09 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyMy facts are fine. I never said DDT was not considered an organic compound by definition of chemistry. My point was that despite that, DDT is not something to be used in certified organic farming.
You really should check your facts before making a moron of yourself by spouting out such crap.
A simple check of you facts by a quick google would have done the trick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound
“...An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon. For h ...[text shortened]... he moronic vague terminology used by organic formers.
Please, next time, check your facts.
I have no idea why you would even bring up something like that unless you are trying to mislead people. If you are not trying to mislead people then you are wasting our time and yours. As I said before, if you want to explain the difference between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry then fine. Now that you have, what is your point? It has nothing to do with approval for organic approved farming. It is all about context. Try not digressing from the right context.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by humy"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!).My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called.
Creosote?
When I was a kid, I once was made to paint a fence with that horrible evil smelling stuff. My mother had a very nasty allergic reaction to it.
[quote] I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is ...[text shortened]... entical to it but cheaper so I would recommend sticking to using the manufactured stuff.
I guess organic farmers just decided to label nicotine as 'organic' in the hope that simply labeling it as 'organic' magically makes it completely safe to use."
Farmers are making the distinction between organic approved chemicals. Key word- "approved". This has nothing to do with the chemical classification in the field of chemistry. Your efforts to make organic farming seem hypocritical is based on misleading crap. You are the one making a moron of yourself!
09 Jul 13
http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/hemlock/hemlock.html
So what if something occurs naturally and is technically an organic compound as described in chemistry? It does not mean it is approved for organic farming.
Hemlock produces a compound that is similar to a nicotine compound. Slight differences in a chemical compound can make a big difference in how it affects people. Carbon dioxide only contains one extra oxygen atom than carbon monoxide. They affect people very differently.
09 Jul 13
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!).
I guess organic farmers just decided to label nicotine as 'organic' in the hope that simply labeling it as 'orga ypocritical is based on misleading crap. You are the one making a moron of yourself!
Farmers are making the distinction between organic approved chemicals. Key word- "approved". This has nothing to do with the chemical classification in the field of chemistry
EXACTLY!
Strangely, you make the point for me here i.e. something being "approved" as being 'organic' and for organic farming having NOTHING to do with the rational chemical classification in the field of chemistry thus being totally arbitrary and unscientific. Many chemicals that are not "approved" as being 'organic' and for organic farming are at least as safe for the environment as many that have been approved.
One example; the organic active ingredient of hormone-based weedkillers used on cereal crops against broad-leafed weeds.
Why hasn't that been "approved" for organic farming? -answer, because it didn't come from a living thing nor mined directly from the ground but was manufactured. -but wait! what does whether a chemical was manufactured or came directly from nature, i.e. how it was made, got to do with how safe or environmentally friendly it is to use on the farm? -answer, nothing!
So which chemicals are "approved" for organic farming are not "approved" using rationally-based criteria.
This is why I am against organic farming -it makes no logical sense.
A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, instead, asses each different chemical on a case-by-case bases and simply weighing up the risks and environmental costs of the use of each chemical with its benefits and take into account whether there are safer alternatives.
For example, I doubt that DDT is worth the risks for the benefits it gives when used as an insecticides on food crops although it may sometimes but not always be worth the risks when used against mosquitoes that spread malaria.
But most hormone-based herbicides are definitely worth the risks for they have either very low or no toxicity to humans and generally do little environmental damage but make weed control very efficient.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyYou have poor reading comprehension. Unless something is "approved" for organic farming it makes no difference in the chemistry classification. Many compounds that are classified as organic compounds are not used in organic farming because they are not organic approved. Get a clue!Farmers are making the distinction between organic approved chemicals. Key word- "approved". This has nothing to do with the chemical classification in the field of chemistry
EXACTLY!
Strangely, you make the point for me here i.e. something being "approved" as being 'organic' and for organic farming having NOTHING to do with the ...[text shortened]... rally do little environmental damage but make weed control very efficient.
You can beat this dead horse all day and night and it will not prove you right!
09 Jul 13
6 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have poor reading comprehension. Unless something is "approved" for organic farming it makes no difference in the chemistry classification. Many compounds that are classified as organic compounds are not used in organic farming because they are not organic approved. Get a clue!
You can beat this dead horse all day and night and it will not prove you right!
Unless something is "approved" for organic farming it makes no difference in the chemistry classification.
“Unless”? What are you talking about? It makes no difference anyway! In science, chemistry classification has nothing to do with what is or what isn't approved for organic farming -Unless you are talking about the extremely specialized non-scientific “chemistry classification” of “approved” chemicals specifically JUST for organic farming -but that classification is so arbitrary illogical and trivial that I don't see how it is even worthy of mention.
I happen to know that one of the "approved" chemicals for organic farming is sulfur (used as a fungicide). But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic. The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational. The 'philosophy' of organic farming should be rejected as being invalid and should be replaced with a more rational-based strategy based on understanding of science and, as I said in my last post:
"...A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, instead, asses each different chemical on a case-by-case bases and simply weighing up the risks and environmental costs of the use of each chemical with its benefits and take into account whether there are safer alternatives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion?
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyBlah, blah , blah.....is that all you've got?Unless something is "approved" for organic farming it makes no difference in the chemistry classification.
“Unless”? What are you talking about? It makes no difference anyway! In science, chemistry classification has nothing to do with what is or what isn't approved for organic farming -Unless you are talking about the extremely speciali ...[text shortened]... are safer alternatives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion?
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyLet me demonstrate how stupid you are by asking you a simple question.Unless something is "approved" for organic farming it makes no difference in the chemistry classification.
“Unless”? What are you talking about? It makes no difference anyway! In science, chemistry classification has nothing to do with what is or what isn't approved for organic farming -Unless you are talking about the extremely speciali ...[text shortened]... are safer alternatives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion?
Here is something you eat every day.
Salt (Sodium Chloride): organic or inorganic?
10 Jul 13
6 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainInorganic.
Let me demonstrate how stupid you are by asking you a simple question.
Here is something you eat every day.
Salt (Sodium Chloride): organic or inorganic?
Its obviously inorganic because it doesn't contain the chemical element carbon.
What about it?
Perhaps some albeit not all organic farmers and supporters of organic farming would classify it as 'organic' IF so, that would just shows how irrational and wrong they are because rational science defines it as inorganic.
Now I have answered your question, can you answer mine?
"...A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, instead, asses each different chemical on a case-by-case bases and simply weighing up the risks and environmental costs of the use of each chemical with its benefits and take into account whether there are safer alternatives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion? and, if so, which part and why?
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI think you are missing the point (deliberately perhaps?).
You can beat this dead horse all day and night and it will not prove you right!
The choice of what can be used for 'organic farming' follows an approval process that according to you has nothing to do with the Chemistry text book definition of 'Organic'.
Hence the question is why call it 'organic farming' in the first place? It seems from your description, that 'organic farming' is farming that follows the approval process for organic farming. So I wonder what happens in other countries that have a different approval process. Can organic farmers in Zambia use the same chemicals that non-organic farmers in the US use, but still call themselves 'organic farmers'?
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyYou can't live without salt. It makes no difference if organic farmers use inorganic chemicals as you seem to have a problem with.
Inorganic.
Its obviously inorganic because it doesn't contain the chemical element carbon.
What about it?
Perhaps some albeit not all organic farmers and supporters of organic farming would classify it as 'organic' IF so, that would just shows how irrational and wrong they are because rational science defines it as inorganic.
Now I have ans ...[text shortened]... ives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion? and, if so, which part and why?
"...A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, instead, asses each different chemical on a case-by-case bases and simply weighing up the risks and environmental costs of the use of each chemical with its benefits and take into account whether there are safer alternatives. ..."
Now you are contradicting yourself. You had a problem with organic farmers using sulfur which is an inorganic chemical. You are clearly confused. You are being very inconsistent.
Organic farmers are using inorganic chemicals and there is nothing wrong with that. It does not mean the farmers are not certified organic when they use inorganic chemicals. Using inorganic compounds does not equate to non-organic farming. This is what I have been trying to tell you!
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"The choice of what can be used for 'organic farming' follows an approval process that according to you has nothing to do with the Chemistry text book definition of 'Organic'."
I think you are missing the point (deliberately perhaps?).
The choice of what can be used for 'organic farming' follows an approval process that according to you has nothing to do with the Chemistry text book definition of 'Organic'.
Hence the question is why call it 'organic farming' in the first place? It seems from your description, that 'organic far ...[text shortened]... s that non-organic farmers in the US use, but still call themselves 'organic farmers'?
That is exactly what I am saying. I'm not missing the point at all. Life is dependent on inorganic compounds so to say only organic compounds should be used in certified organic farming is stupid!
Salt is an inorganic compound only because it doesn't contain carbon. "Inorganic compounds" is a chemistry term, NOT an organic farming term! One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo can you give us a definition of organic farming and an indication of what criteria are used when selecting which compounds may or may not be used?
That is exactly what I am saying. I'm not missing the point at all. Life is dependent on inorganic compounds so to say only organic compounds should be used in certified organic farming is stupid!
11 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by humy
Inorganic.
Its obviously inorganic because it doesn't contain the chemical element carbon.
What about it?
Perhaps some albeit not all organic farmers and supporters of organic farming would classify it as 'organic' IF so, that would just shows how irrational and wrong they are because rational science defines it as inorganic.
Now I have ans ives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion? and, if so, which part and why?
Now you are contradicting yourself. You had a problem with organic farmers using sulfur which is an inorganic chemical.
No I do not have no such problem and I didn't contradict myself. I never said they should not use an inorganic chemical. I was merely pointing out their logical inconsistency (of some of them).
So, back to my question that you have STILL not answered:
"...A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, instead, asses each different chemical on a case-by-case bases and simply weighing up the risks and environmental costs of the use of each chemical with its benefits and take into account whether there are safer alternatives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion? YES or NO?
If YES, which part and why?
If NO, then we are in agreement.
I have answered all your questions so wouldn’t it be polite if you would just answer mine?