Permaculture Blog

So a recent post on x stated that glyphosate broke down very quickly in the environment and when I said give me some data he claimed between 7 and 60 days. And provided the following link.

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72651

Pesticide breakdown times are given in half lives. So when somebody tells you it will be gone and then gives you the half-life time they are either deliberately misleading you or very very foolish. The half-life is the time it takes half the material to degrade. There is still a significant amount of the material left.

It doesn’t matter how much you spray, half will be gone in the half life time. One way of thinking about this is that if you spray one acre half of that will be gone in let’s say 7 days. But if you spray 4 acres the increase in amount doesn’t matter each of those four acres acts the same and for each of them half will be gone in 7 days. It’s just that four times more degrades in that time because you applied four times as much.

I think we all can agree that a half life time for glyphosate of only 7 days is laughable. This would mean that in six half lives (0.5 * 0.5 [6 times] = .016) 98.4% would be gone. And six times seven is 42 days

So _if_ the half life for glyphosate is 7 days then 98.4% of all glyphosate used is gone 42 days (a month and a half) after it’s use. This is not even remotely possible given current scientific data on environmental levels.

So then let’s go with the other extreme — 60 days. In 2 months * 6 (a year) 98% would be gone. One year! This is far closer but not really reasonable either. It would not allow the significant buildup in the environment that we see today.

The pesticide companies flat out lie to you. It is untenable that all the glyphosate that’s used, 98% is gone in a year. There would be no buildup in our environment. There would be no toxic levels in groundwater, in soils, the ocean, and our own bodies. It’s not mathematically or scientifically reasonable. And I don’t think anybody really thinks that 2 months for half of it to go away is “quick.”

This guy’s own article (linked above) that he provided to “prove” his point that it breaks down quickly states that:

“So it may quickly wash out of sandy soils or last for more than a year in soils with a high clay content. Even when bound to soil particles, it may dissolve back into soil water later on, for example, in the presence of phosphates.”

“Or last for more than a year” in certain soils. Now we’re starting to get somewhere. Because of glyphosates chemical structure, it can migrate on and off any clay in the soil and this makes much more sense scientifically.

This is all the same story as DDT and Carbaryl propaganda, where the pesticide companies and their paid salesman (I will not dignify them by calling them scientists) published (OK, advertised) that DDT would break down in as little as 14 days. Really! They did!😄 But we now know that the half-life for DDT is far, far longer than that. The current estimate for the half-life of DDT in soil is between 2 and 30 years!

And again, 30 years is just a half life, so only half of it is gone in the worst case scenario of 30 years.

But it may be this worst case scenario as it is still all over our ocean floors and continues to poison our Marine biology here in California.

Our environmental groups have fallen flat on their face. We cannot get our politicians to be responsible. We cannot get our legal system to be responsible. We must create safe zones for ourselves, our children, and our native animals.

https://www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/why-i-started-this/

There is some suggestions/ideas that the timber industry is, not just trying, but has put GMO trees into our national wildlife/wilderness areas. (Sequoia) Just like the pesticide industry the forestry industry is hiding some of their “advancements😀” that they have made with GMOs. What those actual GMO changes are could have impacts on species diversity, environmental systems, and ultimately climate change in our wilderness areas even beyond pesticide use.

OTNP October 2024

Good morning!🦋🕷️🦨🐝 What a beautiful animal above. I hope you are all extremely well.  I believe that we really can change some of the damage we are doing to endangered species.  Not by crying and moaning that “someone should pass a law.”  Everyone can help, by asking environmental groups to start publishing pesticide use in our “natural” areas. Data and actual facts make a difference.  Click the petition link immediately below. Change org will ask you for some money but you do not have to pay or give anything.

https://chng.it/9Dj4vKwbK5

In reality I can’t understand why anybody here would not be at least willing to click and look at the petition asking our environmental organizations to provide basic information on what our parks are spraying.

Think about this: there is not a single square foot in our national parks and wilderness areas that cannot be sprayed with the latest greatest concoction from a pesticide company. I just do not think that should be the case.  Please click and look.

It is hard to put fresh current news in these newsletters because I don’t want to overload people and so I limit my posts to once a month, but wow! a very good client and a good friend sent me this.
Oh my government has funded an attack on “me” 😀
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/government-funded-social-network-attacking-pesticide-critics?utm_term=66f6893ba5741232ad43f508d54f70ee&utm_campaign=USMorningBriefing&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=usbriefing_email#img-1

Wow. Just wow. And people think that the FBI’s persecution of past “conscientious objectors” (I use that term lightly which is why it’s in quotes) doesn’t happen anymore. Just Wow.

I was recently describing to a friend how I feel that even environmentalists were being led down the path by the chemical companies’ PR departments. And my friend sent me this incredible image that they had created. I think it is the perfect image for rethinking what we (environmentalists) promote doing and spraying in wildlife habitat areas.

I talked about this in much more detail here dirt

A post: (on X by @save_nature_now):
migrating butterflies, birds, bees, wasps, soil, bats, toads, frogs, snakes, chipmunks, owls, beavers, water,

they can’t read or leave their home
End quote

Exactly: save_nature_now gets it! And we are spraying these toxins _inside_ the animals’ homes.

Aquatic organisms literally breathe the chemicals in the water.
The chemicals that our toxic national parks are spraying are washing into the park’s rivers and creeks.

I believe we have a real opportunity to make a difference. Not only for ourselves but for the future. 3easythings

Here is an idea for you thinkers.

The sierra club, audubon, and wwf all either:
Have not investigated and therefore don’t have a clue what pesticides are actually being sprayed _in our national parks_.
So don’t publish them.
Or…

Clearly know what pesticides are being sprayed in our national parks but literally hide it from you by …
not publishing them.

Hiding of information by other environmental groups is the same behavior the sierra club is showing by hiding the environmentally significant, and beneficial information in their past FOIA requests. Information about climate change🤔, pesticides, big oil🤔, and much more that the sierra club got because the information is supposed to be _public_; the sierra club turns around and re-hides this public data. I do not believe that this is a sustainable behavior.

And there are others that are beginning to feel this way as well. https://x.com/charliesaito22/status/1838456553529315558?t=0c1S_mqJ1_4iLK3XdOaIxg&s=19

I’ve said this before, but I need to emphasize it. When a bee, or any of our endangered species, is exposed to pesticides (especially when certain sticky adjuvants have been added and they pick up an even heavier load on their exoskeletons or fur) the animal cannot take a shower to wash the toxins off.

They must groom the toxins off. Bees groom, ladybugs groom, praying mantis groom. I imagine that virtually all animals groom. They all must lick. the. toxins. off. Humans shower it off and still get sick.

Research by the chemical companies only investigating the effects of contact is not adequate for determining overall harm. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve seen industry advertisements stating categorically that xxx won’t harm bees because they don’t ingest it. Whiskey.

Tango.

Foxtrot.

Seriously? And this must be because these company PR departments are so full of actual biologists! 🤔

And these chemical companies’ research scientists ignore the vast data generated by _people studies_ .  These toxins can cause Parkinson’s, neurological defects, cancers, gastrointestinal impacts, and other health issues in us but therefore also in our endangered animals.

I was just able to go to an absolutely fantastic Sierra Club Margarita Chapter sponsored mountain lion talk (Thank you Pam and all the others involved at the Sierra Club meeting) and the speaker was agreeing with me afterwards that the same is true with mountain lions: That when they groom they are going to ingest the toxins they’ve been exposed to.

The speaker said during his talk that something on the order of 90% of mountain lions that had been hit by vehicles had rat poison in their system.
It may not just be rat poison that is making them sick. It could be (is even likely) that other types of pesticides in conjunction with rat poisons have additional toxic effects.

There have even been recent studies with antibiotics. Adding small amounts of glyphosate based herbicide (GBH) dramatically increased the lethality of the antibiotic to microrganisms.

This has major ramifications on soil microbiology, animal gut microbiology (when they lick it off), and water microbiology.  The Sierra Club is participating in the poisoning of these beautiful animals by not actively assisting in reducing pesticides in our wilderness areas.

When people have digestive, stomach issues, or discomfort they are often not as alert, not as capable at their jobs, and often call in sick. People can get medical assistance for these issues; our native animals including mountain lions cannot. Native animals cannot even take a sick day. If they are sick, feeling miserable, and need to cross a highway, they just cannot be as careful as usual at it.  They just may not feel like traveling an extra couple miles to a newly built crossing.

I have recently been contacted by the Pesticide Evaluation Branch of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and I want to express again how much the CDPR has been a help to me in trying to obtain and analyze pesticide use data from our national parks. I believe that we need to think outside the box and even possibly legislate safe zones where no toxins can be sprayed or used.
The best to you all!

For past OTNP (#_OTNP on X) issues.
https://www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/past-ourtoxicnationalparks-posts/

But you may want to start here. www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/why-i-started-this/

If you have received this as a forward and would like to continue receiving it please email me “vidaaquatic@gmail.com”
And if you would like to donate as little as $5 to the cause, you can Zelle it to vidaaquatic@gmail.com. thank you very much. Bob

Someone I know just asked me this excellent question and after exploring I asked an AI and I have to admit that if you’re careful they can be a great resource.

My question:

Thank you for your time! Question what are the main differences between the New York and California laws regulating rodentcides?

And the answer:

Probably sections one and two are the most relevant to most of my readers but I decided to put the whole thing in just for fun 😀

Main Differences Between New York and California Laws Regulating Rodenticides

1. Regulatory Framework

New York and California have distinct regulatory frameworks governing the use of rodenticides, which are substances used to control rodent populations. In New York, the regulation of rodenticides falls under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The NYSDEC enforces regulations that include registration requirements for rodenticides, labeling standards, and restrictions on certain active ingredients.

In contrast, California’s regulatory framework is overseen by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). The CDPR has a more stringent approach to pesticide regulation, including rodenticides. California law requires that all pesticides, including rodenticides, be registered with the state before they can be sold or used. Additionally, California has implemented specific guidelines aimed at reducing risks to non-target wildlife and human health.

2. Active Ingredients Restrictions

Both states have restrictions on certain active ingredients in rodenticides; however, California tends to have more comprehensive bans. For example, California has banned second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) for consumer use due to their high toxicity levels and potential impacts on wildlife. New York also restricts some SGARs but allows limited use under specific conditions.

California’s regulations are often influenced by its unique environmental concerns, particularly regarding endangered species and ecosystems. As a result, the state has enacted stricter measures compared to New York in terms of what types of rodenticides can be used in residential areas.

3. Use Restrictions and Application GuidelinesIn terms of application guidelines, both states require that rodenticides be applied according to label instructions; however, California imposes additional requirements aimed at minimizing exposure risks. For instance, California mandates that certain rodenticide products only be used by licensed pest control operators in sensitive areas such as near schools or parks.

New York also has guidelines for safe application but does not enforce as strict limitations as those found in California. The emphasis in New York is more on proper usage rather than restricting access based on location or user licensing.

4. Public Awareness and Education Programs

California places a strong emphasis on public awareness regarding the dangers associated with improper use of rodenticides. The CDPR runs educational campaigns aimed at informing residents about safer alternatives and best practices for pest management.

While New York also promotes public education about pest control methods through various outreach programs conducted by the NYSDEC, it does not have as extensive a focus specifically targeting rodenticide safety compared to California’s initiatives.

5. Enforcement Mechanisms

Enforcement mechanisms differ between the two states as well. In California, violations related to pesticide use can lead to significant penalties including fines and license suspensions for pest control operators who do not comply with regulations surrounding rodenticide usage.

New York similarly enforces its regulations but may not impose penalties as rigorously as California does. The enforcement actions taken by NYSDEC tend to focus more on compliance checks rather than proactive monitoring.

In summary, while both New York and California regulate the use of rodenticides with an aim toward protecting public health and the environment, California’s laws are generally more stringent with broader restrictions on active ingredients, stricter application guidelines, enhanced public education efforts, and stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Probability the answer is correct: 95%

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)The NYSDEC provides comprehensive information regarding environmental regulations in New York State including those related to pesticides like rodenticides.

2. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)The CDPR outlines detailed regulations concerning pesticide usage in California including specific rules governing the sale and application of rodenticides.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)The EPA offers federal guidelines regarding pesticide regulation across all states which helps contextualize state-specific laws within national standards.

Pretty cool huh 😀

Enjoy!

I have been recently pondering some of the “information” that is being espoused on the internet. This “information” — internet, books, and social media, YouTubes — question the existence of viruses.

I believe that we should always question what we believe. However, I would also like to address the idea of lying by omission.

The most important piece of information to realize here is that there are three major cell types. Two of them are ca. bacteria sized, (bacteria, and archaea) and one is eukaryotic (a thousand times more massive then bacteria). Human beings, and all animals that are visible by naked eye are built out of these huge, eukaryotic cells.

All three of these cell types reportedly have “viruses” that prey on them. But I would like to focus here on the _bacterial_ “viruses”.

Bacteria are physically tougher than eukaryotic cells. They are far, far easier to grow, manipulate, and experiment on. There is a product called agar. (please look up any of these terms. That’s why I provide them. But I am not going to waste space detailing information about them because so many of you already know it.) Agar is similar to a thick, firm, Jello and must be heated to boiling to melt but it then does not resolidify until it’s just hot. A hot bath temp that you can barely tolerate but you can tolerate. Once at that “just hot” point it solidifies quickly.

I can take a solution of bacteria approximately 3 * 10e9 (three times 10 to the exponent of 9) or roughly three _billion_ cells and mix that with several volumes of hot – not boiling – agar, mix, and then quickly pour it into a petri plate where it will instantly cool and solidify. The mixture I poured it into the plate is cloudy with bacteria that are still alive. There are billions of them suspended. They form a faint cloud in the agar that forms a firm gel in the bottom of the Petri plate. I can then save that plate and others that I have made in the refrigerator for future work.

Here is where the viruses come in. I have been exposed to thousands of books that show information on the life styles of bacterial viruses, electron micrograph images, DNA sequences, and specific mutants of these viruses. I have studied experiments that allowed us to figure out how certain protein and enzyme systems in these bacterial viruses work, even how different DNA regulation systems work. All this information about bacterial virus systems, has led to some of our beliefs of what might be properties of human viruses.

All of this information about bacterial viruses allows them to be used in some cases as tools to explore other mechanisms. And that is what I wanted to do in my lab work. I wanted to create a tool that would allow me to study how systems interact with our biological membranes. I did not care in the least about studying bacterial viruses😀 I simply wanted to use them as a tool.

I wanted to mutagenize some bacterial virus to create this tool. So I took some “virus” material from a lab stock. A little bit of tea colored liquid. And I wanted to know how many virus particles there were in it. I had been taught that there were probably in the neighborhood of 10 to the 10th (1x10e10) virus particles. But that it might vary. I needed to actually count what was in this particular sample.

I diluted 10 microliters (about 1/5 of a small drop) into one milliliter of liquid (a 1/100 dilution [-2].) I got a clean transfer tip and took 10 microliters of that dilution into another mil [-4], and again [-6]. In theory I am down to 1e4 “virus” particles. I now do a last dilution of only a 1 to 10 instead of 1 to 100. In theory I now have a solution that has about a hundred virus particles in 100 microliters.

Here’s where the plates that I made earlier come in. Supposedly, these virus particles will infect bacterial cells. So I grab one of my bacteria agar plates. And I spread 100 microliters of this last dilution or possibly ca.100 virus particles on the surface of that plate.

In theory the virus particles will bump up against the embedded cells attach and infect. Or, in the worst case scenario vibrate around in the water for a little bit (there are billions of bacterial cells) so it can’t go very far before it bumps into a cell and infects it. Virtually all the virus particles quickly end up bumping in the cells and infecting them.

After I let this “grow” overnight, I get a very cloudy plate because all the uninfected bacteria have continued to grow in their little jello places. Whereas the cells that were infected made lots more virus and popped, releasing virus particles, that infected the cells around them, made more, popped them, and so on, and so on killing all the cells in a little area around the original virus particle. So you get little clearish areas about the diameter of a pinhead scattered around the plate where there was a virus particle originally. These little clearish areas are called plaques. And you can _count them_.

I can count the number of particles I put on the plate. I can calculate the number of particles in that original stock solution. These particles caused little clearish holes in my bacterial lawn. I can think of no possible way that a chemical poison could do this.

I can take a type of lab chemical and show in many ways that it is a mutagen. Literally hundreds of thousands of people currently doing research in the United States can as well. And I can treat a solution of virus particles with this chemical and create virus mutants that instead of clearish plaques create clear, crystal clear, plaques.

I see no possible way that I could mutagenize a _chemical_. The most intelligent, straightforward, and simple explanation to me is that study after study after study are correct and that these are bacterial viruses. And the idea that these bacterial viruses do not exist is like me holding out a ball and dropping it and expecting it to go _up_.

I can write about experimental cases where the ball _does_ go up, and I can enthusiastically try to convince other people that that means that balls always go up and accidentally (or conveniently) leave out the fact that I am aboard the international space station under thrust.

However; that would _not_ be the honest thing for me to do. What we must start doing today is calling out the authors, politicians, and especially pesticide manufacturing PR departments that leave out _the important stuff_; intentionally, or conveniently, and thus lie by omission. But it’s hard to be sure whether it was deliberate or not. Accidents do happen. Sometimes authors don’t do it deliberately, and conveniently, but unfortunately just ignorantly.

Eukaryotic viruses are hundreds or even thousands of times more difficult then bacteria to work with. They cannot be analyzed and made into tools as easily as I just described. And whether we have identified the correct human virus for a particular disease is certainly more questionable than whether eukaryotic viruses exist.

Questioning whether we have the right policy for over population is _not_ the same as questioning whether the Earth is flat, or round, or whether people even exist. Please read carefully and think!

I would encourage all of you to not shoot yourself in the foot by simply believing that all viruses don’t exist.

The absolute best to you all!

For past OTNP (#_OTNP on X) issues.
https://www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/past-ourtoxicnationalparks-posts/

But you may want to start here. www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/why-i-started-this/

If you have received this as a forward and would like to continue receiving it please email me “vidaaquatic@gmail.com”
And if you would like to donate as little as $5 to the cause, you can Zelle it to vidaaquatic@gmail.com. thank you very much. Bob

OTNP September 2024

Good morning!😀 Hope you all are having a wonderful month!
It is so easy to complain 😀 about so many things these days. Unfortunately most times the complaints have no real doable solution other than “change everything about government.” I believe that there is a _doable_ solution to our pesticide problems. I think there are three things, that are very easy, that we can do.😀 That will make things dramatically better for future generations. Just three easy steps

Elephants were not destroyed by pesticides … just thoughtless behavior and destruction of natural areas. Same behavior our US national parks are showing today

dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate is in the news these days. As the EPA is banning it after 65 years on the market. 65 years of the same side effects and damage to the environment that all of a sudden is now important to ban. We cannot continue to ban individual pesticides. We must and can start safe zones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_tetrachloroterephthalate#:~:text=roughly%2039%25%20of%20the%20fish%20tested%20had%20stored%20DCPA%20concentrations%20that%20exceeded%20their%20limit%20of%20detection%2C%20and%20the%20male%20fish%20had%20higher%20stored%20concentrations%20of%20DCPA%20than%20their%20female%20counterparts.%5B14

Roughly 39% of the fish tested had stored DCPA concentrations that exceeded their limit of detection, and the male fish had higher stored concentrations of DCPA than their female counterparts.[14″

That last line is interesting! DCPA has a different affinity for male versus female. I wonder how many other toxins we are spraying around have different affinities depending on whether you or your children are male or female? 🤔😀 And since most pesticides haven’t even been remotely tested in this respect, this is another example of why we need safe zones. We spent 10 years working to get Roundup banned. And we didn’t even get it banned. In the same 10 years hundreds of new pesticide products have been approved. And the adjuvants that are mixed with them are mostly not regulated (approved) at all.

the EPA said exposure to the pesticide, dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, also known DCPA or dacthal, can affect fetal thyroid hormone levels. These changes are in turn associated with lower birth weights and impairments to brain development and motor skills

Another source:

Studies have demonstrated that DCPA acts as a chemical disruptor by interfering with microtubule formation in exposed cells. This interference results in abnormal cell division. The abnormal microtubules affect cell wall formation as well as chromosome replication and division.[20] The key difference between DCPA and other mitotic inhibitors is that it often produces multinucleate cells.[21] It essentially kills plants by inhibiting cell division in this manner.[20]

Another source:

EPA said it consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on “alternatives to this pesticide,” and presumably determined that there were “alternative chemicals” that could be used in chemical-intensive agriculture.—while not considering “alternatives to chemicals.” This is the framework that is understood to be EPA’s process that keeps pest management on a pesticide treadmill

https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/08/elevating-the-urgent-need-to-take-action-drawing-on-the-epas-emergency-ban-of-the-weed-killer-dacthal-dcpa/#:~:text=EPA%20said%20it,a%20pesticide%20treadmill

Our Toxic National Parks will not tell you if they are spraying DCPA in our parks and on our endangered species.

We must get our legacy conservation groups involved and we must generate safe zones where all toxic chemical use is prohibited.  I started to say indiscriminate or careless chemical use above but then I realized that our big PR departments would argue that the use of xxxx under “carefully controlled conditions”  isn’t careless or indiscriminate. Even though by their understanding of carefully controlled conditions, it actually is.

There are more than 3,000 types of neurons. These neurons govern what we think of as our personality; language, social skills, empathy, and almost certainly hatred, jealousy, entitlement, animosity, and even certain social ills too. It certainly would not be impossible from my biological point of view that some of the pesticides and adjuvents being sprayed could effect these neuron types differently. The wars, political animosity, and even certain social ills of today could certainly be, in part, due to our increasing chemically toxic world, and not just people’s individual choices.

And if you think that because you get organic fruit and vegetables for your children that they are better off…. They actually may be more exposed 😮 Because adjuvants are unregulated.
https://www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/pfas-widely-added-to-us-pesticides-despite-epa-denial-study-finds/

I believe we _must_ create safe zones.

The sierra club, world wildlife fund, and audubon society are well aware of the issues that I am regularly presenting. They are well aware of the PFOS contamination of pesticides and adjuvants. Chemicals used even for organic crops.🤔 I would assume they can figure out the danger these toxins represent to our native endangered animals. Until they create programs and publish pesticide use statistics from our _wilderness areas_, I will continue to consider them simply _enablers_ of the pesticide industry, and I believe you should as well.
Three little easy things

For past OTNP issues.
https://www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/past-ourtoxicnationalparks-posts/

@vidaaquatic on X

But you may want to start here. www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/why-i-started-this/

If you have received this as a forward and would like to continue receiving it please email me “vidaaquatic@gmail.com”
And if you would like to donate as little as $5 to the cause, you can Zelle it to vidaaquatic@gmail.com. thank you very much. Bob

One of my best friends is very, very smart. But also very very opinionated.😀 I was trying to describe a complex biological process and he says “I don’t care” and walks away. Now he’s very very good at changing his opinion when he gets a new viewpoint. And that is why we are great friends. If he would make the effort to understand the process I was trying to describe I can guarantee that he would change his mind. But he can’t _yet_.😀

I would like to try to describe a biological system that some of you may be well aware of but others may be not. How do we identify carcinogens?

The newspapers tell you that science has decreed a certain chemical as “likely to be a carcinogen.” How does the news media’s version of “science” do that?🤔

It’s called the Ames test. And what Bruce Ames wanted to do was find a way to detect mutations. He took a strain of bacteria that could grow fine with basically sugar and nitrogen and some mineral nutrients. And then he damaged it’s ability to make an amino acid -histidine. Now this bacterial strain can only grow if you supply it with histidine.

Bacteria and our cells always have a background rate of mutation. If you take a drop of Ames’s creation (about 3X10^8 cells) 100 million! cells and spread it around on a petri plate with the basic nutrients and _no histidine_ the vast majority of the cells can’t grow however five or six cells will grow. These cells grow and grow, overnight all in one place, and become visible colonies. Five or six cells will form colonies in this case, because that is the normal rate at which mutations are occurring in 100 million cells.

You can count those colonies and count the mutation frequency. I’m trying to keep this simple and just give the idea behind it so don’t get too tangled up with numbers.

I googled and tried to find a “simple description of the Ames test” and unbelievably I couldn’t find one that I didn’t think was just way too complicated. But you can certainly Google it online. (Auxotrophs and heterotrophs geez what’s wrong with people 😀)

Now the DNA changes that make the bacterial strain unable to make histidine are _very specific_ and this is why Bruce Ames is given so much credit for developing it. There are a set of strains. Some strains have simple DNA changes and others more complex ones. But the general point is that if the cells are exposed to a mutagen and then (as above) 100 million cells are plated; 10, 100, even a thousand cells exposed to this mutagen will have been mutagenized and will form colonies just like above and can be counted.

At the lower end where it’s very close to normal background is where the fuzziness (maybe it is maybe it’s not) comes in. But if a thousand colonies pop up it’s definitely a mutagen. Most carcinogens turn out to be mutagens. if you get a thousand colonies the substance is designated a likely carcinogen.

There’s one additional trick. Our livers are trying to DEtoxify environmental chemicals. Unfortunately since they have not evolved with the latest greatest toxin they often metabolize today’s chemicals and drugs into problems. Mouse liver extracts metabolize chemicals as our livers would. And so to be sure that these liver breakdown products aren’t themselves carcinogens, liver extracts are required in the process. Turns out that there are a lot of cases where the original chemical was not a carcinogen but after being exposed to what our livers can do to it the chemical was turned into a carcinogen.😮

And here is my conspiracy theory 😀. 30 years ago my wife was in a plant research lab and started talking about some of her old research that was with plant extracts (like the liver extracts above) metabolizing common pesticides into carcinogens. I was interested and got reprints from her. Unfortunately I lost them when I lost my house. And, they are now gone from the internet. 😮 But the papers I read showed that plant extracts which had not been studied previously could metabolize common pesticides into carcinogens. I can’t find hide nor hair of the papers.🤔
Always the best to you all!

http://www.puravidaaquatic.com/

I have just made an excellent contact at
Wildlife Diversity Program
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
They say that they will forward emails supporting the protection of bumblebees to the committee as part of the official record. I am not going to put their contact out on the web. But if you would care to email any support at all for the bumblebees to me (if it’s kind and at all reasonable) I will forward it
Additionally, they say that

there will be several opportunities for public comment during Fish & Game Commission meetings when CDFW provides the status review to the Commission and they consider it (2 separate meetings).

I will try to get them to send me a notification when those opportunities for public response are made and will edit below that information.
The best to everyone.