4 ms·

But the EPA says it'll cause kidney damage in the water table, which is what I specifically said. The WHO specifies that contamination with cadmium causes osteo

But the EPA says it'll cause kidney damage in the water table, which is what I specifically said. The WHO specifies that contamination with cadmium causes osteomalacia with various grades of osteoporosis accompanied by severe renal tubular disease. I also mentioned lead, which you've glossed right over. I said nothing about tattoo ink. Your example underscores my point. Why should I trust you when you whip out an unrelated example to try and ad hominem your way to all-chemical farming, in the service of the idea 'organic farming will kill us all'? How exactly does your example of 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' make the larger concern irrelevant? From where I'm sitting (admittedly, it's Vermont, where we like organic farming a lot) you represent a prevalent class of agriculture arguers, who are insisting on full-tilt-bozo unnatural farming to the Nth degree, claiming it is the only thing that can save the world. And yet, the arguments are as manipulative as 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' when it's NOT considered harmless in the water table, and you may have known that full well. Your example suggests (does not prove) my underlying concern: individual chemical compounds may well be trusted, but I do not trust the people selling them. It's far too profitable to be dishonest about this, and that's not going to get any better (indeed, as this way of farming wrecks the environment, it will get even more profitable to lie and mislead about it)

XorNot 10y ago
You continue to reference chemistry inaccurately: cadmium in tattoo-ink is also harmless in the water-table, generally, because its complexed into a non-bioavailable state which is why it works in ink and paints safely. Conversely free cadmium in any form is a toxic heavy metal. No one is farming with cadmium-based fertilizer, so I don't know what the point of your first 4 paragraphs is? You tossed out an example intended to say "chemicals are bad". The topic under discussion was "what chemicals are you opposed to" - because "chemical" is a meaningless and unhelpful term to make public policy on. Perhaps then, it is important to speak accurately about chemical compounds when trying to decide how to regulate their usage, and a blanket declaration of "but it's natural!" is actually very unhelpful. Salt is natural, but that doesn't mean a farmer dumping it into a fresh-water river in bulk isn't going to kill it.
- Applejinx 10y ago
  Yeah, we're not communicating well: I'm sorry. I'm making an effort. I don't remember anywhere suggesting that _I_ was talking about tattoo ink. Context suggests that I meant the toxic heavy metal… and while I obviously am not petrified with fear of cadmium if I keep Cadmium Yellow around, I don't propose to lick it even if your context suggests it's effectively as harmless as Burnt Sienna (iron oxide-based). And this is the point: 'organic' farming doesn't typically consist of salting one's fields, but ultra-modern high efficiency farming is based on extremely complicated chemistry and people not in the industry cannot hope to even guess at what's being done out there. Non-farmers probably don't know what crop rotation is either (an anachronism in synthetic farming) but ultra-modern farming has a nasty way of dumping LOTS of very strange chemistry into people's diets. Trust is the issue, not 'referencing chemistry accurately' because it's not my job as a food-eater to analyze chemical compounds and reference chemistry appropriately. Try to look at the organic farming movement as a trust issue: a vote of no confidence in current and future inventions for increasing crop efficiency. In that light, 'water is a chemical' is not an effective counter, and pouncing on cadmium in the water table (known for kidney damage) and talking of tattoo ink which is cadmium sulfide, cadmium sulfoselenide or zinc cadmium sulfide, is more behavior that tends to erode trust.
  - geon 10y ago
    See, this is great! Im learning stuff now.

XorNot 10y ago

You continue to reference chemistry inaccurately: cadmium in tattoo-ink is also harmless in the water-table, generally, because its complexed into a non-bioavailable state which is why it works in ink and paints safely. Conversely free cadmium in any form is a toxic heavy metal. No one is farming with cadmium-based fertilizer, so I don't know what the point of your first 4 paragraphs is? You tossed out an example intended to say "chemicals are bad". The topic under discussion was "what chemicals are you opposed to" - because "chemical" is a meaningless and unhelpful term to make public policy on. Perhaps then, it is important to speak accurately about chemical compounds when trying to decide how to regulate their usage, and a blanket declaration of "but it's natural!" is actually very unhelpful. Salt is natural, but that doesn't mean a farmer dumping it into a fresh-water river in bulk isn't going to kill it.

Applejinx 10y ago
Yeah, we're not communicating well: I'm sorry. I'm making an effort. I don't remember anywhere suggesting that _I_ was talking about tattoo ink. Context suggests that I meant the toxic heavy metal… and while I obviously am not petrified with fear of cadmium if I keep Cadmium Yellow around, I don't propose to lick it even if your context suggests it's effectively as harmless as Burnt Sienna (iron oxide-based). And this is the point: 'organic' farming doesn't typically consist of salting one's fields, but ultra-modern high efficiency farming is based on extremely complicated chemistry and people not in the industry cannot hope to even guess at what's being done out there. Non-farmers probably don't know what crop rotation is either (an anachronism in synthetic farming) but ultra-modern farming has a nasty way of dumping LOTS of very strange chemistry into people's diets. Trust is the issue, not 'referencing chemistry accurately' because it's not my job as a food-eater to analyze chemical compounds and reference chemistry appropriately. Try to look at the organic farming movement as a trust issue: a vote of no confidence in current and future inventions for increasing crop efficiency. In that light, 'water is a chemical' is not an effective counter, and pouncing on cadmium in the water table (known for kidney damage) and talking of tattoo ink which is cadmium sulfide, cadmium sulfoselenide or zinc cadmium sulfide, is more behavior that tends to erode trust.
- geon 10y ago
  See, this is great! Im learning stuff now.