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

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because watermelon could kill you?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
HeyBub

apple seeds contain cyanide, eat enough seeds you die........

but the apple itself counteracts the seeds.

myself i would let the weeds grow in the gravel. weeds mean theres dirt in the gravel:(

another approach if you demand a gravel driveway have it dug out a foot, lay a couple inches of asphalt base roll and cover with gravel and roll again.

a foot of gravel over a asphalt base will mean no dirt in the gravel, and thus no weeds.

my neighbor did this 20 years ago, he moved his gravel driveway still looks pristine

Reply to
hallerb

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.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

I guess you're right. There should be no research on neurotoxins designed to kill things. Thanks for teaching me this.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

ive use rock salt in sensative areas

formatting link

Reply to
ds549

"neurotoxin", Round-Up?

Makes no sense, plants don't have nerves.

According to this:

formatting link
2. Safety. Monsanto Company has submitted numerous toxicology studies in support of glyphosate. According to Monsanto Company, the acute toxicity and irritation potential of glyphosate is low. There are large margins of safety for subchronic and chronic effects. Glyphosate does not produce reproductive effects and is not a teratogen, mutagen, carcinogen or a neurotoxin. Risk assessment calculations indicate the margin of safety for agricultural workers and the population in general far exceed the EPA required level of 100.

Lot's more information there.

Makes me want to go out and bathe in it.

Reply to
Dan Espen

I know. I was referring at that point to pesticides. Think "general".

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

"Harry K" wrote 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

Reply to
SteveB

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

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

Reply to
SteveB

Yeah. It's called a reading disorder. You should try and become infected before you get old and die.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test ILLEGAL drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because PETA and PAWS won't let them use animals any more.

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using animals?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

Do I understand you correctly then, that for the purposes of discussing this issue, that we are supposed to think in "general" terms, yet you may delve into minutiae on any issue?

I thought I had it right.

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

Actually, what you just said is unrelated to anything you've seen in this discussion.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

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.)

--

Reply to
dpb

Could be we may come to it, it seems... :(

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't been prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--

Reply to
dpb

"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.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to establish that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are clueless people, so I had to ask first).

Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After all, we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently than humans.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

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...

--

Reply to
dpb

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.