Risks of pesticides

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 11/10/14, 14:29

obamot
Honestly, to put oneself in a logic of ghettoisation brings what!
You speak of "lived", you would feel good there, you?

It's not about SE to place, it is the holders of power who do it!
Janic wrote:
But this HONcode (I do not deny its usefulness when we walk in the nails) is useless in these cases.

It's up to you to challenge it, but until then nothing relevant proves that there is an organism that replaces it ... So you have to make or create another!
I do not dispute it in some situations, it is simply inefficient, inappropriate, use the term that suits you best, in other circumstances: no more!
This is not the case that another system could replace it!
Obamot wrote:
Janic wrote:
The goal was to give some tips not to get burned!
Except that it does not work for nonconformists. It's a bit like using an allopathic reading chart to adapt it to homeopathy, it does not work either.
Dito ... And in fact it works very well, I know a lot of "affiliates" who are not "conformists" ...

Fortunately! I am not talking here about some nonconformist individuals, but systems wanted and supported by conservative individuals of course!
Why absolutely make distinctions (is not it the establishment that seeks to do that, so why bring water to the mill ...),
We must not reverse the situation. The distinction is made by reality, not by philosophy. Revise the current case of parents who refuse compulsory vaccination without having guarantees of the safety of these (apart from the fact that these vaccines are illegal). That's the reality! It is the establishment that has impeached these concerned parents for the life and health of their children and turned against them by accusing them of anything. (especially anything else, relying on the ignorance of both the media and the people.)
There are a little tired of creating "separate classes" of calimeros.
Absolutely ! All we have to do is give everyone a legitimate right of conscience, and the classes that are set aside disappear like our neighboring countries that have solved the problem.
Diwouar, whatever system is in place, wouldn't you be going against the grain, like that, just: "on principle"!
I am "in principle" against all injustice (law and justice are unfortunately different things)
Obamot wrote:
Pfff, with the number of disgraced toubibs, we could fill a whole directory ...! This does not mean that they would be excluded from the HONcode, if they respect its principles.

There is confusion between each category of individuals. You speak doctors, I speak of illegal and therefore the inapplication of this HONcode to this category.
Then, indeed, doctors are also rejected, disgraced and HONcode this does not lose its relevance as they are still not outside the system but on its periphery. Even excluded, they continue to possess the diploma that recognizes their professional competence and remain entitled to exercise it elsewhere! Switzerland can be?
And in the principles, I do not see what we can reproach, unless we try to hide!
To the extent that the illegal practice of medicine remains what it is, there is little alternative to hiding from the authorities who are just waiting to fall short on the (or the) offender (e).
When I see the number of perverts in society, the HONcode is highly useful. To deny that would be a little like defending the cause of the perverts.
This is another aspect of the problem, perversions exist everywhere, not only in a particular profession where the need to seriously inquire before embarking on a path full of uncertainties (compared to the highway of conformism) and in areas where these HONcodes are unsuitable. (repeat the points in question)
Obamot wrote:
Janic wrote:
It is certain as any system instituted, it offers certain advantages and disadvantages too, after it is a question of choice and risks taken from both sides. but suffering does not wait for institutions to change, it demands an immediate response.
Precisely, the HONcode is one of these answers, just respect the principles and know how to use it ...
The example I quoted shows precisely the contradiction since it does not correspond, so to speak, to any of the points cited.
What happens if one does not follow the recommendations? when

[...] - The qualification is not recognized even when the editor has all the necessary qualifications.

[...] - This complementarity is not recognized and the patient should have to replace the doctor-patient relationship.

[...] - The information is short-circuited by the "authorities" medical up.

[...] - The treatment is not recognized, despite their effectiveness and even their safety, because in opposition to the dogma in place.

[...] - The information is obscured for the same reasons as above, and the contact address can only be confidential (to avoid persecution and possibly prosecution for illegal practice of medicine, even by skilled and even skilled doctors)
Obamot wrote:
Is it as far as it does not have its reason to be (what to propose instead, in the meantime, let's stop criticizing). There is nothing else and, in any case, we should first thank this initiative.
I repeat: I do not speak of no reason to be but only of maladjustment to certain cases, certain situations.
Remember (this is quite old) the case of the small leukemia.
Obamot wrote:
The HONcode has no borders! Except in the minds What do you mean?
In large part: yes! It's a bit like vegetarianism, if it does not exceed the barrier of customs, habits, beliefs, if there is not a minimum of information (and even in these cases) the best intention of the world, the best interest of another system falls flat.
(bein come here Janic) and the HONcode has no borders!
I do not have big money to put in their bank! But it's just a matter of patience since things change slowly (in France), too slowly, but my children and grandchildren will eventually benefit, I hope!
Janic wrote:
20.000 estimated cases (of iatrogenic deaths) all the same! And I do not speak of bad doctors, but of bad medicine, it is different!
The HONcode has no borders, that's all its interest!
It will not change the type of medicine practiced
Janic wrote:
And you found yourself with the cops on the buttocks as the couple who refuses the vaccines in question (illegal vaccines also since quinquavalents)?
I admit that I was very shocked! Especially since the father looked sincere. But it's HS.
On the contrary, it's right in! The parents concerned can not claim a HONcode protecting them from these police excesses. With this HONcode, perhaps one would have recognized their right of conscience?
Go, go ... There are caregivers or people who are not! The rest we should not care!

When you hang on the nose the risk of 3 months in prison farm and 3.750 euros almond, renewable, plus you remove the custody of your children, it's worth it to worry, it seems to me! (That's France!)
Courage Janic!
Courage to the concerned parents, I had my share of similar circumstances where you are alone, alone, to face the wolves who only want to devour the lamb that you are supposed to be.
Janic wrote:
But I recognize that what Switzerland is doing is already a big step towards less exclusivity.
Thank you! But the HONcode has no borders and it is a Swiss initiative of HUG!


Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:
Attention, iatrogenesis can come ONLY and exclusively from a prescriber member of the nursing staff! (A doctor in this case ...)
That's what I was mentioning!
Okay ;-)


PS: I note that you have documented yourself (healers and HUG) and that this particular, you have a certain honesty in the debate! It's a pleasure.
I am always honest, in my positions, by spiritual principle! This does not mean that it is perceived as such, but I have made up my mind and do not want anyone to (so far as not to let my little stilts crush!)
: Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 11/10/14, 20:08

Janic wrote:Do not reverse the situation

Until proven otherwise, it is the recognized system that is authentic (unless something else comes to replace it, you said it yourself) ...

In the current system, not everything is perfect. But there are tangible reasons why he has arrived where he is. Only these reasons are difficult to come to your place, because you always leave the same point of view, without understanding that people do not behave eventually like you would like them to do, or something (I say that without going into details, but it's a bit like that, I'm also like that so I can understand ...).

Certainly it would be necessary to review all this and that the populations are moving towards a system where prevention would be the rule and firefighting medicine the exception. But in the state it is not so, even if the system is working on it. THEREFORE IT IS BIG TIME TO ASK WHY? And not according to the usual clichés, but from the point of view of the behavior of the ordinary citizen! (I did say of his behavior to him and not "that it would ideally be ..." because between the two there are all the questions relating to the practical application! And we can not do it without the points that I have raised many times: even if we would like it to be otherwise, and I'm going to repeat it again).

From that angle, all in all I'm not sure that any other system than the one in place now, would work intelligibly or practically: and with the arguments you sometimes use, it's a bit like the myth of Sisyphus, it Each time you have to start from scratch and re-explain everything (there would hardly be any "progress", because the average citizen, during that time, he would not have "changed"). And the reason is quite simple, we must not systematically ignore the "personal will"people and not (re) deny their possibility of choice"freely consented". This is indeed the weak point, but we can not ignore it, it is unavoidable.

I know what you will answer, because I know your rhetoric, but it's going all the time going in the same direction (a story a little endless, where we do not try to understand why we stagnate in the current situation , simply because we do not take into account the reactions of the basic citizen, nor how to get out of it ...). And this is not a reproach but a statement. There are points where dialogue does not pass. So I will temporarily no longer address this type of subject if it continues, especially since we are more than HS ...! : Mrgreen:

As long as it is not understood, giving an opinion on the HONcode will not make sense of the moment that there would not be the prerequisites to understand all the merits. Now I respect your point of view too, but here we are talking about something else ...

In the state unfortunately, does not we have the system that we deserve?
Last edited by Obamot the 11 / 10 / 14, 20: 42, 3 edited once.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 11/10/14, 20:36

Janic wrote:
Do not reverse the situation

Until proven otherwise, it is the recognized system that is authentic (unless something else comes to replace it, you said it yourself) ...

No ! The system makes law only! In order to substitute something for it, it would first be necessary to ensure the "primum non nocere" which is not won in advance.
In the current system, not everything is perfect. But there are tangible reasons why he has arrived where he is.

Indeed and these are low economic reasons! Even though (but we must not be under any illusions) the labs would like to do only "natural" drugs it would be a real ecological plunder, hence the chemical synthesis of their components (a wooden leg instead and place of a real leg)
Only these reasons are difficult to come to you, because you always start from the same point of view, without understanding that, alas, people do not behave like you would like them to do it.
On the contrary, I completely understand that people do not behave like me, I did not become what I am by chance or by miracle! I have also been healthy enough (as in the rest of the population) and perhaps would have been if circumstances had not changed the direction. (That's your case too: no?) So again, I'm not judgmental on individuals but on the systems and they only !
In the state unfortunately, does not we have the system that we deserve?
Difficult to say! let us say rather that "we" hardly question it out of indolence, habit or ignorance and sometimes by opposition of principle.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 11/10/14, 21:10

janic who denies his own words wrote:
Obamot wrote:
Janic wrote:Do not reverse the situation

Until proven otherwise, it is the recognized system that is authentic (unless something else comes to replace it, you said it yourself) ...

No ! The system makes law only! To substitute something for it, one must first make sure non-nocturnal primum Which is not won in advance.

Still need to prove it ... !!!!!!

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:In the current system, not everything is perfect. But there are tangible reasons why he has arrived where he is.

Indeed and these are low economic reasons!

No, not that ... And it's not by evading other reasons that the light will come ...

Janic wrote:Even though (but we must not be under any illusions) the labs would like to do only "natural" drugs it would be a real ecological plunder, hence the chemical synthesis of their components (a wooden leg instead and place of a real leg)

Mwouais then there ... And why drugs? No need. We already have all the molecules that would go well to ensure that a population practicing a reasonable prevention (natural or synthetic), all that would be needed for his needs. Only this is not how it happens, it must be recognized! And we come back to the tangible reasons why the system works this way and not otherwise!

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:Only these reasons are difficult to come to you, because you always start from the same point of view, without understanding that, alas, people do not behave like you would like them to do it.
On the contrary, I completely understand that people do not behave like me, I did not become what I am by chance or by miracle! I have also been healthy enough (as in the rest of the population) and perhaps would have been if circumstances had not changed the direction. (That's your case too: no?) So again, I'm not judgmental on individuals but on the systems and they only !

No, that's a bit easy. To take people's behavior into account is not to ignore what they deliberately choose: so it's a way of judging what they do (or do not do ... amha)

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:In the state unfortunately, does not we have the system that we deserve?
Difficult to say! let us say rather that "we" hardly question it out of indolence, habit or ignorance and sometimes by opposition of principle.

The main reasons have not been forgotten (see above ...)?

I will correct my sentence:
"As it is, alas, we can only note that we have the system we deserve (or that we did not deserve, but in this case, it is not forbidden to to accommodate by doing "differently"). : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 11/10/14, 23:31

That said, I must admit that you do not lack arguments : Mrgreen: : Cheesy:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 12/10/14, 08:22

obamot hello
In the state unfortunately, does not we have the system that we deserve?
Hard to say! let us say that we hardly question it by indolence, habit or ignorance. (...) No! The system is law only! In order to substitute something for it, it would first be necessary to ensure the "primum non nocere" which is not won in advance.

Still need to prove it ... !!!!!!

a) I mean that the law supports the system!
b) that the “primum non nocere” has thousands of years of experience behind it and even if certain practices have something to surprise us, more and more studies show that, without current knowledge, many “natural products” Were proven to be safe and effective. I will take an example: in the "well-meaning" literature we read that the boxwood decoction is dangerous enough to kill a horse, (but we are not horses) and I have the lived experience of a baby (less than a year old) who greedily drank whole and repetitive bottles of decoction without the slightest disturbance, on the contrary, but as soon as the infection disappeared, this child stubbornly refused to take a drop. On the other hand, he spat out with disgust the antibiotics that the doctor had prescribed. The "Primum non nocere"!
Janic wrote:
Indeed and these are low economic reasons!

No, not that ... And it's not by evading other reasons that the light will come ...
It is not enough that there is light yet it must be recognized, accepted and experienced in "primum non nocere"! Sunlight is the best, but it's better to avoid looking at it from the front! But here we enter a philosophical discourse!
Janic wrote:
So again, I'm not judgmental about individuals but about systems and only them!

No, that's a bit easy. To take people's behavior into account is not to ignore what they deliberately choose: so it's a way of judging what they do (or do not do ... amha)
This is not a judgment, but rather a statement! If a person throws a pebble in the air and it falls back on the head, I can judge (rather estimate that) actually of his lack of reflection before launching it, but especially I note that there are laws physics that no one can escape.
I took the example of a person who moves on the street and walks in one of those dog poo that swarms on the sidewalk. The laws of physics cause it to set foot on it: where is the judgment on the person? By cons I can judge the uncleanliness that the system has accepted and unhygienic dog owners. (It's changing now that the system has placed restrictions on the "freedom" of doggie owners)
That said, I must admit that you do not lack arguments
after so many years, apart from the nailsit would be a shame not to have thought about it!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 12/10/14, 11:02

Indeed, and this is not for all that I would be ready to rely on a fallacy!

Even less to serve a cause! For that, you need solid elements!

janic who modified the original quotes, maybe unwittingly? wrote :
Obamot wrote:
Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:
janic who would deny his own words wrote:Do not reverse the situation

Until proven otherwise, it is the recognized system that is authentic (unless something else comes to replace it, you said it yourself) ...

No ! The system is law only! To substitute something for it, one must first make surenon-nocturnal primumWhich is not won in advance.

Still need to prove it ... !!!!!!


b) that the "primum non nocere" has thousands of years of experiences behind him ...
a) I mean that the law supports the system!

A law must be neutral so as not to favor one party over the other (principle of equality before the law or equality in law), otherwise it is not a law. In the penal code there is expressly the central element called "will harm". How can you say then that the law would support the system (since precisely it must be at equal parity), and if this will is recognized as the main ax of the sanction which qualifies it !?

That's why I asked you if you had any proof of what you said. If we had some, and they were relevant, then such a "system" would collapse (and sometimes it happens), otherwise back to the quote I took from you ... ;-)

Janic wrote:b) the "primum non nocere" has thousands of years of experience behind him and even if some practices are surprising, more and more works show that, without the current knowledge, many "natural" products demonstrated their safety and efficacy.

Indeed, but that is for nature, it is still necessary to prove the "will to harm" for "human productions". If so it would be interesting, but it is not easy to prove because it is taboo!

Thus, as it stands, it can not be inferred that the whole system is polarized the way you declare it (or you need valid evidence in court).

Failing this, it is therefore the recognized system that is authentic ("unless something else comes to replace it ": Janic dixit)! From there, the HONcode is "OK" CQFD.

So I don't need a whole tangle of different tracks that would eventually contradict each other. My question is simple and can be answered with "yes" or "no":

Do you have the proofs of what you put forward concerning a "will to harm"?
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 12/10/14, 15:47

Obamot hello
A law must be neutral so as not to favor one party over the other (principle of equality before the law or equality in law), otherwise it is not a law. In the penal code there is expressly the central element called "will to harm". How can you say then that the law would support the system (since precisely it must be at equal parity), and if this will is recognized as the main ax of the sanction which qualifies it !?

This is where the difficulty lies for the jurists: are they representatives of the law or of justice? The example of the abortion emphasizes the contradiction with a repressive system against the IVGistes and the day after the law, they become the gentiles and their former opponents the wicked, themselves pursued by this new law. Where is the justice in question? Killing a child in the making is it a will to harm?
So the will to harm! It is less simple than that, there is also the desire not to harm interests, and especially criminal. See the case of asbestos that took a century to be recognized to its correct dangerousness, despite the many warnings and cases of proven pathologies, same thing for the nuclear with the excess of leukemia that there was around these, etc ... .but big interests were at stake! or even the hexavalent chromium (6 carcinogenic chromium) which earned the largest compensation compensations of that time, but it is America, not France with its indemnities of the symbolic franc.
That's why I asked you if you had any evidence of what you're doing.

The above examples!
If we had some, and they were relevant, then such a "system" would collapse (and sometimes it happens), otherwise back to the quote I took from you ... ;-)
Dreamer again? Utopian?


Janic wrote:
b) the "primum non nocere" has thousands of years of experience behind him and even if some practices are surprising, more and more works show that, without the current knowledge, many "natural" products demonstrated their safety and efficacy.
Indeed, but that is for nature, it is still necessary to prove the "will to harm" for "human productions". If so it would be interesting, but it is not easy to prove because it is taboo!
Indeed it is taboo and the "culprits in power" are not born of the last rain to give the stick to be beaten. Take the example of cigarettes with additives such as ammonia to increase their dependence. American tobacco companies have been sentenced to astronomical damages not only for their traffickers but also and especially for perjury before the congress denying this "will to harm" under oath.
or the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and Erin Brockovich concerning hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6), which had to pay the biggest indemnities of the time.
Thus, as it stands, it can not be inferred that the whole system is polarized the way you declare it (or you need valid evidence in court).

Unfortunately though; in France anyway !! Take the example of vaccines, not one has ever demonstrated its effectiveness against the diseases concerned, but against its iatrogenic effects have been noted since its origin Pasteur for France (official documents in support) Y- Does he therefore have a proven will to harm? Impossible to prove since it is covered with a mantle of humanitarian respectability in front of people who are scared of epidemic diseases or not and are willing to do anything to escape (quackery in question and hell paved good intentions) and as the labs are on the side of the handle of the ax and not on the side of the log that takes full face, they play on the velvet except when there is a hitch like this couple or the H1N1.
Do you have the proofs of what you put forward concerning a "will to harm"?
See above ! it recalls the conflict of ideas between believer and nonbeliever: " do you have any evidence that god exists? Which is answered: " do you have any evidence that it does not exist ? "And in this case:"
Is there evidence that there is no will to harm?
And it is up to the courts to answer them ... late after many deaths or disabilities (but they can not intervene before it is obvious!)
Thus, to take the example of the current chemical drugs, the industry of these drugs opposes the beneficial effects and the toxic effects. Without being a great jurist, the fact of giving a product to consume knowing the toxic effects, is a proof of the nuisance of the product and the knowledge that their producers have. The trick is therefore to consider that the benefits outweigh, not by proven scientific control, but on the sole assertion of the manufacturers themselves (hence the late scandals on the toxic effect exceeding the somewhat mild estimates of these manufacturers: iatrogenic effect.)
But on 10 medications removed from the market there are hundreds, thousands that remain in circulation despite their proven toxicity far beyond supposed benefits, plus all those that are useless. (Prof. de Harven and Pr Debré's book: a guide to 4.000 drugs that are useful, useless or dangerous.)
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 12/10/14, 17:15

QED.

There are none (at least not more among the "bad guys" than among the "nice bad guys" neither among the "bad guys", nor even the "bad guys" VS "nice guys" , etc). ;-)

So failing that: it is the theoretical model that applies in the absence of something that replaces it, in your own words. This is why there is a "theoretical model"!
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 13/10/14, 08:17

obamot hello
So failing that: it is the theoretical model that applies in the absence of something that replaces it, in your own words. This is why there is a "theoretical model"!
I understand your position: better to walk with a crutch, for want of better, than without.
Or prefer other ways to walk without crutches, it's not bad either!
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 333 guests