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

Page 4 of 6  



Yet, yard chemicals, in general, _aren't_ neurotoxins. If you're going to talk about yard chemicals in general, then you have to pick something that at least most of them have in common. Neurotoxicity isn't one of them.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, fine. Let's simplify this: There are people who believe that even though yard chemicals cannot be tested on humans in a way that's scientifically rigorous (as drugs are, or so we hope), it is OK to assume they are safe. Why do they believe this?
By "safe", I don't mean anyone should drink a glass of herbicide. I'm referring to the unintended consequences. Before we continue, do we need to define those consequences so we're on the same page?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...

No - I don't have an issue with that.
A major part of my point is that "cannot be tested ... that's scientifically rigorous" is highly misleading. It comes out of the confusion over whether animal testing is applicable to humans or not. It's _well_ understood that different species have different responses to things. But it's also understood that if you check multiple species, and have a large enough safety margin when applying to humans, that it will be right virtually all of the time - right more often than would be justified in testing a material not intended for human consumption with humans directly. It doesn't matter whether, say, roundup is twice or even 10 times as dangerous to humans as your test species, if the safety margin is larger, it don't matter.
[You also have to remember that with drugs, the testing isn't just for "safe limits", it's for minimum effective dosage level. Being off by a factor of 100 in effective dosage level simply isn't acceptable for a drug. But it is when you're determining max dosage level for something not intended for therapeutic value - by biasing the acceptable levels _low_.]
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]. Multi-generational. Not just by Monsanto, but by governments and universities. It's effects on these animals is well understood, isn't carcinogenic/teratogenic and "safe" maximum dosage levels are well established for the tested species. There have also been numerous on glysophate/roundup concentrations after application in some worst-case scenarios. So you know what the environmental dosage levels can be.
Now, if you looked at the link I've previously applied (documentation from the Government of Canada specifying allowable limits) you'll note that they took the lowest known demonstrable toxicity level (glysophate is safer than common table salt in terms of acute toxicity!), and then reduced it by a factor of ten to account for individual variation and another 10 for species variation. Resulting in a total factor of 100. That's the legal limit for roundup concentration. That still being vastly higher than environmental levels from anything short of a major spill, and that "reasonable" use by the public is not dangerous.
I trust the scientific community enough to have lots of safety margin and to have examined things closely enough to simply not worry about roundup. The studies are there, and the margins are high enough to take into account not testing directly on humans.
There are yard chemicals I'm not so confident of. And many of those have already been restricted or banned. I don't see that happening to roundup based on any evidence that is or likely to become available.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which I'd like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

...
What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]" did you not comprehend?
And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what product of any type is "safe" for your use?
There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No tests have involved long term exposure. And, believe me when I tell you NOBODY volunteered their kids to be exposed to these chemicals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:50:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

A long term worldwide test was conducted. The results? They found that 100% of people who died had at some point consumed water. Interestingly enough, in that same study they found NOT ONE case of anyone who died who drank only Roundup.
Case CLOSED.
Now... Go away. get a life, or at least a hobby.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Go fuck yourself, child.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That's not the question I raised. But, that it might have been accidental exposure studied (and I don't know the precise provenance of the studies he cites; I'm trusting Chris's assessment as accurate as he's usually pretty careful) doesn't invalidate conclusions which may be drawn from observations of effects.
And, as has been pointed out repeatedly before, there isn't epidemiological data to indicate widespread problems with recommended practice and usage and the particular herbicide has now been in widespread use for over 30 years now. That's pretty much a definition of long term...
As I say, you can be practical and reasonable about risks or paranoid. There would appear to be far more serious potential threats than this particular one to obsess over.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Amen to that. If one is scared to use Roundup then no chemical of any kind should ever be used. Almost all of them are more hazardous and that includes (already mentioned) table salt, paint, gasoline, soap, etc.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


The govt. publication cited several long-term multi-generational testing on a variety of species, and no teratogenic or carcinogenic effects were found whatsoever at any dosage. Those tend to be much more consistent across species than other effects.
The human tests were deliberate - relatively short term uptake studies (showing that virtually all of it was excreted very quickly, and that bio-accumulation, if any, was unmeasurably low). Which were consistent with the other species tests. Which impliest that potential human results (for long term/acute etc) are within close proximity of those known with other species.

There have been some apocryphal reports of effects, but those appear to not be attributable to roundup per-se.
Similarly there were some reports that allegedly showed that living under high voltage towers in the country leads to cancer. Subsequent analysis ended up showing that it was something different causing it - the industrial strength persistent defoliants (that homeowners have never been permitted to purchase - it _wasn't_ roundup) used for long term control of vegetation near the towers/poles - that realization led to changes in practise in the use and types of defoliants.
Years ago, there was a major fuss in Toronto about high accumulated lead levels in humans supposedly coming from a car battery recycling companies in Toronto, with calls for their elimination. A university student did a study/thesis on it, and she found to everyone's surprise (including her own) that the lead _wasn't_ from the recycling companies, it was the soft (lead-based) solder used in kettles. _That_ led to a universal recall/replacement of kettles. As I recall, in Toronto the municipal govt. simply drove around to every household, and gave you a new kettle for every old one you surrendered.
We've seen a subsequent iteration of that with the banning of lead-based solder in plumbing.

Indeed, especially when some of the "natural" solutions turn out to be more dangerous than the "chemical" one.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:14:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

http://www.scotts.com/media/media/_PDFs/MSDS/Roundup/71995-25%20Roundup%20WGK%20Super%20Concentrate%20MSDS.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@will.com wrote:

http://www.scotts.com/media/media/_PDFs/MSDS/Roundup/71995-25%20Roundup%20WGK%20Super%20Concentrate%20MSDS.pdf
Looks pretty safe to me. Possible eye irritation probably worse hazard. I pay closer attention to toxicology section as up front sections are generally aimed at laymen and overemphasize hazards or err on the side of caution. Animals tested are good representation of human physiology. If material was intended for human contact, consumption etc. there would be human testing.
MSDS is a synopsis of all the data out there which for a material like this that must have a ton of literature on its toxicity. Usually a professional toxicologist would write the toxicology summary.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You must not have read either the link, or all of my posting. Because there has been human testing to find out whether humans process the stuff any differently than the species involved with more rigorous testing and potentially invalidate the factor of 100 safety margin that's built in to the legal limits.
Yes, species vary. But not that much.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When and IF you guys ever get past the point of beating this dead horse, and want to beat some of the stupid humans that are prattling on endlessly about this, please do sign me up.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clipped

After we used broadleaf weed killer on our lawn, we had a few stubborn weeds that we could not pull out. I used to brush Roundup for spot treating tough stuff. Good lawn care is key.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Criminently. Everyone dies from something. And if you're lucky enough to live for a long time, you'll probably be run over by a beer truck, anyway.
Remember when they sprayed malthion from helicopters over LA county at night and told NO ONE? I bet there are people still keeling over today from that one.
Live your life like you're not afraid of dying. Unless, of course, you are.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SteveB wrote:

They spray mal. in Florida for some nasty bug that kills orange trees. Orange trees are much more important to Fl. than a few delicate humans :o)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about people who aren't in a position to make that decision, like children?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We can't take care of the children today who are beaten, neglected and abused by their parents. Are you saying we need to take care of them? Maybe by starting a new governmental agency staffed with people making $120k a year plus bennies and a golden parachute retirement package?
Steve
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.