Blow against bio-dynamics

[Janic]

Hello

I didn't invent anything

The active substances are generally organic molecules which are degraded in the soil by physico-chemical and biological processes. So, a soil rich in organic matter and biologically active will eliminate more easily and naturally residues of phytos products

You are not directly implicated, unless you are part, or support by your speech, of these chemists "kings" dominating the world with their deadly products.
Now if the first part is correct, the last part plugs everything on the ground
Of course nature has an extraordinary power to compensate for our mistakes and pretensions to do better than it; but the observation of it shows that these restorative forces suddenly cease their effects and are replaced by destructive forces called diseases by us humans (the characteristic form being cancer) and that any farmer, forester, doctor will have noticed.
Having pushed the plug a little far out of pride and commercialism, there is a progressive realization that it cannot last long like that and we have therefore seen the proponents of organic farming, and then reasoned farming, appear; as we note the same awareness in medicine with an increased distrust of the negative effects of chemical drugs, vaccines with toxic chemical adjuvants, and therefore with a favorable outlook towards other so-called alternative medicines. biologically active !)
Now the current system has voluntarily, or out of necessity, separated knowledge by assigning it a major role, each in their own field, regardless of other knowledge, thus forgetting that life is a whole, not independent parts of each other (the thermodynamics of sen no sen)

Where are we between restorative and destructive forces, concerning us?
Unfortunately, some believe that the changeover has already begun, or even more, and it is not our apprentice chemical sorcerers who will be able to restore balance.
Gordon Ratray Taylor, a kind of pre-ecological visionary, had a disastrous, apocalyptic vision of the future, he had thought of the damage that this destructive flight would produce before and had therefore estimated low and high forecasts of this future. However, all the high forecasts have been largely exceeded, aggravating this global vision where everything is linked to everything. However, he said, even if all the governments of all the countries devoted all of their wealth to trying to repair this damage, that would not even be enough and we are right in the middle with the miserable, derisory means, put in work and prevented as much as possible by those who derive ever greater profits from this business of destruction and therefore death.

[izentrop]

Of course nature has an extraordinary power to compensate for our mistakes and pretensions to do better than it; but the observation of it shows that these restorative forces suddenly cease their effects and are replaced by destructive forces called diseases by us humans (the characteristic form being cancer) and that any farmer, forester, doctor will have noticed.

You are the champion of the number of fallacies per sentence.

[Janic]

You are the champion of the number of fallacies per sentence.

you use me as a model and I am far from reaching your level! But, oh master, you have the opportunity to show and demonstrate where this or that supposed fallacy would be.

[gek]

Synthetic molecules are either synthetic or organic, not both.
This confusion serves the interests of petrochemicals exclusively because all chemicals disorganize organic products, but it is not the concern of agrochemicals, only the quantitative results are taken into account.
For comparison, it's like considering that an obese whose weight is high can be compared to a weightlifter of the same weight.

Dear Janic,

It just doesn't make any sense what you're talking about. Sorry but as a chemist I can't let this go. In my opinion you are confusing with the Anglo-Saxon or organic world also means organic. In French, organic just means that it essentially contains carbon and hydrogen. A synthetic molecule can very well be organic, most of it is because it is very complicated to synthesize inorganic molecules, bad chemists do not know very well how to do that. Everything around you is chemical whether synthetic or not. Even the cow dung energized in a bull's horn at the waning moon is full of chemicals ...

[Janic]

so dear Gek hello

Dear Janic,
It just doesn't make sense what you're talking about. Sorry but as a chemist I can't let this go. In my opinion you are confusing with the Anglo-Saxon or organic world also means organic.

You're right when you talk about confusion, but I'm not talking about organic, but the difference between a product chemically reconstituted by synthesis and which, chemically, looks like the same product but devoid of complex vital properties.
For comparison it is like identifying a robot with arms, legs, head, etc ... and which gives the'appearance to be of the living type, which any biologist, mechanic, cannot recognize as such, despite the fact that this robot can perform many acts that are specific to us. (like synthetic chemicals for that matter!)
Until this distinction is made, the confusion will persist and therefore the following

In French, organic just means that it essentially contains carbon and hydrogen. A synthetic molecule can very well be organic, most of it is because it is very complicated to synthesize inorganic molecules, bad chemists do not know very well how to do that.

There are no good or bad chemists, no more than there are good or bad humans. Each follows the path they have chosen and therefore works in this direction. What I have done in my profession too which has put a lot of guys out of work! But there is no criterion of truth favorable to life there.

Everything around you is chemical whether synthetic or not.

This is where the difference is made between the supporters and the opponents of this discourse. Pure chemistry does not exist in the natural environment (discourse of evolution which has taken billions of years to balance, which chemistry believes can do in a few years, but beware of imitations!)

Even the cow dung energized in a bull's horn at the waning moon is full of chemicals ...

No ! It has a chemical composition if we reduce a product to its various components.
A car engine is full of chemicals from which its parts are drawn, but even by describing by the menu each molecule which compose them, it does not make them functional parts which must go through many complex processes before arriving at a functional product (and yet it will not work for all that alone!) because to be functional is not to be part of the living so far and it is this particular point which is essential.

[dede2002]

Finally, all synthetic petroleum products are organic, since they are made with hydrocarbons ...

I didn't invent anything

The active substances are generally organic molecules
which are degraded in the soil by physico-chemical processes and
organic. So, a soil rich in organic matter and biologically
active will more easily and naturally remove
residues of phytos products. http://uipp.org/content/download/1497/1 ... 281%29.pdf

The title is evocative: Union of the Plant Protection Industry ...

To protect plants from industry influences?

ps: so you need a living soil to be able to eliminate the products that kill it ...

[gek]

Janic,

I understand better now, your thing is vitalism, there must be a kind of divine breath for a molecule to become "alive" and functional.

If we take the example of a car. It consumes gasoline, during the combustion of this gasoline will essentially release water H2O and carbon dioxide CO2. IF I am your talk, the water from the combustion "chemically resembles" the water flowing in the stream below my house, but it is not so "alive".
That's right?
And if this is the case, then this released water molecule which will follow the classic water cycle and mix with other water molecules, say from a river, will one day become "alive" or will remain does it eternally synthetic water? What does it take to be assigned these complex vital properties you speak of? How do you define a living system?

[dede2002]

And the water molecule that comes out of our lungs, also brand new, from the oxidation of carbohydrates ...?

A molecule cannot be alive, on the other hand in the ground there are billions of assemblies of molecules which are alive!

ps: hydrogen from petroleum has passed through living beings, even if they have been dead for a long time.

[dede2002]

... this released water molecule which will follow the classic water cycle and mix with other water molecules, say from a river, can one day become "alive" or will it remain there forever. synthetic water? What does it take to be assigned these complex vital properties you speak of? How do you define a living system?

It seems that science is currently unable to date a molecule of water, yet there may be some very old and certainly new ones every day.

When it comes to defining life, we are still far from it, amha ....

[Janic]

Janic,
I understand better now, your thing is vitalism, there must be a kind of divine breath for a molecule to become "alive" and functional.

Absolutely not, one should not pour into a pseudo metaphysical discourse. I am a rationalist!

If we take the example of a car. It consumes gasoline, during the combustion of this gasoline will essentially release water H2O and carbon dioxide CO2. IF I am your talk, the water from the combustion "chemically resembles" the water flowing in the stream below my house, but it is not so "alive".
That's right?

Yes and no ! Combustion will produce H2O only which chemically is called water.
But if you collect this water and consume it every day instead of your usual water, your health will decline because a living organism does not tolerate pure products, but the spring water will take care of mineral supplements, bacteria, etc ... which will make it "assimilable" in quotes because we are not plants. But you can try for real for a few months and keep us informed of the results!

And if this is the case, then this released water molecule which will follow the classic water cycle and mix with other water molecules, say from a river, will one day become "alive" or will remain does it eternally synthetic water? What does it take to be assigned these complex vital properties you speak of? How do you define a living system?

See above ! If you dilute your pastis with water, the pastis will decrease, decrease to the number of Avogadro (for mol fans), but it will never turn into water, it will keep its specificity whatever its dilution or mixture. At most, this homeopathic dilution will hardly manifest itself any more in terms of "toxicity", not chemical, but with regard to the living.

How do you define a living system?

Very clever whoever can answer it! All the lab attempts to reconstitute the initial particle of life on earth have failed.
On the other hand, we know better and better what maintains or degrades this living being. Example beri beri for lack of life. B due to the blanching of the rice, the lack of vit C in the case of scurvy, the defect in magnesium causing unreasonable fears or that in manganese which makes lose the maternal sense, etc… It is the whole of the combined elements which will from food macros to trace elements that keep this "living" in good working order and it is infinitely more complex than an automobile engine and its fuel.
However, despite all the extraordinary discoveries and advances in chemistry, biology or technique, we are and will always remain only amateur handymen and worse mad scientists for some.