Subject: Plant toxins

From: "Steve Diver" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:33:07 +0000

I lifted a thread from Dan Hemenway's post and changed the subject 
line to Plant Toxins.  I think the other thread on congressional testimony 
and cancer will result in a lot of verbosity.  Why not turn this 
discussion into something useful to permaculture? 

Steve Diver

Dan Hemenway wrote: 
> As for Nature, when I was in high school, I was taught:  Nature abhors a
> vacuum.  I've since concluded that this is merely a subset of a general law:
>  Nature abhors purity.  Yes something in a flowering plant can be worse for
> you than something from a pesticide factory, but, lacking objective data, the
> plant is the way to bet for you and your families health.
> 
> Maybe a useful outcome of this discussion, if there is to be one, would be to
> list known species (e.g. poke weed) and conditions (e.g. granite bedrock) that
> create significant carcinogens.  I think we can readily get lists of known
> plant and animal toxins and that this would be an excercise in reguritation
> not worth the electrons.  A bibliography on plant toxins would be more
> useful.
> 
> As always, I am here to collect and report the list.  As always, I expect
> that I will get zero responses.  Surprise me.  Permaculture is nothing if not
> participatory.
> 
> For Mother Earth, Dan Hemenway, Yankee Permaculture Publications (since
> 1982), Elfin Permaculture workshops, lectures, Permaculture Design Courses,
> consulting and permaculture designs (since 1981), and now correspondence
> courses via email.  One is now underway.  Next Live program:  Paraguay, 8/98.
> Internships available. Copyright, 1997, Dan & Cynthia Hemenway, P.O. Box 52,
> Sparr FL 32192 USA  [email-masked]  
> 
> We don't have time to rush.

--
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:08:10 -0500 (EST)

>discussion into something useful to permaculture? 

Well,Steve:

This is one of those rare times when I must disagree with you.  

1)  First, you seem to have misread my post.  Plant toxins was what I
recommended we skip as having been done to death, with exhaustive (and
exhausting) lists littering the landscape already.

2)  My interest is in plant carcinogens.  This is a topic that is, indeed,
swept under the rug by the more fervant of organic proponents.  A carcinogen
may or may not be also toxic.

3)  What is and is not valid about Congressional testimony is directly
pertinent to this list, of course.  The journalist in me notices that your
own organication, ATTRA, a fine service, gets its funding from Congress, or
did by my latest understanding.  I'd wish to be corrected if I am in error on
this.  While governments are not constituted to solve problems, their
thrashing about certainly creates them, and if we blind ourselves to the
problems created, we certainly are impotent at solving them.  Rose colored
glasses are just another way to brain dead.  The distortions inherent in
Congressional testimony certainly need to be understood by everyone who
refers to that testimony, and indeed sometimes there is a bit of wheat with
the chaff.

Obviously, you are free to start a thread on anything.  However, in my view,
anything more than a bibliography on the well documented and widely known
subject of plant toxins is way more a waste of time than considering
Congressional testimony on a subject that is very, very confused at the
moment.  If nothing else, we can determine what governmental axes are being
ground by this particular hearing, and better understand how to deal with a
group that is in fundamental opposition to the decentralism and self-reliance
that permeates permaculture.

---

From: "Steve Diver" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:42:32 +0000

Dan, 

I don't think I read your original post correctly.  The part 
about the bibliography and what is useful didn't register clearly.  

I wonder, can you provide an example of  the plant toxins 
you are thinking about?   I suppose you mean plant toxins 
harmful to people; i.e., strychnine.  

The other toxins that come to mind are plant-based pest controls 
which I suppose could be an appropriate topic for the list, although
perhaps on another day. 
  
In regards to plant carcinogens, I know that Dr. Bruce Ames the 
toxicology scientist (who, by the way, does not believe pesticides 
present that much danger) identified black pepper as a natural
carcinogen. 

Well, I never did like to hear that because I like pepper and use it 
on my food liberally,,,,,but I rarely use salt.  Strangely, my brother 
on the other hand, uses salt like crazy and won't touch pepper.  
Then again, he won't eat cranberries, even at Thanksgiving.  

Steve Diver

--
[email-masked]