Organic or Non Organic?

[Ladymuck]

This probably isn't allowed in the Drawing Room, but seeing as we ARE talking about RISK on this thread;-), here goes...100!

(Sorry Chair...I just could NOT resist...hope to return much later tonight with a "proper" Drawing Room posting!)

[HAL9000]

Some of the points raised recently in this thread probably belong in the We are all doomed. Discuss. thread.

The Chair: shall we continue here thereby maintaining continuity or shift the relevant discussion to the other thread?

[The Chair]

The last few messages have drifted rather too far off topic. Please return to the path of righteousness.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> "Hundreds of thousands of suffering children" -

> Ladymuck you do show a trend to accept any

> fabricated statistic without the least amount of

> due diligence if it supports your cause ;-)

I have no reason to suspect Lifenets International's statistics to be fabricated. They are a properly registered and BBB accredited charity. On the other hand, you appear to - on what basis?

> Estimates of the death toll from Chernobyl range

> from 500 direct to 5,000 indirect from cancer.

I think you'll find the figure in respect of DEATHS is higher than that:

Greenpeace (ed.): The Chernobyl Catastrophe Consequences on Human Health, April 2006

The disaster "could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers."

"The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000."

"The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine alone the accident resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths between 1990 and 2004."

As I understand the situation, the "hundreds of thousands" figure cited by Lifenets refers to the number of ALIVE children who are suffering the terrible consequences of that dreadful disaster.

> Road traffic accidents kill 1,270,000 every year

> across the world (WHO)> Even if we accept Ladymuck's figures of 100,000

> kids 'suffering' since 1986, we've lost 30,000,000

> to RTAs in the same period, and assuming they've

> each got at least 5 people who 'suffer' as a

> consequence, that gives us 150,000,000

> suffering...

Now hold on a minute, these are NOT MY figures - they are provided by Lifenets International:

On April 26, 1986 Ukraine and the earth recoiled from the world's worst nuclear disaster which spewed out many times the radioactive fallout of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Two decades have passed and the effects of this disaster continue and actually increase. In fact, hundreds of thousands, mostly children, are still suffering with physical and psychological disorders. Let's not forget them.

>

> Yet the eco-religious claim that 'health risk' is

> their principle motive for attacks on modern

> scientific achievements such as nuclear power and

> genetic modification, and ignore risks that are

> higher by 4 orders of magnitude because they're

> not convenient. The modern neo-luddites are hypocritical in their

> attacks, and would do better to admit that their

> criticism is superstitious and dogmatic rather

> than rational.

>

> I don't really understand HAL9000's position - you

> seem to be recommending not just an embargo on GM

> and nuclear, but a return to pre-tool societies?

Erm...I don't think the EDF Guru is suggesting anything of the kind. On the contrary:

Posted by: HAL9000 August 01, 03:52PM

It's not possible to feed the world's billions without intensive mechanised farming.

Ironically, while fertilisers and pesticides feed the majority it is only the richest and poorest who enjoy the privilege of eating organic produce.

Have you not been paying attention?

> Is this the essence of the Organic movement?

Now I shall presume that this is a rhetorical question. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you have indeed NOT been paying as much attention as you perhaps should have.

TUTT TUTT [shakes head and rolls eyes upwards];-)

[Huguenot]

Ah, Ladymuck, you've resorted to Fisking, a habit of those bereft of ideas and enamoured of technology. It does you an injustice and I'm sure it was an aberration.

Lifenet do not provide figures, they provide polemic prose, and very pretty it is too.

Your nitpicking with the Greenpeace figures is a misdirection, I'm quite happy to take your high-end Greenpeace figures of 200,000 consequent deaths and compare that with the 30,000,0000 deaths to RTAs in the same period.

I repeat, if the major focus was 'health and long life', the anti-GM and anti-nuclear brigade have better targets.

This thread is about Organic food.

My argument that Organic food is part of a generic political movement that is anti-technology, anti-organisation, anti-administration and anti-social is sustained by your own position.

I think the Organic movement do themselves a disservice by dragging 'righteous' political and religious arguments into what is essentially a convenience argument.

I like Organic food, it's nice and cute. I buy it, and pay over the odds for it.

When you start talking about apocalypse and morality you're stuck in a bog.

[mockney piers]

I'm sorry ladymuck but Huguenot was quite right on the pre-tool society thing.

The 'EDF Guru's'* arguments only allow you to infer that the earth will only be happy when man has no society capable of breakdown or cohesive enough for war and must make no progress capable of any harm at all.

Which rather suggests some point in the late paleolithic period at latest (if not pre tool at least pre society above that of the family (although isn't that where most abuse and murders are commited? Oh let's just do away with mankind altogether venal little beast who has wasted gaia's gifts and doubtless deserves banning from this Eden we were granted, or something). Added to that Hal's previous arguments for population decline I think Huguenots inference is spot on.

Aaaaanyway, I remember an EU chappie who went out to Bulgaria to give a talk at a farming conference there on organic methods and most of them laughed and told him they can't do it any other way as they can't afford pesticides or fertilisers not produced by their own animals.

It does seem to be a peculiarly western issue this one.

*I'm sure te EDF should have more of a say on who their guru is. I don't think we have one but at a pinch I'd nominate *Bob* for pearls of wisdom.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Ah, Ladymuck, you've resorted to Fisking, a habit

> of those bereft of ideas and enamoured of

> technology. It does you an injustice and I'm sure

> it was an aberration.

Notwithstanding that I've only had 3 hours' sleep, I shall take that as a compliment - from you. [Muttering under breath...fisking indeed].

>

> Lifenet do not provide figures, they provide

> polemic prose, and very pretty it is too.

Ummm, statistics on disabled children "pretty"?

>

> Your nitpicking with the Greenpeace figures is a

> misdirection, I'm quite happy to take your

> high-end Greenpeace figures of 200,000 consequent

> deaths and compare that with the 30,000,0000

> deaths to RTAs in the same period.

I am indeed honoured ![tongue firmly in cheek, tone bordering on the sarcastic]. Incidentally I am not disputing your RTA figures...not that I have checked them or anything.

>

> I repeat, if the major focus was 'health and long

> life', the anti-GM and anti-nuclear brigade have

> better targets.

As stated in a previous posting, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

> This thread is about Organic food.

Now that I cannot dispute...we have strayed quite a bit...and an interesting journey it has been too

> My argument that Organic food is part of a generic

> political movement that is anti-technology,

> anti-organisation, anti-administration and

> anti-social is sustained by your own position.>

> I think the Organic movement do themselves a

> disservice by dragging 'righteous' political and

> religious arguments into what is essentially a

> convenience argument. I like Organic food, it's nice and cute. I buy it,

> and pay over the odds for it. When you start talking about apocalypse and

> morality you're stuck in a bog.

Again...two words..."agree/disagree"...actually three..."circles".

But for what it's worth, I actually grow most of my fruit/veg (at this time of year I only need to purchase mushrooms)...I DO utilise organic principles (e.g. no slug pellets etc., crop rotation, companion planting etc.) because, (a) I do not wish to unnecessarily ingest residues from toxic chemicals and (b)I wish to do my "bit" for the environment...by not unnecessarily poisoning the little patch of soil on which I work and the wildlife that it sustains. Simple really. I like organic food too, the organic stuff in the supermarket does not necessarily taste better than "conventionally grown produce" (I really don't like that term), but (and I don't mean to brag) my produce definitely does - no doubt about it. At other times of the year, I WILL pay over the odds for organic food - it IS expensive (which is why I grow as much as I can myself)- fortunately, I have that choice (and I appreciate that some people may not).

Right, I THINK we might JUST be back on topic now - eh? Chair must be breathing a sigh of relief!

[Ladymuck]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> I'm sorry ladymuck but Huguenot was quite right on

> the pre-tool society thing.

>

> The 'EDF Guru's'* arguments only allow you to

> infer that the earth will only be happy when man

> has no society capable of breakdown or cohesive

> enough for war and must make no progress capable

> of any harm at all.

>

> Which rather suggests some point in the late

> paleolithic period at latest (if not pre tool at

> least pre society above that of the family

> (although isn't that where most abuse and murders

> are commited? Oh let's just do away with mankind

> altogether venal little beast who has wasted

> gaia's gifts and doubtless deserves banning from

> this Eden we were granted, or something). Added to

> that Hal's previous arguments for population

> decline I think Huguenots inference is spot on.

Ladymuck wrote:

Again, three words: "agree", "disagree" and "circles".

> Aaaaanyway, I remember an EU chappie who went out

> to Bulgaria to give a talk at a farming conference

> there on organic methods and most of them laughed

> and told him they can't do it any other way as

> they can't afford pesticides or fertilisers not

> produced by their own animals.

> It does seem to be a peculiarly western issue this

> one.

>

You may well be right.

> *I'm sure te EDF should have more of a say on who

> their guru is.

I'm sorry, that's just what I call him (whether he likes it or not!). I probably should not have foisted my unilateral nomination on the Forum.

I don't think we have one but at a

> pinch I'd nominate *Bob* for pearls of wisdom.

Well, perhaps you could start a new thread - "WHO DO YOU THINK DESERVES THE TITLE "EDF GURU?" - though perhaps not in the Drawing Room eh? We don't want Chair tearing his/her hair out...must be fairly bald by now!

...have managed to stray off topic again. Now let's see...ah I know...just for all those sceptics...did you know that organic food MIGHT be better for your heart? See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6272634.stm.

See also: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr118h.htm - an article on how Cuba (through necessity) is now farming organically on a grand scale. At the very least, it's an interesting article. There is lots of stuff on this on the net for those interested. I have been to Cuba, and whether or not one is for or against organic food production, I defy anyone not to be impressed by what the Cubans have achieved.

I would just like to add that I have learnt one very vital thing from this thread...and that is to keep a special look-out when cycling to my allotment in future...Huguenot's quoted RTA statistics are frightening!;-)

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I don't really understand HAL9000's position - you seem to be

> recommending not just an embargo on GM and nuclear, but a

> return to pre-tool societies?

(Please remember ? these are hypothetical arguments based on speculative scenarios ? we can?t all be happy-clappy techno-utopians.)

I?ve already stated the view that nothing we do now can avert a population collapse in the near future due to factors such as over-population, famine, plague, Peak Oil, Climate Change, resource depletion, etc., along with whatever else nature might throw at us.

Therefore, the question arises: how to enhance man?s survival prospects in the event of one or more worst-case scenarios?

Genetic engineering and nuclear power are the only two technologies that could easily cause a cataclysmic event. However, both could also jeopardise man?s survival prospects after a cataclysmic event from other causes. In that respect, they represent a double jeopardy.

The post-catastrophe arguments are as follows:

GM F1 Hybrids

Widespread dependence on GM F1 hybrids could jeopardise the survivors? survival prospects because they would not have access to F1 hybrid seeds for new crops or the intensive resources needed to cultivate them. F2 seeds would yield weak, low yielding and unpredictable harvests, attributes that are likely to spread via cross-pollination.

Money for new GM research would be better spent on setting up local seed banks of wild and domesticated varieties and selective breeding of cultivars better able to grow under the extreme conditions likely to prevail in the future.

Nuclear Reactors

Active reactors represent a serious threat to the survivors. They are unlikely to know how to operate or make them safe while the following generations probably won?t even understand the dangers they pose.

Money for new reactors would be better spent decommissioning all existing reactors (and nuclear warheads) and making all radioactive materials safe via deep underground burial.

One present-day nuclear risk we haven?t covered above: All of the world?s existing nuclear reactors (and radioactive waste containment vessels) are now vulnerable to attack by terrorist devices based on ?Bunker-Buster? warhead technology developed for use in Afghanistan. They are sitting ducks. Right now, we need more reactors like a moose needs a hat stand. In case anyone doesn?t know, nuclear fuel and waste containers are regularly shipped through London by rail.

[Ladymuck]

Right now, we need more

> reactors like a moose needs a hat stand.

[HUGE burst of laughter!] HAL9000, you never cease to make me laugh.

In case

> anyone doesn?t know, nuclear fuel and waste

> containers are regularly shipped through London by

> rail.

It's true, I've actually seen them - the containers are visibly labelled as such - I was horrified when I first spotted them. Just imagine if one of those trains were involved in a serious accident...doesn't bear thinking about.

[Huguenot]

"[HUGE burst of laughter!] HAL9000, you never cease to make me laugh...visibly labelled as such - I was horrified when I first spotted them."

It's like Hyacinth Bucket, so much drama.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> " HAL9000, you never cease to make me

> laugh...visibly labelled as such - I was horrified

> when I first spotted them."

>

> It's like Hyacinth Bucket, so much drama.

[ANOTHER HUGE BURST OF LAUGHTER]...well at least my diaphragm is receiving a full work-out today! The Bucket Lady - eh? I am not so sure I SHOULD be laughing! Oh well, have been called worse things...(thanks for the free laugh though)...[now giggling away like a teenage schoolgirl...the Bucket Lady indeed]

[Ladymuck]

The latest statistics from Defra on the growth of organic food production suggest that it is actually on the up rather than in decline. How then do we reconcile these statistics with media reports that the recession has seen a drop in the number of customers prepared to pay for organic food?