You want to spray this poison on your plants and foods then OK, but
dont kid yourself about the harm its doing to us all.


google search on

http://tinyurl.com/c9478

and

http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/tox_herb.htm

TOXIC HERBICIDES

- from the RIC Good Wood Project

Glyphosate

This stuff is not safe, but unfortunately many forestry agencies,
local authorities, private-land tree-planters and bush regenerators
now spray, dab, or otherwise apply glyphosate-containing substances to
control weed growth prior to planting. In the U.S. in 1993, university
studies declared glyphosate the third most commonly reported cause of
pesticide illness among agricultural workers, and to be the most
commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape
maintenance workers 1.

Glyphosate is the active killing ingredient in numerous proprietary
pesticides, including: ROUNDUP, EAZY WEEDER, SLAM grass and weed
killer, ZERO weed spray and wand, COMKILL, SQUADRON, TILLMASTER,
TUMBLEWEED, etc.

Virtually all testing for long term health and environmental damage
(eg: for cancer, reproductive defects, birth defects, chronic damage)
has been done only on the single ingredient, glyphosate, and not on
the full formulation containing solvents and surfactants 2.

Claims of biodegradability for Roundup (ie, that the herbicide breaks
down when it contacts the ground) are therefore next to meaningless.
Researchers have found up to 98% of the glyphosate has remained
present on sprayed leaves and branches after 90 days. Likewise, if it
is not able to be absorbed by a particular soil type, especially those
low in organic matter, then it will remain active, often for months.

Glyphosate readily "nitrosates" to form a new compound called
N-nitrosoglyphosate, which is known to cause tumours. Nitrosation
occurs in the human stomach by reaction with the nitrate in normal
human saliva. A forest worker spraying Roundup from a backpack, for
example, could be in the high risk category for tumour growth by
breathing in some of the spray drift.

Nitrosoglyphosate can apparently also form in soils under certain
conditions. Research has shown that it is very persistent (ie, not
biodegradable), with 7 parts per million remaining in the soil after
140 days. Admittedly, there is diverse and conflicting data put out
about glyphosate. On the strength of the above, the Guide advises that
you err on the side of caution.

Weed experts now say that weeds such as rye grass are becoming
resistant to glyphosate-containing herbicides, which will render
conventional chemical farming practices useless.

Glyphosate is illegal to spray in waterways as of June 3rd 1997.
Seventy four of seventy five glyphosate-containing substances tested
by the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary
Chemicals contained a surfactant toxic to frogs and other aquatic
lifeforms.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Last Roundup...
The West Australian Environment Protection Agency has evidence that
Roundup has killed three species of frogs 3. At first, the reaction
from the National Registration Authority was dismissive, but now a
snap review of the effects of Roundup in or near aquatic environments
is being undertaken. It is suspected by the WA EPA that it is the
surfactant in Roundup that kills the frogs.

The manufacturers, Monsanto, have not released the names of the other
ingredients in Roundup and they have not been tested in the
environment in conjunction with the active ingredient, glyphosphate.
Monsanto has reported "severe local effects and testicular effects in
rabbits", so watch out!

Roundup is only conditionally registered with the Authority, because
nineteen out of twenty eight studies have still not been done. These
are studies to ascertain Roundup's movement and accumulation in water,
soil, air, fish, irrigated crops, aquatic systems and forests.

In the state of New York, Roundup manufacturers Monsanto are no longer
allowed to label their glyphosate products "biodegradable", or
"environmentally friendly" in any advertising. (Monsanto is also the
manufacturer of genetically-engineered, Roundup-resistant soybeans.)

- Going Organic Magazine, Dec '95, and Pesticide Action Network North
America Update Service.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Picloram
Picloram (Tordon), a picolenic acid herbicide, is the type of
herbicide a chemical company loves to sell and those concerned only
with killing vegetation love to buy: it is persistent and can be used
to kill a large variety of woody plants and annual and perennial
broadleaved weeds.

A mixture of picloram and 2,4-D, known as Agent White during the
Vietnam War, was sprayed by the US military on those plants that
survived the initial onslaught of Agent Orange (2,4,5-T and 2,4-D).
That mixture is sold in Australia as Tordon.

Picloram/Tordon can be sprayed on foliage, injected into plants,
applied to cut surfaces, or placed at the base of the plant where it
will leach to the roots. Once absorbed by the foliage, stem, or roots,
picloram is transported throughout the plant, where it is quite stable
(ie, just sits there, waiting...).

The very characteristics of Picloram that ensure the killing of a wide
variety of plants, however, are also the one ones that cause trouble
in the wider environment: persistence, leaching, and broad toxicity to
plants in small amounts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Grasslin
Tebuthioron - Not Recommended

(to be updated)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Atrazine
Atrazine is the world's most widely used herbicide. It is used to
control weeds in plantations, on roadsides, in parks, gardens,
orchards and pastures, etc - lots of places where children play. It is
notorious for its tendency to contaminate groundwater, with a
consequent deleterious effect on human health as documented by the
World Health Organisation. Because it is a systemic poison
(organochlorine), its residues penetrate the flesh of fruit and
vegetables and cannot be washed off. The Australian Medical
Association is opposed to Atrazine spraying.

Research 4 has indicated that atrazine is associated with prostrate,
ovarian and creast cancer and also damages the endocrine system,
functioning as a synthetic hormone disruptor. As a 'hormon mimic' it
can block, antagonise, compete with, or mimic hormones at cellular
level. This may lead to reproductive and endocrinal effects. Atrazine
has also demonstrated cardiac toxicity in experimental animals.
Exposure may lead to abdominal pain, impaired adrenal function,
anaemia, dermatitis, diarrhoea, skin, eye and mucous membrane
irritation, nausea and vomiting.

Too often, the community is not even aware of the use of this poison
in public areas. It is extremely important to be vigilant when there
is the prospect of such chemicals being used in the local community.
With the corporatisation of forest agencies, and their hunger for
short-term profits and reluctance to date to investigate
environmentally-safe weed control, the 'chemical option' remains very
attractive to them.

Forestry Tasmania is one such agency which has sprayed Atrazine in
water catchment areas after clearfelling areas of forest or
plantation. Twenty days after one such instance, Atrazine was found in
the town of Derby's tap-water. Manufacturer, Ciba Geigy has tried very
hard through the media to claim that Atrazine couldn't harm anyone,
yet is unable to explain outbreaks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in Italy
(Europe in general has for years been getting Atrazine fog), or bowel
cancer in Kansas in the U.S. (which is subjected to Atrazine rain, has
75% of its water bores contaminated with the stuff and uses
identification of Atrazine residues in food imports as a trade
barrier). Info from the manufacturer itself shows that metabolites of
Atrazine (ie, what it breaks down into in the ecosystem), are more
than twice as toxic as the original compound.

The Tasmanian foresters declared a moratorium on Atrazine (and
Simazine) use until 1997, and have invested $200,000 in the
investigation of alternatives to chemical use in plantations 5.
Super-heated steam is one option being examined by Councils to control
weeds (such as Sydney's Leichhardt Council). However, there are many
more chemicals 'out there' which need to be subjected to closer
community scrutiny.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Lismore's Big Scrub Environment Centre has published a leaflet
called: Glyphosate - How Safe? Call them on [02] 6621 3123 to order a
copy or enquire about their other literature. Other info, see
Chemicals, Toxics Groups in the Directory.

2. See also Know Your Inerts and Toxic Chemical Combinations.

3. Frog extinctions have also been attributed to drought, acid rain,
ozone depletion, salination, pesticides, predation, climate-change and
viruses from ornamental fish.

4. See the book Quick Poison, Slow Poison - Pesticide Risk in the
Lucky Country.

5. Forestry Tasmania has published a book on chemical-free weed
control - see Chemicals, Toxics in the Books section of the Directory.

"Paula" wrote in message
...
You want to spray this poison on your plants and foods then OK, but
dont kid yourself about the harm its doing to us all.


So what, the same results (and in many cases much worse) applies to abouit
half of all chemicals in plants when they are tested for cancer causing
activity using the same methods. Unsurprising really as many of them were
likely evolved to cause problems in insect and mammal browsers, but somehow
no one worries about this...... beware, plants are just *full* of chemicals!

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:34:20 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paula" wrote in message
...
You want to spray this poison on your plants and foods then OK, but
dont kid yourself about the harm its doing to us all.


So what, the same results (and in many cases much worse) applies to abouit
half of all chemicals in plants when they are tested for cancer causing
activity using the same methods.

Really, give us the peer reviewed data backing that wild statement up?


Not that it matters. The plants are not destroying us, its our
chemicals that are!

Unsurprising really as many of them were
likely evolved to cause problems in insect and mammal browsers, but somehow
no one worries about this...... beware, plants are just *full* of chemicals!

How original.

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:34:20 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paula" wrote in message
...
You want to spray this poison on your plants and foods then OK, but
dont kid yourself about the harm its doing to us all.


So what, the same results (and in many cases much worse) applies to abouit
half of all chemicals in plants when they are tested for cancer causing
activity using the same methods.

Really, give us the peer reviewed data backing that wild statement up?


Not that it matters. The plants are not destroying us, its our
chemicals that are!

Unsurprising really as many of them were
likely evolved to cause problems in insect and mammal browsers, but
somehow
no one worries about this...... beware, plants are just *full* of
chemicals!

How original.

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:34:20 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paula" wrote in message
...
You want to spray this poison on your plants and foods then OK, but
dont kid yourself about the harm its doing to us all.


So what, the same results (and in many cases much worse) applies to abouit
half of all chemicals in plants when they are tested for cancer causing
activity using the same methods.

Really, give us the peer reviewed data backing that wild statement up?



Sure, first hit is
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=73 (looks like it has been retyped
from the original, has a few typos)

FWIW this draws on many other peer revviwed studies, so its not a single
study but a summary of many.

Dunno why you think its wild, as I said you'd expect chemicals in plants to
be dangerous, very few plants 'want' to be eaten so they have evolved
defences against that. Being a frutarian is probably the lowest risk option.
Hope you dont eat lettuce or drink coffee, they are 100x more dangerous than
several banned 'chemicals' including DDT and Lindane and some non banned
ones as well.

But to put it in context the risks are still minute in all cases, people
like you like to rant about minute risks from man-made chemicals ...whilst
ignoring the relatively much larger (yet still tiny), risks from naturally
ocurring ones.

I noted the rants you made about glyphosphate (far safer than lettuce and
coffee) included such statements as the danger of eating the foliage, in an
article about spraying trees...what tree foliage do you eat then? And all
those studies were about people whose day to day life is spraying with
glyphospate, where the chances of exposure are obviously orders of magnitude
larger than the average person ...and even then one of the studies concluded
it was the wetting agent not the glyphosphate that was "dangerous"! ...I
hope you dont use Fairy Liquid!

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:14:52 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:34:20 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paula" wrote in message
...
You want to spray this poison on your plants and foods then OK, but
dont kid yourself about the harm its doing to us all.


So what, the same results (and in many cases much worse) applies to abouit
half of all chemicals in plants when they are tested for cancer causing
activity using the same methods.

Really, give us the peer reviewed data backing that wild statement up?



Sure, first hit is
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=73 (looks like it has been retyped
from the original, has a few typos)

Its an essay you dumb tit! Keep away from the chemicals they;re
clearly getting to you.