It *is* safe, very shortly after it's applied. Drink it, no, but I wouldn't hesitate to eat vegetables that were grown in soil that had weeds previously treated (according to directions) with it.
Then why would you propose it as an alternative to RU? I assume you wouldn't use RU there either.
I don't use any "weed control" product other than the following:
Vinegar and citrus oil in sidewalk cracks. (trial run. So far so good), and
Pulling.
In response to your "eating" comment. I eat vinegar a lot. So far no problem.
Of course the point missed you my thirty miles.
Anything that starts out with "Monsanto is known for producing the dioxin-containing defoliant Agent Orange" isn't worth reading further.
So, what exactly did they say about using Roundup around trees? To do a lawn renovation, per the Roundup directions, you can spray the lawn with Roundup and then re-seed a week later. If what's on the surface after a week doesn't interfere with seed germination, I find it hard to believe it's going to harm a tree from the roots.
====
You may very well be correct. I should have stated my other RU/Scotts/Monsanto concerns. With their record I'm not taking any chances.
IMHO, there has got to be a better way.
Jim
Yeah...not reading is a good way to go through life. ;-)
Go back to watching Scotts TV commercials. Yeah, that's better!
Jim
Anthing that starts out a rant with such vitriol is hardly an unbiased source of information. *Obviously* slanted crap isn't worth my time, no. I can see where you would use it as "information", though.
Another idiot.
That's too bad. You actually were making some good points but your ability to deal with contrasting views needs work.
You didn't read it so you can't tell me one thing in that article that is false, can you? If you were self assured in your stance you would defend it, and counter the article with your knowledge. Right?
Jim
That was *not* a contrasting view. It was *obviously* crap, written by some nutcase.
Nope. When an article starts off with a daft conclusion, there is no reason to read further.
"Overview Monsanto is known for producing the dioxin-containing defoliant Agent Orange, which was used extensively in the Vietnam War; for forcing the evacuation of the community of Times Beach, Missouri, by contaminating it with dioxin; and for refusing to accept full responsibility for the PCB contamination of an Alabama town."
Which part is false?
Jim
On 9/12/2010 6:14 PM snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz spake thus:
Got your mind made up just because that paper dares to state a conclusion, eh?
Here's what it says about Roundup, ostensibly the subject of this discussion:
Monsanto?s Notorious Pesticides
Roundup?Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) is Monsanto?s flagship weed killer (or herbicide), accounting for 67% of the company's total sales or about $2.6 billion annually.1 The amount of Roundup sold has grown by around 20% each year over the past five years.2 Monsanto has expanded its capacity to produce Roundup nearly five-fold since 1992.3 While Monsanto maintains that Roundup is safe, many others disagree, including the New York State Attorney General. Based on its investigation, the Attorney General?s office filed a lawsuit arguing that the company?s advertising inaccurately portrayed Monsanto's glyphosate-containing products as safe and as not causing any harmful effects to people or the environment. As part of an out-of-court settlement, Monsanto agreed to discontinue use of terms such as "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" in all advertising of glyphosate-containing products in New York state and paid US$50,000 toward the state's costs of pursuing the case.4 There are a number of environmental and human health problems associated with glyphosate. For example, in studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate, exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth and the cancer, non-Hodgkin?s lymphoma.5 In one case, Monsanto paid a US$225,000 fine for having mislabeled Roundup containers on 75 separate occasions. It was the largest settlement ever paid for violation of U.S. Worker Protection Standards. The labels had claimed that the restricted entry period after application of Roundup was four, rather than the actual 12 hours.6
So just what exactly about this do you disagree with? Keep in mind that all those numbers I've left in the text are footnote references you can check if you refer to the PDF.
Or you can just choose to take the company at their word. I suppose you actually believe that BP is doing all it can to mitigate the effects from its exploded oil rig, for example.
It doesn't matter if any is false, or not. It matters that it is charged rhetoric intended to get across a point of view, nothing else. It is not a piece designed to inform or persuade, rather a piece for knuckleheads who already believe that everyone is out to get them. It's not surprising that you would use it as "evidence" of your position.
I now know you don't think.
Which part is false?
Jim
You really are illiterate, aren't you. Pity.
Another illiterate.
:-) You're the one who didn't read it.
Which part is false?
Jim
Ehh...He's painted in a corner and he doesn't know how to get out.
Declare the dissenters are idiots and claim victory.
Jim
Roundup breaks down rather quickly where it is in contact with soil. It is absorbed through the foliage. Acetic acid, vinegar, does not. The roundup will not affect the trees and the vinegar will. You should not repeatedly use vinegar under the canopy of trees. Rule of thumb on trees is that the roots usualy extend as far as the top does.
Round up needs to be handled as a chemical and people applying it regularly as part of their job need to take precautions. But it does not have a long term residual affect on the ground. 24D, the older defoliant, does remain around longer. It is still a very popular ingredient in brush killer and broad leaf weed killers. It has the useful property of being fatal to broadleaf vegetation while being relatively harmless to grasses.
KRW's point is that you can easily find very biased, distorted, one- sided, piece of crap stories about virtually anything on the internet. And I have to agree with his position that a source that starts out with the obvious bias of the reference is usually not worth reading.
I can find you the exact same kind of FUD about your precious chosen alternative, vinegar:
"Vinegar, in general, is an impure dilute solution of acetic acid obtained by fermentation and used as a condiment and preservative. Folks, beware of vinegar. It is not a food (condiment). It is a solvent, but more importantly, it is a poison and toxin to the human body."
So, now the vinegar on our salads is gonna kill us all.
You spreaded some FUD yourself here, first making a post that indicated that your issue with Roundup was it's safety when used around trees. Now, instead it turns out it's just Roundup itself that you want to make the issue and I have yet to see anything that says it's harmful to trees.
We should look for that on Youtube, at any time, now.
On 9/13/2010 5:40 AM snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net spake thus:
Except that you're drawing a parallel between the Pesticide Action Network, which is credible, and some foodie group from the galaxy Bazoonga, which is not.
Keep in mind too that I believe I was one of the first to raise the question of whether the acidity in vinegar might be harmful to the soil or vegetation. This question still hasn't been resolved here, and I don't know the answer, except to say that I would probably not use it myself.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.