And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Arthurbg
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 21
Registration: 31/07/18, 10:29
x 12

And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Arthurbg » 31/07/18, 10:55

BIO is a bad answer to a REAL problem!
Let's begin by specifying some misconceptions, false and deliberately propagated!
• NATURAL:
The BIO world is gargling and yet:
Definition: Who is in, belongs to nature; which is not the product of a human practice
We have diverted this definition to make him say NATUREL = which is not chemical, but the natural is a chemical soup in variable dosage, even if often weaker and it is not inevitably synonymous with harmless!
The number of toxic plants testifies, the chocolate is toxic for dogs, rabbits, rats, and a dopant for horses, toxic if high doses!
The essential oil of lavender or tea tree!
http://www.medisite.fr/a-la-une-perturbateurs-endocriniens-attention-aux-huiles-essentielles-darbre-a-the-et-de-lavande.4165901.2035.html
• WITHOUT PESTICIDES
The BIO world is also gargling and yet:
They actually use less pesticides, BUT have a list of PESTICIDES usable in BIO, normally from nature, but not always ...!
And these are not without dangers: against bees, fish and soil!

• Traditional PESTICIDES (residues) = CANCERS!
After cancer, it is better to eat organic
WRONG!
So far, there is no scientific evidence that BIO foods influence cancer risk, either to prevent disease or to prevent recurrence.
The positive effects of 'conventional' fruits and vegetables in cancer prevention are highlighted by various studies, even though pesticides and fertilizers are used to grow them. The reason is that the use of these substances is strictly regulated by law. This regulation minimizes the harmful effects for the consumer.
https://www.cancer.be/aide-aux-patients ... s-propos-0
Eating organic does not protect against cancer
Consuming organic foods to prevent cancer is not effective. A follow-up study on 9 years shows that there is no association between this diet and a lower cancer rate.
https://www.pourquoidocteur.fr/Articles/Question-d-actu/5978-Manger-bio-ne-protege-pas-du-cancer
http://www.forumphyto.fr/2017/10/30/consommer-bio-quel-effet-sur-le-cancer-attention-il-y-a-un-piege/
http://alerte-environnement.fr/2014/04/03/le-bio-ne-protege-pas-du-cancer/

• And in stroke:
Eating fruits and vegetables would reduce the risk of 32% stroke
But we do not say it takes BIO, you understand that they would hasten to display it everywhere!
Gold 32% less stroke and saw the negligible part of BIO (3% in France) and it is these products that contain the most pesticide residues !!! ............ ....LAUGH OUT LOUD ! ! !
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/manger-des-fruits-et-legumes-reduirait-le-risque-d-avc_14263
http://www.entrepatients.net/fr/sante/actualites/874431-accident-vasculaire-cerebral-avc-avc-reduire-les-risques-grace-aux-fruits-l
2 x
Arthurbg
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 21
Registration: 31/07/18, 10:29
x 12

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Arthurbg » 31/07/18, 10:58

The fact that it can not be proven that it prolongs life expectancy or leads to a healthier life, despite the fact that its supporters will also be keen to avoid or severely limit a host of harmful products others (cigarettes, alcohol, solvents, paints, products at risk (cosmetics) ...) should invite us to relativize its supposed benefits!
A French farmer lives longer than a craftsman, merchant or entrepreneur, an employee, a worker, only the executive lives longer!
https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2383438
You will understand that this article is more serious than those advanced by detractors of pesticides:
We must also relativize between poor countries and at home: harmful products prohibited at home, BUT we sell them!
http://alerte-environnement.fr/2017/03/10/enquete-sur-le-chiffre-faux-des-deces-par-pesticides/
http://www.orthodiet.org/fr/statistiques-de-loms-causes-deces-partie-iii
https://www.capital.fr/polemik/faut-il-boycotter-les-marques-qui-emploient-des-enfants-1232094
"3 million people are poisoned by pesticides every year. According to the WHO between 20.000 and 200.000 deaths are due to pesticides every year, especially in developing countries where about one-third of the pesticides used are not up to international quality standards. "
But these figures mainly concern poor countries! And then the life expectancy, at home, would explain how ???
https://www.planetoscope.com/agriculture-alimentation/885-consommation-de-pesticides-dans-le-monde.html
For information :
https://www.planetoscope.com/mortalite/1915-deces-dus-aux-sodas-et-boissons-sucrees.html
http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2014/08/17/22705-lexces-sel-16-million-morts-par-an
And do not talk about pollution or tobacco:
https://www.planetoscope.com/mortalite/1913-deces-dus-a-la-pollution-dans-le-monde.html
https://www.planetoscope.com/mortalite/403-mortalite---deces-dus-au-tabac-dans-le-monde.html
2 x
Arthurbg
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 21
Registration: 31/07/18, 10:29
x 12

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Arthurbg » 31/07/18, 11:04

We told you about this:
https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/les-vraies-garanties-du-bio-contre-les-pesticides-1401930.html
2011: ROTENONE the only insecticide of the BIO provoked ... PARKINSON!
PARAQUAT (Gramoxone) was reserved for professional use and was banned before ROTENONE!
http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2011/02/28/10764-deux-pesticides-augmentent-risque-parkinson

"- Dangerous for bees. Do not use in the presence of bees. To protect bees and other pollinating insects:
- do not apply during the flowering period and during periods of production of exudates for use on cabbage (treatment of plants) - do not apply less than 7 days after flowering ...... "and c ' is .... a "NATURAL" ORGANIC PESTICIDE:
https://ephy.anses.fr/ppp/success-4
This insecticide is extremely toxic to bees with acute contact DL50 of 0,0029 μg / bee.
https://www.sagepesticides.qc.ca/Recherche/RechercheMatiere/DisplayMatiere?MatiereActiveId=168
And even this very green site tells you:
http://www.ecoconso.be/fr/Boite-anti-fourmis-ECO-au-Spinosad
An endocrine disrupting and dangerous pesticide for bees authorized at the request of the organic sector ... and nobody protests!
http://seppi.over-blog.com/2017/03/un-pesticide-perturbateur-endocrinien-et-dangereux-pour-les-abeilles-autorise-a-la-demande-du-secteur-du-bio.et-personne-ne-proteste
http://lesilencedesabeilles.over-blog.com/article-un-insecticide-bio-toxique-pour-les-abeilles-50042901.html
And yet studies do not confirm for bees, but for fish:
https://shop.leugygax.ch/shop/resources/downloads/sd149_-_Oikos(CHF).pdf
Bees and phytopharmaceuticals
https://fytoweb.be/fr/nouvelles/abeilles-et-produits-phytopharmaceutiques
List of plant protection products authorized in Belgium in organic farming
https://fytoweb.be/sites/default/files/guide/attachments/liste_ppp_agriculture_biologique_20180517.pdf
2 x
Arthurbg
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 21
Registration: 31/07/18, 10:29
x 12

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Arthurbg » 31/07/18, 11:09

We are presented with ACIDES methods: vinegar, pelargonic acid, .... sometimes supplemented with cooking salt (NaCl) or BORAX ...
In the past, urea has also been used (soil-acidifying product and present in low-quality fertilizer unless for heather earth), even sulfuric acid, fuel oil, etc.
So you read: EELV denounces an "organic pesticide" more dangerous than glyphosate, which is perfectly accurate.
http://alerte-environnement.fr/2016/09/05/eelv-met-en-garde-contre-les-nouveaux-desherbants-bio/
http://www.lefigaro.fr/jardin/2015/05/08/30008-20150508ARTFIG00228-la-revolution-des-nouveaux-desherbants-bio.php

WEED CONTROL: long-term effects:
ACID
In the short term, we will not see any changes and as they will be slow, we will end up attributing the consequences to other reasons!
Acidification of the soil, this may be good for heather plants, but poses many problems, for the vast majority of crops:
https://www.gerbeaud.com/jardin/fiches/sol-acide,1880.html
Rectifying the PH without analysis is often hazardous!
https://www.jardiner-autrement.fr/teneur-sol-matiere-organique/
The garden soil should never be too acidic, otherwise most vegetables - except, perhaps, the potato there vegetate poorly. Indeed, cultivated plants (cabbages in particular) need to find enough calcium in the soil. And then, acidity makes little other nutrients (phosphorus, magnesium).
Some wild plants and weeds have a behavior very different from that of vegetables: they flee lime, limestone, hence their name "calcifuges".
The regular presence of several calcifuges in or near your garden will indicate acid soil to excess.
http://users.skynet.be/zoom/tournesol/articles/flore_sols_acides.htm
Testing the PH with direct-measuring devices is unreliable, always perform in the lab!
https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_analyser-la-terre-de-son-jardin-c-est-possible?id=5006833
http://www.lunion.fr/23524/article/2017-03-31/le-bon-ph-pour-chaque-plante
http://www.mangedesfleurs.be/au-jardin/la-chimie-au-potager-comment-identifier-votre-sol-en-fonction-de-la-vegetation/
https://permaforet.blogspot.com/2013/04/plantes-bio-indicatrices.html

To obtain a more lasting effect, we do not hesitate, we add SALT KITCHEN (NaCl):
And they will say "NO CHEMICAL ...": Cooking Salt (NaCl), Vinegar = Acetic Acid (C2H4O2), Pelargonic Acid (C₉H₁₈O), it's CHEMICAL !!!!
Effects of salt on plants and soils
Salts that come in direct contact with the trees pass through the plant tissues and disrupt the metabolism. The drying and burning of the tissues is manifested by browning of the needles and leaves, which will only be visible in the spring and summer.
The contribution of salt in the soil modifies the structure, which becomes more compact. Sodium and chloride ions dissolved in the soil end up in the vegetation indirectly. They are absorbed by the roots and disturb the nutritive balance. This also produces water stress, and most importantly it disrupts the metabolism and destroys cellular structures. The most important damage, after reaching the whole system, is the browning of the edges of the leaves and the necrosis of these. It is indeed in the edges of the leaves that one observes the highest concentrations of salt.
https://www.waldwissen.net/wissen/wsl_streusalz/index_FR
An easy solution is the use of spreading salts. But these lead to
a lot of negative effects:
• saline soil pollution
• leaching of soil nutrients to the detriment of plants
• soil compaction
• disturbance of water absorption in the root system of plants
• increase in soil pH
• burns on the external surfaces of plants
• pollution of groundwater and drinking water
• damage to cars, shoes, roads and floor coverings
• irritations in the paws of domestic animals
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:X4OzkAyl3HkJ:www.naturanemwelt.lu/forcedownload.php%3Fiddownload%3D9801298040087%26type%3D_pdf_+&cd=7&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=be&client=firefox-b
BORAX:
Effects
Can damage or destroy a large number of flowers and vegetables and is inefficient
Borax contains boron --- an element all plants need to thrive. However, plants only need small amounts of this element; larger doses are toxic. Just how sensitive plants are to boron varies greatly. The reason borax works to kill grass ivy is that ivy is more sensitive to boron in the soil than in the grass.
http://www.rowlandpub.com/6n9Y9w7n/
When torch weeding degenerates into a fire
http://alerte-environnement.fr/2018/07/20/quand-le-desherbage-au-chalumeau-degenere-en-incendie/

ALWAYS REFLECT and STILL
NEVER BELIEVE and IMITATE the NEIGHBOR who speaks so well!
EVERYTHING is not to be thrown away, but certainly fanaticism!
2 x
Arthurbg
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 21
Registration: 31/07/18, 10:29
x 12

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Arthurbg » 31/07/18, 13:22

PACKAGING in BIO:
ECOCERT: seriousness !!!
"Verification of the packaging
There will be no on-site audit, it is a documentary audit. The documents to be returned for verification are as follows (to be returned for each commercial reference to be checked):

+ Detailed technical drawing
+ Questionnaire verification package
http://www.ecocert.com/sites/default/files/u9/Fiche-explicative-prestation-emballage/index.pdf
In view of this documentary that dates from ... 2015: and WHO informs you, the RTBF with its summer records, but our policies, they do what ... nap!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZGPKueeNgQ

Compostable bags: the true of the false
http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/actualite/detecteur-rumeurs/2017/05/19/sacs-compostables-vrai-faux
May 26 2018:
Are these new plastics made from corn starch or potato starch all right? Not that easy.
https://www.nouvelobs.com/planete/20180524.OBS7144/le-bioplastique-est-il-vraiment-ecolo.html
Are biodegradable plastic bags really effective?
"It's worse for the environment"
But in Belgium - where these bags are prohibited - Bruno De Wilde, researcher from the independent laboratory Organic Waste Systems, doubts it. All the bags he tested are destroyed after a few weeks in the soil, but all fail the chemical test. “There are still microplastics in the medium. If the plastic is fragmented, one wonders which is best for the environment: plastics in large pieces or some kind of plastic powder that you can no longer pick up? , I think it's worse for the environment, "he told France 2
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/environnement/les-sacs-plastiques-biodegradables-sont-ils-vraiment-efficaces_866781.html
The reality is NEVER SIMPLE ... BLACK or WHITE and so the smartphone that requires a short info is a CATA!
And your personal experience, that of your pharmacist, doctor ... BLUFF!
A study must be statistically valid and more than in theory because never a protocol is controllable and perfect at 100%
The protocol must be verified and approved by expert WITHOUT conflicts of interest!
Except if giant gaps, it often takes more 500 people, but sometimes with 2.000 it will be the powder in the eyes!
It is necessary for more safety another study with a different protocol!
Glucosamine with study on more than 200 people and published in the Lancet proves very unreliable!
Epidemiological studies are too vague but are cheap!
Meta-analyzes, too often based on unreliable studies, are the studies of the poor!
1 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Janic » 31/07/18, 14:10

for argumentation, it's ... argumentation!
And if the non organic was a decoy ... euuuuh! (That's the argument of weight! : Cheesy:
It should be repeated point by point each argument, but it has been seen many times and again but quickly:
• NATURAL:
The BIO world is gargling and yet:
The term natural is used in opposition to the product of synthesis, without more.
• WITHOUT PESTICIDES
The BIO world is also gargling and yet:
Again this concerns synthetic pesticides, which does not mean that the so-called natural pesticides do not have toxic effects, but we must see beyond its mere punctual use.
After cancer, it is better to eat organic
WRONG!
Until now, no scientific data only establish that BIO foods have an influence on the risk of cancer, either to prevent the disease or prevent recurrence.
Bad information! Unfortunately what is called scientific does not rely on specific surveys of the individuals concerned, which, most of the time, are not taken into account. For example a healing following a particular food mode will be denied in principle and therefore little or no evidence of this kind are taken into account in so-called scientific surveys.
Single source experience of truth said Auguste Lumière, which is the basis of all scientific and especially medical research.
Eating organic does not protect against cancer
Consuming organic foods to prevent cancer is not effective. A follow-up study on 9 years shows that there is no association between this diet and a lower cancer rate.
Same thing ! You can not eat anything just because it's organic. A harmful organic product or not (eg tobacco) remains harmful. As for cancer, even though diet plays an important role, it is not enough to cover everything.
And everything to match. Review all the topics that have been developed in this regard and not specifically those sites happening everywhere that only scratch the surface by copying each other from questionable sources.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Ahmed » 31/07/18, 14:18

... and a rock that falls on your head? Natural and yet very unhealthy!
It was my small contribution, in the "breaking open doors" category! : Lol:
2 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Janic » 31/07/18, 14:33

... and a rock that falls on your head? Natural and yet very unhealthy!

Well, I believe what you say! : Cheesy:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Arthurbg
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 21
Registration: 31/07/18, 10:29
x 12

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by Arthurbg » 31/07/18, 15:31

There, I have BARATIN, but NO serious contradiction, EVERYTHING is irrefutable!
Which does not mean that BIO does not have a good side, but not those that the vast majority BELIEVE, for want of organized misinformation!
And the pesticide lobby certainly goes a long way, but the importance of it is often exaggerated!
Especially several BIO and if a small minority are relatively acceptable, they hide the forest!
NO reason to create 2 worlds, it is necessary that the LOBBIES lose all power and a sustainable and responsible management without exclusives and a priori, on the chemical or others!
The problem is that you actually listen to Pierre and Pol and you BELIEVE to have an objective info, because they are in good faith, I remember what I said above
"And your personal experience, that of your pharmacist, doctor ... from BLUFF!
A study must be statistically valid and more than in theory because never a protocol is controllable and perfect at 100%
The protocol must be verified and approved by expert WITHOUT conflicts of interest!
Except if giant gaps, it often takes more 500 people, but sometimes with 2.000 it will be the powder in the eyes!
It is necessary for more safety another study with a different protocol!
Glucosamine with study on more than 200 people and published in the Lancet proves very unreliable!
Epidemiological studies are too vague but are cheap!
The meta-analyzes, too often based on unreliable studies, are the studies of the poor! "
and that can give WHITE or BLACK, same site and ...:
http://www.e-sante.be/arthrose-genou-relachez-bandages/actualite/816
http://www.e-sante.be/arthrose-genou-resserrez-bandages/actualite/816
With your way of seeing things:
If I mle in the air a piece whose 2 faces are identical, they must fall 50% on one side and 50% on the other, it's true if I run 10.000 once I'll have 5003 times a side and 4997 times each other!
If I run only 10 once I can have 6 times stack and 4 times face or the reverse, even with a lot of chances 7 times stack and 3 times face!
Will I be able to say that I have 60% chance of getting flipped?
Alas, little one masters the statistics and one can then boast of everything!
Cite me valuable studies, if you can!
Last edited by Arthurbg the 31 / 07 / 18, 15: 46, 1 edited once.
0 x
phil53
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1376
Registration: 25/04/08, 10:26
x 202

Re: And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

by phil53 » 31/07/18, 15:43

I do not think it's the organic spirit that needs to be questioned, even if it is perfectible.
These are the excesses, those conveyed on the internet not people who believe to know and give recipes worse than the chemical. Those resulting from the marketing manipulation and which lead to drifts similar to what is described in the thread of the brown pellet.
My wife uses an application that dissects the content of the products from the bar code. Well organic products are not always the best for health. The industrialization to excess has passed because the market is huge and small malignant surf on this mode.
Last Saturday I was offered organic wine and I found, the smell of cresyl my childhood when I disinfect the cages of rabbits. I have no idea what can turn wine that way.
Bio first must be a state of mind, consume seasonal rather local with limited treatments.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 314 guests