) is DDT.

Based upon Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" study, no doubt.

"The EPA estimates with "medium" confidence (due to "shorter duration
than desired" of the studies) based mainly on liver toxicity in rats,
that no non-carcinogenic effect will be seen at an oral exposure of
less than 5 x10^-4 mg/kg-day as a conservative limit including a
10-fold safety factor for generalizing from rats to humans, and another
10-fold factor to account for human subpopulations which may be
exceptionally
sensitive."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#conoral

"Similarly, the EPA classifies DDT as class B2, a probable human
carcinogen, based on observed carcinogenicity in animals, i.e. tumors
(generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and
three studies in rats, and on structural similarity to other
carcinogens such as DDE, DDD, dicofol, and
chlorobenzilate."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#woe

"The risk factor for oral ingestion is estimated at 3.4x10^-1 per
mg/kg-day or 9.7x10^-6 per ug/L for drinking water, which translates
into a cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 for 10 ug/L, 1 in 100,000 for 1 ug/L,
or 1 in 1,000,000 for 0.1 ug/L; the risk factor for inhalation is
estimated at 9.7x10^-5 per ug/m^3, which translates into a cancer risk
of 1 in 10,000 for 1 ug/m^3, 1 in 100,000 for 0.1 ug/m^3, or 1 in
1,000,000 for 0.01
"ug/m^3."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#quainhal

You can interpret that as "never been shown to be harmful to humans in
any concentration" if you like, but then lots of people believe that
tobacco has "never been shown to be harmful to humans in any
concentration" on very similar evidence.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
You seem to have missed something. Agricultural chemicals cannot be
tested
for safety on human beings, like medicines. And, both the manufacturers and
their most vocal critics agree that you cannot extrapolate squat from animal
testing.

Well, if it looks like half a dozen other carcinogens (chemically) and
it gives dogs, mice, rats, and monkeys cancer, you can bet your ass I
**am** going to extrapolate squat. You can follow your own lead, of
course, the herd must be thinned.

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
You seem to have missed something. Agricultural chemicals cannot be
tested
for safety on human beings, like medicines. And, both the manufacturers
and
their most vocal critics agree that you cannot extrapolate squat from
animal
testing.

Well, if it looks like half a dozen other carcinogens (chemically) and
it gives dogs, mice, rats, and monkeys cancer, you can bet your ass I
**am** going to extrapolate squat. You can follow your own lead, of
course, the herd must be thinned.


I extrapolate on the SAFE side, too. Others here believe it's OK to use
untested chemicals on their home vegetable gardens. Or, to be more correct,
they tell others to do it. No idea if they practice the same foolishness on
their own property.

"The risk factor for oral ingestion is estimated at 3.4x10^-1 per
mg/kg-day or 9.7x10^-6 per ug/L for drinking water, which translates
into a cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 for 10 ug/L, 1 in 100,000 for 1 ug/L,
or 1 in 1,000,000 for 0.1 ug/L; the risk factor for inhalation is
estimated at 9.7x10^-5 per ug/m^3, which translates into a cancer risk
of 1 in 10,000 for 1 ug/m^3, 1 in 100,000 for 0.1 ug/m^3, or 1 in
1,000,000 for 0.01
"ug/m^3."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#quainhal

You can interpret that as "never been shown to be harmful to humans in
any concentration" if you like, but then lots of people believe that
tobacco has "never been shown to be harmful to humans in any
concentration" on very similar evidence.

Ok, maybe you shouldn't smoke DDT.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:42:37 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"JoeSpareBedroom" quickly quoth:

I wrote:
Open your mind and seek the truth, Joe.

It doesn't matter. As I keep teaching you,

g Yassa massa. Jes doan hit me massa. (Don't you get nosebleeds up
there, Joe?)


there is no testing of
agricultural chemicals on human beings. If you think they can be deemed safe
without testing, then I would guess that you are choosing this path because

The scientific method settled upon by our gov't is to limit exposure
to pesticides by testing for contamination. They, along with others
from medical, chemical, and organic backgrounds, also determined which
chemicals are were deemed safe enough to be used by farmers and
gardeners on crops. Sevin is one of those.

I've used Roundup on thistles here but I don't use it on my garden
plot in the spring, before I plant. Instead, I mulch to prevent weeds.


you are one of the "perfect lawn junkies", and you MUST create your own
reality to justify your use of chemicals.


Bwahahaha! You guess far too much. If you saw my "lawn", you'd quickly
realize that I don't use too many chemicals around here. I'm putting
in raised-bed flower and specimen shrub gardens and will be happily
removing as much of that damned grass stuff as I can shortly. I hate
mowing.

Used per the instructions, use of common garden pesticides make us no
less safe than eating most commercially grown food

Riddle me this: When is the last time you heard of a pesticide-induced
death, other than when someone fell into a vat of it or a tanker
crashed? Let me know if you ever find any.


If you had paid attention, you'd have noted that I also stated that I
liked bees, wanted them to live, that water was my preferred method to
get them to move vs. poisoning or flaming them.

I'm on Nature's side, but I'm not afraid of a few chemicals, either.
I rinse my veggies whether they're from local farms, supermarkets, or
organic growers. Dirt and bacteria are the main reason for that, not
pesticide residues. My method is to use Nature and common sense,
first, organics when possible, and whatever nasty chemicals last, if
indeed necessary. Some things, like blackberry bushes, need extreme
measures. They're the worst weed in my yard and have taken a quart of
blood every season since I moved here. Once I use this quart of
Roundup (maybe 5 years. I have 1/3 acre in the country with
pastureland on two sides.) I'll switch to a better defoliant like
Crossbow. I spray before the breeze starts picking up.

If you ever read how many different chemicals are casually used on
grapes, you'd never take another sip of wine or eat another grape, I
guarantee. Vineyard workers are out there every week with one chemical
or another, sometimes several in that time frame. g I don't drink,
and I prefer organic grapes _if_ I eat grapes.

Then again, there isn't enough oversight on organic farming and abuses
happen there, too, especially by converted farmers who were used to
spraying their crops with everything else. I'm not happy paying double
the price for iffy food, either, so I'm not the strictly organic type.
Organic produce is not necessarily any better, safer, or healthier
than the corporate farm- grown produce. If you find documents to
support such a statement, let me know about them, too. I've never seen
proof. Because they have more undead (and unlisted) nutrients, they're
probably better for us, but no proof has ever shown up.


--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

z wrote:


HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


If you're planning on growing edibles in that area, then you do NOT
want to use ANY so-called "safe" or "relatively safe" pesticide. None
of them ever has been or ever will be shown to be safe. It is not
possible.

The only pesticide I can think of that has never been shown to be harmful
to humans in any concentration (less than 100%, and at that level people
do die from being smothered) is DDT.

Based upon Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" study, no doubt.

"The EPA estimates with "medium" confidence (due to "shorter duration
than desired" of the studies) based mainly on liver toxicity in rats,
that no non-carcinogenic effect will be seen at an oral exposure of
less than 5 x10^-4 mg/kg-day as a conservative limit including a
10-fold safety factor for generalizing from rats to humans, and another
10-fold factor to account for human subpopulations which may be
exceptionally
sensitive."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#conoral

"Similarly, the EPA classifies DDT as class B2, a probable human
carcinogen, based on observed carcinogenicity in animals, i.e. tumors
(generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and
three studies in rats, and on structural similarity to other
carcinogens such as DDE, DDD, dicofol, and
chlorobenzilate."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#woe

"The risk factor for oral ingestion is estimated at 3.4x10^-1 per
mg/kg-day or 9.7x10^-6 per ug/L for drinking water, which translates
into a cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 for 10 ug/L, 1 in 100,000 for 1 ug/L,
or 1 in 1,000,000 for 0.1 ug/L; the risk factor for inhalation is
estimated at 9.7x10^-5 per ug/m^3, which translates into a cancer risk
of 1 in 10,000 for 1 ug/m^3, 1 in 100,000 for 0.1 ug/m^3, or 1 in
1,000,000 for 0.01
"ug/m^3."http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#quainhal

You can interpret that as "never been shown to be harmful to humans in
any concentration" if you like, but then lots of people believe that
tobacco has "never been shown to be harmful to humans in any
concentration" on very similar evidence.

How many millions died from malaria and such like because of the hatefull,
unwarranted, enviro-political-correctness? DDT was banned for political
reasons, not for any threat it posed to human or animal health.
Eric

Larry Jaques wrote:
[snip]
Organic produce is not necessarily any better, safer, or healthier
than the corporate farm- grown produce.
[snip]

Except for the spinach which i hear is, um, quite potent :-)
Eric

we mark the hole during the day by putting a stick pointing out the
hole,then pour some gasoline has down the hole at night. a quart will
do.the fumes kill em in a second. lucas

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

Eric wrote:

How many millions died from malaria and such like because of the hatefull,
unwarranted, enviro-political-correctness? DDT was banned for political
reasons, not for any threat it posed to human or animal health.
Eric

I would say not too many, since DDT was never banned for use on
malarial mosquitoes but only for agricultural use.
Now is the part where you prove to me that DDT was banned, by listing
all the countries that have continued to successfully use it. I
confess, I never could follow that logic, but every DDT fan seems to
think it makes sense.

Larry Jaques wrote:

RIGHT! Go back and look at the research done since the 60s. It was
safer than many of the current pesticides. Rachel Carson's _Silent
Spring_ has been found to be totally wrong but before that as a
result, world governments had banned a perfectly harmless product.

Direct quote from Silent Spring, re DDT:
'Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can"
rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."'
Exactly what do you find "totally wrong" about that? I suspect that's
pretty close to what you do when you are spraying chlordane. I hope so.


Nearly three million people die of malaria each year. I hope she can
sleep nights.

Two paragraphs above, we were told that "You can get it if you try hard
enough." Companies that manufacture DDT advertise on the web, listing
testimonials from their satisfied customers. If this constitutes a
"ban", what exactly would have to happen to convince you that there
wasn't a ban?

The folks who decry the ban on DDT have, oddly enough, no record of
fighting malaria or any other health problem in the third world before
this sudden interest. The folks who have been fighting malaria since
the beginning are in wirting as being happy with the ban on
agricultural use, stating that for the first time they have an agent
that can be used on mosquitoes for disease only and thus minimizing the
development of resistance. (A single cotton plantation used to use as
much DDT as the entire country did for malaria prevention).
Unfortunately, for many areas it's too late; once resistance is
resident in the population, it's much quicker to develop again even
years later, for reasons somewhat similar to why you develop antibodies
to a disease faster the second time you encounter it than the first
time, even when years have elapsed.

So, your DDT "ban" boils down to some countries not using it because
they feel for one reason or another that it isn't appropriate for their
location, while other countries who do feel it's appropriate for their
situation, do use it. Yeah, I guess the environmentalists will just
have to live with that.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I extrapolate on the SAFE side, too. Others here believe it's OK to use
untested chemicals on their home vegetable gardens. Or, to be more correct,
they tell others to do it. No idea if they practice the same foolishness on
their own property.

Sad thing is, there is info out there which will enable at least a
somewhat educated balance, and with the web it's accessible to people
who are interested in enough to look. You can find out what the EPA
thinks, what studies they based their educated guesses on, they even
discuss what pieces of information they think are lacking and need more
study; as well as what levels they think are safe, and what safety
margin they are using to suggest those levels, then decide for yourself
if they're too conservative, too risky, or just right. It's a bit
better than going by John Stossel and Michael Crichton's opinions.

"z" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I extrapolate on the SAFE side, too. Others here believe it's OK to use
untested chemicals on their home vegetable gardens. Or, to be more
correct,
they tell others to do it. No idea if they practice the same foolishness
on
their own property.

Sad thing is, there is info out there which will enable at least a
somewhat educated balance, and with the web it's accessible to people
who are interested in enough to look. You can find out what the EPA
thinks, what studies they based their educated guesses on, they even
discuss what pieces of information they think are lacking and need more
study; as well as what levels they think are safe, and what safety
margin they are using to suggest those levels, then decide for yourself
if they're too conservative, too risky, or just right. It's a bit
better than going by John Stossel and Michael Crichton's opinions.


Unfortunately, it's harder to find info going back to the late 1960s & early
1970s, which is when I began following this nonsense. I don't think you can
understand the current posture of the chemical industry without being aware
of the kinds of games they've playing with the law since way back then. For
instance, they purchased legislation which exempts a list of so-called
"inert" ingredients from further testing. If they're inert, why spend the
money to change the law? What's to hide?

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry Jaques wrote:

RIGHT! Go back and look at the research done since the 60s. It was
safer than many of the current pesticides. Rachel Carson's _Silent
Spring_ has been found to be totally wrong but before that as a
result, world governments had banned a perfectly harmless product.

Direct quote from Silent Spring, re DDT:
'Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can"
rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."'
Exactly what do you find "totally wrong" about that? I suspect that's
pretty close to what you do when you are spraying chlordane. I hope so.


Nearly three million people die of malaria each year. I hope she can
sleep nights.

Two paragraphs above, we were told that "You can get it if you try hard
enough." Companies that manufacture DDT advertise on the web, listing
testimonials from their satisfied customers. If this constitutes a
"ban", what exactly would have to happen to convince you that there
wasn't a ban?

The folks who decry the ban on DDT have, oddly enough, no record of
fighting malaria or any other health problem in the third world before
this sudden interest. The folks who have been fighting malaria since
the beginning are in wirting as being happy with the ban on
agricultural use, stating that for the first time they have an agent
that can be used on mosquitoes for disease only and thus minimizing the
development of resistance. (A single cotton plantation used to use as
much DDT as the entire country did for malaria prevention).
Unfortunately, for many areas it's too late; once resistance is
resident in the population, it's much quicker to develop again even
years later, for reasons somewhat similar to why you develop antibodies
to a disease faster the second time you encounter it than the first
time, even when years have elapsed.

So, your DDT "ban" boils down to some countries not using it because
they feel for one reason or another that it isn't appropriate for their
location, while other countries who do feel it's appropriate for their
situation, do use it. Yeah, I guess the environmentalists will just
have to live with that.


It's been in the news lately, which provides people with the chance to
parrot what they think they understand, just to hear themselves talk.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"z" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I extrapolate on the SAFE side, too. Others here believe it's OK to use
untested chemicals on their home vegetable gardens. Or, to be more
correct,
they tell others to do it. No idea if they practice the same foolishness
on
their own property.

Sad thing is, there is info out there which will enable at least a
somewhat educated balance, and with the web it's accessible to people
who are interested in enough to look. You can find out what the EPA
thinks, what studies they based their educated guesses on, they even
discuss what pieces of information they think are lacking and need more
study; as well as what levels they think are safe, and what safety
margin they are using to suggest those levels, then decide for yourself
if they're too conservative, too risky, or just right. It's a bit
better than going by John Stossel and Michael Crichton's opinions.


Unfortunately, it's harder to find info going back to the late 1960s & early
1970s, which is when I began following this nonsense. I don't think you can
understand the current posture of the chemical industry without being aware
of the kinds of games they've playing with the law since way back then. For
instance, they purchased legislation which exempts a list of so-called
"inert" ingredients from further testing. If they're inert, why spend the
money to change the law? What's to hide?

A lot of it has to do with patent laws. The useful patent life of a
product is relatively short, and if they don't patent it before testing
somebody will steal it, so the more time spent testing it the less time
to have it pay off in the market.

Similar for the FDA of course. The pendulum swings; you get something
like the thalidomide case, then everybody decides we need more testing,
then after a few years something like AIDS comes along and people feel
that the drugs are being held up in overly rigorous testing so they
slack off then back again.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry Jaques wrote:

RIGHT! Go back and look at the research done since the 60s. It was
safer than many of the current pesticides. Rachel Carson's _Silent
Spring_ has been found to be totally wrong but before that as a
result, world governments had banned a perfectly harmless product.

Direct quote from Silent Spring, re DDT:
'Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can"
rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."'
Exactly what do you find "totally wrong" about that? I suspect that's
pretty close to what you do when you are spraying chlordane. I hope so.


Nearly three million people die of malaria each year. I hope she can
sleep nights.

Two paragraphs above, we were told that "You can get it if you try hard
enough." Companies that manufacture DDT advertise on the web, listing
testimonials from their satisfied customers. If this constitutes a
"ban", what exactly would have to happen to convince you that there
wasn't a ban?

The folks who decry the ban on DDT have, oddly enough, no record of
fighting malaria or any other health problem in the third world before
this sudden interest. The folks who have been fighting malaria since
the beginning are in wirting as being happy with the ban on
agricultural use, stating that for the first time they have an agent
that can be used on mosquitoes for disease only and thus minimizing the
development of resistance. (A single cotton plantation used to use as
much DDT as the entire country did for malaria prevention).
Unfortunately, for many areas it's too late; once resistance is
resident in the population, it's much quicker to develop again even
years later, for reasons somewhat similar to why you develop antibodies
to a disease faster the second time you encounter it than the first
time, even when years have elapsed.

So, your DDT "ban" boils down to some countries not using it because
they feel for one reason or another that it isn't appropriate for their
location, while other countries who do feel it's appropriate for their
situation, do use it. Yeah, I guess the environmentalists will just
have to live with that.


It's been in the news lately, which provides people with the chance to
parrot what they think they understand, just to hear themselves talk.

Same deal as global warming. The imperceptible slide, from being
skeptical when the local paper says "shmendrick junior college
professor discovers cure for cancer" ,to winding up espousing explicit
or implicit conspiracy theories, that scientists are just lying in
order to retain their positions of wealth and power and rule the world
and destroy America.

People! There is a middle ground!!! You can keep an open mind but still
install screens to keep the bats out!

Unfortunately, it's harder to find info going back to the late 1960s & early
1970s, which is when I began following this nonsense. I don't think you can
understand the current posture of the chemical industry without being aware
of the kinds of games they've playing with the law since way back then. For
instance, they purchased legislation which exempts a list of so-called
"inert" ingredients from further testing. If they're inert, why spend the
money to change the law? What's to hide?


The simple explanation is that testing costs money, and they're sick
of spending money on things that any reasonable person would conclude
are not especially dangerous. Do you have reason to believe that
any of those "inert" ingredients are dangerous?

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, it's harder to find info going back to the late 1960s &
early
1970s, which is when I began following this nonsense. I don't think you
can
understand the current posture of the chemical industry without being
aware
of the kinds of games they've playing with the law since way back then.
For
instance, they purchased legislation which exempts a list of so-called
"inert" ingredients from further testing. If they're inert, why spend the
money to change the law? What's to hide?


The simple explanation is that testing costs money, and they're sick
of spending money on things that any reasonable person would conclude
are not especially dangerous. Do you have reason to believe that
any of those "inert" ingredients are dangerous?


If you lived next door to me and made this comments, would you be willing to
bet every penny you have on their accuracy? I'd like it if you'd agree to
that, although I'd probably be a nice guy and leave you with enough to
relocate to a small apartment. :-)

Hint: In this context, "inert" does not mean "safe". It means the ingredient
is not an active player in producing the effect for which the product is
intended. Like cetyl alcohol in skin creams, or guar gum in dairy products.

Hint - the EPA's finally waking up to this inert ingredient scam:
Products containing a List 1 inert ingredient must include the label
statement "This product contains the toxic inert ingredient (name of
inert)."

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry Jaques wrote:

RIGHT! Go back and look at the research done since the 60s. It was
safer than many of the current pesticides. Rachel Carson's _Silent
Spring_ has been found to be totally wrong but before that as a
result, world governments had banned a perfectly harmless product.

Direct quote from Silent Spring, re DDT:
'Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can"
rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."'
Exactly what do you find "totally wrong" about that? I suspect that's
pretty close to what you do when you are spraying chlordane. I hope so.


Nearly three million people die of malaria each year. I hope she can
sleep nights.

Two paragraphs above, we were told that "You can get it if you try hard
enough." Companies that manufacture DDT advertise on the web, listing
testimonials from their satisfied customers. If this constitutes a
"ban", what exactly would have to happen to convince you that there
wasn't a ban?

The folks who decry the ban on DDT have, oddly enough, no record of
fighting malaria or any other health problem in the third world before
this sudden interest. The folks who have been fighting malaria since
the beginning are in wirting as being happy with the ban on
agricultural use, stating that for the first time they have an agent
that can be used on mosquitoes for disease only and thus minimizing the
development of resistance. (A single cotton plantation used to use as
much DDT as the entire country did for malaria prevention).
Unfortunately, for many areas it's too late; once resistance is
resident in the population, it's much quicker to develop again even
years later, for reasons somewhat similar to why you develop antibodies
to a disease faster the second time you encounter it than the first
time, even when years have elapsed.

So, your DDT "ban" boils down to some countries not using it because
they feel for one reason or another that it isn't appropriate for their
location, while other countries who do feel it's appropriate for their
situation, do use it. Yeah, I guess the environmentalists will just
have to live with that.


It's been in the news lately, which provides people with the chance to
parrot what they think they understand, just to hear themselves talk.

Same deal as global warming. The imperceptible slide, from being
skeptical when the local paper says "shmendrick junior college
professor discovers cure for cancer" ,to winding up espousing explicit
or implicit conspiracy theories, that scientists are just lying in
order to retain their positions of wealth and power and rule the world
and destroy America.

People! There is a middle ground!!! You can keep an open mind but still
install screens to keep the bats out!


I'm gonna warm the globe tonight by grilling chicken.

On 19 Sep 2006 10:53:08 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, "z"
quickly quoth:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I extrapolate on the SAFE side, too. Others here believe it's OK to use
untested chemicals on their home vegetable gardens. Or, to be more correct,
they tell others to do it. No idea if they practice the same foolishness on
their own property.

Sad thing is, there is info out there which will enable at least a
somewhat educated balance, and with the web it's accessible to people
who are interested in enough to look. You can find out what the EPA
thinks, what studies they based their educated guesses on, they even
discuss what pieces of information they think are lacking and need more
study; as well as what levels they think are safe, and what safety
margin they are using to suggest those levels, then decide for yourself
if they're too conservative, too risky, or just right. It's a bit
better than going by John Stossel and Michael Crichton's opinions.

I'd hope some of you guys would at least take a look at their books
and do more research any of the books they refer to in their extensive
bibliographies.

Please don't remain glued to scaremongers such as Al Gore or weirdos
like Paul Ehrlich? Feh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich


------------------------------------------
Friends don't let friends read "Wired"
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design
=============================================

On 19 Sep 2006 10:48:12 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, "z"
quickly quoth:


Larry Jaques wrote:

RIGHT! Go back and look at the research done since the 60s. It was
safer than many of the current pesticides. Rachel Carson's _Silent
Spring_ has been found to be totally wrong but before that as a
result, world governments had banned a perfectly harmless product.

Direct quote from Silent Spring, re DDT:
'Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can"
rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."'
Exactly what do you find "totally wrong" about that? I suspect that's
pretty close to what you do when you are spraying chlordane. I hope so.

I haven't scanned it lately, but that may have been the only sane
statement made in that book. Her -conclusions- and -activism- caused
lots of grief, caused inane bans of perfectly good chemicals, and
political action which continues to costs millions of lives every
year. The bird egg thinning problem had been documented as an
occurrence in the UK over 75 years prior to her screams.

Yes, DDT was very much overused, but so was everything else back then.
If they had simply reigned in the blatant abusers, damage the overuse
caused would quickly have come back to normal by itself.


Nearly three million people die of malaria each year. I hope she can
sleep nights.

Two paragraphs above, we were told that "You can get it if you try hard
enough." Companies that manufacture DDT advertise on the web, listing
testimonials from their satisfied customers. If this constitutes a
"ban", what exactly would have to happen to convince you that there
wasn't a ban?

"If you try hard enough" = At great expense. (time, money, materials)
If you're rich and well connected, you can get anything.


The folks who decry the ban on DDT have, oddly enough, no record of
fighting malaria or any other health problem in the third world before
this sudden interest. The folks who have been fighting malaria since
the beginning are in wirting as being happy with the ban on
agricultural use, stating that for the first time they have an agent
that can be used on mosquitoes for disease only and thus minimizing the
development of resistance. (A single cotton plantation used to use as
much DDT as the entire country did for malaria prevention).
Unfortunately, for many areas it's too late; once resistance is
resident in the population, it's much quicker to develop again even
years later, for reasons somewhat similar to why you develop antibodies
to a disease faster the second time you encounter it than the first
time, even when years have elapsed.

Yeah, there are up and downsides to everything we try to do in
modifying nature.


So, your DDT "ban" boils down to some countries not using it because
they feel for one reason or another that it isn't appropriate for their
location, while other countries who do feel it's appropriate for their
situation, do use it. Yeah, I guess the environmentalists will just
have to live with that.

So all these deaths due to unsubstantiated fears are alright by you
enviros? Maybe Crichton's story wasn't fictional after all.


------------------------------------------
Friends don't let friends read "Wired"
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design
=============================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 10:53:08 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, "z"
quickly quoth:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I extrapolate on the SAFE side, too. Others here believe it's OK to use
untested chemicals on their home vegetable gardens. Or, to be more
correct,
they tell others to do it. No idea if they practice the same foolishness
on
their own property.

Sad thing is, there is info out there which will enable at least a
somewhat educated balance, and with the web it's accessible to people
who are interested in enough to look. You can find out what the EPA
thinks, what studies they based their educated guesses on, they even
discuss what pieces of information they think are lacking and need more
study; as well as what levels they think are safe, and what safety
margin they are using to suggest those levels, then decide for yourself
if they're too conservative, too risky, or just right. It's a bit
better than going by John Stossel and Michael Crichton's opinions.

I'd hope some of you guys would at least take a look at their books
and do more research any of the books they refer to in their extensive
bibliographies.

Please don't remain glued to scaremongers such as Al Gore or weirdos
like Paul Ehrlich? Feh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

I have no idea who those two people are.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

How about mercury? An overrated threat?

tobacco smoking was and is way more harmful the only reason it hasnt
been outlawed is all the tax money generated.

although they are finally realizing smoking costs too much in
downstream healthcare expenses.

Smoking is being banned in public places nationwide the next move
will ban smoking around children even your own.......... really bad for
kids.....

Next move will be outright prohibition / ban

the tobacco companies have speeded their own demise by mucking around
with nicotine levels making it more addictive..........

these companies and this product deserve to die!