Pesticides: standard agriculture cohabitation - dwellings

[Christophe]

Toutafé dakor, but how does a farmer have a responsibility in the greed of a promoter who does not take into account all the data of the problem (it is too expensive and it can make the business collapse .. . ) when he is setting up a real estate project?

It is that there is undoubtedly a legal vacuum to be filled ...
If you re-read my words above you will see that I did not accuse only the farmer but the "system" (made up in particular: of buyers of vegetables at low prices and sellers of fertilizers ...)

your reaction is the opposite of an econological objective which could aim to denounce the use of pesticides as being dangerous for health.
[...]
but to do so, it would already be necessary to admit that there could be danger. [...] ".

1) No amalgam please ... mine is clear and clear: pesticide legislation is needed for any real estate project not a professional! If an individual buys and renovates a house close to an intensive farming field it is his own responsibility but if he buys new housing it is something else!

2) I hope you laugh about the danger: can you believe that farmers must wear gas masks to make the dosages?

[bham]

Okay don't fight over misunderstandings.

We don't fight, we explain

But when there are words like these:

Otherwise at the cultural level, the latest:
- peas a hell of a mess we took out a ladle of critters from the house every evening throughout the summer (great in summer with the windows closed Evil or Very Mad) ......

It seems normal to me to interpret that newcomers want to "master" their environment.

See my previous post.

If not actually the use of pesticides in general is a problem, but the disappearance of agricultural areas and farmers is also one especially if we want a less intensive agriculture by feeding more and more people.

Well you know no, the farmers at my house are fighting to grapple a little land, obtained from a guy who is retiring for example. A young person who wants to settle has an interest in playing elbows; but what interests them, it is not the 100 or 150 ares of the subdivision of 10 houses which settled, but rather the hectares in one piece easy to cultivate.
As for less intensive agriculture, I have a neighbor farmer, farm of a hundred dairy cows, which went to organic, not without fear; well, with the same operating surface, he lives very well and does not regret his choice.
This proves (see also Christophe's Doc on no-till cultivation) that with different cultivation methods, in this case less intensive, we can achieve the same yield, but healthier.

[Christophe]

what interests them is not the 100 or 150 ares of the allotment of 10 houses that have settled but rather the hectares in one piece easy to cultivate.

Are you sure? What is it? To live above all, right? However, the value of their land, which can be built, can bring them 10 years of salary in a sale!

However most of the farmers who have (or had) land not too far from the big cities (say within 30km) are, with real estate speculation all multimillionaires (at least in land capital)! But they are often fucked by real estate agencies (which make a coef of 1000% on their land ...

I recall the subject on TCS (simplified cultivation technique): https://www.econologie.com/forums/agricultur ... t5923.html

[bham]

your reaction is the opposite of an econological objective which could aim to denounce the use of pesticides as being dangerous for health.

1) ... If an individual achete and renovate a house close to an intensive agriculture field it is his own responsibility but if he buys This is another thing!

Uh, what did you mean Christophe

[...]
but to do so, it would already be necessary to admit that there could be danger. [...] ".

2) I hope you laugh about the danger: can you believe that farmers must wear gas masks to make the dosages?

Well no unfortunately I am not kidding; I believe that the authorities are not sufficiently aware of the danger that pesticides represent since they are found in our food. What I mean :
- is that despite the proven risk (> masks), diseases linked to the inhalation of pesticides affecting farmers are not recognized as such by the health authorities,
- is that if the authorities agreed to recognize the dangerous nature of pesticides, they would be purely and simply prohibited and not simply tolerated according to Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs).

[Christophe]

Uh, what did you mean Christophe

Oops I meant: NEW accommodation I have rectified!

Well no unfortunately I am not kidding; I believe that the authorities are not sufficiently aware of the danger that pesticides represent since they are found in our food.

We agree: pesticides are taboo just like the dead from air pollution !!

17 a year in France just for pollution of transport ... so we devastate and spend MILLIONS on communication on the far fewer deaths of road safety and NOTHING NOTHING on those of pollution!

But do you know why it's like that? It is a very simple calculation but very politically shameful!

a) One death from pollution indirectly relates to the community.
b) A traffic death costs the community!
c) It just so happens that the problem of dead traffic is more important to the community than that of pollution!

When the death of pollution costs more than it brings in, then the polites will change!

Concrete example with tobacco: It is precisely from the moment when the sick and dead of tobacco cost more than what the taxes reported that the governments launched real anti tobacco cabals!

How and suddenly did it cost more? Because of the improvement in cancer treatment techniques ... and therefore the survival of patients and therefore the length of treatment. I bet a current cancer patient costs society 10 times more than a patient 20 years ago!

The state does not care enough about your cancer, however it does not care about what you can bring it.

These figures are well kept but all the ministers of economy and health have known for 20 years ...

To come back to pesticides I think there are 2 things to distinguish:
a) air pollution by fertilizers and pesticides
b) pollution of fruits and vegetables (but that's about to change)

For the air, here is a subject with a document for Normandy: https://www.econologie.com/forums/site-sur-l ... t6168.html

It proves that they "know" ...

[bham]

what interests them is not the 100 or 150 ares of the allotment of 10 houses that have settled but rather the hectares in one piece easy to cultivate.

Are you sure? What is it? To live above all, right? However, the value of their land, which can be built, can bring them 10 years of salary in a sale!

Well in my example, I was talking about small plots bought by the municipality from different owners and transformed into housing estates. And for agricultural land to be buildable, it has to be made viable, or even requires the agreement of the agricultural authorities (no longer remember the name, M ...), which does not cost two rounds.
Well there I have to go. @ +

[Christophe]

which doesn't cost two rounds.

Purchased by the municipality, of course, but built, therefore operated, by whom? Surely not the town .... So you want us to complain about the real estate agencies and promoter maybe ????

What is land servicing? In most of the time it is administrative and, in the worst case, a few truckloads of backfill (and more ...)!

Alors the "agricultural" hectare purchased € 10 in peri-urban areas and sold "building" 10 € per are, the calculation of the margin for intermediaries is quickly done ...

I am wrong?

[bham]

which doesn't cost two rounds.

Purchased by the municipality, of course, but built, therefore operated, by whom? Surely not the town .... So you want us to complain about the real estate agencies and promoter maybe ????

What is land servicing? In most of the time it is administrative and, in the worst case, a few truckloads of backfill (and more ...)!

It is a little more than that anyway since it is necessary to plan and have rainwater / wastewater pipes made, to make the drinking water network, to provide EDF / Telecom connections and that is not given, I can guarantee you. Also in my municipal case, it is the municipality which was the prime contractor, so it designed the subdivision from A to Z with the help of an architect of course and then resold the building plots at a price cost (i.e. land acquisition price + cost of servicing works). In other municipalities, the plots can be sold with profit for the municipality. Regarding the construction of houses, real estate developers are obviously doing well and it is obvious that I will not complain, I have never said that.

Alors the "agricultural" hectare purchased € 10 in peri-urban areas and sold "building" 10 € per are, the calculation of the margin for intermediaries is quickly done ...
I am wrong?

Probably not but you deviate a little from what I meant:
"what interests them, it is not the 100 or 150 ares of the subdivision of 10 houses which is installed but rather the hectares in one piece easy to cultivate. " I should have clarified, to answer nono, that what interests farmers is not to not be able to acquire the 100 or 150 ares of the lotis ........ which will thus leave the agricultural field. I wanted to show nono that it is not a hundred less acres in a municipality that will change the situation on the cultivable area.
To return to your vision of things, nothing to add except that we are in a capitalist system, in which the one who kisses the best the others is always the big winner. Concerning agricultural land, SAFER (I found the name ) has a right of first refusal and can oppose the sale of agricultural land as building land http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_pr%C3%A9emption § 3.3
"The right of pre-emption of the SAFER"

[bham]

a) One death from pollution indirectly relates to the community.
b) A traffic death costs the community!
c) It just so happens that the problem of dead traffic is more important to the community than that of pollution!

... How and suddenly it cost more suddenly ?? Because of the improvement in cancer treatment techniques ... and therefore the survival of patients and therefore the length of treatment. I bet a current cancer patient costs society 10 times more than a patient 20 years ago!...

My dermatologist told me this week that there were three times more deaths / year from melanoma than road deaths.: Shock:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9lanome

[Christophe]

1) Ah yes, well seen the different road connections ... I hadn't thought of it Finally there is still (with us in the countryside) a house with skeptical pits! There remains electricity and telephone.

And that for a housing estate it should not be so expensive (reported for each piece of land I would say a few thousand euros, finally it is on a case-by-case basis) and above all: these are NOT works at the expense of the contractor but of EdF and others who get new customers! Edf should pay the real estate developers!

2) Erm melanoma can have an air or water pollution origin? Because from what I read is the degradation of a point of beauty because of the sun.

So that does not fit too much into the debate on the dead of pollution even if it proves that we talk much more about some dead than others ...