Grimbel said:

What about pesticides and herbicides and how they accumulate in the environment and the human body? As to my knowledge most of them are not bio degradable. This is what concerns me the most about industrial agriculture and the prominent reason why I try to eat organic vegetables and fruits. Only because a study turns up which tells me that organic food contains the same amount of minerals and vitamins as conventionally grown food I won’t stop worrying about such issues.

As far as human health impacts, they’re all very tightly tested for that and most do not bioacumulate in any way – that is assuming there is even anything left in the food after it has been rained on, washed and cooked.

In the enviornment, it varies quite a lot. DDT, which is no longer in general use has an enviornmental half-life of as little as a couple of weeks in fast flowing water to about a month in biologically active soil all the way to years in dry, inactive soil – but that would be rare in most farming applications. That would be fairly typical for organochloride insectacides. Organophosphates may be about the same or may last longer but that would depend a lot on moisture and factors like that.

Pyrethroids tend to be faster to decompose, with some exceptions.

Copper sulfate, a common product used in organic agriculture lasts… damn near forever. It really does not decompose.

Most Persistent organic* pesticides (those that do not break down quickly) were banned or severely restricted by the stockhome convention

*organic by the real definition – the chemical one.

        drbuzz0 said:

Even today, the Russian aerospace industry is having a lot of trouble breaking into the world commercial airline sector, even though they make several airliners comparable in size and capacity to Boeing or Airbus products.

That’s because historically, very few Russian airliners were sold outside the Soviet empire (even China bought mostly Western machines). This means that Russian aircraft manufacturers don’t have the worldwide after-sales support networks that Boeing and Airbus have.

        George Carty said:

The real disadvantage of Soviet airliners compared to Western ones was not safety, but poor fuel economy due to inferior engines. For example, the Ilyushin Il-86 was the only wide-body jet in the world to use low-bypass turbofan engines, as the Soviets didn’t have any high-bypass designs at the time.

Indeed, the safety record of the Soviet Union’s airlines was not all that bad. It wasn’t nearly as good as the US or Western Europe, but by the 1970’s to the fall of the USSR, it was fairly safe to travel by air.

Still, Zepman’s point stands in so far as the general quality of production and design. They were gas guzzlers, loud, uncomfortable, prone to mechanical problems etc. Even today, the Russian aerospace industry is having a lot of trouble breaking into the world commercial airline sector, even though they make several airliners comparable in size and capacity to Boeing or Airbus products.

They did make some pretty awesoms spacecraft and military aircraft, but that was because they had to.

Look at the Soviet Union. compare the safety record of a Soviet airliner to one made by Boeing or McDonald Douglas

I think that could be put down to shoddy maintenance, and general primitive conditions in the Soviet Union. Many Soviet airports had mere dirt strips rather than hard-surface runways — that’s why Soviet jetliners typically had huge low-pressure tires — and some parts of the country had few electronic navigation aids, which is why some older Soviet transports had glass noses similar to those on WWII bombers (for visual navigation).

The real disadvantage of Soviet airliners compared to Western ones was not safety, but poor fuel economy due to inferior engines. For example, the Ilyushin Il-86 was the only wide-body jet in the world to use low-bypass turbofan engines, as the Soviets didn’t have any high-bypass designs at the time.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025643_food_health_foods.html
http://socyberty.com/activism/10-reasons-to-eat-organic-vegetables/
http://www.myyogaonline.com/healthy_living_209_Top_Ten_Reasons_to_Eat_Organic.html
http://www.thefutureisorganic.net/tenreasons.htm
http://www.articlesbase.com/wellness-articles/seven-reasons-to-eat-organic-foods-797275.html

That is a lot of reasons to eat organic. Organic food is better in every way and plus you can be proud of where your money is going because small land owners can keep their farms and there is more enviornmental justice and good for the earth and the people on it.

        Joseph said:

I have tended to buy organic food because I had been under the impression that it was higher quality in general and that it was fresher and that it was a standard for food that meant it was just better with higher quality ingredients and did not use anything artificial that could be in any way harmful. I know that some foods have things like hydrognated oil that is bad for you and I thought organic food never had anything like that which was processed in a way that was bad for health.

Also I have seen things that some food is treated with radiation that is linked to cancer as being a reason to eat organic.

Please don’t jump on me if I’m wrong about this. I don’t know a lot about this area. I am not a scientist or a farmer or anything like that. I just based this on what everyone seemed to be saying.

If I’m wrong then I’m wrong, but I really just don’t know.

I’m not an expert but this seemed to be what I’ve heard and what organic food is supposed to be all about.

Maybe I do need to take another look.

I just don’t know much in this area and only what I see around. I just want to eat healthy in general, and I follow what seems to be the most common advice.

You don’t need to be ashamed. The belief that organic labeled foods are somehow just better or higher quality is based on a coordinated and well funded PR campaign that has been going on for years. You are already ahead of many by virtue of your willingness to reexamine this belief based on the info.

It is not that people are all stupid. Not everyone has a scientific background or an in depth knowledge of this subject and most people are too busy to go around fact checking all the things they hear. The industry knows this and exploits it to their own advantage. This is why it is important to work to counter their claims with rational arguments.

I don’t have a problem with people eating the organic labeled stuff. It’s not bad for you or anything, but it’s just the same stuff as everything else except overpriced.

I think Chuck should come to realize something. These days the Royals are not much practical use for the country (or the others of the Commonwealth) other than for tabloids. As this is becoming more and more obvious one wonders how much longer they will continue to have official state support. In light of this, I advise him to stop making trouble. If the Prince doesn’t stop this foolishness it is not going to help things.

        drbuzz0 said:

Maybe I should bite my lip, not being British, but as far as the Prince goes, I consider his support of things like organic food to be a lesser problem than his support of homeopathic, which is really just… I don’t even know.

He has injected his opinions, on more than one occasion, into the debate of whether medical coverage in the UK should include homeopathic products and procedures.

I don’t know what to make of that. I mean, providing health care in general is expensive as hell, before you add in the expense of paying for medicine that isn’t even real and doesn’t work.

It also gives false legitimacy to homeopaths, and gives the people who support it an argument to authority.

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/homeopathic-logic/#more-3323

As witnessed here. If Prince Charles believes it, it MUST be true!