Stick a fork in Roundup...

they're done.
https://returntonow.net/2019/02/03/costco-to-be-first-major-retailer-to-stop-selling-roundup
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Better stock up on Roundup. Years ago the Cloradine chemical that kills termites and other bugs was taken off the market. Now it is difficult to get anything that is very effective.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 1:32:34 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:

What's really funny is that Bayer, the German company, just bought Monsanto, about a year ago. Now the lawsuits are hitting them. That was some timing. I don't buy the lawsuits so far. The first one, a janitor at a school in CA, claims he got lymphoma from using Roundup around the school. Says sometimes he was saturated in it. What kind of moron and who's fault is it, if you're saturated in Roundup when all you need to do is spray some weeks around a school?
The latest one, the lawyers hit the jackpot. They have a couple that both got it. Claimed they used it on several properties they owned. I'm sure the fact that both of them got it, was very compelling to the jury who felt sorry for them. But 75,000 people a year get it. And they had many risk factors for it, including age, prior cancers, immune system problems, etc. And it has been reviewed all over the world and found to be safe, many times. It's only the WHO panel that found that it probably causes cancer. I use it, but then I'm not a moron and don't get it on me. Perhaps the most compelling study that says it's not causing cancer was the 15 year long study done of farmers in NC and another state and their families. They found that overall they were healthier than similar non-farmers and had no elevated incidence of lymphoma. And that was with using not only RU, but all kinds of other pesticides and chemicals. If farmers who spray it by the thousands of gallons aren't getting it, hard to explain how some homeowner spraying some weeks would get it. Besides, by now, don't people know enough that any chemical like that, especially one that kills plants, you shouldn't get it on you? And if you can't use RU, then I guess we should start using diesel fuel. No problems there, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/21/19 3:10 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Don't be afraid, corporate shills with white lab coats and an alphabet of initials after their names have determined Roundup is good for you.
In fact, you might have a Roundup deficiency so maybe should take some as a dietary supplement?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can't confuse a consumer operation like Costco with commercial operations like Lesco or even a retailer like Rural King. I doubt Roundup was 0.001% of Costco's business. They are basically a toilet paper company that sells other stuff. (paper products are their biggest seller and the highest profit item) Glyphosate may diminish as a consumer product but I doubt it ever goes away commercially and the replacement will be found to as bad or worse in a decade or two. Right now everyone is looking at one jury in California but even if this survives an appeal, the 9th circuit is the most overturned federal court in the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 3:20:18 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Mostly agree, but it was two juries now, one I think awarded a couple hundred mil to the school janitor, the recent one was a couple in their 70s who both got lymphoma, jury awarded them $2 bil, but that award is way out of any legal norms and will be reduced. On the other hand Bayer may be really screwed, unless this is reversed or greatly diminished. About 75,000 people get lymphoma every year and they will be lining up to sue. On late night TV the shyster lawyers are already running ads seeking clients. And I'm not so sure about glyphosate overall either. Things are so nutty today that I could see activists pushing and getting it banned. I use it. Personally I'm more concerned about farmers using it to kill wheat and similar before harvesting it. Banning that I would have no problems with. Another interesting irrefutable fact is that non-Hodgkins lymphoma incidence has declined over the last several decades, which is the period when RU entered the market and is now widely used. But when you're a jury and see some old couple in their 70s, facts sadly don't matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 May 2019 12:40:52 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

Juries are far from science and in California they seem to think nobody really has to pay those ridiculous settlements. If you did take a couple billion from Bayer it would show up in a lot of things we buy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/21/2019 5:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

That is correct and here is latest approval from EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-herbicide-glyphosate-reaffirms-no-risk-public-health
IARC has designated it a carcinogen on scant data:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/09/if-you-accept-science-you-accept-roundup-does-not-cause-cancer-13490
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 5:50:51 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

It's shown up in their stock price, it's down by half. I wouldn't touch it at this point, would you? Whoever engineered that buyout of Monsanto must have been a real moron, because it was obvious this was where this was headed, once that WHO committee put it on the probably causes cancer list. Even if the awards are reduced, there will be so many more coming, it will be a tidal wave, like the asbestos disaster, unless this is overturned or other juries reach the opposite conclusion. To me, if you were a janitor for a school and you got soaked in RU, it's your fault, you're an idiot. And if it happened once, what would you or I do? I'd figure out what's wrong, get a tyvek suit, etc. The truth is all of these people probably had very little actual exposure. Nobody can prove they are lying. I spray it with a 3 gal backpack sprayer, never had anything more than very minimal exposure, like when adjusting the nozzle, maybe got a drop on my fingers. And when I'm done, I take a shower.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net says...

Many times of any case that goes to the juries no matter how wrong it may be the jury sides with the person and against the big business. Just remember most juries are made by people too dumb to get out of the duty. I doubt that any of them could even understand what was being said other than the man sprayed RU and got cancer. In California almost everything causes cancer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Yep, only the stupid US legal system would have clowns like that decide scientific issues like that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/21/2019 7:39 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

Just checked and it is listed as a carcinogen on California's Proposition 65 list based on IARC pronouncement. Some have exposure levels that are practically immeasurable. When ever I make a safety data sheet I will list a chemical used to make up the product on Prop. 65 even though it may not even be present in the final product, e.g. a solvent that contained 1 ppm even though the solvent is all evaporated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:39:23 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:

Do you even know what the word "duty" means?
Of course jury decisions are crappy if "smart" people get out of it. Nobody with a sense of honor gets out of jury duty.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 6:38:37 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

As usual, I was thinking the same thing, but didn't post it. I've been on jury duty twice and didn't try to get out of it. First time I wound up on a criminal case, second time I didn't make it. I was surprised at how large the selection pool was. I think it was like 60 people. They were tossing one after another, for one reason or another, but they managed to fill it without getting to me. At that point, not sure how I felt. I had spent a couple days, think I had to spend one more day there anyway. Probably would have enjoyed getting on actually, instead of spending two or three days and not doing anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/22/2019 7:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:

You can't complain about the justice system if you don't fulfill your civic obligation to serve. Not sure about all, but most states obligate the employer to make up your pay difference so that is not an excuse.
There are very few valid excuses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

The one and only time I was seated on a jury, it was a date rape case. We acquitted. There was no evidence, it was just "he said", "she said", and we couldn't see ruining the boy's life because he AND his girlfriend got piss-drunk and maybe he couldn't read her signals.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/22/2019 10:08 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

In the one I was on the prosecution made it sound like the husband was the Boston Strangler during the voir dire. When the wife got on the stand she admitted he was asleep when she started beating on him and he may or may not have touched her throat when he tried to fend her off. Mistrial!
The root cause was someone in the house called 911. The sheriffs answered the call and thought they had to arrest someone and when in doubt take the husband to jail. At one time the cops would have separated them and talked them down until it was apparent they weren't going to kill each other, and left. Back in my wilder days cops seemed to have a lot better sense of humor, fortunately for me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

YEP that is actually the law here. If you call 911 for a domestic dispute, someone MUST be arrested.
I understand why that law was created but it is the wrong solution to the problem.
m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/23/2019 10:17 AM, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Where is "here"? Most places there is an arrest if physical encounter, not verbal. Often, if no physical contact, one party just leaves for the night it is done and cops leave. OTOH, if one of them has marks or cuts, the other is cuffed and gone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/23/2019 08:37 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Male privilege... The wife said on the stand that she initiated the physical confrontation and drew blood. The husband wound up in the back of the cruiser.
The cops probably could have let it slide but the real asshole was the state prosecutor. He should have known what the wife was going to say when questioned. I never went to law school but I figured that out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.