A Gardening forum. GardenBanter.co.uk

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » GardenBanter.co.uk forum » Regional Gardening Discussions » United Kingdom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 15-05-2003, 05:20 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

http://www.ptech.co.nz/digthis/knowl...lyphosate.html


Knowledge Base
Question on Glyphosate

Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

Eion's Answer

This is an article written by Wally Richards and I agree totally with
it.
It was published in Dig This magazine, Eion Scarrow

IS GLYPHOSATE SAFE?
Glyphosate is the active chemical in several of the most popular weed
killers such as Roundup, Zero and Network along with several other
brand names.
Roundup, the original glyphosate product was introduced into New
Zealand about 20 years ago and these days is extensively used by
gardeners, horticulturists, farmers and market gardeners.
It was toted as the silver bullet to weeds and unwanted plants,
quickly breaks down in the soil and safe to use. One should also
realise at the time of glyphosate's introduction other chemicals such
as DDT and Lindane were also in common use and these chemicals which
have since been banned were also considered safe to use and it was not
realised that they had such a devastating effect on our environment
and health. Is it possible that glyphosate could also be dangerous to
our environment and health? There is a good number of people that
believe that glyphosate is not all its cracked up to be.
You only have to place the word 'glyphosate' into any good search
engine on the Internet to find disturbing evidence from researchers,
universities and scientists.

( A good page of search engines is at
http://www.peacockfamily.co.nz/directory.html , Eion )

Have these research people an axe to grind against the chemical
companies that manufacture glyphosate? Maybe but in mind highly
unlikely.
In the mean time companies such as Monsanto have their paid researches
and in some cases independent researches, giving favourable comments
and data on glyphosate.
So who are we to believe? If it is found out positively, sometime in
the future, that glyphosate is in our food chain and effecting our
health and the environment, then it will be likely too late for anyone
that may suffer as a result.
Lets look at what we can call the possible negative aspects of
glyphosate. My source of information comes from the likes of,
http://www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html#pesticides on the glyphosate
link.
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted
plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes.
Estimated use in the U.S. is between 38 and 48 million pounds per
year.
Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with a
surfactant, chemicals that help
glyphosate to penetrate plant cells.
Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea,
numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The
surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more
acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is
yet more toxic.
Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking
that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard
categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term
toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed
stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on
reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of
abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency
of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate
herbicides, exposure is associated with an increased risk of
miscarriages, premature birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
and half lives of over 100 days have been measured in field tests in
Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been found in streams following
agricultural, urban, and forestry applications.
Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects,
birds, and small mammals by
destroying vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter.
In laboratory tests, glyphosate increased plants' susceptibility to
disease and reduced the growth of
nitrogen-fixing bacteria."
"In California, the state with the most comprehensive program for
reporting of pesticide-caused illness, glyphosate-containing
herbicides were the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide
illness among agricultural workers"
"Earthworms: A study of the most common earthworm found in
agricultural soils in New Zealand showed that repeated applications of
glyphosate significantly affect growth and survival of earthworms.
Biweekly applications of low rates of glyphosate, (one twentieth of
typical rates) caused a reduction in growth, and increase in time to
maturity and an increase in mortality"
"Mycorrhizal fungi are beneficial fungi that live in and around plants
roots. They help plants absorb nutrients and water and can protect
them from cold and drought. Roundup is toxic to Mycorrhizal fungi in
laboratory studies. Effects on some species associated with conifers
have been observed at concentrations of 1 part per million (ppm),
lower than those found in soil following typical applications."
"Plant Diseases: Glyphosate treatment increases the susceptibility of
crop plants to a number of diseases. For example, glyphosate increased
the susceptibility of tomatoes to crown and root disease."
Further reading, you can write to "Soil and Health Assn" Box 36170
Northcote Auckland and send $3.00 asking for their "Roundup
Information Summary"
In the sheets you will find, Quote, "Dr Ricky Gorringe of Hamilton
estimates, based on cases presenting to his clinic, that probably 1 in
20 New Zealanders are sensitive to Roundup. Dr Gorringe has observed
that the most commonly occurring symptoms as unnatural fatigue, a
band-like headache, a strange 'spaced out' feeling with loss of
confidence, a skin rash, and an otherwise unexplained sudden increase
in blood pressure."
Elsewhere I read of a trial where an area was sprayed with glyphosate
and one month later lettuces were planted. Three months later the
lettuces were cropped and found to contain glyphosate.
As glyphosate is the most commonly used weed killer in horticulture it
would pertain that much of the produce that we consume contains the
chemical. It makes one wonder.

GENETIC FOOD CROPS
Genetics has been in and out of the news over recent times with two
sides fighting for and against Genetic use in New Zealand. Many of us
are unsure about the subject and through lack of understanding we tend
to take a neutral stance.
I believe that there is some applications that genetic engineering can
be used to the benefit of the human race but there are other areas
that appear to be profit originated without too much other concern for
consequences either in the short or long term.
I received copies of GE Digest recently (the digests are compiled to
disseminate information about genetic engineering biotechnology and
related subjects.)
I found some interesting aspects from the digests that I would like to
share with you. My reference is the stated publication and its
references.

Transgenic Soybeans
"It took Monsanto nine years to create a soybean that survived
applications of Roundup. Finally, a 100 seedlings spliced with DNA
from soil bacteria, a cauliflower virus and a petunia plant, were
spray-tested. All survived.
Transgenic soybeans have now been grown commercially for five years.
The 2001 plantings were 68% of the national acreage. In the USA,
transgenic soy is in foods from baby formulas to margarine, ice cream
to muesli bars; in around 70% of processed foods.
Transgenic soy, corn, canola and cotton-seed oil entered the food
chain so quickly most processors did not know. When European buyers of
US soy protested, US processors began investigating safety. The
Director of Scientific Policy for the Grocery Manufacturers of America
said: "We really learned after the fact."
Dan Glickman, former US Agriculture Secretary, says transgenic
products, such as RoundupReady® (RR®) beans, have not received
objective scrutiny, industry has been allowed to take the lead and
regulators have largely ceded their watchdog role. "Regulators even
viewed themselves as cheer-leaders for biotechnology. It was viewed as
science marching forward, and anyone who wasn't marching forward was a
Luddite."
Physicians in Britain, the US and Canada became concerned when
allergies to soy increased 50 per cent after transgenic soy was
introduced into foods. The York Nutritional Laboratory confirmed this
rise in 1999. It was the first time in 17 years soy was in the top ten
foods to cause allergic reactions. In 2000, Irish doctors reported the
same increase. (NB: Reports suggest 20-25 percent of people suffer
allergic reactions to foods and other substances. An allergy is a
body's response to an allergic substance. It may be immediate or
delayed. It may be worsened by an impaired immune system with a
pathological response that can range from hives to anaphylactic death.
Monsanto says its simplicity sells the RR® system. RR® soy allows a
farmer to spray Roundup herbicide over the growing beans, killing most
weeds, but leaving the transgenic soybeans unharmed."
Now one does not have to have much between ones ears to work out that
a Roundup Ready food crop that is sprayed during the term of its
growth with glyphosate will take into itself more glyphosate than one
that cant be sprayed with glyphosate while its growing.
Quote, "Dr Benbrook says that, contrary to Monsanto's claims, field
data provided by the USDA also clearly shows, "Total herbicide use on
RR® soybeans in 1998 was greater on average than conventional
varieties in six states" and higher overall in 10 of the 16 states
surveyed.
Dr Benbrook warns that by the time industry acknowledges the problem
of herbicide-resistant weeds, glyphosate-resistant genes will be
irretrievable, that we cannot "put the genie back in the bottle." He
is concerned that Monsanto is not addressing the question of
resistance. "American agriculture is really at risk with all the
disinformation perpetuated by the biotech industry."
The Farmers Weekly (US, 4 May 2001) reports nearly 70% of US soy bean
value now comes from government subsidies, that (a) these have created
a 25 per cent increase in soy planting in the US since 1998 and (b) a
consequent collapse in world oilseed prices, and (c) an artificial
domestic and international market for US soy, the world's largest
source of transgenic food and animal feed, and that (d) the subsidy
has artificially promoted transgenic production at the expense of
conventional oilseeds grown elsewhere where no similar levels of
subsidy exist. The question has been raised, for whose benefit is
this?
Brazil's exports of non-GE soybeans to Europe rose from 10,135 million
tonnes in 1996 to 15,130 million tonnes in 1998, a 50 per cent
increase, while US soy exports to Europe dropped from 8.854 to 6.572
million tonnes. From 1995 to 2000, the US lost 14.3% of its share of
the export soy market, while Brazil's share climbed 10.7% because it
could supply conventional soybeans.
In the European Union (EU), nearly 50 percent of imported soy meal
comes from regions where RR® soy plantings are prohibited; 44 percent
from Brazil alone. A significant amount goes into animal feed. Demand
for meat and meat products, produced from animals fed on feed free of
transgenic DNA, grew from almost zero to 20-25 percent in only 12
months. In 1987, the US Environmental Protection Agency increased the
allowable pesticide residues in soy in animal feed from 6ppm to 20ppm
for Roundup (glyphosate). No tolerance level is set for meat. Animal
products may have residues."
I submitted the above to Monsanto for their comments and here is the
reply;
Monsanto: "Glyphosate is arguably the most studied molecule in the
history of agriculture. Regulatory agencies around the world who
reviewed the toxicology of glyphosate on several occasions over its
25-year history have concluded that glyphosate is NOT mutagenic nor
carcinogenic (see US EPA's Re-registration Eligibility Decision,
September 1993, World Health Organisation's Environmental Criteria
159, 1994, and the EU's ECCo peer review 1999.) In addition, two
definitive textbooks written on the molecule and glyphosate has been
the subject of thousands of independent scientific studies.

Human/animal toxicity

Glyphosate kills plants by interrupting an essential plant nutrient
pathway a pathway that is only present in green plants. Various
studies reported in the literature describe the effects observed after
accidental and intentional ingestion of Roundup® herbicide. Accidental
exposure results in, at most, only mild effects.

Carcinogenicity

A recent independent study of glyphosate (Williams et al., 2000)
reviewed glyphosate and potential mutagenicity. Their conclusions
we
" Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any
tumorgenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it has been
concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic.
" No effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in
multigenerational reproduction studies with glyphosate.
" Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from
animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or
subchronic studies.
" Williams et al. (2000) concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide
does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or
endocrine systems in humans and other mammals.

Soil-borne Organisms

Interestingly cultivation, a common farming practice, kills more
earthworms and beneficial insects than any other practice. Farmers
adopting no-tillage through the use of Roundup to control competing
vegetation are measuring increases in earthworm populations compared
with the practices of old!

An international review panel rejected the New Zealand earthworm study
mentioned by Mr Richards, as it did not meet the criteria for
concluding glyphosate effects on earthworms. In this study only 6
worms per treatment were used and the variability among worms and
treatments was not thoroughly characterised to satisfy the rigorous
demands of the expert panel.

A recent study has been completed investigating chronic effects of
glyphosate on earthworms. No effects on growth, survival or
reproduction were observed after 56 days of exposure to very high
concentrations.

Nitrogen-fixing bacteria

Numerous field studies have confirmed that application of glyphosate
and Roundup® herbicide at label-recommended rates does not have
long-term negative effects on mycorrhizae, actinomycetes, or bacteria,
nitrification, dehydrogenase activity, or decomposition.

Conclusion

Roundup® herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate have been
extensively investigated in ecological toxicity studies to support
registrations in over 160 countries. This significant body of
scientific evidence, over 1,000 studies during the past 25 years has
demonstrated the favourable environmental health and safety profile of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® herbicide. These
regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have
concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern.

In New Zealand, the Pesticides Board are responsible for the
regulatory approval of herbicides. Roundup® herbicide has been
registered for use in New Zealand for over 20 years."
During the last six years a number of transgenic crops have been
commercialized around the world, predominantly in North America. This
has been the fastest uptake of any new agricultural technology by
growers we have witnessed with over 50 million hectares being planted
in 2001. Farmers are gaining significant benefits from these crops
including reduced costs, greater net income, better yields and quality
as well as a reduction in the overall use of pesticides particularly
insecticides, a clear benefit to the environment. Before these new
crops are commercialised they are subjected to rigorous testing for
health, safety and environmental reasons. The products from these
crops are now widely used in many food processing systems as well as
whole foods and have clearly been shown to be as safe as the same
products of conventional crops. Despite these assurances from the
regulators a number of questions continue to be raised by those
opposing the technology some of which are posed in your article and my
response is as follows;
1. Roundup Ready soybeans and allergens
It would appear that this article is trying to suggest that there is a
link between Roundup Ready soy and allergens. Historically soybeans
are considered to be in the top 8 foods responsible for allergies.
Testing for allergenicity is one of the many rigorous procedures which
must be undertaken for all products from GM crops before they are
approved for commercial release and subsequently for human
consumption. All the testing on Roundup Ready soybeans clearly showed
there was no difference in allergenic potential between conventional
soybeans and those with the herbicide tolerance gene. There has not
been a single documented case of any illness as a result of eating GM
food sin the six years since their commercialisation. Allergic
reactions to soybeans have been reported in the literature for more
than 25 years and the York study merely shows consistency with these
findings. It has been suggested that these allergenic increases
attributed to soy consumption in Britain may be linked to a change of
consumer diet from dairy products to soy products.
2. Safety of Roundup herbicide
As earlier response to these allegations on Roundup have clearly shown
the safety of Roundup herbicide has been extensively examined for 25
years by a wide range of International organisations all concluding
the product should be ranked in the most favourable category possible
for pesticides, Category E, which concludes evidence of
non-carcinogenicity to humans. With respect to spraying crops with
Roundup the regulations and Product label allow for only 1-2 sprays to
be applied early in the growth phase. All residue studies carried out
on the subsequent plants and grain products have clearly shown any
detectable residues to be well below the Maximum Residue Limits
permitted by law.
3. Roundup usage and herbicide resistance
Dr Benbrook has made several claims of this nature on his US website
and these have been challenged by representatives of the USDA
themselves who report the use of selected and non- statistical data to
support these claims. A more recent (2001) study by Dutch researchers
has shown a 10% reduction in overall herbicide usage by farmers using
Roundup Ready soybeans. Perhaps of more significance than the amount
of herbicides being used is the type of product now being sprayed. The
widespread use of Roundup replaces many applications of soil residual
herbicides which have known detrimental environmental features.
In over 25 years of continued widespread use in global agriculture
only 3 published incidents of resistance to Roundup have been shown.
The mode of action of this herbicide is unique and further resistance
findings are expected to be rare despite the growing of Roundup Ready
crops. Monsanto takes great care with the introduction of these new
technologies to ensure the sustainability of the products. Farmers
must adhere to strict herbicide usage procedures to ensure Roundup is
not overused on a field in any one or subsequent years.
5. Roundup Ready canola in New Zealand
Monsanto at no stage planned any commercial canola release in New
Zealand. In 1999 there was initial planning to conduct an out of
season trial as a seed increase for the Northern Hemisphere plantings.
End of Monsanto's comment.

So readers, you have two sides of the glyphosate argument. As
mentioned before there is a lot more information on the Internet if
you care to seek it out.
If you come to believe that the product could be harmful to you then
you are going to have to either grow your own food crops or purchase
organically grown food.

Wally Richard's web address is http://www.gardenews.co.nz

--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
Ads
  #2  
Old 15-05-2003, 06:08 PM
Peter Ashby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

In article baf6fbe9c51d088907bb24812c5f0a5d@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote:

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea,
numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The
surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more
acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is
yet more toxic.


For surfactant read detergent. Yes, you are quite correct drinking
detergent is not a good idea and will make you feel ill. Ingesting
anything with detergent in it will assist that substance in entering
cells, so that is not controversial. None of it however proves that
glyphosate is dangerous. This is crude guilt by association designed to
impress the credulous. If you are so bloody sure that glyphosate is
dangerous how about citing some scientific publications by all the
researches (sic) you imply have done lots of work on it. What
organs/tissues of the body does it target? What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
  #3  
Old 15-05-2003, 06:20 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:07:54 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article baf6fbe9c51d088907bb24812c5f0a5d@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote:

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea,
numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The
surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more
acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is
yet more toxic.


For surfactant read detergent. Yes, you are quite correct drinking
detergent is not a good idea and will make you feel ill. Ingesting
anything with detergent in it will assist that substance in entering
cells, so that is not controversial. None of it however proves that
glyphosate is dangerous. This is crude guilt by association designed to
impress the credulous. If you are so bloody sure that glyphosate is
dangerous how about citing some scientific publications by all the
researches (sic) you imply have done lots of work on it. What
organs/tissues of the body does it target? What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.


Do you really need your hand holding, even at this age?

You can lead a horse to water...........!
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
  #4  
Old 16-05-2003, 07:20 AM
Oz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.



LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.



--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

  #5  
Old 16-05-2003, 08:32 AM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

On Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.



LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


Non of which is borne out by the facts. millions of gallons are used
throughout the world, and it is extremely toxic. I think I would
prefer to trust those who do not have an "agenda" for it's use!
rather than those who earn a living from cutting corners.


--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
  #6  
Old 16-05-2003, 12:20 PM
Peter Ashby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

In article ,
Oz wrote:

Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.



LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.


Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.


Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we
humans aren't plants don't you think?

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to
happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?

Thankyou for an informative reply.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
  #7  
Old 16-05-2003, 12:44 PM
Peter Ashby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

In article 83f87cbf26db3fd36877c726bb8e3504@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100, Oz
wrote:

LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


Non of which is borne out by the facts. millions of gallons are used
throughout the world, and it is extremely toxic. I think I would
prefer to trust those who do not have an "agenda" for it's use!
rather than those who earn a living from cutting corners.


So the fact that it is very, very hard to eat enough glyphosate to kill
you doesn't affect your faith in this 'dangerous substance'? In that
case I have this wonderful product I would like to sell you, it protects
you against that terribly toxic chemical dihydrogen monoxide. It's more
toxic than glyphosate don't you know! It just so happens that I have
some dehydrated water here sealed in a sterile container that I can let
you have at a discounted price of £500 a vial. This once in a lifetime
offer is only available to you for a short time only. Don't delay, you
owe yourself and your loved ones the protection only this product can
offer.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
  #8  
Old 16-05-2003, 12:44 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:17:47 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
Oz wrote:

Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.



LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.


Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.


Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we
humans aren't plants don't you think?

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to
happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?

Thankyou for an informative reply.


The blind leading the blind. Almost sound like Monsanto salespeople.

Should anyone require completed impartial information on any products
www.google.com is a most valuable resource.

Many thousands of pages on any subject you care, once you sift the
one's who profit from selling us toxic substances, you'll then be left
with the facts.

see

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...+health+hazard

It really is quite good, ensures we cannot be baffled by bullshit.



--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
  #9  
Old 16-05-2003, 12:44 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:35:40 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article 83f87cbf26db3fd36877c726bb8e3504@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100, Oz
wrote:

LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


Non of which is borne out by the facts. millions of gallons are used
throughout the world, and it is extremely toxic. I think I would
prefer to trust those who do not have an "agenda" for it's use!
rather than those who earn a living from cutting corners.


So the fact that it is very, very hard to eat enough glyphosate to kill
you doesn't affect your faith in this 'dangerous substance'? In that
case I have this wonderful product I would like to sell you, it protects
you against that terribly toxic chemical dihydrogen monoxide. It's more
toxic than glyphosate don't you know! It just so happens that I have
some dehydrated water here sealed in a sterile container that I can let
you have at a discounted price of £500 a vial. This once in a lifetime
offer is only available to you for a short time only. Don't delay, you
owe yourself and your loved ones the protection only this product can
offer.


Why should we want to buy anything from someone who is obviously
intent on pulling the wool over our eyes, in recommending glyphosate
is safe! We're not as green as you are cabbage looking.



--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
  #10  
Old 16-05-2003, 12:56 PM
jd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??


"Malcolm" wrote in message
news:4fef136dc4b780c4c396014978f06b97@TeraNews...
On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:17:47 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
Oz wrote:

Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action,

what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.


LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.


Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.


Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we
humans aren't plants don't you think?

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to
happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?

Thankyou for an informative reply.


The blind leading the blind. Almost sound like Monsanto salespeople.

Should anyone require completed impartial information on any products
www.google.com is a most valuable resource.

Many thousands of pages on any subject you care, once you sift the
one's who profit from selling us toxic substances, you'll then be left
with the facts.


God Damn - those it call my frickin weeds are not?


  #11  
Old 16-05-2003, 12:56 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:53:12 +0100, "jd" wrote:


"Malcolm" wrote in message
news:4fef136dc4b780c4c396014978f06b97@TeraNews. ..
On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:17:47 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
Oz wrote:

Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose?
remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action,

what
enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You
are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand.
Surely.


LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg
LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air
(note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50).

So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate
to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more
active product would be better.

Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup.

Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L
means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the
sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die
from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's
not the whole picture but you get the drift.

Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we
humans aren't plants don't you think?

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.

That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to
happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?

Thankyou for an informative reply.


The blind leading the blind. Almost sound like Monsanto salespeople.

Should anyone require completed impartial information on any products
www.google.com is a most valuable resource.

Many thousands of pages on any subject you care, once you sift the
one's who profit from selling us toxic substances, you'll then be left
with the facts.


God Damn - those it call my frickin weeds are not?


Ha ha. That it will, just don't spray it anywhere near things you eat,
or anything else eats.


--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
  #12  
Old 16-05-2003, 01:44 PM
Oz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

Peter Ashby writes

Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we
humans aren't plants don't you think?


Indeed so.

To get an analogy, if plants wished to produce a highly specific
pesticide for mammals then they might choose one that quickly and
rapidly destroys haemoglobin. Nobody would be surprised if the toxin
didn't affect plants, as they have no haemoglobin.

Glyphosate is rapidly excreted.


That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to
happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?


The book doesn't say, just says 'glyphosate is rapidly excreted by
mammals'.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

  #13  
Old 16-05-2003, 01:56 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

On Fri, 16 May 2003 13:47:05 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Peter Ashby writes

Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we
humans aren't plants don't you think?


Indeed so.

To get an analogy, if plants wished to produce a highly specific
pesticide for mammals then they might choose one that quickly and
rapidly destroys haemoglobin. Nobody would be surprised if the toxin
didn't affect plants, as they have no haemoglobin.



" less toxic than water when diluted as spray" just how gullible can
one get?


--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
  #14  
Old 16-05-2003, 02:32 PM
Oz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

Oz writes
Peter Ashby writes

That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to
happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?


The book doesn't say, just says 'glyphosate is rapidly excreted by
mammals'.


NB
It's (very) water soluble so I would expect kidneys being the preferred
route.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

  #15  
Old 16-05-2003, 02:56 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??

In article ,
(Oz) wrote:

Oz writes
Peter Ashby writes

That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that

to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile?

The book doesn't say, just says 'glyphosate is rapidly excreted by
mammals'.


NB
It's (very) water soluble so I would expect kidneys being the preferred
route.

I thought it wasn't absorbed across the gut wall in the first place and is
excreted unchanged.


--
Paul
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
broadleaf weed killer Gary E Gardening 13 24-06-2009 08:56 PM
Need help identifying weed Billy Gardening 3 14-11-2008 09:44 AM
Lasagna Rose Beds? Susan Solomon Roses 9 04-04-2003 01:44 AM
corn gluten weed killer in pellet form? Chris Campbell sci.agriculture 14 29-03-2003 02:32 AM
corn gluten weed killer in pellet form? Chris Campbell Gardening 15 25-03-2003 12:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright ©2004-2014 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.