Scary Study - Roundup

Page 2 of 2  
says...

You're not familiar with McArthurs Universal Corrective Map of the World?

It was indeed logical, which is why I agreed with you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not... but I am now.
I guess that puts me in Topsy Turvy Land.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can expect to be consigned to a playpen.
Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.

The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, but in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. Presently, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

*hahahaha*

and the fact that reality doesn't care if you are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you poison your environment enough that it can no longer sustain life then you and/or your children are history.

if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing by goats, ...

besides the fact that monoculture farming wastes a lot of productivity because the land is left bare for long periods of time along with erosion of the topsoil.

this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.

i think the problem is much more than damage to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies which track the effects of the gene fragments inserted into food plants. how those fragments are digested, if they can start an allergic or other autoimmune response in people before they reach the stomach and intestines, if they affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.
one mention in recent news that made me think of the law of unintended side effects -- about how GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines to get new/harder/different tires more often (some farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that chopping blades wear out faster, etc.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

" this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. "
The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil. Obviously you have never farmed. Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks down to free up nutrients that plants require.
Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these micro-organisms.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of the word "burned".
In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein". Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/ nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion.
What kind of farmer are you?
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:49:01 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:

I have read quite a bit regarding Monsanto et al. I believe that they are doing more harm in the world than good but others differ.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote: ...

some time crack a recent soil science (college level) text on the matter.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

No problem with glyphosate...read this:
What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day. Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical. Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was absorbed by the rats intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one week.
Courtesy: NIPC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission.
It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you might look to see who funded it.
Good luck with your studies.
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:47:28 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a collaboration between Oregon State University and the United States Environmental Protection Agency <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pesticide_Information_Center>
Then, there is always the debate over the politics that control the EPA.
"In June 2005, a memo revealed that Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before their release." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agen cy#Controversies>
With the EPA out of the loop, you are left with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity>
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote: ...

heh, much good fun in there to read.
here is a different bit i ran across today while reading up on seed cleaning / seed saving by farmers. very interesting stories about the seed/genetic games going on in the world these days...
http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt 12-09-26&valR1766&cat=material
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks. I'll have read it later. I'm close to being late for work.
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote: ...

a short term study with rats isn't going to reveal long term effects. some effects may not appear for more years than you'll be alive. who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all those acres you spray stuff on, what happens if it is shown to be contaminated and the food you grow is no longer acceptable for animal or human consumption?
do you think those companies that sell you that stuff are going to have deep enough pockets to make things right? to decontaminate the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you and/or your decendants might need as a result?
what about people you might be poisoning downwind? groundwater? or people who buy your food? an insurance company can only cover so much before they go under.
here is an example of what is actually going on:
http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/details.html?rsnpid !4316
a clear sign that poisons do not work in a sustainable manner. this process has been demonstrated over and over again in many ways yet here we have yet another poison and plants being modified so that such poisons can be used to spray fields.
i'm really glad i'll have more poison to breath in coming from the fields around me, going into the water, etc.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 11:01:25 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

I doubt that you and Billy will ever believe ANYTHING that ANY Authority publishes.
The NPIC has issued some pretty good investigative studies on a plethora of pesticides and I would not hesitate in trusting their literature as a guide for usage.
They also know how to use "Capital Letters" when they begin sentences.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

well as it appears that many authorities can be bought and sold and their research is flawed why would people believe them?
i've actually worked at a university for many years. i know how a lot of research is done and how it is funded and how the research can be skewed to not upset the research sponsor.
does a scientist do the public any good by ignoring evidence?
for the education i paid for and accomplished i'll certainly not accept shoddy work or pure BS from others.
if my criticisms are invalid then please state where i'm wrong. i've left it in above so you can actually answer my questions instead of ignoring them.

that's fine for you. i haven't read all their studies and can't say much about them, but the one you quoted in part said something about rats and those are not long lived creatures.

you are very good at ignoring simple questions and always have to reach for stuff that has little to do with the topic at hand.
did you look at the wiki page for glyphosate?
did you look at the article i linked to above?
did you notice the admission of failure and the desire to step up to using yet another herbicide to deal with glyphosate resistant weeds? did you notice that this new herbicide is likely to be more toxic than glyphosate?
notice that they say nothing about Monsanto being responsible for the creation of these weeds and the damage that this is doing to farms? sure Monsanto will sue anyone who uses those genes in crops without license, but once a plant comes up with those genes that they can't profit from they run away with their heads up their kiesters and say "we're not responsible!"
that's their answer when something else goes wrong too in the future... you can bet on it.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Never read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agen cy#Controversies> did you? The EPA has also had some really crummy advice, like telling first responders that the air around the World Trade Center was safe to breath, which sent them, and residents back into a toxic environment.
"According to the report: a September 18 EPA statement saying that the air was "safe"[1] was made without sufficient reliable data available; the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced the EPA to make reassuring comments to the public; and on September 12 the EPA Administrator issued a memo saying that all statements to the media must be cleared by the National Security Council.
Numerous key differences between the draft versions and final versions of EPA statements were found. A recommendation that homes and businesses near ground zero be cleaned by professionals was replaced by a request that citizens follow orders from NYC officials. Another statement that showed concerns about sensitive populations was deleted altogether. Language used to describe excessive amounts of asbestos in the area was altered drastically to minimize attention to the dangers it posed.[2]" ------
Because the EPA writes a "puff piece" on the EPA, you believe them?
Glyphosate, and GMOs "MAY" be perfectly safe, but the reason that they were rushed to market without feeding studies is MONEY. We are the Guinea pigs.
If you aren't familiar with Arpad Pusztai, you should be. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad _Pusztai>
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good article, "bird". It is amazing what some people will do for money, i.e. rob, cheat, and steal. It doesn't seem to matter that people are thown-out onto the streets, or poisoned as long as it helps meets the quarterly revenue targets. In this case we have a new GMO to correct for a problem caused by another GMO. It might be supportable, if the claims for GMOs had ever been realized, but so far the only break through has been for corn that more efficiently consumes NH3, and impoverishes the soil.
It must be tough on banksters, et al., knowing that they need more than $1.1 billion to get into the Forbes 500. I wonder how many recently minted poor it takes to make a billion dollars.
--
Welcome to the New America.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.