https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:53:52 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

Pooh, no worries, we have lots of hunny flavoured corn syrup!

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
Scaly Ron - lid - Ubuntu/Vista Dual Boot
Registered Linux User #666 - Ubuntu User #666 (12.04 LTS)
ACF "Hall of Shame": http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7365303/ACF/SL.html
** IMPROVE THE ACF EXPERIENCE. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! **

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:53:52 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?




The "Environmental Working Group" has certainly succeeded
in "making the news" with this topic - my daughter is a farmer and
has recently fielded questions from her city friends.
.. perhaps EWG is seeking more donations from the media exposure ?
Apparently, EWG's safe limit is about 1/10000 of Canada's
safe limit. ... I'd say that there are many many more important
issues to tackle ..
John T.

On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

Soryy to disappoint.

On 2018-08-19 1:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food


Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

Soryy to disappoint.

i want some and you should be soryy

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?


It's got nothing to do with bees.
It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.
It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.
And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.
Soryy to disappoint.


" Totally harmless " = harm is not yet proven.
John T.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Soryy to disappoint.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 19/08/2018 22:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

On 2018-08-19 2:30 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/08/2018 22:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food


Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

do they enhance your boner

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 22:30:42 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 22:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Unqualified assurances are worth jack **** in my world.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 19/08/2018 23:06, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 22:30:42 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 19/08/2018 22:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Unqualified assurances are worth jack **** in my world.

It's impossible to prove a negative. So, it's up to you to give the
evidence that it isn't.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:27:29 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 23:06, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 22:30:42 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 19/08/2018 22:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Unqualified assurances are worth jack **** in my world.

It's impossible to prove a negative. So, it's up to you to give the
evidence that it isn't.

I don't have to prove anything. You're the one making claims about
safety. Are you qualified to make those claims? Yes or No.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 20/08/2018 10:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:27:29 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 19/08/2018 23:06, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 22:30:42 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 19/08/2018 22:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:34:09 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 19/08/2018 19:53, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Yummy. Don't forget the hunny mummy. Wot, no bees?

It's got nothing to do with bees.

It's got nothing to do with 'yummy' either since it's tasteless.

It can be detected only because of incredibly sensitive techniques.

And it's totally harmless at the concentrations detected.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

How do you know? What qualifies you to offer this assurance?

Unqualified assurances are worth jack **** in my world.

It's impossible to prove a negative. So, it's up to you to give the
evidence that it isn't.

I don't have to prove anything.

No, neither do I. The default position is that it's safe. Just as the
default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

On 08/20/2018 05:47 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

No, neither do I.Â* The default position is that it's safe.Â* Just as
the default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

The jury is still out on cell phones so I'm on the fence on that issue.

However, before takeoff, I assume my airplane is unsafe...which is why
prudent pilots do a pre-flight check.

And I also assume farm chemicals that kill anything are unsafe for me
too.Â* BT corn? You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to eat that
crap.Â* Though gut microbiome science is just emerging, I suspect in time
my distrust of farm chemicals and GMOs will be vindicated.

I strongly believe someday humanity will regret polluting the soil and
water with all this toxic crap.Â* Sadly it will be too late if you want a
clean environment.

We've already polluted the oceans with mercury and most of us have
stopped eating mercury-laced ocean fish. No one disputes that mercury is
a toxin but maybe that's because there are no corporations profiting by
spraying it on the environment?

On 20/08/2018 12:56, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:27:29 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

It's impossible to prove a negative. So, it's up to you to give the
evidence that it isn't.

I don't have to prove anything.

Some help for mathematically challenged 'Norman'..

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/20005.8.shtml

Can anyone explain the relevance of this drivel please?

On 8/20/2018 8:51 AM, devnull wrote:
On 08/20/2018 05:47 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

No, neither do I.Â* The default position is that it's safe.Â* Just as
the default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

The jury is still out on cell phones so I'm on the fence on that issue.

However, before takeoff, I assume my airplane is unsafe...which is why
prudent pilots do a pre-flight check.

And I also assume farm chemicals that kill anything are unsafe for me
too.Â* BT corn? You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to eat that
crap.Â* Though gut microbiome science is just emerging, I suspect in time
my distrust of farm chemicals and GMOs will be vindicated.

I strongly believe someday humanity will regret polluting the soil and
water with all this toxic crap.Â* Sadly it will be too late if you want a
clean environment.

We've already polluted the oceans with mercury and most of us have
stopped eating mercury-laced ocean fish. No one disputes that mercury is
a toxin but maybe that's because there are no corporations profiting by
spraying it on the environment?


As a chemist I think chemophobia is largely based on ignorance of the
relationship between toxicity and dosage.

Anyone that has ever studied chemistry knows about Avogadro's constant
which is the number of molecules in one mole of a substance, 6.02
×10 to the 23. A mole of water is 18 ml.

Analytical techniques today can measure down to the part per trillion
level so you can practically find any chemical anywhere. The fact that
it is present does not mean it is going to harm you.

A lot of the chemicals in the environment are naturally occurring and at
high levels may be toxic. Some of the worlds most toxic materials are
natural products.

On 20/08/2018 13:51, devnull wrote:
On 08/20/2018 05:47 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

No, neither do I.Â* The default position is that it's safe.Â* Just as
the default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

The jury is still out on cell phones so I'm on the fence on that issue.

Fine. Come back when you're rational.

However, before takeoff, I assume my airplane is unsafe...which is why
prudent pilots do a pre-flight check.

And I also assume farm chemicals that kill anything are unsafe for me
too.

No, you can rest easy. That's been tested to exhaustion for you.

Â* BT corn? You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to eat that
crap.Â* Though gut microbiome science is just emerging, I suspect in time
my distrust of farm chemicals and GMOs will be vindicated.

Of course. Gut microbiomes will save the day.

How they grow more crops, though, is another matter.

I strongly believe someday humanity will regret polluting the soil and
water with all this toxic crap.Â* Sadly it will be too late if you want a
clean environment.

No, not so. All herbicides and pesticides have a certain persistence in
the environment. They have to in order to work. 70 years ago, in the
infancy of synthetic pesticides, when there was very little in the way
of regulation and the dangers were largely unappreciated, some
pesticides and herbicides that were used had very high persistence,
particularly the organochlorine insecticides like DDT that could persist
for years. These have all been banned for decades.

Any more recent agrochemicals have to have rigorous studies carried out
on them to determine how they are metabolised in animals, ie how they're
broken down, what into, and how they are excreted, and similar studies
have to be effected in soils.

You can see some facts about glyphosate he

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/arch...tech.html#fate

Half of it in soils disappears in 47 days. It does not accumulate in
the environment. It does not accumulate in the body. It is not
building up problems for the future.

We've already polluted the oceans with mercury and most of us have
stopped eating mercury-laced ocean fish. No one disputes that mercury is
a toxin but maybe that's because there are no corporations profiting by
spraying it on the environment?

No-one in the agrochemical sector or farming community sprays mercury
anywhere. Nor, as far as I'm aware, have they ever done so. It
accumulates in the environment because it is an element that can neither
be created nor destroyed. Organic compounds like glyphosate are
different entirely.

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 7:47:23 AM UTC-6, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/08/2018 13:51, devnull wrote:
On 08/20/2018 05:47 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

No, neither do I.Â* The default position is that it's safe.Â* Just as
the default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

The jury is still out on cell phones so I'm on the fence on that issue.

Fine. Come back when you're rational.

However, before takeoff, I assume my airplane is unsafe...which is why
prudent pilots do a pre-flight check.

And I also assume farm chemicals that kill anything are unsafe for me
too.

No, you can rest easy. That's been tested to exhaustion for you.

Â* BT corn? You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to eat that
crap.Â* Though gut microbiome science is just emerging, I suspect in time
my distrust of farm chemicals and GMOs will be vindicated.

Of course. Gut microbiomes will save the day.

How they grow more crops, though, is another matter.

I strongly believe someday humanity will regret polluting the soil and
water with all this toxic crap.Â* Sadly it will be too late if you want a
clean environment.

No, not so. All herbicides and pesticides have a certain persistence in
the environment. They have to in order to work. 70 years ago, in the
infancy of synthetic pesticides, when there was very little in the way
of regulation and the dangers were largely unappreciated, some
pesticides and herbicides that were used had very high persistence,
particularly the organochlorine insecticides like DDT that could persist
for years. These have all been banned for decades.

Any more recent agrochemicals have to have rigorous studies carried out
on them to determine how they are metabolised in animals, ie how they're
broken down, what into, and how they are excreted, and similar studies
have to be effected in soils.

You can see some facts about glyphosate he

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/arch...tech.html#fate

Half of it in soils disappears in 47 days. It does not accumulate in
the environment. It does not accumulate in the body. It is not
building up problems for the future.

We've already polluted the oceans with mercury and most of us have
stopped eating mercury-laced ocean fish. No one disputes that mercury is
a toxin but maybe that's because there are no corporations profiting by
spraying it on the environment?

No-one in the agrochemical sector or farming community sprays mercury
anywhere. Nor, as far as I'm aware, have they ever done so. It
accumulates in the environment because it is an element that can neither
be created nor destroyed. Organic compounds like glyphosate are
different entirely.

Look up CERESAN and LEYTOSAN...mercurial seed treatments used in the 1940s and 1950s.
Farmers were not to inhale them and were required to use masks BUT many farmers
used them without these protective devices.
As a kid I remember them well and after shovelling treated seed we would blow
our noses and the nasal discharges were pink or purple from the chemical treatment.
Its a wonder than we lived such long lives after the dosages of mercurial
compounds we were exposed to.
====

On 8/20/2018 11:32 AM, Roy wrote:
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 7:47:23 AM UTC-6, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/08/2018 13:51, devnull wrote:
On 08/20/2018 05:47 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

No, neither do I.Â* The default position is that it's safe.Â* Just as
the default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

The jury is still out on cell phones so I'm on the fence on that issue.

Fine. Come back when you're rational.

However, before takeoff, I assume my airplane is unsafe...which is why
prudent pilots do a pre-flight check.

And I also assume farm chemicals that kill anything are unsafe for me
too.

No, you can rest easy. That's been tested to exhaustion for you.

Â* BT corn? You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to eat that
crap.Â* Though gut microbiome science is just emerging, I suspect in time
my distrust of farm chemicals and GMOs will be vindicated.

Of course. Gut microbiomes will save the day.

How they grow more crops, though, is another matter.

I strongly believe someday humanity will regret polluting the soil and
water with all this toxic crap.Â* Sadly it will be too late if you want a
clean environment.

No, not so. All herbicides and pesticides have a certain persistence in
the environment. They have to in order to work. 70 years ago, in the
infancy of synthetic pesticides, when there was very little in the way
of regulation and the dangers were largely unappreciated, some
pesticides and herbicides that were used had very high persistence,
particularly the organochlorine insecticides like DDT that could persist
for years. These have all been banned for decades.

Any more recent agrochemicals have to have rigorous studies carried out
on them to determine how they are metabolised in animals, ie how they're
broken down, what into, and how they are excreted, and similar studies
have to be effected in soils.

You can see some facts about glyphosate he

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/arch...tech.html#fate

Half of it in soils disappears in 47 days. It does not accumulate in
the environment. It does not accumulate in the body. It is not
building up problems for the future.

We've already polluted the oceans with mercury and most of us have
stopped eating mercury-laced ocean fish. No one disputes that mercury is
a toxin but maybe that's because there are no corporations profiting by
spraying it on the environment?

No-one in the agrochemical sector or farming community sprays mercury
anywhere. Nor, as far as I'm aware, have they ever done so. It
accumulates in the environment because it is an element that can neither
be created nor destroyed. Organic compounds like glyphosate are
different entirely.

Look up CERESAN and LEYTOSAN...mercurial seed treatments used in the 1940s and 1950s.
Farmers were not to inhale them and were required to use masks BUT many farmers
used them without these protective devices.
As a kid I remember them well and after shovelling treated seed we would blow
our noses and the nasal discharges were pink or purple from the chemical treatment.
Its a wonder than we lived such long lives after the dosages of mercurial
compounds we were exposed to.
====

Again, speaking as a chemist, it is not the mercury but the compound it
is in. Methyl mercury is extremely toxic. A drop on your skin can kill
you. But, a lot of us with mercury amalgams in our teeth are OK and as
kids we slathered our wounds with Mercurochrome.

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:18:47 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 8/20/2018 8:51 AM, devnull wrote:
On 08/20/2018 05:47 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

No, neither do I.Â* The default position is that it's safe.Â* Just as
the default position is that your mobile phone is safe.

The jury is still out on cell phones so I'm on the fence on that issue.

However, before takeoff, I assume my airplane is unsafe...which is why
prudent pilots do a pre-flight check.

And I also assume farm chemicals that kill anything are unsafe for me
too.Â* BT corn? You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to eat that
crap.Â* Though gut microbiome science is just emerging, I suspect in time
my distrust of farm chemicals and GMOs will be vindicated.

I strongly believe someday humanity will regret polluting the soil and
water with all this toxic crap.Â* Sadly it will be too late if you want a
clean environment.

We've already polluted the oceans with mercury and most of us have
stopped eating mercury-laced ocean fish. No one disputes that mercury is
a toxin but maybe that's because there are no corporations profiting by
spraying it on the environment?


As a chemist I think chemophobia is largely based on ignorance of the
relationship between toxicity and dosage.

Anyone that has ever studied chemistry knows about Avogadro's constant
which is the number of molecules in one mole of a substance, 6.02
×10 to the 23. A mole of water is 18 ml.

Analytical techniques today can measure down to the part per trillion
level so you can practically find any chemical anywhere. The fact that
it is present does not mean it is going to harm you.

A lot of the chemicals in the environment are naturally occurring and at
high levels may be toxic. Some of the worlds most toxic materials are
natural products.

I seem to recall something about a lot of the foods we eat on a regular basis being loaded with natural toxins. Don't almonds have a bit of poison in them? I know there is that fish from Japan that must be prepared by a specially trained chef or you could get the poison part and die in a matter of minutes after eating it. I suppose all creatures including humans are able to handle natural toxins at some levels in food and in the environment because we evolved in the middle of all the toxic stuff. Heck, I know toxic women who should be avoided at all costs. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Toxic Monster