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

No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human tests at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use of any product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.

--

Reply to
dpb
Loading thread data ...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

What do we win if we already know? :)

Reply to
dpb

I'm sorry. I'm having a tough time following this conversation.

My children and grandchildren are fine. Both my children are professional people now, one a linguist, and one a psychologist. My grandchildren are provided for by multiple trusts.

I don't watch football or American Idol. I watch a total of about twelve hours of TV a week.

And you?

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

"dpb" wrote

You must understand JoeSpareBedroom's mentality. If he says it is so, then it must be true.

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

Oh, I know and I really should just ignore him -- for some reason the "be scared of your shadow" mentality got me on this one... :(

--

Reply to
dpb

Isn't it amazing? Talking about our children. We want to protect them from the big bad world so badly that we allow them to stay at home into their thirties (or beyond), demand little of them in comparison to what our parents and society demanded of us, then want to talk about others "harming" them either by real or imaginary means.

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

I never said "indefinite". But, never mind that.

You said "No, obviously". It's not so obvious. You also said nothing can meet those criteria, which isn't exactly true. How many of the things we eat were specifically designed to kill?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Trusts do not apply to health issues, other than paying for treatment.

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics of chemical companies?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

What makes you think inerts are exempt from testing...EPA has the lists of all the inerts used in approved products, they just don't have to tell you what a particular one is in the guise of company secrets, but they still have to go threw the EPA. You would think the way the word inert is used in these boards it is only hidden poisons when most inerts used by bulk are probably clays..talcums..wood shavings and other fillers.

I'll be idiotic and think of it as detergent like.

Lar

Reply to
Lar

To take your posts at face value, _nothing_ would be safe. How abouit arsenic? Is it safe? Is it "acceptably safe"? Many, if not most places, have arsenic as a normal part of the ground water. Very low level true but it is there.

There is a matter of practicability. If you demand a total "no effect" test result on everything, then nothing will be used and you will starve to death.

Harry K

Reply to
Harry K

I wish then the water would hurry up and kill the algae in my pond... :)

Lar

Reply to
Lar

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

I guess they were not "designed" unless you believe in intelligent design or god but there is cyanide in Almonds, Cassava, Bamboo Shoots and other plants. Garlic and other herbs are being used in "natural" insecticides. If celery is attacked by insects it will produce an insecticide in its leaves that will kill the insects. Tomato and Potato plants also contain a poison.I am sure there are a number of other poisons produced in the plants and animals that we eat.

The lethal dose of most chemicals is compared to the salt NaCl because it is so deadly. You probably have given some to a child but you could have used it to kill plants.

Reply to
hollenback

Ahhhh....hate to have reality, chemistry and botany intrude upon your fantasies, but....

A. Iffen it ain't "toxic", t'ain't gonna kill the weeds....

B. Salt sure as hell is toxic.....

Reply to
jJim McLaughlin

I guess the research is complete, then.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

You're right. All chemicals are the same, so no research is needed. The fact that some are designed to kill is of no relevance, and it's fine to feed them to children.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for drug trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort of thing.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant about AR.

Harry K

Reply to
Harry K

I don't care about AR in this context, so let's not add any further clutter about it, OK?

Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing spokespersons to say two things to the press, and I believe it was Greenpeace that snagged both articles and stuck them in one of its newsletters. The company first said that animal tests indicated some farm chemical was safe. Two months later, they responded to independent research which indicated that the chemical was NOT safe. Their response: Tests on animals are not an accurate prediction of how a substance effects humans.

Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

According to JoeSpareBedroom :

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

This is a pretty good summary of the existing studies (including long term) done with glysophate/roundup:

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Lewis

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.