PDA

View Full Version : German hysteria about insecticides


aviate1138
2nd Nov 2013, 15:16
Typical Green garbage trick to swell funds.

Pestizide - hergestellt, um zu töten - YouTube

Similar to the exploding classroom full of kids Ad made by the misguided Richard Curtis who

mixes fantasy and reality badly.

Pathetic......

probes
2nd Nov 2013, 15:50
hm. What's fantasy, then? That pesticides do have real bad side effects and in the long run do not even kill the ones they are meant to kill? And affect health?

Lon More
2nd Nov 2013, 16:36
Aviate you might like to read this report (http://pest.ca.uky.edu/EXT/ukgh/Exposure.pdf) then re-consider your original statement

con-pilot
2nd Nov 2013, 16:43
Okay, no problem, let Germany feed the Third World poor without using insecticides.

It will do wonders as for population control. :rolleyes:

BenThere
2nd Nov 2013, 16:50
Banning DDT resulted in 5 or so million African deaths from malaria. Leftie/Greens must be SO proud.

probes
2nd Nov 2013, 16:59
Oh, God, don't start again. :sad:
OK, DDT is needed for preventing malaria in some locations and there are people who starve due to several reasons - but how does it help if pesticides enter the food chain and cause long-term harm? Also kill all the useful bugs (well, so to say), while the bad ones develop resistance and then have no natural control either?
Seriously, do some reading and open you eyes, will you?

con-pilot
2nd Nov 2013, 17:16
Seriously, do some reading and open you eyes, will you?

Please serious consider the fact, that without the use of insecticides to grown grains in the quantities needed to feed the poor in Third World nations, millions would starve to death.

That is a cold hard fact.

We are not talking about someone's back garden, where some veggies are grown, but literally millions of acres of farm land where grains and other basic crops are grown to provide food to the millions of people in the Third World that need this to survive.

No insecticides = millions dead.

Some may consider that a good thing, not I.

probes
2nd Nov 2013, 18:23
literally millions of acres of farm land
precisely. Treated with poison.

OK, it's probably unavoidable to some extent. A bit like the antibiotics - we can't do without them, but due to using them as a universal cure and 'just in case', it's quite probable they might not work any more in the foreseeable future. As it has happened with some TBC-bacteria that are extensively drug-resistant already.

con-pilot
2nd Nov 2013, 18:38
Treated with poison.


Well yes, if you want to term it that way.

But, the choice is, treat the crops to maximize growth, with the slight possibility of adverse reactions of some people.

Or don't and let millions die from starvation.

That is the choice we in the First World have to make. What is your choice?

I know what my choice is, life.

Lon More
2nd Nov 2013, 19:19
I know what my choice is, life.

Withhold grain supplies like Carter did 30+ years ago. Had the strategy worked how many children would the US have starved to death?
As it was the biggest losers were in the US

con-pilot
2nd Nov 2013, 19:37
Withhold grain supplies like Carter did 30+ years ago

Ah yes, another great moment in the Jimmy Carter Presidential Legacy. :rolleyes:

KBPsen
2nd Nov 2013, 19:49
Please serious consider the fact, that without the use of insecticides to grown grains in the quantities needed to feed the poor in Third World nations, millions would starve to death.

That is a cold hard fact.Is it? It is estimated that between 30 and 50% (http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf?sfvrsn=0) of all food produced in the world is lost or wasted. The western world alone wastes as much food annually as is produced in sub-Saharan Africa.

Tankertrashnav
2nd Nov 2013, 20:30
The greens have managed to baffle the man in the street so effectively in this country that there is a strong resistance here to genetically modified crops. So much so that many people think that these are the ones that need the most pesticides and for some bizarre reason, in spite of the fact that these crops have in most cases been bred to require a much reduced use of insecticides, the greens still think they are the work of the devil. Given their own way we would be stuck with no pesticides and no genetically modified crops, with resultant widespread starvation in the third world

Still, if you are living in your flat in Islington and eating organic "artisanal" loaves at £10 a go while you read your Friends of the Earth pamphlets you can afford to pursue your misguided agenda and ignore the plight of the world's poor.

Dushan
3rd Nov 2013, 01:34
Well yes, if you want to term it that way.

But, the choice is, treat the crops to maximize growth, with the slight possibility of adverse reactions of some people.

Or don't and let millions die from starvation.

That is the choice we in the First World have to make. What is your choice?

I know what my choice is, life.

However, as a gesture of good will I think we should all give up something. I give up spinach. I think con-pilot will, for the good of the world, sacrifice himself and give up Brussels sprouts.

ehwatezedoing
3rd Nov 2013, 03:18
I'll give up spinach.


Didn't the German started insecticide studies on the Jewish back in WWII ?
Sorry! That was a really, really bad taste joke. I'm glade they totally feel the other way around now though...

On a side note, a friend of mine used to do crop dusting contracts in Africa.
He told me that the local guys holding "markers" at the end of each run would regularly get sprayed :eek:

They could be good case study.

Solid Rust Twotter
3rd Nov 2013, 04:29
Got a mate who crashed an ag aircraft, got 600 litres of the contents of the hopper over him while he lay upside down in a canal still strapped in, and then got badly burned when it caught fire (except the bits of him which were submerged in the poison). He survived and remains a total loon, so no telling what the effects were, although he hallucinated like a good'un the few weeks he spent in hospital.

alisoncc
3rd Nov 2013, 04:56
Or don't and let millions die from starvation.

Getting tired of this "sanctity" of human life stuff. The planet is massively over populated. The sooner a few million die the better. It's going to happen like it or not. Need a half way decent plague to kill off a few billion. And no, it wouldn't worry me a great deal if I went too.

cattletruck
3rd Nov 2013, 06:31
Mother Nature never intended there be thousand acre crops and the insects/disease/resistance to pesticides are just proof on how she operates.

Has anybody mentioned Monsanto? They are working on genetically modified crops with the insecticide already built into the plant - amongst other projects.

I know of many farmers who don't eat from the commercial crops they sow as it's primarily a pure business concern for maximum profit. Mind you they have the facilities to grow their own yield for their own table. This bares a striking similarity with many other unrelated industries.

As long as there is a demand and profits to be made then technology will be exploited to manage even bigger fields and improve crop yields.

Meanwhile people still willingly drink diet coke with its controversial Asparteme compound.

Then we have another pandemic and Mother Nature starts all over again.

probes
3rd Nov 2013, 07:20
treat the crops to maximize growth, with the slight possibility of adverse reactions of some people.
con, there's no lack of food in the world on the wider scale - with massive adverse effect on too many people. Obesity, that is.
As for the GMOs, the feared unintended genotypic mixing has occurred already. The man can't outwit the Nature. It's neither reasonable nor sustainable that people work for the chemical corporations instead of agriculture, and the poisonous produce are spread to replace hard work.

P.S I'll take the Brussels sprouts, Dushan, thank you. All of them, any of them.
Maybe even spinach. :ooh:

Tarq57
3rd Nov 2013, 07:36
Genetically modified organisms, and schedules of agri-chemical applications (yes, schedules, that are contractually binding, ie they shall be applied, whether the farmer thinks they're needed or not) have nothing to do with feeding the worlds poor, and everything to do with corporate control of the worlds food supply.

Why did Monsanto invent the terminator gene?

Our government is considering controls and restrictions on the storage and trade in "legacy" seeds. A coincidence? Happening overseas, (everywhere else) much?

Nobody is certain what is killing the honey bees. Pesticides are certainly high on the list of possibilities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we have a risk in aviation, it is mitigated. The steps taken to provide an extra layer or two of cheese depend on the likelihood of the event, factored with the severity of the outcome.

Bees dying out is an unusually severe outcome, and I believe it's worth doing something about this factor alone, never mind the other pesticide risks/effects.

I haven't watched the video. It appears there's a possibility it may be strident. Such presentations do little for their cause; unfortunately the state of intelligence/attention span of the average person is such that this sort of presentation has become the norm.

I wonder if pesticide use is implicated in such "conditions" as ADHD?

G&T ice n slice
3rd Nov 2013, 07:44
I'm agin GMO type stuff, simply on the basis that the gummint says they're safe.

I've always believe exactly the opposite of what the gummint tells me I should believe since you can't trust the bgrs.

Tankertrashnav
3rd Nov 2013, 09:00
Well whatever you think about Monsanto's motives, and as a commercial company profit is obviously going to be high on their priorities, the fact is that with the arrival of GM crops, farmers now have three choices:

1 - Plant non GM crops and grow them organically. Result - low yields, high prices and fat slugs and other pests.

3 - Grow non GM crops and spray them. No more fat slugs and other pests but crops liberally doused with various poisons, many of which have insidious long term affects on health.

3 - Grow GM crops - higher yields/fewer pesticides - everyone wins (including Monsanto, but why shouldn't they?)

Whether or not you care about people starving to death AlisonCC (and actually I dont believe you really are so sanguine about the prospect as you say) maybe you would agree that crop shortages lead to higher prices for food - something that maybe you do care about - I certainly do.

probes
3rd Nov 2013, 10:11
actually there's a fourth - thinking again about what 'efficiency' is (high yields/pesticides+fertilisers versus lower yields/more traditional pest control, organic fertilisers, no vast monocultures + chemical control as the last resort in emergencies).
Sooner or later people have to realise eating is not about food looking good and standardised (think of the winter-strawberries that look plastic and taste plastic), it's about what nutrients one gets.

vulcanised
3rd Nov 2013, 11:36
Wot Alison said :D:D:D

wings folded
3rd Nov 2013, 12:41
3 - Grow GM crops - higher yields/fewer pesticides - everyone wins (including Monsanto, but why shouldn't they?)


Monsanto's PR machine has found a willing consumer.

Everyone does not win.

Monsanto wins because the crops from their seeds are sterile for the next season, so the farmer has to buy more from them rather than keeping some back to plant forward.

Monsanto wins because the crops are engineered to be resitant to certain herbicides which are only sold by Monsanto. Some of these herbicides are particularly unpleasant.

Monsanto wins because if a trace of their products are found on a farmer's land they sue seven kinds of excreta out of him for infringement and usually bankrupt him.

Farmers lose.

Consumers lose.

The health of the ecosystem loses.

I have numerous farming neighbours and friends.

Those who grow organically are no more, in fact less, prone to pests (e.g. Colorado beetle) than those who bombard their fields with chemistry

con-pilot
3rd Nov 2013, 16:04
con, there's no lack of food in the world on the wider scale

Yes, that is correct. Now why is that you think?

Think about that for a while and then get back to me.

probes
3rd Nov 2013, 16:30
don't be foxy! :ouch: :p and I can't get back until you've got forth!
there's no lack of food in the world on the wider scale - with massive adverse effect on too many people.
it's not the blessing of pesticides and fertilisers, it's the curse.
Did you read the post by Wings Folded?
The stuff does not do the job and disappear to the outer space. It's not just the crops, it's about the land, food chains and ecosystems.

Well, governments, corporations and policy, of course.

con-pilot
3rd Nov 2013, 16:52
Did you read the post by Wings Folded?

Yes I did, a excellent post as usual, but I am not talking about just Monsanto.

If insecticides and pesticides are so terribly harming to humans, why are more and more people living and living longer all over the globe?

To listen to some here, all of mankind shouldn't live past the age of 30.

We are having more and more people inhabit this planet, but there is not more and more farm land being created, just the opposite in fact.

Either we use insecticides and pesticides to feed the world during this time of disappearing farm land, or what alisoncc posted becomes the norm and we can all sit around in our first world countries, sipping our lattes, eating our organic grown food, talking about how terrible it is that all those people in third world countries are starving to death.

We make fun of the Cuban government giving their citizens two pounds of chicken and 50 pounds of rice every month, but one must remember that in many areas of Africa, South America and Asia, that amount of food would be considered an unattainable luxury.

Anyway, I've said my piece, so I'll most not likely return here. I just wish that some of you would consider the facts as I have presented them.

Cheers.

probes
3rd Nov 2013, 17:04
OK, so you've said your piece.
If insecticides and pesticides are so terribly harming to humans, why are more and more people living and living longer all over the globe?
if the point is just living, not health and global trends...
well, then.

wings folded
3rd Nov 2013, 17:50
I have a sprog whose entire livelihood depends on what they produce from their land.

They would like to be "organic" but have neighbours whose practices are somwhat short of the required criteria.

So they use organic methods without the cachet of the official label.

Since abandoning their previous chemically assisted methods, they have observed one or two things:

1) Yields are, if anything, up.

2) Quality (I know, a bit subjective, but can be commented upon) up.

3) Turnover, up.

4) Ergo, profits, up.

With less of the income from the activity being redirected to Monsanto nor suppliers of fairly toxic chemicals.

Want to talk about win/win?

My daughter earns a better living. Her customers are less poisoned. They enjoy the authentic taste of fresh produce. The ecosystem is less damaged.

The loser?

Monsanto.

Until their evil little insidious inspectors find a stem or two of their dangerous maize on her land (wind sown) and sue her to death for infringement.

I will be on her side.

Lon More
3rd Nov 2013, 20:36
I'm agin GMO type stuff, simply on the basis that the gummint says they're safe.

Look what happened to this bloke.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/Badyin/funnies/mekonhague_zps4f948f0e.jpg (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/Badyin/media/funnies/mekonhague_zps4f948f0e.jpg.html)