The people that this fellow was selling to knew exactly what they were buying and paid over $12/gallon and please tell me where it says anyone got sick from what he was selling. But he is not allowed to sell anything, now not just milk. I drink unpasteurized milk EVERYDAY, as does my whole family. We have never felt better. And infact some of us were suffering from intestinal problems until we started consuming unpasteurized milk. Yes often there are dangerous pathogens in milk, especially pasteurized milk, with no good bacteria to clean it up. There are also probiotics in raw milk that help one digest milk that are destroyed during pasturization. My husband has been lactose intolerant since he was a child, I have done A LOT of research on this subject and the whole reason that I wanted a milk cow is precisely because I wanted UNpasteurized milk. I have found nothing in all my research that supports any notion that "kids died by the thousands from drinking unpasturized milk." I did find stories that were proven to be a hoax and I believe the town was completely fictional. "Ladies' Home Journal, December 1944, began the campaign with the article 'Undulant Fever' claiming -without any acurate documantation- that tens of thousands of people in the US were suffering from fever an illness because of exposure to raw milk. And the next year Coronet magazine followed up with 'Raw Milk Can Kill You' by Robert Harris MD, who represtented as fact, a town and an epidemic that was entirely ficticious-Crossroads, USA" But there was no Crossroads and no epidemic. There have been some instances of illness that were due to consumption of raw milk that were from dairies that were producing commericial milk meant for pasteurization who sold to customers coming to the farm to buy raw milk.These accounts have been few and far between. Many dairies don't keep the best hygene just for the reason that they know the milk will be pasteurized, so to them it is ok that their is crap in the milk. So only in the instance of your large (like the ones that supply milk to 1.5 million) dairies that don't keep the best sanitary or hygenic practices I do believe if they are going to produce milk, they should pasteurize, I don't feel that it is a benificial food product. The Journal of the American Medical Association on December 11, 1987 reported that Over 16,000 culture confirmed cases of infections due to Salmonella typhimurium were traced to two brands of PASTEURIZED 2% milk produced by a single dairy plant. The number of people that were actually affected were estimated at close to 200,000. This was the largest outbreak of salmonella ever identified in the United states. Mark McAfee owner of Organic Pastures Dairy in California, an organic pasture based raw milk dairy recently has provided evidence of safety of raw milk from cows that are primarily pasture-fed. He keeps his cows on fresh green pasture all year. He took samples of his milk to a lab in Fresno where technicians introduced pathogens into the milk- Salmonella and E.coli OH:157. The organisms could not be found in the milk the next day-They could not survive. The university of California at Davis then came and took serum samples from several cows. They discovered that the amimals had developed no antibiotic resistance and their immune systems were so strong the good bugs that the cows naturally harber were able to kill off potential pathogens. Drinking this raw milk populates the human intestines withthe same good bugs, which is one reason the studies desribed above have shown that people who drink raw milk consistently are much more resistant to potentially pathogenic organisms than those who do not. Most of these examples can be found in Small Farmers Journal in a couple of different articles, "The Rise and Fall of Raw Milk" by Ron Schmid,, reprinted from Organic Farms, Folks and Foods, Mid-Fall 2004 and also The Safety of Raw vs. Pasteurized Milk" by the same arthur. It is well documented with the resouses stated in footnotes like any good research paper. These articles were in the Summer 2005 issue if you can find it in a library. I say, let this guy prove to everyone the safety and cleanliness of his milk, let him have it tested and as long as it test safe, on a regular basis, he should be allowed to sell it. http://www.realmilk.org/ http://www.realmilk.com/milkcure.html My point is, would you like for Uncle Sam to stand in the Drive thru at your favortite hamburger joint and tell you that you are not allowed to buy anything here because you are overweight and you have high colesteral. Or maybe they just shut him down because it is bad for some people to eat hamburgers, because it is red meat and fries etc. How many times does the government and some science have to be proved wrong before they stop trying to dictate what is good for you or not. Here it is not a safety issue its a power/ control issue of the local government agent. If there is full exclosure what is the problelm? Give the people a choice. Here is a link that might be useful: Real-Food.com

I think they will just make it very expensive for us. Then the wealthy and the businesses will have green gardens and the rest will have tumbleweeds. I'll probably have a brown lawn surrounded by my pines which are so old that they can make it on their own. I hope my established roses can survive but I worry about the younger own root bands I just planted. Bathwater for them I think. Our air quality is so bad- I got 2 rain barrels but after seeing the toxic amber water that came off the roof after a months of no rain, I just dumped it all out. Now they don't get filled unless it has rained a few days to clean off the roof. Actually, I have hose water in them now, just in case theres a quake. I'm sorry you have to see your garden suffer. It's unfair that people can waste all they want in their homes but gardeners cant water their prized plants. I was using a bucket to rinse my laundry out on the back lawn and it was work but I felt good about it.

From a Buddhist perspective, the act of purchasing--voting with the dollar--a product that is toxically produced and shipped to its desired location is ethically and morally wrong. It is against the interconnectedness of beings, as the destruction of one habitat is also a destruction of the extended self. From a Jesuit-Catholic perspective, Genesis dictates that all Earthly creations are impoverished of their own, independent nature (they are /of/ God) and are sacramental (they provide a vessel for us to experience God). By mistreating or misguiding our efforts in the natural world, we are misguiding our efforts to respect God as it exists in all things. Religious theory aside; As a geologist, I have an academic bias towards the use of any chemical fertilizer, especially in coastal habitats like southeastern MA. Because Rehoboth/Seekonk are part of the Ten Mile sub-watershed, my groundwater's "drainage path" to the ocean is through the Narragansett basin. Any and all pollution that enters the groundwater table in the Rehoboth/Seekonk area WILL OVER TIME flow to its final destination. Parameters that impede the flow of pollutants are typically Darcy's Law parameters: the density of the chemical, the nature/likelihood of the chemical to adsorb (chemically 'stick') to rock particles, the porosity of the aquifer through which the water is flows, the amount of water flowing through the aquifer, and the relief/topography of the watertable as a whole. Flatter, more coastal areas will see pollutants slowly bloom and spread over time. There is less gravitational potential 'flowing' water downstream to the ocean, and therefore less energy to disperse pollutants. In some areas with typically sandier soil, high porosity can lead to extremely fast chemical/pollutant leaching from the area. Especially at risk to water pollution are those on Cape, where the groundwater is focused into fresh water 'lenses' due to salt water intrusion of the watertable. The freshwater rain that falls onto the Cape is the only way for the watertable to recharge itself. Research conducted at the MMR at the bicep of the Cape has shown that pollutants deposited here from the military as earlier as 40 years ago are still leaching through the groundwater, and are toxifying the deep-earth environment of the region. Even scarier, underground glacial flow channels carved from the region approx. 14-12,000 years ago have become "high ways", regions of increased flow potential, for these pollutants to be directed to Buzzards Bay and the Sounds. After studying the estuarine and coastal hydrophysics which actively shape our coastline, I've come to realize that pollutant in the water table all drain, eventually, to one place. And that's the estuary at the mouth of your watershed. Through processes like eutrophication (in my opinion one of the milder consequences of pollution), estuarine grass and sea-weed organisms cannot survive. Because their main function in an estuary is to collect and trap sediments, essentially building out the estuary and protecting the coastline from sever coastal storms, the destruction of these organisms by human pollution WILL cause the landward migration of sand bars, "outer banks", and the ocean front. We saw the effects of this in New Jersey on the Shore. We are beginning to see the effects of this on the South shore of Cape Cod, an area that is NOT environmentally protected by the national government. When chemicals are applied to the lawn properly, and at the right time, the plants that are supposed to be fertilized will act on the chemicals to grow. But what sorts of pollution issues does this cause across the globe? Minerals are being extracted from locations across the globe in order to synthesize the chemical fertilizer that you're desiring to put into your lawn. Minerals, that, without the pollution of fossil fuels, you wouldn't have in your area or at your immediate disposal. What about the others' environment that you might be polluting? Mineral mining for fertilizers may not cause immediate damage. But fossil fuel mining across the globe is making places literally uninhabitable for any species, not just humans. According to my friend Seun, also a geologist, places like his home in Southern Nigeria host oil companies that have lobbies so extensively in the local and federal government that the government has stolen millions of dollars from the people in exchange for selling their land to oil companies for drilling. Seun discussed with me the implications that fossil fuel mining has had on his home town. People's farms are covered in spilled petrochemicals and other inorganic wastes so badly that these people can no longer grow food and are being forced to flee the region as refugees. My friend is unsure if he will be able to return home after he completes his Masters degree because he doesn't know if there will be food for him to eat. His family's farm has fallen victim to the humanitarian crimes that are being undertaken in Southern Nigeria. So for me it's not about proving one person right, one person wrong, another person a crazy liberal, and another person a mad scientist. By default, I think we're all scientists (because we're all experimenting with plants through the act of gardening) and what each of us has to say has equal importance. TL-DR: The issue of purposely adding pollutants to the earth and also the issue of indirectly supporting industries that do so are issues that require all of us to join in discussion. Is it worth having the greenest, healthiest lawn? From a chemists' perspective, as long as the chemistry is handled right, yes. From a geologists' perspective (and not a petro-chemical geologist, mind you), I'll tell you that any pollutants added to any groundwater system can be considered pollution when the scope of the pollution is taken into consideration, so no. From a religious perspective, we have a higher calling to educate ourselves on the dangers that we are presenting to the natural creation that we have the privilege of experiencing, although we are aiding in the growth of life on our own soil, is it truly balancing the harm that we are causing in other parts of the globe? Please consider Steve's suggestion of topping off the soil in your yard with an organic amendment. Please consider that grass is one (1) of many, many, many plants and biodiversity never hurt a single being.

While that may (or may not) help, studies are showing glyphosate showing up in some pretty strange places. One study reported it is found in Human mother breast milk in Germany, a country which banned its use. Another linked over exposure to it by farmers in Central and South America to "kidney necrosis", death of the farmers' kidneys. Both glyphosate and 2-4-D are endocrine disruptors. They are finding increasing evidence they not only disrupt plants, but also insects, animals and Humans, as well as lead to or directly cause a host of other illnesses and ailments. Buying non GMO and/or "organic" may help reduce our exposure,but the chemicals find their way into many other food products we are never warned about nor notified of. Thank you, Karen. Yes ma'am, the DARK Act is but one of so many "sell outs" of the citizenry. We're currently hearing a lot of push over Dodd-Frank, the banking regulations act. It contains some safeguards for the industry and the citizenry, but it also contains a nasty little provision called "bank bail-ins". If you're unfamiliar with them, you honestly need to research them. Unfortuantely, there isn't a whale of a lot any of us are able to do to protect ourselves. Those in power wish to eliminate the safeguards/regulations, which will surely lead to another crash. That will then trigger bail-ins. At that point, we are all screwed. The banks get the money you have on deposit. The derivative losers are first in line to be made whole using the monies on deposit in the banks and no one is forgiven their debts, taxes, etc.