|
Scary Study - Roundup
|
Scary Study - Roundup
"Farm1" wrote in message ... http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...32603.article# I have seen this report elsewhere and it does seem to be flawed. Although I would avoid GM food and would like all GM food labelled as such I feel that all research should be genuine and not skewed to get the results desired. Mike |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
"Bloke Down The Pub" wrote: "Farm1" wrote in message ... http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...monsanto-weedk iller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article# I have seen this report elsewhere and it does seem to be flawed. Although I would avoid GM food and would like all GM food labelled as such I feel that all research should be genuine and not skewed to get the results desired. Mike Where is the flaw? How is it skewed? Who would want to skew it? What facts give you doubt? -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Derald wrote: In message , Farm1 wrote: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...onsanto-weedki ller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article# Oooooh; masterfully done, hon: Just the right bait, just the right depth and just the right speed. Um, um, um. Here is a less ideologically slavish report of the same "study" from an actual news source: You know what people say about opinions. What have the above insinuations to do with the article? the article says,"Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies". Duh. That there have been no feeding studies done on GMO crops has been a complaint since they were introduced. You are the Guinea pig. Then there is the misstatement, "The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply." Prop 37 in California would only require labeling of GMO food stuffs, not banning them. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/ Makes you wonder what other errors there are in the article. In my opinion, you would be less incoherent, if you didn't drink your "single malt" before you post. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...SBRE88I0L02012 0919 Consider this assessment, pulled from the Reuters item: Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip." or Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. "If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment. GMO foods are so ubiquitous that the only practical way to avoid them is to go ahead and die now. Also, one must consider the certainty that thought, logic, and reason play no part in religious conviction. -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:32:27 PM UTC-6, Rick wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:21 -0700, Billy wrote: In article , Derald wrote: In message , Farm1 wrote: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...onsanto-weedki ller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article# Oooooh; masterfully done, hon: Just the right bait, just the right depth and just the right speed. Um, um, um. Here is a less ideologically slavish report of the same "study" from an actual news source: You know what people say about opinions. What have the above insinuations to do with the article? the article says,"Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies". Duh. That there have been no feeding studies done on GMO crops has been a complaint since they were introduced. You are the Guinea pig. Then there is the misstatement, "The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply." Prop 37 in California would only require labeling of GMO food stuffs, not banning them. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/ Makes you wonder what other errors there are in the article. In my opinion, you would be less incoherent, if you didn't drink your "single malt" before you post. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...SBRE88I0L02012 0919 Consider this assessment, pulled from the Reuters item: Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip." or Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. "If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment. GMO foods are so ubiquitous that the only practical way to avoid them is to go ahead and die now. Also, one must consider the certainty that thought, logic, and reason play no part in religious conviction. Daith based science France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement. Finally shows we are right... There are a lot of similar studies in more relavent models- yes including the hhuman model- that show glyphosate is safe. Let them eat cake. Glyphosate is not the problem. The problem is the "Round-Up resistant weeds" that develop that are even harder to control than before. Monsanto has created a "monster" problem so they had better develop a new super killer for these resistant weeds. On and on she goes, and nobody knows when and where it will end. Tinker too much with 'mother nature' and she will smite you. |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Rick wrote: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:21 -0700, Billy wrote: In article , Derald wrote: In message , Farm1 wrote: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...n/monsanto-wee dki ller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article# Oooooh; masterfully done, hon: Just the right bait, just the right depth and just the right speed. Um, um, um. Here is a less ideologically slavish report of the same "study" from an actual news source: You know what people say about opinions. What have the above insinuations to do with the article? the article says,"Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies". Duh. That there have been no feeding studies done on GMO crops has been a complaint since they were introduced. You are the Guinea pig. Then there is the misstatement, "The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply." Prop 37 in California would only require labeling of GMO food stuffs, not banning them. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/ Makes you wonder what other errors there are in the article. In my opinion, you would be less incoherent, if you didn't drink your "single malt" before you post. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...idUSBRE88I0L02 012 0919 Consider this assessment, pulled from the Reuters item: Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip." or Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. "If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment. GMO foods are so ubiquitous that the only practical way to avoid them is to go ahead and die now. Also, one must consider the certainty that thought, logic, and reason play no part in religious conviction. Daith based science France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement. Finally shows we are right... There are a lot of similar studies in more relavent models- yes including the hhuman model- that show glyphosate is safe. Let them eat cake. That's what Monsanto $ays. -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Roy wrote: On Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:32:27 PM UTC-6, Rick wrote: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:21 -0700, Billy wrote: In article , Derald wrote: In message , Farm1 wrote: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...ain/monsanto-w eedki ller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article# Oooooh; masterfully done, hon: Just the right bait, just the right depth and just the right speed. Um, um, um. Here is a less ideologically slavish report of the same "study" from an actual news source: You know what people say about opinions. What have the above insinuations to do with the article? the article says,"Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies". Duh. That there have been no feeding studies done on GMO crops has been a complaint since they were introduced. You are the Guinea pig. Then there is the misstatement, "The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply." Prop 37 in California would only require labeling of GMO food stuffs, not banning them. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/ Makes you wonder what other errors there are in the article. In my opinion, you would be less incoherent, if you didn't drink your "single malt" before you post. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...y-idUSBRE88I0L 02012 0919 Consider this assessment, pulled from the Reuters item: Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip." or Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. "If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment. GMO foods are so ubiquitous that the only practical way to avoid them is to go ahead and die now. Also, one must consider the certainty that thought, logic, and reason play no part in religious conviction. Daith based science France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement. Finally shows we are right... There are a lot of similar studies in more relavent models- yes including the hhuman model- that show glyphosate is safe. Let them eat cake. Glyphosate is not the problem. The problem is the "Round-Up resistant weeds" that develop that are even harder to control than before. Monsanto has created a "monster" problem so they had better develop a new super killer for these resistant weeds. On and on she goes, and nobody knows when and where it will end. Tinker too much with 'mother nature' and she will smite you. Agreed, but that isn't the issue here. -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:59:30 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article , Rick wrote: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:21 -0700, Billy wrote: In article , Derald wrote: In message , Farm1 wrote: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...n/monsanto-wee dki ller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article# Oooooh; masterfully done, hon: Just the right bait, just the right depth and just the right speed. Um, um, um. Here is a less ideologically slavish report of the same "study" from an actual news source: You know what people say about opinions. What have the above insinuations to do with the article? the article says,"Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies". Duh. That there have been no feeding studies done on GMO crops has been a complaint since they were introduced. You are the Guinea pig. Then there is the misstatement, "The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply." Prop 37 in California would only require labeling of GMO food stuffs, not banning them. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/ Makes you wonder what other errors there are in the article. In my opinion, you would be less incoherent, if you didn't drink your "single malt" before you post. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...idUSBRE88I0L02 012 0919 Consider this assessment, pulled from the Reuters item: Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip." or Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. "If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment. GMO foods are so ubiquitous that the only practical way to avoid them is to go ahead and die now. Also, one must consider the certainty that thought, logic, and reason play no part in religious conviction. Daith based science France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement. Finally shows we are right... There are a lot of similar studies in more relavent models- yes including the hhuman model- that show glyphosate is safe. Let them eat cake. That's what Monsanto $ays. -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ....sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article , Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. |
Scary Study - Roundup
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:35:37 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote: In article , Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://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 You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. I meant "throw" instead of "through" in my reply. Just a wee bit of an error. May Gawd forgive me. |
Scary Study - Roundup
"Roy" wrote in message
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote: In article , Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Roy wrote: On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote: In article , Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://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/2012/7/1...l_stein_runnin g You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can expect to be consigned to a playpen. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, but in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. Presently, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil. -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
Billy wrote:
In article , You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai Wow! Someone in this group can actually edit postings in their response. |
Scary Study - Roundup
|
Scary Study - Roundup
Farm1 wrote:
"phorbin" wrote in message In article , times says... As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed, hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect the application by farmers of Roundup. Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a study. If you want to read some really scary stuff about the politicising and abuse of science and studies have a look at "The republican war on science" or better still, because it is wider in scope and not directed so much at one party "The merchants of doubt". My old mate Fred Singer appears in a star-studded lineup. These are both USA-centred but especially in the latter the authors show how this kind of corruption has consequences that go around the world. We have seen some attempts to import some of this bilge (as if we don't have enough home grown idiots) where Brendan Nelson incautiously started sucking on the teat of Intelligent Design (AKA Creationism). D |
Scary Study - Roundup
In article , times says...
"phorbin" wrote in message In article , times says... As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed, hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect the application by farmers of Roundup. Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a study. Hi Farm1, How's the weather in upside-down land? Given the trend and sensibility of my Canadian countryman's comments, the thought I presented seemed a logical enough addition to the thread. |
Scary Study - Roundup
phorbin wrote:
In article , times says... "phorbin" wrote in message In article , times says... As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed, hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect the application by farmers of Roundup. Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a study. Hi Farm1, How's the weather in upside-down land? Trending dry all over the east but not yet a serious problem, some of North NSW and south QLD are declared "marginal" though the models are predicting wetter than median in those areas next quarter. The BOM is equivocating whether we will have an El Nino summer. I have had one good shower of rain in 9 weeks, due to the wonders of the Big Subterranean Sponge the pasture has spring growth but if there is no rain soon that will brown off pretty soon. David |
Scary Study - Roundup
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... Farm1 wrote: "phorbin" wrote in message In article , times says... As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed, hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect the application by farmers of Roundup. Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a study. If you want to read some really scary stuff about the politicising and abuse of science and studies have a look at "The republican war on science" or better still, because it is wider in scope and not directed so much at one party "The merchants of doubt". My old mate Fred Singer appears in a star-studded lineup. These are both USA-centred but especially in the latter the authors show how this kind of corruption has consequences that go around the world. Thanks David, I will, but no doubt will end up totally depressed at the end of my reaidng. We have seen some attempts to import some of this bilge (as if we don't have enough home grown idiots) where Brendan Nelson incautiously started sucking on the teat of Intelligent Design (AKA Creationism). I'd forgotten about that! Yes, very disturbing. Mind you, I find Abbott even far more disturbing than a whole boat load and any number of other conservative politicans put together. |
Scary Study - Roundup
"phorbin" wrote in message
... In article , times says... "phorbin" wrote in message In article , times says... As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed, hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect the application by farmers of Roundup. Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a study. Hi Farm1, How's the weather in upside-down land? You're not familiar with McArthurs Universal Corrective Map of the World? Given the trend and sensibility of my Canadian countryman's comments, the thought I presented seemed a logical enough addition to the thread. It was indeed logical, which is why I agreed with you. |
Scary Study - Roundup
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... phorbin wrote: In article , times says... "phorbin" wrote in message In article , times says... As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed, hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect the application by farmers of Roundup. Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a study. Hi Farm1, How's the weather in upside-down land? Trending dry all over the east but not yet a serious problem, some of North NSW and south QLD are declared "marginal" though the models are predicting wetter than median in those areas next quarter. The BOM is equivocating whether we will have an El Nino summer. I have had one good shower of rain in 9 weeks, due to the wonders of the Big Subterranean Sponge the pasture has spring growth but if there is no rain soon that will brown off pretty soon. I had to put a sprinkler on yesterday because one of my veggie beds was gagging for a drink. |
Scary Study - Roundup
Billy wrote:
Roy wrote: .... You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. *hahahaha* When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can expect to be consigned to a playpen. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't. and the fact that reality doesn't care if you are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you poison your environment enough that it can no longer sustain life then you and/or your children are history. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing by goats, ... but in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. besides the fact that monoculture farming wastes a lot of productivity because the land is left bare for long periods of time along with erosion of the topsoil. Presently, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil. i think the problem is much more than damage to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies which track the effects of the gene fragments inserted into food plants. how those fragments are digested, if they can start an allergic or other autoimmune response in people before they reach the stomach and intestines, if they affect the digestive tract microbes, etc. one mention in recent news that made me think of the law of unintended side effects -- about how GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines to get new/harder/different tires more often (some farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that chopping blades wear out faster, etc. songbird |
Scary Study - Roundup
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote: Roy wrote: ... You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. *hahahaha* When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can expect to be consigned to a playpen. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't. and the fact that reality doesn't care if you are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you poison your environment enough that it can no longer sustain life then you and/or your children are history. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing by goats, ... but in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. besides the fact that monoculture farming wastes a lot of productivity because the land is left bare for long periods of time along with erosion of the topsoil. Presently, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil. i think the problem is much more than damage to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies which track the effects of the gene fragments inserted into food plants. how those fragments are digested, if they can start an allergic or other autoimmune response in people before they reach the stomach and intestines, if they affect the digestive tract microbes, etc. one mention in recent news that made me think of the law of unintended side effects -- about how GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines to get new/harder/different tires more often (some farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that chopping blades wear out faster, etc. songbird " this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. " The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil. Obviously you have never farmed. Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks down to free up nutrients that plants require. Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these micro-organisms. |
Scary Study - Roundup
|
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Roy wrote: On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote: Billy wrote: Roy wrote: ... You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. *hahahaha* When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can expect to be consigned to a playpen. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't. and the fact that reality doesn't care if you are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you poison your environment enough that it can no longer sustain life then you and/or your children are history. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing by goats, ... but in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. besides the fact that monoculture farming wastes a lot of productivity because the land is left bare for long periods of time along with erosion of the topsoil. Presently, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil. i think the problem is much more than damage to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies which track the effects of the gene fragments inserted into food plants. how those fragments are digested, if they can start an allergic or other autoimmune response in people before they reach the stomach and intestines, if they affect the digestive tract microbes, etc. one mention in recent news that made me think of the law of unintended side effects -- about how GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines to get new/harder/different tires more often (some farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that chopping blades wear out faster, etc. songbird " this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. " The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil. Obviously you have never farmed. Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks down to free up nutrients that plants require. Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these micro-organisms. And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of the word "burned". In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein". Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/ nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion. What kind of farmer are you? -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:49:01 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article , Roy wrote: On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote: Billy wrote: Roy wrote: ... You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. *hahahaha* When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can expect to be consigned to a playpen. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't. and the fact that reality doesn't care if you are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you poison your environment enough that it can no longer sustain life then you and/or your children are history. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing by goats, ... but in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. besides the fact that monoculture farming wastes a lot of productivity because the land is left bare for long periods of time along with erosion of the topsoil. Presently, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil. i think the problem is much more than damage to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies which track the effects of the gene fragments inserted into food plants. how those fragments are digested, if they can start an allergic or other autoimmune response in people before they reach the stomach and intestines, if they affect the digestive tract microbes, etc. one mention in recent news that made me think of the law of unintended side effects -- about how GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines to get new/harder/different tires more often (some farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that chopping blades wear out faster, etc. songbird " this equation begins to shift with the introduction of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least is a small improvement, but i still agree that the adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. " The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil. Obviously you have never farmed. Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks down to free up nutrients that plants require. Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these micro-organisms. And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of the word "burned". In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein". Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/ nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion. What kind of farmer are you? -- 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 I was brought up on a mixed farm. We grew most grains and raised cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys and horses. I only grow grain crops now. 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. I have read quite a bit regarding Monsanto et al. I believe that they are doing more harm in the world than good but others differ. |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 rats¹ intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats¹ 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. -- 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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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. |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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. |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
Scary Study - Roundup
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter