Roundup For Weeds, Or... ? (what's really safe ?)

Page 2 of 6  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Even before that, Rachel Carson said DDT was evil.
Literally millions (of people) have died as a result of the DDT ban. Fortunately, DDT is making a comeback.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's a big difference between spreading it around like M&Ms at a kid's birthday party, and being a little more careful with the stuff now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Nonsense. Evil is evil, whether a little or a lot, irrespective of use, and without considering the good.
If the nay-sayers of the world thought they could get fire banned, we'd be living in the dark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember that. Wasn't it about coffee? One day, it's good for you, the next day, it will kill you. And then the next day, it's off to some other substance. French fries, apples, lawnmower exhaust in California ............... you name it.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

No, neither...it's how science and in particular, testing works...
You do the best you can w/ what you have at the time. If later work turns up something else, you incorporate that as well.
That people (and companies _are_ people at the bottom) make either ill-advised statements or that others may take statements out of context or simply try to find any weakness in one is also a fact of life.
That the second study may subsequently be shown to be either invalid or superseded by later data and tests/studies is also quite possible and a very frequent event, too.
In short, any one test/study/claim is only one piece of any evaluation of any product.
As purely a point of reference, I'm guessing you don't have any involvement w/ agricultural production nor in the production of a major portion of your own? (I'm not planning a bash here, just trying to actually establish some context for discussion.)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Major" production depends on the whims of the weather and the friggin' deer, but I've been a fanatical vegetable gardener for 30+ years. I'm not involved with any sort of commercial production, other than giving away a lot of herbs to a friend who runs a small restaurant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

OK, that's what I had figured, maybe.
Turn that into _having_ to produce enough to feed you and your family reliably every day of the year or in producing enough product to sell to be able to pay the daily bills and provide a comfortable standard of living.
Our family has made our living farming for right at 100 years now in middle of US. Changes are phenomenal in practice and scope in the time since my grandfather homesteaded here. W/o any commercial herbicides production costs would skyrocket and yield would be dramatically reduced.
It's kinda' like solar or wind power generation -- a good thing but the energy density is so low as to make it a very hard economic replacement for all higher-density generation techniques. While you're growing some veggies and all, we're providing the wheat, etc., that you need for the bread to put that tomato into a sandwich...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All true, but this doesn't address the fact that homeowners use chemicals they know little or nothing about. I've heard neighbors say "If they sell it, it must safe, right?" Homeowners do not NEED chemicals to make a living.
Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second. Used to be factories.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities, and for some particular pollutants, maybe...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn chemicals. If you have data to prove them wrong, I'd love to see it. If not, you should be able to imagine how they'd determine such a thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was either in the Chicago Tribune or NY Times last summer. I don't pay for archive access for either of them, but if you do, the article should be easy to find.
I'm curious, though: What would be your reason for doubting this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, given that you have it second (or third) hand through a newspaper article, not even the actual report itself, what could there _possibly_ be to doubt?
I'm saying I think the fact there may be more "point sources" in homeowners is one thing, but what it really means in terms of actual contamination may (and probably is) something different entirely.
I'd have to read the report to see what they actually said to comment further. I don't accept every blind usenet post as gospel for some reason... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Logically, then, nothing anyone learned before the internet existed is valid. Very interesting.
Onward: In SOME, but NOT ALL places people live, what's poured into the soil will end up their drinking water eventually.
TRUE OR FALSE?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, you sure can't trust the EPA - they'd lie when the truth sounded better. Heck, they even try to tell us RoundUp is safe!
Bastids!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in reply to JoeSpareBedroom's comments:

I think it is clear that JoeSpareBedroom has been eating chemically tainted foods. There has to be some logical explanation for his behavior.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Yeah. It's called a reading disorder. You should try and become infected before you get old and die.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

I am already getting old (58), and am in the process of dying (heart disease). My days are too full to give any of my time to endless pointless arguments about "it ain't fair", or "the way it SHOULD be". Because of a brain injury, reading is not one of my hobbies. But, I do stay very busy with the others. I think reading is for people who don't know how to do anything.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

That's pathetic. I hope you don't tell such things to your grandchildren.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny when they did studies on the "organic" and "natural" products, tests showed very little difference between them and regular products. In fact, they found poisons in them, and a lot were grown with the aid of plain old human turds.
But, I guess human waste costs more than fertilizer, hence the spike in cost.
I just wonder if the taste is different ................
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many years ago, the chemical industry purchased certain legislators so they could arrange for so-called "inert" ingredients to be exempt from safety testing. These ingredients are often found in "organic" garden chemicals. Matter of fact, one of them is the reason Roundup is funny stuff:
"Animal however, do not utilize such an enzyme and it is now thought that Roundup's toxicity is attributable to the surfactant component polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) in the formulation. The toxicity profile is similar to that of other surfactant substances and is limited to cases of exposure by ingestion."
I'll leave it up to the idiots here to figure out what a surfactant is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.