Another Way To Handle Tree Stumps?

[Frogleg]

Nonsense. RoundUp does absolutely nothing to groundwater or indeed, to the ground. Glysophate is an extremely effective herbicide, NOT a poison for people or animals or insects.

[paghat]

Nonsense. But lets see how many lying Monsanto employees we can beat out of the bushes to tell whoppers (the company instructs its employees to contradict the truth on the web & on UseNet whenever they see actualities mentioned). Here goes:

The surficant in RoundUp is directly responsible for extreme & lasting damage that has been done to watersheds & water tables. Separate studies have found it directly responsible for eradication of frogs.

There is more surficant in RoundUp than glyphosate, so it is a huge danger to watersheds just on its major ingredient. But as for glyphosate in watersheds, glyphosate easily nitrosates, forming N-nitrosoglyphosate, an unsafe chemical in its own right, & which degrades into Formeldehyde Sarcosine, Methylamine, & aminomethylphosphonic acid -- so if it were even slightly true glyphosate per se does not migrate to water, this would be because deadly break-down chemicals do so instead.

To Monsanto this translates "glyphosate does not migrate to water." Well, actually, it does, & Western Australia studies have proven it, but even in environments where the glyphosate itself is broken down rapidly hence cannot itself migrate to water, the harmful chemicals it breaks down into, some of which are additionally carcinogenic, DO migrate to water.

The Institute for Environment & Resources at Denmark's Technical University concluded that regional wells in Roskilde and Storstroms cannot be safely used for TEN YEARS because glyphosate has so badly polluted the water table. The Institute has said it point-blank, and the Danish Environmental Ministry has repeated it point-blank: Monsanto's claims that glyphosate is rapidly broken down by bacteria in the environment is false. False. What is true is that this claim has never been supported by any research other than was bought & paid for or conducted by Monsanto.

A western Australia study established that three species of frog were now extinct because of glyphosate products. Separate & supportive studies on loss of frogs & tadpoles in Canada have further established at least ONE permanent & irrepairable effect of glyphosate products on frogs: Extinction. The studies that have indicated that glyphosate itself may be involved in the rising rates of lymphatic cancers in humans is frightening enough, but the chemical mixes that have reach wetlands are undeniably involved in the mass extinction of frogs -- so the only sensible decision in light of even that one issue would have to be STOP USING THESE POISONS.

Nonsense. The most common chemical injury presenting in California emergency rooms turns out to be from RoundUp exposure & other glyphosate-containing products. The majority are eye injuries & accidental injestion by children or suicide attempts -- it is a very effective chemical if you want to commit suicide.

Vigfusson & Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH and Hardell & Erickson in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY find evidence of glyphosate as a cancer causing agent, a likely cause of the increase in nonhodgson's lymphoma.

More studies need to be done on glyphosate as a carcinogen, but many other dangerous problems with glyphosate are well established by INDEPENDENT research. A Finish study found that glyphosate lingers at toxic levels for long periods, with an average half-life of 249 days (as opposed to the maximum 60 day halflife claimed by Monsanto).

A half dozen studies on glyphosate's long-term destruction of beneficial funguses in the soil credit glyphosate usage for rendering soils entirely incapable of supporting life for many years at a st retch, once the mycorrhizal webs are interupted. Virtually all Absolutely Safe findings about glyphosate are either generated in-house by Monsanto for self-serving purposes, or paid for by Monsanto. Genuinely independent research is rarely if ever so positive as the Monsanto-generated studies.

Monsanto, while fighting in the Australian courts to not reveal what the miscellaneous ingredients in their glyphosate products really are, & to limit the scope of eventual bans on several once-normative uses of glyphosate in western Australia, rather like the cigarette companies at first would not admit to any faults in their products, but eventually did admit their glyphosate products had indeed caused "severe local effects" in the Australian environment, & also finally admitted that the low-organic-matter soils in Australia meant their glyphosate products would not biodegrade even after a full year.

The public is not even allowed to know what the miscellaneous contents of products like RoundUp really are. The lab tests on pure chemicals ultimately do not apply to the toxic "mixes" of chemicals in these products. "Mixes" of chemicals can become increasingly dangerous; for instance, Monsanto doesn't want anyone to know that glyphosate used in the proxity of phosphates triples in toxicity -- which means really the label should carry the "Warning: do not use near areas that are fertilized." In

1996 Judge Robertson by court order forced Monsanto to reveal other ingredients of their glyphosate-based brands, but the list was then sealed by court order, so the public still does not know. Fifteen chemicals ARE known for RoundUp alone, but the packaging lists far fewer.

NO STUDY has ever been done on the actual chemical mixes in play, and the public and independent researchers are not even allowed to know what those chemicals might be. But independent studies have measured toxins in watersheds, & it is clear that these deadly Monsanto products already pollute exactly the kind of areas Monsanto-purchased studies pretend aren't harmed.

Make no mistake. Glyphosate is dangerous stuff. If you and I were the only two dumbass shitheads ever to use it, then it'd be okay, but tons and tons and tons are being dumped everywhere, and Monsanto is developing glyphosate-tolerant crops so that they can sell three, four, TEN times the amount of glyphosate to be dumped on the planet. Monsanto's future hinges on their ability to sell lots of glyphosate to use on glyophosate-resistant crops -- expect them to continue to fight with every weapon they can to keep governments from responding rationally to a very large threat to the environment & human health, to continue to buy of government officials, & to keep the public too confused by Monsanto misinformation to be sure of anything.

-paghat the ratgirl

[Frogleg]

I looked up every respectable (gov't, U) safety data sheet I could find some time ago. None of them reported anything more serious than cautions to use on a windless day to avoid aerosol drift.

Vinegar is more toxic (as an irritant) to humans, and salt *much* more detrimental to soil and water that is to be used for growing plants. Not to mention contamination of water supplies by "natural" waste products.

I always wonder exactly where the line between "natural" or "organic"

-- that is, GOOD -- and "chemical", which is EVIL lies. Don't use a "chemical" insecticide; use soap. So soap, 'though it doesn't grow on trees or appear as a by-product of organic compost, is "natural." Chlorine bleach is "natural" and recommended as an alternative to bad "chemical" weedkiller. Take a look at the safety data sheets on chlorine bleach!

I'm far from a "throw a chemical at it" garden problem-solver. I know that most pesticides kill both desired insects and pests, so I avoid them. I've never used fertilizer, insecticide, or weedkiller on my lawn. But I *do* get tired of this reflexive "all 'chemicals' are bad" attitude. Glysophate is a very effective herbicide with virtually no evil side-effects. I believe it is viewed as evil *because* it is effective. For those who've spend hours and hours hand-digging weeds, only to see them re-sprout from root fragments, RoundUp is like magic. And therefore, must be evil. The Puritan says you *must* do it the hard way, because that's the only natural, pure way. Anything easy is degenerate by definition.

[Bill Oliver]

Paghat, of course, tells half the truth. The Danish restrictions are based on a general proscription against *any* herbicide in the ground water at any level above 0.1 micrograms/L, as opposed to a risk-based acceptable level of 700 micrograms/L in the US. The levels that Demnark found unacceptable were not, in fact, found in the groundwater or aquifer, but in drainage water. and were 5.4 micrograms/L (compared, again, to a risk-based limit of 700). And in contrast to Paghat's claim, the Danish study did show rapid degradation, which is why the levels were high in drainage water, but not in stable groundwater, where the levels remained below the 0.1 limit.

billo