Roundup Deemed Dangerous/ Poison Ivy Revisited

Page 3 of 3  


Oh...OK. I thought for a moment that you were one of the morons who thought that using pot was somehow worse than using alcohol, and that prohibition of alcohol was silly, while the same stance twoard pot was right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh. I'm a Canadian. We've decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot, and permit people to use it who have a medical exemption...[+] I fully expect that in the not too distant future it'll become more-or-less fully legal here.
It probably would have by now if it weren't for "war on drugs" pressure from the US. If there was an open vote in parliament where such pressure didn't play a part, and/or a referendum, most of these laws undoubtably would be repealed.
[+] There's a number of ludicrous self-contradictory bits in our current suite of laws. Eg: those with a medical exemption are allowed to have and use it, but nobody's permitted to grow/sell it to them, and the limits for personal cultivation are too low for many. The govt. spent millions on growing their own crop that they'd distribute for this purpose, but someone goofed big time, and they picked a cannabis cultivar that had virtually _no_ THC.
Sigh.
I fully expect that to be ironed out reasonably soon. In the meantime, most police forces are turning a blind eye to the few producers they know to be dedicated to people with medical exemptions.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The whole thing's ridiculous anyway. Pot may kill your lungs if you smoke enough. Booze may kill your liver, stomach, esophagus if you drink enough, and doctors think it may affect the pancreas in nasty ways. Both substances mess with your brain.
It remains illegal for reasons which are probably also illegal. Politicians being paid to continually bury the issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed. But I don't think it's been anywhere established that _moderate_ use of pot is on balance harmful, any more than moderate use of alcohol is. Unlike tobacco, where the "safe dose" (if such actually exists) appears to be _vastly_ lower than most consumers consume.
In fact, most studies show that _moderate_ use of alcohol is beneficial on the whole, and the medical community is aware and takes advantage of that.

A more reasonable approach to drugs would (a) have better impact on dealing with the problems that drugs _really_ cause (eg: crime), and (b) put the DEA and related budgetary sinkholes out of business.
(b) trumps (a).
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd love to know how much lobbying money comes from private corporations that run some of the prisons in this country, and from police organizations. I haven't bothered to check, but it must be significant in order to convince politicians to keep saying things like "pot leads to heroin", etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:05:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

The drug war as a whole is a huge cash cow for both sides. The bureaucrats have a 3 billion dollar budget to spend and budget is power in the government. Of course the smugglers and dealers are making money hand over fist. There really is no concerned party with any political power who wants to stop it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:55:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

Paraquat was the Reagan administration's chemical. Roundup was Clinton's. They were both defoliants and both probably presented the biggest threat when they were smoked but the roundup f was used against coca which wasn't really smoked. Maybe the "agricultural workers" who got sick were the ones chewing coca leaves. I do remember the controversy with Greenpeace and it did refer to activities in South America.0
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says...

Paraquat was used long before the Regan administration; Nixon, perhaps.

--
Keith

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

Whatever we sprayed was killing food crops - small gardens that families used for food, not big corporate affairs. And, all this to compensate for the fact that a lot of parents here and elsewhere are unable to talk honestly to their kids about drugs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter." Wow, to think I thought it was a non-selective plant killer, I didn't know it destroys vegetation.

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

Vanilla extract contains alcohol, which can be toxic. Dose?

Lovely. More info needed. Dragons are extremely difficult to photograph in downtown Newark, NJ.

The eminent scientific journal?

I should hope it would!
Although Monsanto claims that

How many adverse effects? What rate? What is the margin of error?
This kind of reporting goes against what you are trying to do. Present
us with verifiable facts, figures, doses, and so forth, or you simply add to the vast bulk of logic fallacies and numerology that is the global environmental movement today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MSDS for WATER H2O
slip hazard on floors and espically if frozen, electrical shock hazard when water and electric mix, drownd hazard and it doesnt take much. shall i go on?
water is dangerous. perhaps it should be banned too:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Ah yes, dihydrogen monoxide, that ubiquitous chemical.
Don't forget that its gaseous form may cause severe burns, its solid form may freeze exposed flesh and cause frostbite, it is found in every municipal water supply and aquifer in industrialized countries as well as the developing world, and no treatment plant can successfully eliminate 100% of it. Although used in many industrial processes and found in large quantities in automotive and powerplant exhaust, it is actually added intentionally to the soft drinks at fast food restaurants, regardless of health concerns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bertie Brink wrote:

So, since it is one of if not the most widely used and probably by a wide margin, that would actually seem to corroborate it's relative safety...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:22:18 -0400, Bertie Brink

Okay, first clue agricultural workers. Ask your self if you have been working in the fields with the stuff for the last month. Ask yourself whether you will be in the fields with the stuff all the next month. The cases that appear to have indicated a higher tendency to cancer are from people with long term exposure at high concentration. Google "medical studies glyphosate" a spend some time reading the various articles. Read critically and especially in context of who was being studied. Then form your own opinion.

Did they say in what concentration and to whom. From Natural Health Magazine. Oh, than that must be a reliable unbiased source without any agenda.

Careful of "independent studies". Can be as simple as the an author who tried it in his backyard, and saw an earthworm die in the area at some point.

If I was working with it daily over long periods I would be concerned. Show some good sense when working a couple times with it Gary Dyrkacz snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+ http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I run a farm, and I am extremely careful around my animals. I was very hesitant to use Roundup or anything else near them. I thoroughly read up on Roundup and other weed killers. Roundup came up safe time and time again. I would not believe Monsanto, or for taht matter, the manufacturer of any product. I did read the govt. studies and many more. It appears safe and the safest of all the choices. I still will not use it where my animals will eat for at least a week, and I still try to use as little as possible. However, of the choices available, Roundup seems the safest and the only thing I will use. On my lawn I have spot sprayed individual weeds. Thats a pain in the butt to do, but it works.
Mark
---------------------
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:22:18 -0400, Bertie Brink

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@UNLISTED.com wrote:

Oh come on now. You mean you;re not gonna believe such credible sources of unbiased scientific research as :
Women's Cancer Resource Center Coaltion for a Healthy Oakland School Environment Greenpeace Natural Health Magazine Organic Gardening Alternative Medicine Magazine
Any one of these could publish a short story from any author with any agenda and no credible qualifications.
The only real research study listed was done in Sweden using 400 patients diagnosed with NH Lymphoma. There, they tried to determine what herbicides and pesticides people were exposed to over the preceeding decades by questioning them or their survivors if they were deceased. Now, already that makes the whole thing suspect. Relying on surveys filled out by survivors as to what chemicals someone was exposed to over the last 25 years is dubious a best. And most of these people were likely exposed to many agents over those decades. Trying to determine what MIGHT have caused cancer from that data is virtually impossible.
And all this one study showed was some increased risk for exposure to glyphosate. Anyone familiar with cancer studies knows that it's not unusual for one study to suggest there MIGHT be an association, then another study to show no association. That's why the scientific community takes all the research as a whole when drawing conclusions. Fear mongerers on the other hand, grasp at any info, then try to make it look like it is the definitive work on the subject. For example, there are thousands of studies one could cite that cast some question on many of the food additives, drugs, or even the foods themselves that we widely use today. If we went off the deep end based on one study, virtually everything would be deemed dangerous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dihydrogen monoxide
never knew the chemical description of water
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.