On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:47:28 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

Roy wrote:



...



I graduated from an accredited agricultural college



many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as



possible and use the Internet extensively and read a



good many magazines devoted to agriculture.







some time crack a recent soil science (college



level) text on the matter.





songbird



No problem with glyphosate...read this:



What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body

In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken

in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day.

Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into

another chemical.

Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was

absorbed by the rats� intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats�

stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one

week.



Courtesy: NIPC



You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't

identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment

Promotion Commission.



It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or

diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you

might look to see who funded it.



Good luck with your studies.

Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:47:28 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

Roy wrote:



...



I graduated from an accredited agricultural college



many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as



possible and use the Internet extensively and read a



good many magazines devoted to agriculture.







some time crack a recent soil science (college



level) text on the matter.





songbird



No problem with glyphosate...read this:



What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body

In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate
taken

in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one
day.

Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into

another chemical.

Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was

absorbed by the rats? intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats?

stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within
one

week.



Courtesy: NIPC



You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't

identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment

Promotion Commission.



It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or

diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you

might look to see who funded it.



Good luck with your studies.

Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a collaboration
between Oregon State University and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pesticide_Information_Center


Then, there is always the debate over the politics that control the EPA.

"In June 2005, a memo revealed that Philip Cooney, former chief of staff
for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former
lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited
documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before
their release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rotection_Agen
cy#Controversies

With the EPA out of the loop, you are left with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

Roy wrote:
....
Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

a short term study with rats isn't going to
reveal long term effects. some effects may not
appear for more years than you'll be alive.
who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all
those acres you spray stuff on, what happens
if it is shown to be contaminated and the
food you grow is no longer acceptable for
animal or human consumption?

do you think those companies that sell you
that stuff are going to have deep enough
pockets to make things right? to decontaminate
the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you
and/or your decendants might need as a result?

what about people you might be poisoning
downwind? groundwater? or people who buy
your food? an insurance company can only
cover so much before they go under.


here is an example of what is actually going on:

http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316


a clear sign that poisons do not work
in a sustainable manner. this process has
been demonstrated over and over again in
many ways yet here we have yet another
poison and plants being modified so that
such poisons can be used to spray fields.

i'm really glad i'll have more poison
to breath in coming from the fields around
me, going into the water, etc.


songbird

Billy wrote:
....
The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a collaboration
between Oregon State University and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pesticide_Information_Center


Then, there is always the debate over the politics that control the EPA.

"In June 2005, a memo revealed that Philip Cooney, former chief of staff
for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former
lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited
documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before
their release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rotection_Agen
cy#Controversies

With the EPA out of the loop, you are left with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity

heh, much good fun in there to read.


here is a different bit i ran across today while
reading up on seed cleaning / seed saving by farmers.
very interesting stories about the seed/genetic games
going on in the world these days...

http://www.equities.com/news/headlin...6&cat=material


songbird

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 11:01:25 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Roy wrote:

...

Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.



a short term study with rats isn't going to

reveal long term effects. some effects may not

appear for more years than you'll be alive.

who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all

those acres you spray stuff on, what happens

if it is shown to be contaminated and the

food you grow is no longer acceptable for

animal or human consumption?



do you think those companies that sell you

that stuff are going to have deep enough

pockets to make things right? to decontaminate

the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you

and/or your decendants might need as a result?



what about people you might be poisoning

downwind? groundwater? or people who buy

your food? an insurance company can only

cover so much before they go under.





here is an example of what is actually going on:



http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316





a clear sign that poisons do not work

in a sustainable manner. this process has

been demonstrated over and over again in

many ways yet here we have yet another

poison and plants being modified so that

such poisons can be used to spray fields.



i'm really glad i'll have more poison

to breath in coming from the fields around

me, going into the water, etc.





songbird

I doubt that you and Billy will ever believe ANYTHING that ANY
Authority publishes.

The NPIC has issued some pretty good investigative studies on
a plethora of pesticides and I would not hesitate in trusting
their literature as a guide for usage.

They also know how to use "Capital Letters" when they begin
sentences.

Roy wrote:
songbird wrote:
....
a short term study with rats isn't going to
reveal long term effects. some effects may not
appear for more years than you'll be alive.
who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all
those acres you spray stuff on, what happens
if it is shown to be contaminated and the
food you grow is no longer acceptable for
animal or human consumption?

do you think those companies that sell you
that stuff are going to have deep enough
pockets to make things right? to decontaminate
the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you
and/or your decendants might need as a result?

what about people you might be poisoning
downwind? groundwater? or people who buy
your food? an insurance company can only
cover so much before they go under.


here is an example of what is actually going on:


http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316


a clear sign that poisons do not work
in a sustainable manner. this process has
been demonstrated over and over again in
many ways yet here we have yet another
poison and plants being modified so that
such poisons can be used to spray fields.


i'm really glad i'll have more poison
to breath in coming from the fields around
me, going into the water, etc.

I doubt that you and Billy will ever believe ANYTHING that ANY
Authority publishes.

well as it appears that many authorities can
be bought and sold and their research is flawed
why would people believe them?

i've actually worked at a university for many
years. i know how a lot of research is done
and how it is funded and how the research can
be skewed to not upset the research sponsor.

does a scientist do the public any good by
ignoring evidence?

for the education i paid for and accomplished
i'll certainly not accept shoddy work or pure
BS from others.

if my criticisms are invalid then please state
where i'm wrong. i've left it in above so you
can actually answer my questions instead of
ignoring them.


The NPIC has issued some pretty good investigative studies on
a plethora of pesticides and I would not hesitate in trusting
their literature as a guide for usage.

that's fine for you. i haven't read all their
studies and can't say much about them, but the
one you quoted in part said something about
rats and those are not long lived creatures.


They also know how to use "Capital Letters" when they begin
sentences.

you are very good at ignoring simple questions
and always have to reach for stuff that has little
to do with the topic at hand.

did you look at the wiki page for glyphosate?

did you look at the article i linked to above?

did you notice the admission of failure and the
desire to step up to using yet another herbicide
to deal with glyphosate resistant weeds? did you
notice that this new herbicide is likely to be
more toxic than glyphosate?

notice that they say nothing about Monsanto
being responsible for the creation of these
weeds and the damage that this is doing to
farms? sure Monsanto will sue anyone who uses
those genes in crops without license, but once
a plant comes up with those genes that they
can't profit from they run away with their
heads up their kiesters and say "we're not
responsible!"

that's their answer when something else goes
wrong too in the future... you can bet on it.


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Roy wrote:
...
Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

a short term study with rats isn't going to
reveal long term effects. some effects may not
appear for more years than you'll be alive.
who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all
those acres you spray stuff on, what happens
if it is shown to be contaminated and the
food you grow is no longer acceptable for
animal or human consumption?

do you think those companies that sell you
that stuff are going to have deep enough
pockets to make things right? to decontaminate
the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you
and/or your decendants might need as a result?

what about people you might be poisoning
downwind? groundwater? or people who buy
your food? an insurance company can only
cover so much before they go under.


here is an example of what is actually going on:

http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316


a clear sign that poisons do not work
in a sustainable manner. this process has
been demonstrated over and over again in
many ways yet here we have yet another
poison and plants being modified so that
such poisons can be used to spray fields.

i'm really glad i'll have more poison
to breath in coming from the fields around
me, going into the water, etc.


songbird

Good article, "bird". It is amazing what some people will do for money,
i.e. rob, cheat, and steal. It doesn't seem to matter that people are
thown-out onto the streets, or poisoned as long as it helps meets the
quarterly revenue targets. In this case we have a new GMO to correct for
a problem caused by another GMO. It might be supportable, if the claims
for GMOs had ever been realized, but so far the only break through has
been for corn that more efficiently consumes NH3, and impoverishes the
soil.

It must be tough on banksters, et al., knowing that they need more than
$1.1 billion to get into the Forbes 500. I wonder how many recently
minted poor it takes to make a billion dollars.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 11:01:25 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Roy wrote:

...

Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.



a short term study with rats isn't going to

reveal long term effects. some effects may not

appear for more years than you'll be alive.

who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all

those acres you spray stuff on, what happens

if it is shown to be contaminated and the

food you grow is no longer acceptable for

animal or human consumption?



do you think those companies that sell you

that stuff are going to have deep enough

pockets to make things right? to decontaminate

the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you

and/or your decendants might need as a result?



what about people you might be poisoning

downwind? groundwater? or people who buy

your food? an insurance company can only

cover so much before they go under.





here is an example of what is actually going on:



http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316





a clear sign that poisons do not work

in a sustainable manner. this process has

been demonstrated over and over again in

many ways yet here we have yet another

poison and plants being modified so that

such poisons can be used to spray fields.



i'm really glad i'll have more poison

to breath in coming from the fields around

me, going into the water, etc.





songbird

I doubt that you and Billy will ever believe ANYTHING that ANY
Authority publishes.

The NPIC has issued some pretty good investigative studies on
a plethora of pesticides and I would not hesitate in trusting
their literature as a guide for usage.

They also know how to use "Capital Letters" when they begin
sentences.

Never read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rotection_Agen
cy#Controversies did you?

The EPA has also had some really crummy advice, like telling first
responders that the air around the World Trade Center was safe to
breath, which sent them, and residents back into a toxic environment.

"According to the report: a September 18 EPA statement saying that the
air was "safe"[1] was made without sufficient reliable data available;
the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced the EPA to
make reassuring comments to the public; and on September 12 the EPA
Administrator issued a memo saying that all statements to the media must
be cleared by the National Security Council.

Numerous key differences between the draft versions and final versions
of EPA statements were found. A recommendation that homes and businesses
near ground zero be cleaned by professionals was replaced by a request
that citizens follow orders from NYC officials. Another statement that
showed concerns about sensitive populations was deleted altogether.
Language used to describe excessive amounts of asbestos in the area was
altered drastically to minimize attention to the dangers it posed.[2]"
------

Because the EPA writes a "puff piece" on the EPA, you believe them?


Glyphosate, and GMOs "MAY" be perfectly safe, but the reason that they
were rushed to market without feeding studies is MONEY. We are the
Guinea pigs.

If you aren't familiar with Arpad Pusztai, you should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad _Pusztai

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a collaboration
between Oregon State University and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pesticide_Information_Center


Then, there is always the debate over the politics that control the EPA.

"In June 2005, a memo revealed that Philip Cooney, former chief of staff
for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former
lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited
documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before
their release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rotection_Agen
cy#Controversies

With the EPA out of the loop, you are left with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity

heh, much good fun in there to read.


here is a different bit i ran across today while
reading up on seed cleaning / seed saving by farmers.
very interesting stories about the seed/genetic games
going on in the world these days...

http://www.equities.com/news/headlin...521766&cat=mat
erial


songbird

Thanks. I'll have read it later. I'm close to being late for work.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running