We visited my parents this past weekend, and my father gave me his collection of Organic Gardening magazine from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I'm having an absolute ball reading through some of the older ones. The very oldest ones are actually addressed to my grandmother, who died when I was 10. It's a real trip into the past, yet the methods are basically unchanged. I'll post useful/ interesting tidbits as I find them. I've just finished reading an article in which Robert Rodale talked about the cooking contest he was having at the time--- with his mother! He includes her recipe for raisin-apple pie without wheat or sugar.
Of course, there was also much excitement that the acceptable levels of DDT on produce might be lowered from 7 ppm to 3.5 ppm!
[/I]
Wow! That's a wonderful collection you have there.
Organic Gardening magazine hasn't been the same for several years. It seems to have gotten into the chi-chi business rather than dirt-on-the-hands business and lost much of its true soul.
Yeah, it DID take quite a while for the facts about DDT to trickle up through the layers of lobbyists, special interests, nay-sayers, etc. But the imminent loss of our national bird finally got someone's attention, and the nasty stuff was banned.
Read Kitchen Literacy by Anne Vileisis for a hair-raising account of chemicals used on produce in this country in the early 20th century, before World War II and some even before WWI.
Our country's agriculture was far from "organic" even then. (Which is part of why the Dust Bowl happened in the '30s.)
Cynthia H.
USDA Zone 9, Sunset Zone 17
who would LOVE her own collection of Organic Gardening magazine--anybody got 'em???
Organic Gardening magazine hasn't been the same for several years. It seems to have gotten into the chi-chi business rather than dirt-on-the-hands business and lost much of its true soul.
Yeah, it DID take quite a while for the facts about DDT to trickle up through the layers of lobbyists, special interests, nay-sayers, etc. But the imminent loss of our national bird finally got someone's attention, and the nasty stuff was banned.
Read Kitchen Literacy by Anne Vileisis for a hair-raising account of chemicals used on produce in this country in the early 20th century, before World War II and some even before WWI.
Our country's agriculture was far from "organic" even then. (Which is part of why the Dust Bowl happened in the '30s.)Cynthia H.
USDA Zone 9, Sunset Zone 17
who would LOVE her own collection of Organic Gardening magazine--anybody got 'em???
Gee, you make me want to go up in the attic and find my old issues of OG. Haven't looked at them in years.
Someone mentioned a cooking contest. Many years ago, at least 25, I entered a recipe in the Organic Gardening recipe contest and won a set of cookware and a bunch of Rodale cookbooks autographed by the authors.
Someone mentioned a cooking contest. Many years ago, at least 25, I entered a recipe in the Organic Gardening recipe contest and won a set of cookware and a bunch of Rodale cookbooks autographed by the authors.
-
hendi_alex
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:58 am
- Location: Central Sand Hills South Carolina
"Re the acceptable levels of DDT, makes me wonder at the credibility of the claims of acceptable levels of [insert your favorite chemical] are."
Yes, the whole concept of acceptable levels of exposure is troubling. Dental exrays are considered harmless by most dentists and patients. The fact of the matter is than ANY increase in cumulative radiation exposure will cause a statistical increase in the numbers of radiation related illnesses or deaths. If you are a loved one happens to be the one that dies due to that little bit of extra radiation, then the statistics or the "acceptable level" are pretty meaningless. The same concept holds true to cumulative exposure levels to toxic chemicals IMO. Any additional exposure results in an increase of health issues related to such exposure.
The concept of acceptable levels of exposure, to me, only become relevant when the use of the chemical or technology decreases the OVERALL number of health concerns or deaths. At least in that case, one could say that the average person is better off when such is used. But then one also needs to go beyond the human population and see the effect on the overall biotic community. Those effects need to be assessed as well. That is quite a daunting process, especially given that on so many levels we remain much like toddles using mass weapons and in a situation where we really only barely understand the weapons, and understand the complex interactions in nature even less. To me, that is one of the major problems of our modern society. We so often accept science as a demigod and consequently have a blind acceptance that "science" knows so much more than is actually the case.
Yes, the whole concept of acceptable levels of exposure is troubling. Dental exrays are considered harmless by most dentists and patients. The fact of the matter is than ANY increase in cumulative radiation exposure will cause a statistical increase in the numbers of radiation related illnesses or deaths. If you are a loved one happens to be the one that dies due to that little bit of extra radiation, then the statistics or the "acceptable level" are pretty meaningless. The same concept holds true to cumulative exposure levels to toxic chemicals IMO. Any additional exposure results in an increase of health issues related to such exposure.
The concept of acceptable levels of exposure, to me, only become relevant when the use of the chemical or technology decreases the OVERALL number of health concerns or deaths. At least in that case, one could say that the average person is better off when such is used. But then one also needs to go beyond the human population and see the effect on the overall biotic community. Those effects need to be assessed as well. That is quite a daunting process, especially given that on so many levels we remain much like toddles using mass weapons and in a situation where we really only barely understand the weapons, and understand the complex interactions in nature even less. To me, that is one of the major problems of our modern society. We so often accept science as a demigod and consequently have a blind acceptance that "science" knows so much more than is actually the case.
-
GeorgiaGirl
- Senior Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: Metro Atlanta, GA (zone 7)