Wilson, Dale wrote:
> Douglas,
>
> I guess I don't understand what we are disagreeing about here. My point
> was just that the type of cost/benefit calculation made for antibiotics
> is exactly the same as for pesticides. In fact, antibiotics are really
> a class of pesticide."
There are significant differences. It is true that the pharmaceutical
industry produces agrochemicals, but they haven't acheived the same degree of
dominance in the field of health. Antibiotics are only taken when needed, and
no pharmaceutical maker would dare to suggest that basic practices such as
eating well, exercise and sufficient rest were anything other than just that -
basic to good health! On the other hand, the economic power wielded by
manufacturers of agrochemicals; the massive amount of money spent on
propaganda, lobbying, research (for which you may have been on the receiving
end, directly or indirectly); and the grave imbalances agrochemicals have
created in the environment that perpetuate our dependency on these products;
have established a climate in which agrochemical use is so prevelent, it's now
the norm - and the assumption is that that they're needed (when in reality,
it's a self fulfilling prophesy).
Furthermore, many antibiotics are so specific to bacterial enzymes and
structures that they can be taken for years on end. This is much less true
with agrochemicals, and yet their ingestion is practically inescapable. These
are significant differences.
> Douglas, everyone knows that food-chain accumulation is the big problem
> with DDT and many organochlorine compounds. Without this, the weak
> toxicity would be irrelevant. If you dispute that, we can trot out and
> examine the data. That would be more productive than personal attack."
Yes I dispute that - so "trot" it out if you want. I also dispute that
"everyone knows" that "food-chain accumulation is the big problem with DDT"
(not toxicity or carcinogenicity). But there has been no personal attact. I
find some of your assertions incredible, unreal; but not without their element
of humor. Just don't expect me to swallow all of it. Itīs soometimes hard
enough to believe you're even saying these things. You may well be a swell
guy, good buddy and down to earth family man. I have nothing against you
personally. I just can't take all of what you say seriously and do find some
of it annoying. But don't worry about it - I sure don't.
> ... DDT ... If it wasn't so resistant to microbial attack it would be very
> safe.
See what I mean? You really believe that?
> > "Vastly more toxic to insects than to mammals"? It's carcinogenic to
> humans.
> >
> ...I did a quick search and turned up 96 relevant abstracts. Most of the
> studies on
> environmental exposure concluded that there was no association between
> DDT/DDE exposure and cancer incidence. Some studies on much higher
> occupational exposures showed a weak association. I'll send you the
> abstracts if you want.
I'm not going to use it or reccomend it's use to anyone, so maybe you
shouldn't bother. (It might to interesting to know who funded those studies,
though). I am opposed to DDT as a matter of principle. My approach to
agriculture is coming from a different perspective, which in general terms
could be considered evolutionary. (I recommend your reading a recent post of
Micha's on that subject, if you haven't done so). Agriculture is to me a
social act, within a community I form part of, and I prefer to work with and
through living organisms and handle life giving materials and while I suppose
I might sympathize with someone who doesn't comprehend the value of that, I
have more to do than convince you.
> ...I do some work with seed-treatment fungicides. Many of these are used at
> very low rates, and have very low toxicity to boot. They are extremely
> selective. Anyway you slice it, the environmental cost is low, and the
> efficacy is high. Why don't you explain how these "do a lot of harm."
It is propably true that a very small part of the global environmental
contamination resulting from agrochemicals comes from treated seeds.
> A similar case can be made for some other uses of pesticides.
There may well be a few other atypical examples you could come up with.
> You just can't generalize across all pesticides and uses and assume that the
> environmental cost is significant. Every case should stand or fall on it's
> own merits.
As a matter of fact I believe I CAN generalize, since there's a principle
involved (a principle you apparently choose not to accept - yet). The
exceptions may be able in some cases to stand on their own merits, but the
kind of agriculture you're describing is on the wrong track, in general. The
concept is wrong and I'm sorry you haven't been able to identify with the
prime alternative, which I thought this list was about.
> You can't generalize about biocontrol either. The fact that some
> biocontrol strategies work, doesn't mean that biological controls are
> universally useful.
Strategies must be locally and temporally adapted.
> The little secret about biocontrol research, at
> least in the public sector, is that there has been a fair amount of
> money available to do this kind of work.
What percentage of the total amount spent on agricultural research do you
think went or goes to biocontrol?
> Everyone I knew when I was at
> the University was working on biocontrol, at least in bootleg mode, to
> try to get data to write a proposal to hook into that money (me too).
> There was great incentive to get positive results. I just think that
> the material I was dealing with (sweet corn seedling diseases) wasn't
> very amenable to biological control. I tried a lot of different things,
> but fungicides were always way better.
Were you dealing with this within the framework of massive monocropping? Were
crop rotations and companion crops factored in? What about natural fungal
agents where crop / climate combinations may propiate fungal infection? How
about genetic resistence?
> > Dale, you're placing the burden of proof on the consumer.
> >
> You're changing the subject. The burden of proof is clearly on the
> manufacturer because they pay for the testing.
For the kinds of studies that suit their own ends. But public health is the
prioritary issue, by virtue of it's nature and our judicial system.
> You are claiming that
> the toxicological methods endorsed by the scientific community are
> ineffective. Description of your toxicological rationale for this claim
> would be more productive than your continued polemic.
What you call a polemic is just the particular lifeboat I choose to stake my
life on, and I'm within my rights, with or without your approval. The vested
interests promoting these substances are closer to you than me.
The rationale has been described by me and others at length in the past but
you evidently find little sustenence in it. You remind me of someone I once
saw take apart an avocado seed - I don't know what she expected to find - but
obviosly she couldn't identify with it, or comprehend that it was alive.
> > This ignores those who DONĻT hold up well enough (i.e. children, the
> > old and ill, more sensitive individuals etc.), and presupposes a
> > "natural" decline that is in reality the result of a steady
> > deterioration of the human organism due to continued contact with the
> > products you seem to like so much, that eventually kill EVERYBODY off
> > - but thatīs OK because is fits the statistical norm. In short, your
> > frame of reference is too limited.
> >
> Again, if you have a gripe with how they do the toxicology, let's hear
> the specifics.
The vested interests of those who fund the studies, the short term nature of
those studies, the exclusion of so many significant and susceptible
minorities, the unwarranted conclusions and the facil justification and bland
acceptance of too many causualties, among others
> I have attached below the abstract of a paper that
> summarizes my take on the toxicology. The devil is in the statistical
> details. I am willing to go into that with you.
I accept that point of view but am going to have to let someone else do the
stats for now (I've got projects to get out the door), and in any case I think
my case would be best made in a court of law - meaning I'd be most useful
working at that level (activist), rather than by accumulating further
evidence.
I myself live what I believe, as much as I can. Itīs others that need
convincing and I'd rather acheive that by providing an example, rather than
data. This means that I am not in a position to ventilate the matter within
the guidelines that correspond to your training, due to practical pressures on
me to do what I've committed myself to do (which is also what most interests
me). Those are the things I have to do and no one else is going to do them
for me - or wait around much either.
> > Sometimes, I kind of wonder why someone with your perspective (or lack
> > of vision) is on this list.
> >
> I can see that you have a strong political instinct. I look at these
> issues from a practical, hands-on perspective. IMO, sustainable
> agriculture is too important to leave it exclusively to armchair
> agronomists, utopian extremists and detached administrators.
Perhaps that was not a tactful thing to say. I suppose I became exasperated
by some of your statements. I did not mean that you necessarily had no
vision, but rather that it was either a vastly different perspective or
(possibly) a lack of vision - or a little of both. I would agree that all
assumptions must be continually re-examined, in practice. Parameters change.
> > > We should continue to improve methods of risk estimation. But in
> > the final analysis, decisions about pesticide registration will still to
> be
> > made in the light of the risk-benefit calculation, and IMO, this is
> > appropriate.
> >
> > This is true, but that requires clearly defined goals that are
> > difficult to promulgate when so many lack knowledge of what's possible.
> Things are not all that relative. Thatīs not how things came to be.
> Somebody's got to
> go ahead and do it, and my responses to this tack will be limited by that
> fact.
> >
> You lost me here. Could you restate this?
Meaning if the available evidence has already satisfied my own criteria, I am
not necessarily going to hang around waiting for someone else to come around
to the same point of view. I am going to act on it on my own. Many people
lack a common basis for decision making, since the concepts in question
haven't been corroborated through their own personal experience. There are
alternatives that have damn near ceased to exist in the U.S., and there's no
explaining it to someone who's had different assumptions programed in,
assumptions that just happen to fit someone elses game plan - and we could
very well be talking about many aspects of industrialized agriculture.
> Weīre not all on salary or subject to policies someone else made.
> >
> If I understand you correctly, I AM offended by this. I am seriously,
> and, with some cost to my job and family, attempting to dialogue with
> environmentalists.
Thatīs damn big of you.
> I'll bet I was doing volunteer recycling work before
> an environmental thought ever crossed your mind.
Do you really want to bet?
> I have cared about the
> earth, and people, as long as I can remember, and that is why I became
> an agronomist.
I'm glad to hear it.
> Do you think I am doing this because Pioneer wants me
> to? I'd probably get reprimanded for engaging in such public debate if
> they parsed the email.
Thank you for proving my point.
> (But I do enjoy vigorous debate, especially when I am right ;-)
>
> Dale
I hope you can enjoy it just as much or more when you wake up realizing you
were at least a little bit wrong.
On the other hand, I agreed from the start that the change is going
incremental in most cases, and that there are a number of grey rather than
black and white issues involved. But this is not to say there are no absolute
truths. And I see no reason for any hard feelings.
DH
> > --
> > Record 82 of 96 - BA on CD 7/97-12/97
> >
> > TI: The causes and prevention of cancer: Gaining perspective.
> > AU: Ames-B-N; Gold-L-S
> > SO: Environmental Health Perspectives 105(SUPPL. 4): 865-873
> > PY: 1997
> > LA: English
> > AB: Epidemiological studies have identified several factors that are
> > likely to have a major effect on reducing rates of cancer: reduction
> > of smoking, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, and
> > control, of infections. Other factors include avoidance of intense sun
> > exposure, increased physical activity, and reduced consumption of
> > alcohol and possibly red meat. Risks of many types of cancer can
> > already be reduced, and the potential for further reductions is great.
> > In the United States, cancer death rates for all cancers combined are
> > decreasing, if lung cancer (90% of which is due to smoking), is
> > excluded from the analysis. We review the research on causes of cancer
> > and show why much cancer is preventable. The idea that traces of
> > synthetic chemicals, such as DDT, are major contributors to human
> > cancer is not supported by the evidence, yet public concern and
> > resource allocation for reduction of chemical pollution are very high,
> > in part because standard risk assessment uses linear extrapolation
> > from limited data in high-dose animal cancer tests. These tests are
> > done at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and are typically
> > misinterpreted to mean that low doses of synthetic chemicals and
> > industrial pollutants are relevant to human cancer. About half the
> > chemicals tested, whether synthetic or natural, are carcinogenic to
> > rodents at such high doses. Almost all chemicals in the human diet are
> > natural. For example, 99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally
> > present in plants to ward off insects and other predators. Half of the
> > natural pesticides that have been tested at the MTD are rodent
> > carcinogens.
This is a reductionist point of view that fails to consider a whole systems
context. And in relation to cancer, itīs far too general. I also would want
to know more about the authors and the journal, since I perceive assumptions
that suggest vested interests.
> Cooking food produces large numbers of natural dietary
> > chemicals. Roasted coffee, for example, contains more than 1000
> > chemicals: of 27 tested, 19 are rodent carcinogens. Increasing
> > evidence supports the idea that the high frequency of positive results
> > in rodent bioassays is due to testing at the MTD, which frequently can
> > cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement-a risk
> > factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses. Because default
> > risk assessments use linear extrapolation, which ignores effects of
> > the high dose itself, low-dose risks are often exaggerated.
Not everyone eats cooked food or drinks coffee. I knew smokers who used to
say that they might as well smoke since they were going to die anyway and
contamination was everywhere. (They were right about one thing - most died).
Toxic agrochemicals will not be found in the future of agriculture, and I
suggest you try to interest Pioneer in investing in alternative technologies,
if only to hedge their bet.
--Douglas M. Hinds Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--------------E51D5034E3FE98E94C29142B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wilson, Dale wrote:
Douglas,There are significant differences. It is true that the pharmaceutical industry produces agrochemicals, but they haven't acheived the same degree of dominance in the field of health. Antibiotics are only taken when needed, and no pharmaceutical maker would dare to suggest that basic practices such as eating well, exercise and sufficient rest were anything other than just that - basic to good health! On the other hand, the economic power wielded by manufacturers of agrochemicals; the massive amount of money spent on propaganda, lobbying, research (for which you may have been on the receiving end, directly or indirectly); and the grave imbalances agrochemicals have created in the environment that perpetuate our dependency on these products; have established a climate in which agrochemical use is so prevelent, it's now the norm - and the assumption is that that they're needed (when in reality, it's a self fulfilling prophesy).I guess I don't understand what we are disagreeing about here. My point
was just that the type of cost/benefit calculation made for antibiotics
is exactly the same as for pesticides. In fact, antibiotics are really
a class of pesticide."Furthermore, many antibiotics are so specific to bacterial enzymes and structures that they can be taken for years on end. This is much less true with agrochemicals, and yet their ingestion is practically inescapable. These are significant differences.
Douglas, everyone knows that food-chain accumulation is the big problemYes I dispute that - so "trot" it out if you want. I also dispute that "everyone knows" that "food-chain accumulation is the big problem with DDT" (not toxicity or carcinogenicity). But there has been no personal attact. I find some of your assertions incredible, unreal; but not without their element of humor. Just don't expect me to swallow all of it. It´s soometimes hard enough to believe you're even saying these things. You may well be a swell guy, good buddy and down to earth family man. I have nothing against you personally. I just can't take all of what you say seriously and do find some of it annoying. But don't worry about it - I sure don't.
with DDT and many organochlorine compounds. Without this, the weak
toxicity would be irrelevant. If you dispute that, we can trot out and
examine the data. That would be more productive than personal attack."... DDT ... If it wasn't so resistant to microbial attack it would be very safe.See what I mean? You really believe that?> "Vastly more toxic to insects than to mammals"? It's carcinogenic to humans.I'm not going to use it or reccomend it's use to anyone, so maybe you shouldn't bother. (It might to interesting to know who funded those studies, though). I am opposed to DDT as a matter of principle. My approach to agriculture is coming from a different perspective, which in general terms could be considered evolutionary. (I recommend your reading a recent post of Micha's on that subject, if you haven't done so). Agriculture is to me a social act, within a community I form part of, and I prefer to work with and through living organisms and handle life giving materials and while I suppose I might sympathize with someone who doesn't comprehend the value of that, I have more to do than convince you.
>
...I did a quick search and turned up 96 relevant abstracts. Most of the studies on
environmental exposure concluded that there was no association between
DDT/DDE exposure and cancer incidence. Some studies on much higher
occupational exposures showed a weak association. I'll send you the
abstracts if you want....I do some work with seed-treatment fungicides. Many of these are used at very low rates, and have very low toxicity to boot. They are extremely selective. Anyway you slice it, the environmental cost is low, and the efficacy is high. Why don't you explain how these "do a lot of harm."It is propably true that a very small part of the global environmental contamination resulting from agrochemicals comes from treated seeds.A similar case can be made for some other uses of pesticides.There may well be a few other atypical examples you could come up with.You just can't generalize across all pesticides and uses and assume that the environmental cost is significant. Every case should stand or fall on it's own merits.As a matter of fact I believe I CAN generalize, since there's a principle involved (a principle you apparently choose not to accept - yet). The exceptions may be able in some cases to stand on their own merits, but the kind of agriculture you're describing is on the wrong track, in general. The concept is wrong and I'm sorry you haven't been able to identify with the prime alternative, which I thought this list was about.You can't generalize about biocontrol either. The fact that someStrategies must be locally and temporally adapted.
biocontrol strategies work, doesn't mean that biological controls are
universally useful.The little secret about biocontrol research, atWhat percentage of the total amount spent on agricultural research do you think went or goes to biocontrol?
least in the public sector, is that there has been a fair amount of
money available to do this kind of work.Everyone I knew when I was atWere you dealing with this within the framework of massive monocropping? Were crop rotations and companion crops factored in? What about natural fungal agents where crop / climate combinations may propiate fungal infection? How about genetic resistence?
the University was working on biocontrol, at least in bootleg mode, to
try to get data to write a proposal to hook into that money (me too).
There was great incentive to get positive results. I just think that
the material I was dealing with (sweet corn seedling diseases) wasn't
very amenable to biological control. I tried a lot of different things,
but fungicides were always way better.> Dale, you're placing the burden of proof on the consumer.For the kinds of studies that suit their own ends. But public health is the prioritary issue, by virtue of it's nature and our judicial system.
>
You're changing the subject. The burden of proof is clearly on the
manufacturer because they pay for the testing.You are claiming thatWhat you call a polemic is just the particular lifeboat I choose to stake my life on, and I'm within my rights, with or without your approval. The vested interests promoting these substances are closer to you than me.
the toxicological methods endorsed by the scientific community are
ineffective. Description of your toxicological rationale for this claim
would be more productive than your continued polemic.The rationale has been described by me and others at length in the past but you evidently find little sustenence in it. You remind me of someone I once saw take apart an avocado seed - I don't know what she expected to find - but obviosly she couldn't identify with it, or comprehend that it was alive.
> This ignores those who DON¨T hold up well enough (i.e. children, theThe vested interests of those who fund the studies, the short term nature of those studies, the exclusion of so many significant and susceptible minorities, the unwarranted conclusions and the facil justification and bland acceptance of too many causualties, among others
> old and ill, more sensitive individuals etc.), and presupposes a
> "natural" decline that is in reality the result of a steady
> deterioration of the human organism due to continued contact with the
> products you seem to like so much, that eventually kill EVERYBODY off
> - but that´s OK because is fits the statistical norm. In short, your
> frame of reference is too limited.
>
Again, if you have a gripe with how they do the toxicology, let's hear
the specifics.I have attached below the abstract of a paper thatI accept that point of view but am going to have to let someone else do the stats for now (I've got projects to get out the door), and in any case I think my case would be best made in a court of law - meaning I'd be most useful working at that level (activist), rather than by accumulating further evidence.
summarizes my take on the toxicology. The devil is in the statistical
details. I am willing to go into that with you.I myself live what I believe, as much as I can. It´s others that need convincing and I'd rather acheive that by providing an example, rather than data. This means that I am not in a position to ventilate the matter within the guidelines that correspond to your training, due to practical pressures on me to do what I've committed myself to do (which is also what most interests me). Those are the things I have to do and no one else is going to do them for me - or wait around much either.
> Sometimes, I kind of wonder why someone with your perspective (or lackPerhaps that was not a tactful thing to say. I suppose I became exasperated by some of your statements. I did not mean that you necessarily had no vision, but rather that it was either a vastly different perspective or (possibly) a lack of vision - or a little of both. I would agree that all assumptions must be continually re-examined, in practice. Parameters change.
> of vision) is on this list.
>
I can see that you have a strong political instinct. I look at these
issues from a practical, hands-on perspective. IMO, sustainable
agriculture is too important to leave it exclusively to armchair
agronomists, utopian extremists and detached administrators.> > We should continue to improve methods of risk estimation. But inMeaning if the available evidence has already satisfied my own criteria, I am not necessarily going to hang around waiting for someone else to come around to the same point of view. I am going to act on it on my own. Many people lack a common basis for decision making, since the concepts in question haven't been corroborated through their own personal experience. There are alternatives that have damn near ceased to exist in the U.S., and there's no explaining it to someone who's had different assumptions programed in, assumptions that just happen to fit someone elses game plan - and we could very well be talking about many aspects of industrialized agriculture.
> the final analysis, decisions about pesticide registration will still to be
> made in the light of the risk-benefit calculation, and IMO, this is
> appropriate.
>
> This is true, but that requires clearly defined goals that are
> difficult to promulgate when so many lack knowledge of what's possible. Things are not all that relative. That´s not how things came to be. Somebody's got to
go ahead and do it, and my responses to this tack will be limited by that fact.
>
You lost me here. Could you restate this?
> We´re not all on salary or subject to policies someone else made.>That´s damn big of you.
If I understand you correctly, I AM offended by this. I am seriously,
and, with some cost to my job and family, attempting to dialogue with
environmentalists.I'll bet I was doing volunteer recycling work beforeDo you really want to bet?
an environmental thought ever crossed your mind.I have cared about theI'm glad to hear it.
earth, and people, as long as I can remember, and that is why I became
an agronomist.Do you think I am doing this because Pioneer wants meThank you for proving my point.
to? I'd probably get reprimanded for engaging in such public debate if
they parsed the email.(But I do enjoy vigorous debate, especially when I am right ;-)I hope you can enjoy it just as much or more when you wake up realizing you were at least a little bit wrong.Dale
On the other hand, I agreed from the start that the change is going incremental in most cases, and that there are a number of grey rather than black and white issues involved. But this is not to say there are no absolute truths. And I see no reason for any hard feelings.
DH
> --This is a reductionist point of view that fails to consider a whole systems context. And in relation to cancer, it´s far too general. I also would want to know more about the authors and the journal, since I perceive assumptions that suggest vested interests.
> Record 82 of 96 - BA on CD 7/97-12/97
>
> TI: The causes and prevention of cancer: Gaining perspective.
> AU: Ames-B-N; Gold-L-S
> SO: Environmental Health Perspectives 105(SUPPL. 4): 865-873
> PY: 1997
> LA: English
> AB: Epidemiological studies have identified several factors that are
> likely to have a major effect on reducing rates of cancer: reduction
> of smoking, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, and
> control, of infections. Other factors include avoidance of intense sun
> exposure, increased physical activity, and reduced consumption of
> alcohol and possibly red meat. Risks of many types of cancer can
> already be reduced, and the potential for further reductions is great.
> In the United States, cancer death rates for all cancers combined are
> decreasing, if lung cancer (90% of which is due to smoking), is
> excluded from the analysis. We review the research on causes of cancer
> and show why much cancer is preventable. The idea that traces of
> synthetic chemicals, such as DDT, are major contributors to human
> cancer is not supported by the evidence, yet public concern and
> resource allocation for reduction of chemical pollution are very high,
> in part because standard risk assessment uses linear extrapolation
> from limited data in high-dose animal cancer tests. These tests are
> done at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and are typically
> misinterpreted to mean that low doses of synthetic chemicals and
> industrial pollutants are relevant to human cancer. About half the
> chemicals tested, whether synthetic or natural, are carcinogenic to
> rodents at such high doses. Almost all chemicals in the human diet are
> natural. For example, 99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally
> present in plants to ward off insects and other predators. Half of the
> natural pesticides that have been tested at the MTD are rodent
> carcinogens.
Cooking food produces large numbers of natural dietaryNot everyone eats cooked food or drinks coffee. I knew smokers who used to say that they might as well smoke since they were going to die anyway and contamination was everywhere. (They were right about one thing - most died).
> chemicals. Roasted coffee, for example, contains more than 1000
> chemicals: of 27 tested, 19 are rodent carcinogens. Increasing
> evidence supports the idea that the high frequency of positive results
> in rodent bioassays is due to testing at the MTD, which frequently can
> cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement-a risk
> factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses. Because default
> risk assessments use linear extrapolation, which ignores effects of
> the high dose itself, low-dose risks are often exaggerated.Toxic agrochemicals will not be found in the future of agriculture, and I suggest you try to interest Pioneer in investing in alternative technologies, if only to hedge their bet.
--Douglas M. Hinds
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked)
U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked)
Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct)
e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--------------E51D5034E3FE98E94C29142B-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".