Population 1

I have come across a couple of other articles like this one. I wonder what the price of land is in these areas? Has it all been bought up by the big farms, or is it still for sale as a possible option for retired people.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...html?gusrc=rss
Population 1: the town that's been reclaimed by the prairie

As rural economies collapse, communities across America are being deserted, as Paul Harris discovers in Monowi, Nebraska

Sunday November 20, 2005
The Observer

The entire population of Monowi, Nebraska, is sitting in a bar. Her name is Elsie Eiler, 72.Monowi, founded by Czech immigrants seeking a slice of the American dream, is on its last legs. Only Eiler is left, surrounded by the ruins of homes that once boasted families, neighbours and friends.
'After me, I suppose there will be be nothing here. But I aim to be around for quite a few years yet,' she said with the stoicism that probably marked her tough ancestors. Like the Indian tribes that the settlers of the West replaced, Eiler is in turn the last of her kind, the last of Monowi.

This town is an extreme example of what has happened across America's heartland. The depopulation of the countryside over the last 50 years has been called the largest migration in American history. Nowhere is that more starkly illustrated than on the Great Plains, which includes Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. They defined much of the American self-image, a land of family farms, hard work and mom's apple pie.
Monowi, and thousands of places like it, spawned the American small town values celebrated even now as the small towns themselves vanish. And you can't get more small town than Monowi.

Eiler's life as its mayor and sole resident is surreal. Once a year she raises taxes from herself to keep the four street lights on and a few other basic amenities going. She runs the town's only business, the Monowi Tavern, and lives in the only remaining habitable building. She grants her own liquor licence and elects herself mayor. Her customers come off the highway that runs through Monowi or from nearby towns. The town's welcome sign lists Monowi's population as two, a figure halved last year when Eiler's husband Rudy died.

It was not always so. Monowi - an Indian word for prairie flower - once thrived. It was founded in 1902 by European settlers lured by a promise of farms of their own. It soon had a post office, two banks, a high school, a church and rows of sturdy wooden houses. Its population probably peaked at around 150 in the Twenties.
A map of old Monowi now hangs on the age-tanned wooden wall of Eiler's tavern. It shows a grid of streets with homely names such as Louisa, Marion and Paulina. Now nearly all those streets lie beneath prairie grasses that are reclaiming them.
The pretty wooden church is boarded up. Houses stand in various states of decay. Some have collapsed completely. Others look as though their owners have just spent a year away: nothing a lick of paint and mowing the grass would not fix. In one abandoned home there is still a piano. In front of another a children's tricycle lies on what was once a front lawn.

Monowi seems hopeless but Eiler will have none of it. She's just opened a 5,000-book library just behind the tavern. This was her husband's dream project but he died before it was built. It is a hit with people from surrounding towns.
But the library's success is rare in recent Monowi history. The primary school where Eiler met her husband as a child is now a ruin. In fact Monowi's been in decline since shortly after it was founded. That is true of a lot of the Great Plains. Although settlers flocked to the land, the soil is too thin for quality farming and is soon exhausted. Changes in the rural economy, where Wal-Mart and other chain stores take almost all the business, have destroyed what remains.

That leaves behind only the old and the stubborn. Eiler happily counts herself as both. She is blunt about prospects here: 'There is just no employment for people. Farming is hard and all the small farms have had to merge into bigger ones, and the young people just want to go away to college and a city. Few of them come back.'
All over the Great Plains small towns are dying. The roll of decline is written on road signs on the road to Monowi. Obert: pop. 39, Maskell: pop. 54.
Many have tried all sorts of schemes to stay alive. Some have worked, turning them into artist colonies. The novelist Larry McMurtry turned Lucas, Texas, into a mecca for book lovers.

Others have not. Empty business parks, built with federal grants, dot the landscape. It is a reversal of the old ode: 'Build it and they shall come.'
The landscape is gradually reverting to grassland and prairie. Many farms are switching to hunting. Some have replaced cattle with buffalo, increasingly common on American dinner plates.

Twenty years ago there was a huge controversy when two academics proposed the plains be turned into a wildlife preserve called 'Buffalo Commons'. Locals and politicians, clinging on to their way of life, were outraged.
The former governor of Kansas, Mike Hayden, scoffed at the concept then. Now he thinks differently. 'I was wrong,' he said. The newest concept is a 'rewilding' of the area with animals from Africa such as elephants and camels, returning the plains to the Pleistocene ecosystem before humans arrived.

But the plains are taking matters into their own hands. Prairie wildlife is already returning as humans leave. When Eiler was growing up, deer were unheard of around Monowi. Now they are so common they are a pest.
Wild elk have returned, too. And predators not seen for a century on the plains of Nebraska are back. A handful of mountain lions roam the state and are even spotted on the outskirts of Omaha, the biggest city.

'We used never to get deer here at all. Now every day I see them come through the streets,' Eiler laughed.
A walk through Monowi is an eerie experience. The only sound is wind rustling through the grasses.
Suddenly a flock of birds shoots out of the tall grass, soaring into a blue sky. They had been nesting in thick weeds growing on what was once Main Street.

Interesting note from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska
Edit: the next section at that link on Law and Government is an interesting read.

"Rural flight"

Nebraska, in common with five other Midwest states (Kansas, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, and Iowa), has experienced a decades-long population decline in rural areas. Eighty-nine percent of the cities in those states have fewer than 3000 people; hundreds have fewer than 1000. Between 1996 and 2004, almost half a million people, nearly half with college degrees, left the six states. "Rural flight", as it is called, has led to offers of free land and tax breaks as enticements to newcomers. As an example in Nebraska, Monowi, which in the 1930s had a population of 150, now has a population of one (as of 2005).

Kool-Aid was created by Edwin Perkins in the city of Hastings.

:afraid: Run Away! :afraid:

[FoundingFathers]

Hmmm,

Maybe a good time to start looking for some land out there.

[PatColo]

The consensus among many of the Peak Oil crowd is, choice places to live are small, socially tight communities, moderate year-round climate, surrounded by aerable land. The (dying small towns of the) midwest have much of this except they have cold winters.

[hoarder]

I looked all over the internet, searching western Nebraska and Kansas rural real estate sites to see if there were abundant investment opportunities in small farms and hunting properties, really didn't find anything indicative of the article. Maybe they are there but can't be found on the net.

[PatColo]

I have no real agriculture experience other than some small time gardening, but the word about much of the "bread basket" states is, the natural topsoil of the corporate farms is depleted, it's just become infertile dirt which sponges up chemical fertilizer each year. You'd want land which has been an organic farm, or not previously farmed, so there's many years of organic breakdown, aka good topsoil. I wouldn't know how to assess this, I'd look to hire a consultant.

[bigjon]

Originally Posted by hoarder

I looked all over the internet, searching western Nebraska and Kansas rural real estate sites to see if there were abundant investment opportunities in small farms and hunting properties, really didn't find anything indicative of the article. Maybe they are there but can't be found on the net.

I'm from a farm and my hometown has aprox 400 people. It has been stable at this figure for the last hundred years. When I was growing up in the fifties, it had two elevators under seperate mgmt a drainage tile plant an implement dealer, 3 - 4 garage's, 2 bars, pool hall, municipal liquor on/off sale, 3 restaurants, wedding dances most every weekend, 4 lutheran churches, one for the swedes, one for norwegians, one for the germans and one for the holy rollers. Average farm was 160 acres, with some cows, pigs, sheep, chicken and maybe a few geese.

Nowaday's we're down to 2 lutheran churches, the swede's and norwegian's kissed and made up, the germans are split between the scandinavians and the holy rollers (missouri synod). Only thing left is the municipal liquor store and retired farmers. When the farmers die off, I guess the population will drop to around 200.

Land prices in our area just keep going up, Farmland goes for about $2200 to $2500 per acre. Most farmers are running about 1200 to 2000 acres straight corn and soybeans.

[bjgnome]

Originally Posted by PatColo

I have no real agriculture experience other than some small time gardening, but the word about much of the "bread basket" states is, the natural topsoil of the corporate farms is depleted, it's just become infertile dirt which sponges up chemical fertilizer each year. You'd want land which has been an organic farm, or not previously farmed, so there's many years of organic breakdown, aka good topsoil. I wouldn't know how to assess this, I'd look to hire a consultant.

If you have water, you can turn poor soil back into fertile soil quite easily, but it takes time and effort. With the help of some chickens, rock dust, kitchen scraps and a few good permaculture manuals you could quickly come up with a patch that will feed you. Converting a tract of delpeted farmland to a commercial organic farm, however, is a much more challenging task. Make a ten-year plan, and expect it will take twenty.

[erichops]

small rural american towns certainly might be dying, but it isn't because ag in the US is dying or that the soil has been depleted....the truth is actually something quite different.

Rural towns are suffering not because of the demise of ag but rather because of its success. Crop yields have exploded since the turn of the century and american ag has become extremely efficient at producing ever greater yields per acre with less labor input. The global nature of ag has also neccesitated that US farms become efficient as possible; this means larger scale (larger farms) to maximize the large fixed cost component of ag.

All of these factors have made it so a very small portion of the US population can now sustain high levels of ag production in the US. So, it is really just a matter of demographics. There simply doesn't need to be the same amount of people involved in ag anymore, so, they move to places where they can get jobs (bigger cities).

This idea that the soil in the US is "depleted" because of years of farming is simply not true. The farms of today use sophisticated soil analysis to determine what is needed in the soil for nutrition. If the soil in the US was depleted you would see declining yields, not increasing yields. But, yields have been on a steady march upwards the last 50 years.

One of the main reasons why third world countries cannot raise their standard of living is because it takes too high a % of their population just to feed themselves. Also, these third world countries have pathetically low yields per acre, even though in many of them they are farmed using "natural" inputs (manure, etc).

Really, the whole "organic" movement is really just another outgrowth of American and European over-consumption. People in the US and Europe "perceive" that an organically grown apple is "better" than a traditionally grown apple, so they are willing to pay a premium for it. When, in reality, the only difference is that it costs more. It has been proven over and over and over and over by all mainstream health organizations that traditionally produced ag products in the US are just as safe as organic ones. An analogy would be the difference between a nice mid-priced car that is built well and gets good gas mileage vs buying a BMW that might be priced twice as high. There is more "status" with the BMW even though functionally it is really no better.

Many US farmers are now starting to grow organically grown crops, not because they are safer for consumers, but rather because they have figured out that consumers in the US and Europe are willing to pay a higher price for something that gives them stature. It is just another indication of all of the excess money that has been produced in the US, it is just another form of inflation.

If and when the worldwide debt bubble pops, organic ag will go down the tubes because people will not pay double for organic, they will only pay the minimum amount.

Organically grown crops, while they sound good, will always be just a niche because the world could not feed itself if all of the crops were grown organically. High intensity ag has enabled the world to feed itself on a shrinking ag land base; this leaves more farm land idle and unneeded that can be returned to nature. If the world grew only organic crops it would literally take millions of more acres of land to produce what we do now.

[PatColo]

Originally Posted by erichops

This idea that the soil in the US is "depleted" because of years of farming is simply not true. The farms of today use sophisticated soil analysis to determine what is needed in the soil for nutrition. If the soil in the US was depleted you would see declining yields, not increasing yields. But, yields have been on a steady march upwards the last 50 years.

That's a reasonable summary of industrialized ag over the trailing 50-100 years, or what the history books will (or should, depending on who writes the officially sanctioned version) call "The Oil Age". The ag-yield explosion, specifically your point about soil analysis and soil deficiency correction are enabled by oil/natural gas derived fertilizers, and you forgot to mention pesticides, much less diesel tractors and electrically pumped irrigation which in most cases is also ultimately enabled by hydrocarbon energy fired electricity power plants.

Please read:
Eating Fossil Fuels
and
Life After The Oil Crash

and give your assessment looking forward from here. TIA!

[saty]

Originally Posted by Rogg of Hillppl

Kool-Aid was created by Edwin Perkins in the city of Hastings.

:afraid: Run Away! :afraid:

The idiom drink the Kool-Aid, defined by Wordspy as "To become a firm believer in something; to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly," is a product of the Jonestown massacre, despite the fact that the beverage consumed by the Jonestowners was not actually Kool-Aid but rather Flavor Aid. See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown Popular Culture section

[hoarder]

Erichops,
Good explanation about rural populations. I don't agree with your assertion that non-organic is just as good as organic, or that we can trust the motives of "mainstream health organizations". Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to be that eating crops that have been sprayed with tons of chemical pesticides and herbicides might have some health consequences, many of which are unknown today. In the meantime I'll continue to pay $30 a month extra for organic groceries when they are available.

[Large Sarge]

@Ericchops

nice summary on farming/ag

I agree with your analogy farmers are moving to Organic produce because the profit margin is higher, and the market is newer, so the competition is not as entrenched.

I am not qualified to speak on soil depletion, never studied it for any length, but it stands to reason that plants use up minerals & nutrients from the soil, and then the plants are harvested and taken off the soil

so the minerals and nutrients are removed.

I know Chem fertilizers are good for basic stuff (Nitrogen, phosphorous, etc)

but years ago there was little trace elements added to the fertilizers, perhaps that has changed with science...

I suspect when folks speak of "depleted soils", they are not referring to Nitrogen, phosphorous, etc, but to trace minerals like Zinc, Silver, Calcium, etc

so does anyone know, do modern chem fertilizers add trace minerals now?

[Farmgal]

I disagree with a lot of what Erichops said. Yes, food yields definitely are up, but quality is way down. Testing done on GM crops by none company scientists has proved that they damage the body of the consumer. Commodity milk in the store is just not the same as unprocessed milk from a grass fed cow. Commodity chicken is not the same as free range chicken. It is not status - it is the health of the consumer at issue. Factory farmed food products are not healthy. The real problem with farming today is that the government makes it impossible for the farmer to sell directly to the consumer. Our countryside could support thousands of more farmers if they could raise livestock and plant crops naturally and sell retail to the consumer. That, though would be a major threat to huge agribusiness.

The soil is depleted. Chemical fertilizers do not supply trace minerals. The soils in the farm belt will not grow a crop today without chemical fertilizers. Soil can be rebuilt, but it takes time and it can't be done by one farmer on 2000 acres.Our current system of agriculture is definitely unsustainable if peak oil is real. The best thing you can do for your family and our country is to buy gold and silver (real money) and buy real, healthy, quality food from a local grass/organic farmer.

[Large Sarge]

oh and for the record, I am against the Genetically modified food (Frankenfood)
very Scarey Stuff
Killed the animals that ate it, and made the land that it was grown on un-useable for 10+ years

like a nuclear weapon...

Very Bad News!

[volzka]

Hey-

I am reluctantly forced to accept at least some of Erichops post as containing some truths, but:

"success" is viewed from looking back, not forward-extend the time frame forward, look back again, and the result may be an entirely different conclusion.

Yes, modern ag is much more efficient if the criterion used are energy and capital. But will it be more efficient in the future if the relative values of energy and capital components change? Look back from the year 2050 for a better perspective.

One of the most important, IMHO, misconceptions is the difference between two words: intensive (what we call modern ag) and extensive (what it really is). The 3400sq ft garden is intensive and far more productve than the 2000 acre corporate (read commie) bean farm.

Yes, "organic" is a marketing niche, and more expensive, but my view of the future dictates that when/if the true cost of energy is revealed, "organics" will win hands down.

It only takes a couple of years to deplete essential minerals from soils. The NPK solution produces "empty calories" in vast quantities and replacement of some of them are observed in "fortified with essential nutrients" labels on packaged foods. The ultimate costs are not revealed until you either have to pay the doctors' bill out of pocket or pay health insurance.

Nutrition is very important to the health and viability of us recyclable proletarians, and is therefore deeply buried.

Volzka

[erichops]

this is a good discussion, I hope I didn't come off to much as portraying it as an organic vs non-organic thing. As with anything in life, the truth a lot of the times lies in the middle. One of the main benefits of the organic movement is that it has brought mainstream ag a little more to the center. I think the model moving forward in american ag will be more of an IPM (integrated pest management), softer chemicals, etc. It won't be organic, but it will be more "friendly". One of the things that is sweeping mainstream ag now is a focus on "soil health", looking at the entire soil system, not just NPK. Farmers will still use conventional fertilizers, but the whole spectrum, including trace minerals will be looked at. And, as far as pesticides are concerned, take it from me, this is a very highly regulated part of ag. The level of scrutiny by the EPA for chemicals is tremendous. The pesticides of today are far different than that of yesterday.

But, the fact still remains that it is un-practical to raise the worlds food requirements in a total organic system. It is true that modern ag is highly dependent on fossil fuels for its survival. And, if the world runs out of fossil fuels, and suitable alternatives are not found, modern ag would be in serious trouble. No argument from me on that one. But, food is the most basic of human needs, and it is true that right now, the world could not feed itself if fossil fuels ran out, but my guess is that there will be alternatives in place by then, although at probably a lot higher cost. Either we will find alternatives or the human population will crash to come more in line with the worlds ability to produce food.

I am not down on organic food production, the movement towards this ideal is actually a plus for the american farmer because we are one of the few farmers in the world that have the ability to pull it off (traceability, ISO 9000) it takes incredible sophistication to produce an organic crop, and US farmers have the tools to be able to do it. Somebody in Africa is not going to be able to do it.

But, I will stick to my original thesis that organic food has really just started to enter the mainstream public in the last decade, and is really positioned to the upper middle class and high-end consumers, that is what is causing the growth in its consumption. It has morphed from mostly a hippie phenomenan to something that SUV driving soccer moms "gotta have" now. The media has done a good job of suggesting that food produced with normal ag is unsafe. I have noticed that people who eat organic food seem to defend it in much the same way a person who has just bought the $50,000 BMW does (it safer for my family, it is more comfortable, resale is better, etc) these are all just justifications for buying things give you more stature in life.

I think what people on this site might be suggesting is that if the we get into a SHTF scenario, you had better know how to grow your own food and be able to do it without normal ag inputs. I will agree with that. But, if we enter another depression, one of the first luxury items to go on people's list will be the twice as expensive organic produce.

What I like about this site is that people challenge the conventional wisdom. If you sit back and look at it, what is the conventional wisdom of our society about organically produced food?? The conventional wisdom is that it is safer. The sheeple have been lead to believe that conventionally produced food is unsafe.

[hoarder]

Originally Posted by erichops

I think the model moving forward in american ag will be more of an IPM (integrated pest management), softer chemicals, etc. It won't be organic, but it will be more "friendly".

Exactly what I'm afraid of. Again we will be put in the circumstance of having to rely on our "trust" of the pesticide/herbicide companies to look out for our best interests. I don't doubt that many of the fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are beneficial and harmless and that rigid rules governing what can be sold as organic uneccessarily exclude them at a cost to the consumer, but I think it's a fair price to pay if it protects us from ambiguous rules allowing crooked "think tanks", research and development groups and trade organizations have autonomy in deciding what's good for us.

[jerry]

Originally Posted by erichops

This idea that the soil in the US is "depleted" because of years of farming is simply not true. The farms of today use sophisticated soil analysis to determine what is needed in the soil for nutrition. If the soil in the US was depleted you would see declining yields, not increasing yields. But, yields have been on a steady march upwards the last 50 years.

Bought this place 26 years ago.

Only commercial farming done here in that 26 years was the first year when I contracted with some neighbor farmer to harvest the alfalfa growing on the land. This alfalfa had been seeded by the previous owner.

About 15 years ago we had a soil test done for the purpose of determining what kind of septic we would need. Depth of topsoil is a consideration, I guess, due to the soil's ability to deal with human waste.

The county agent's mind was blown when he began to study the soil.

He told me that he didn't believe the soil could recover as quickly as mine has just letting it lie fallow.

The commercial farming done the last hundred years prior to my moving here had depleted the soil dramatically (according to the county agent).

But by letting nature take her course, I had improved the situation more than the current scenarios he operates under projected. So I know that you are wrong about soil depletion and modern agriculture.

Everything I do here in my garden is related to strengthening the soil. The only "fertilizer" I use is rotting organic material.

The flavor of my grapes (wild), berries, pears, apples, greens, quince, etc. is far beyond anything I have ever tasted before.

Talk to John Jeavons if you wish to get involved in the discussion related to what is possible organically versus "traditionally."

You are wrong on so many fronts I cannot believe it.

I bought this place to disprove ideas like yours and the success I have found gave me a reason to continue on.

All I can find is what looks like free lots, not any real acreage. But that still might be a good deal for somebody.

"For example, small, rural central and western Nebraska towns, such as Curtis and Kenesaw, are offering free land to people willing to build homes and relocate to these communities."

http://www.nlc.state.ne.us/nsf/FAQ/freeland.html

http://www.curtis-ne.com/
If you are looking to build a new home - Curtis is the place for you. You'll have the opportunity to receive a free lot to build your home in our Roll'n Hills Addition. Be sure to check this great opportunity out and see if you qualify.

[Ponce Cuba]

I really don't know how many people are in this one mule town because they are all over the place but because I am one those who is all over the place I like it.......the town (six miles away from me) is growing by leaps and bounds and they are even building a small hospital.

No MacDonald, King Burger, Wendys etc but we do have a Taco Bell which is part of the gas station, eaten there only twice in my five years of residence.

[erichops]

jerry,

I have no doubt that you have been able to achieve some good things with your soil over the years. I have no problem admitting that someone who obsesses over a small plot of soil can eventually get it in perfect health. Once again, an analogy would be two people in great health, one works out everyday for an hour and eats right and is in great health. The other, obsesses and works out 365/7/24 and has eliminated every little flaw in themselves physically. Which one is practical for the average person? Does it mean that someone who does not workout obsessively is "depleted" in some way?? If you have only had one soil test in 26 years, there is no way of knowing whether or not your soil is healthy or not. Just because a county agent made an offhand remark does not prove anythings. The question becomes, is your model of how you have done it capable of doing the heavy lifting of producing the worlds supply of food??

You are arguing that soil that is farmed under traditional means is depleted, and that is simply not true. To be commercially viable, soil cannot be depleted. Depleted soil would result in reduced yields; how could it not??

I spent a few minutes looking up avg yields in the US and here are the numbers:

Corn 1950 51 bushels 1997 129 bushels
Wheat 1950 19 bushels 1997 61 bushels
alfalfa 1950 1.5 tons 1997 3.69 tons

Another great researcher to read is guy named Dr. Bruce Ames he is a professor at Berkeley. His main points are that 99.9% of all of the carcinegenic pesticides that american consume in the US are NATURAL pesticides produced by the plants themselves. He has also done several economic studies on how synthetic pesticides are actually responsible for less cancer because they have lowered the cost of food so dramatically that americans are able to eat more fruits and vegetables in their diet because they can afford them more. Diet is the one of the single biggest cursors for causes of cancer. The more vegetables and fruit you eat, the less cancer you get. Below is an article on his views:

"Don't smoke and eat your fruits and veggies." If you ask Bruce Ames, that simple, folksy remedy is the best way to avoid cancer.

So why is this 63-year-old professor of biology at the University of California, Berkeley, so controversial?

Ames burst on the national scientific scene in the early 1970s with the development of a method, generally dubbed the Ames Test or the Ames Mutagenicity Test, to determine what chemicals caused a certain bacteria to mutate.

This, in turn, could be used to help determine what chemicals cause cancer.


Bruce Ames  

Ames is the recipient of the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation Prize and of the Tyler Prize for environmental achievement. He has served on the National Cancer Institute board of Bruce Ames directors, and he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

At one time, he was the darling of the environmental movement. But now, the members of that movement have turned on him with a vengeance, accusing him of aiding and abetting "Corporate America," although he accepts no money other than his university salary.

Ames' problem is that after he discovered that there were a vast number of synthetic chemicals that are carcinogenic – that is, they cause cancer when fed to laboratory animals at extremely high doses – he then discovered that natural chemicals found in everyday food are just as likely to be carcinogenic as those manufactured by Dow, Uniroyal or American Cyanamid.

This, he found, was a very politically incorrect conclusion.

The environmentalist activists, Ames said recently, "have a religion" that says that corporations are behind an exploding epidemic of cancer.

Prodded by a tiny handful of doctors, such as Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois at Chicago, by a media looking for headlines, and by celebrity spokespeople such as Jane Fonda and Meryl Streep, Americans, Ames says, are engaged in a veritable witch hunt against synthetically produced chemicals and the companies that make them.

"The idea that chemical companies are giving consumers cancer just isn't true," he said.

First, he says, there is no epidemic of cancer, caused by industry or anyone else. True, cancer rates are going up overall, he says, but most of this increase is attributable to an aging population.

In a broad sense of the word, Ames says, aging is the greatest risk factor for cancer. "It doesn't mean that external factors don't influence cancer," he said. "But underlying it all, cancer is a degenerative disease of old age."

Cancer Risk Factors

Other factors in the overall increase of cancer cases, he says, are the increased number of smokers several decades ago who are only now developing lung and other cancers, increased exposure to the sun resulting in melanomas, and increased breast cancers arising from hormonal factors – a result of changes in the role of women in society.

Earlier and more frequent pregnancies, he says, greatly reduce a woman's chance of contracting breast cancer, though he grants that's a rather drastic prescription. The best hope for women in preventing breast cancer, he says, lies in drugs that block the adverse effect of hormones.

And not only is there no cancer epidemic, says Ames, but the tests that purport to implicate synthetic chemicals as causes of human cancer in fact do no such thing.

Current procedures to test whether a chemical causes cancer entail exposing animals, usually rats or mice, to massive doses of the chemical, then killing the animals and checking for tumors.

But Ames says there are major problems with this procedure.

One, animals aren't necessarily the best stand-ins for humans. In fact, 30% of the time, a chemical that causes cancer in mice won't do so in rats and vice versa, even though these species are much closer to each other than they are to humans.

For another, the dose given the animals is on average almost 400,000 times the dose that the Environmental Protection Agency tries to protect humans against.

The assumption in the testing is that whatever causes cancer in a few rats out of a few dozen at massive doses will, in a population of hundreds of millions of humans, also cause human cancers, even at much smaller doses.

But Ames points out that this theory - generally called "linear" or "no-threshold," or "one molecule" – directly contradicts what is known about chemical poisoning, which says that virtually anything at a high enough dose can kill a person, even if at a low dose it is actually therapeutic or even necessary to life, such as vitamins and salt.

Most importantly, said Ames, while these animal studies are used to indict synthetic chemicals because half the synthetic chemicals are proving carcinogenic, "Half of the natural chemicals come out positive, too."

Ames notes that while Americans are focusing on synthetic chemicals that may cause cancer in humans even to levels of parts per quintillion - that is, per 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 - many of those same Americans are blissfully ignorant of the natural carcinogens.

"There are over 1,000 natural chemicals in a cup of coffee," he said, "and only 22 have been tested. Of these, 17 are carcinogens."

But, said Ames: "I don't want to scare people away from drinking coffee. The problem isn't the coffee – it's the high-dose animal tests."

Moreover, he says, a cancer-causing natural agent can be far deadlier than synthetic agents. He compares, for example, aflatoxin, a mold metabolite, which grows on some vegetables and peanuts, with the industrial solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE.

Because TCE is synthetic, the U.S. has spent perhaps billions of dollars in federal Superfund money in an effort to virtually eliminate it from water tables.

"We spend an enormous amount of the GNP chasing trivia," said Ames.

"As long as they were testing only synthetic chemicals and half were proving positive, nobody was worrying much," he said. The revelation that rodent tests were showing natural chemicals to be carcinogenic just as often, he said, "was threatening to a lot of people because there's a whole industry based on this."

The obsession with synthetic pesticides, says Ames, is rather absurd when one considers that natural pesticides produced by plants to ward off insects or animals, which are proving carcinogenic in lab animal tests just as often as their synthetic counterparts, constitute over 99.99% of all the pesticides we eat.

By weight, he said, "There is more carcinogen-causing chemical in a cup of coffee than you are likely to get in synthetic pesticides in a single year. Yet, the average daily intake in coffee is 1,000 times the tolerance level the EPA allows for synthetic pesticides."

"Pesticide residues (that are eaten by consumers) are nothing," he said. "Farmhands are different, and we need strict rules of exposure for them and for chemical workers. But I don't think anyone's ever died of residues."


Ames says don't sweat the pesticides, but do eat more fruits and vegetables. Probably a lot more – but don't forget to spit the seeds.  On the whole, he says, the pursuit of "parts per billion" is a great way to bash industry, but it doesn't do much for people's health. In fact, he says, quite the opposite is true.

Food Intake

More and more studies, he says, are showing a correlation between food intake and the cause or prevention of cancer.

"People don't know all the answers yet on diet, but it seems clear that fruits and vegetables are good for you. Yet only 9% of Americans are eating the amounts of these they should be," said Ames.

Recently, Ames published a paper suggesting lack of Vitamin C in males as a cause of genetic damage in sperm.

"If you eliminate synthetic pesticides, you make fruits and vegetables more expensive," he said. "People will then eat less of them and more will die of cancer."

[hoarder]

I think that if the kind members of this forum put much faith in the staff at America's institutions of higher learning they would all be in love with fiat money and think that PM's are "barbarous relics". I for one, do not care to let Mr Ames do my thinking for me.

[Large Sarge]

@erichops,

how do I put this without sounding disrespectful....

perhaps you work for a chem/pesticide corporation, if so please do not take this personally...

Most folks who have spent some time here, know all about J.D. Rockefeller and the federal reserve. When you start looking into Mr. Rockefellers other ventures, we find oil, chemical (pesticides), Pharmaceutical, Govt run schools, universities, mass media, politicians, banking and lots more...

so when one individual who grossly monopolizes the other areas (banking, oil, etc) is to be believed that suddenly with chem/pesticide production he has grown a conscience, most folks do not buy it....
sorry.

That si the reality of the situation, it would take years and years of diligent effort for anyone around here to seriously consider trusting a Rockefeller/NWO institution

Thats just the reality, all the studies you mention were likely funded by Rockefeller money.... and done at Rockefeller universities

The rockefeller web covers almost everything in the U.S.

[erichops]

no, don't work for a chem company. But I do farm for a living and have been doing it for over 20 years; my family has been farming for 4 generations.

maybe I can provide a little clarity for sarge on things. I can pretty much guarantee you that the Rockefeller family, even though it might own many chemical companies and fund many university reasearch programs, has had very little influence on our farms use of chemicals. The use of chemicals and fertilizers and plant breeding came about so american ag could increase its efficiencies and better compete in the world. Everybody around this place moans about how america is losing its manufacturing base and how we are such a large net importer of products. Do you realize that american ag has a positive trade balance, and has been able to keep its competitive edge versus the low cost producers of the world?? We actually produce more food than we consume......novel concept in the US. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was the farmers who pushed for commercial fertilizers and pesticides so they could better compete?? Maybe it wasn't a top down conspiracy??

The second problem with your argument is that the entire focus of the land grant universities now is on sustainable ag and lower inputs. In fact this has been a point of contention for many farmers with the universities that do ag research. The greening of the university system has been profound. If the Rockefellers have as much power as you seem to think, why would they let this trend happen??? Do you realize that it is now conventional wisdom among americans that ag products produced with pesticides are somehow dangerous?? Why would the Rockefellers/NWO tandem that you speak of allow this to happen?? It would be bad for business.

So, this whole conspiracy thing you are reffering to might be true in other areas, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in this area. The university system, the media, and many politicians are the ones leading the greening of america, not trying to stop it. Your view isn't the minority one, it is the majority one! Dr Ames' view is the minority one and gets very little attention. When was the last time you saw something in the media that actually showed the benefits of commercial pesticieds and fertilizers?? I have never seen one. Once again, why would the all powerful Rockefeller/NWO people allow this to happen?? Do you think it is possible that maybe you are the one who has been manipulated into believing a certain way this time?? Is that possible??

[Large Sarge]

Originally Posted by erichops

no, don't work for a chem company. But I do farm for a living and have been doing it for over 20 years; my family has been farming for 4 generations.

maybe I can provide a little clarity for sarge on things. I can pretty much guarantee you that the Rockefeller family, even though it might own many chemical companies and fund many university reasearch programs, has had very little influence on our farms use of chemicals. The use of chemicals and fertilizers and plant breeding came about so american ag could increase its efficiencies and better compete in the world. Everybody around this place moans about how america is losing its manufacturing base and how we are such a large net importer of products. Do you realize that american ag has a positive trade balance, and has been able to keep its competitive edge versus the low cost producers of the world?? We actually produce more food than we consume......novel concept in the US. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was the farmers who pushed for commercial fertilizers and pesticides so they could better compete?? Maybe it wasn't a top down conspiracy??

The second problem with your argument is that the entire focus of the land grant universities now is on sustainable ag and lower inputs. In fact this has been a point of contention for many farmers with the universities that do ag research. The greening of the university system has been profound. If the Rockefellers have as much power as you seem to think, why would they let this trend happen??? Do you realize that it is now conventional wisdom among americans that ag products produced with pesticides are somehow dangerous?? Why would the Rockefellers/NWO tandem that you speak of allow this to happen?? It would be bad for business.

So, this whole conspiracy thing you are reffering to might be true in other areas, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in this area. The university system, the media, and many politicians are the ones leading the greening of america, not trying to stop it. Your view isn't the minority one, it is the majority one! Dr Ames' view is the minority one and gets very little attention. When was the last time you saw something in the media that actually showed the benefits of commercial pesticieds and fertilizers?? I have never seen one. Once again, why would the all powerful Rockefeller/NWO people allow this to happen?? Do you think it is possible that maybe you are the one who has been manipulated into believing a certain way this time?? Is that possible??

Rockefeller could care less about money, so when you try and put his motives on an accounting form, you will never figure it out, because it is not about money, it is about power and control....

Go back and read the article I posted

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/t...l-problem.html

Energy/Oil is just one area Rockefeller controls

a lot of the money and training for the "Green movement" you speak of comes from old J.D. Himself...

Why?

Because he is one of the elites, and he feels the world population needs to be reduced by 85%

so by putting more laws & regulations against energy, food production, etc (by environmentalists), he is helping to bring the fall of America, the loss of her sovereignty...

I mean if we were so concerned about the environment, why dump chemtrails night & day? I mean the plants & animals ingest that junk also...

chemtrails are one of their more glaring attempts to "Depopulate" the world

regarding you "Maybe the demand for stronger pesticides driven by the farmer, and not rockefeller"

I think that as a farmer/Businessman, you should be worried about your customers/consumers...

if Organic farming is booming, it is being driven by a market need, whether the folks in that market are "SUV driving soccer moms" or well informed consumers remains to be decided....
but the fact is that more folks are buying/demanding organic, and money talks....

I think its great you are a farmer, and its great that we still have viable farming in the U.S.

I have no problems with Chemical fertilizers, I have no problems with farmers or Farming, But i do have a problem with a Govt that is largely subsidized by Rockefeller industries, and that same Govt decides what is safe to use/drink/ etc, and the Rockefeller industries have an agenda to depopulate the world.

this is nothing against you or your farm.

I hope that made some sense

[hoarder]

Originally Posted by erichops

I can pretty much guarantee you that the Rockefeller family, even though it might own many chemical companies and fund many university reasearch programs, has had very little influence on our farms use of chemicals.

You just cut and pasted all that "wisdom" from Mr Ames, yet you are certain you have not been influenced by controlled academia. If you had been thinking for yourself all along, you would have replied in your own words.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was the farmers who pushed for commercial fertilizers and pesticides so they could better compete?? Maybe it wasn't a top down conspiracy??

The profit motive exists, of course, so farmers are primed to be in denial as they produce chemically tainted crops of little nutritional value.

Do you realize that it is now conventional wisdom among americans that ag products produced with pesticides are somehow dangerous?? Why would the Rockefellers/NWO tandem that you speak of allow this to happen??

If it were conventional wisdom, there would be no market for chemical-laden crops. I haven't watched TV in years, but I don't remember being warned about herbicides and pesticides in my food.

The university system, the media, and many politicians are the ones leading the greening of america, not trying to stop it.

You are throwing the vague "greening" word around loosely. Mass media certainly has used environmental issues as a justification for endless restrictions on our rights and building a bloated bureaucracy, but the focus has certainly not been on Monsanto, GM crops or anything else the Rockefellers are behind. Bureaucracy and regulations are excellent tools to put competitors out of business....simply by applying the power of scrutiny.

[volzka]

Hey-

The latest illusion that I have had burst for me came a couple of weeks ago when I read somewhere that The Wizard of OZ was NOT a childrens' story. Bummer!!!

How do you fit "follow the money trail" into "follow the yellow brick road" and keep the lyrics?

Erichops, since you're a farmer (I am too, sort of), I have a question.

In order to finance my "operation " I had to dissolve my 401k. The alternative was to borrow money. Granted, I didn't have your expenses, like cost of land, machinery, fuel and fertilizer. The question then is: are most farmers (other than corporate) able to sell this years' crop and use the proceeds to pay cash for next years' planting, next years new machinery purchases, log in fuel&fertilizer, buy more land and blah, blah blah or do you have to borrow money?

If the answer is that you have to borrow money, then the next question that arises is: Are you farming to grow food for people or are you being farmed for the credit money that you create through your neccesitated borrowings?

My guess is that is precisely the reason US farmers exist at all. They create one hell of a bunch of new money through credit creation, and without THAT,
Pfizer, Dow, John Deere and a whole scad of other Amerikan Icons would be nothing more than the cartoon creations they really are.

If the answer is no, I pay cash and so do all the other farmers, then we are truly blessed and we will NEVER starve.

Sooo-

Follow the Yellow Brick Road
Follow the Yellow Brick Road
Follow the Yellow brick Road

And share with me if you will, what you find out when you get to meet the Wizard.

Volzka

[Farmgal]

Originally Posted by erichops

chemicals and fertilizers and plant breeding came about so american ag could increase its efficiencies and better compete in the world. Everybody around this place moans about how america is losing its manufacturing base and how we are such a large net importer of products. Do you realize that american ag has a positive trade balance, and has been able to keep its competitive edge versus the low cost producers of the world??

I'm sorry, but American farmers don't compete, they're subsidized heavily by the government. My brother-in-law, who is a full-time grain farmer, calls it farming the government. Most farmers today would be out of business without their government checks.

Originally Posted by erichops

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was the farmers who pushed for commercial fertilizers and pesticides so they could better compete?? Maybe it wasn't a top down conspiracy??

I doubt it was farmers that went out and invented Round-up. I used to read the standard farm journals - Successful Farming and Farm Journal. They are mouthpieces for big Agri-biz. They are full of ads and articles extolling the latest chemicals and GM seeds.

Originally Posted by erichops

Do you realize that it is now conventional wisdom among americans that ag products produced with pesticides are somehow dangerous?? Why would the Rockefellers/NWO tandem that you speak of allow this to happen?? It would be bad for business.

It only makes sense to think that a chemical designed to kill things would be hazardous in your food. Problem is most people don't realize how contaminated their food is. Most people have never read the truth about GM foods, because the truth is suppressed. Also, people really don't have much choice in this country, as GM foods are forced down our throats. Labelling is not allowed that would warn of GM foods, BGH, etc.

Originally Posted by erichops

So, this whole conspiracy thing you are reffering to might be true in other areas, but your arguments make absolutely no sense in this area. The university system, the media, and many politicians are the ones leading the greening of america, not trying to stop it. Your view isn't the minority one, it is the majority one! Dr Ames' view is the minority one and gets very little attention. When was the last time you saw something in the media that actually showed the benefits of commercial pesticieds and fertilizers?? I have never seen one. Once again, why would the all powerful Rockefeller/NWO people allow this to happen?? Do you think it is possible that maybe you are the one who has been manipulated into believing a certain way this time?? Is that possible??

By the way, the greening of America those groups are pushing for is actually the rewilding of America. Under their plan, you and I and all other farmers will be out of business so the wildlife can have our land. Farmers willingness to take on more and more debt every year will lead to their destruction. When the bank shuts off your operating loan, you're out of business. I doubt they'll put the Amish out of business though. They'll just hitch up the horses and go out and plant the seed they saved from last year.

P.S. Many of my family and friends are conventional farmers, so I really love farmers, I just get frustrated that they can't see the part they are playing in the destruction of our country. They're good, hardworking people, but they have been lied to for a very long time.