Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scary Study - Roundup
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 $ays. -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ....sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Scary Study - Roundup
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:35:37 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote: In article , Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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$ate. None. We don't know what it can do. We are the Guinea pigs. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly. As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant varieties, I question. The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a 'lifetime feeding study'. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Scary Study - Roundup
In article ,
Roy wrote: On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote: In article , Roy wrote: Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal ...sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave and not venture forth. Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read. If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved. You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of honor. No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Scary Study - Roundup
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Scary chicken foot looking. | Gardening | |||
Scary chicken foot looking. | Gardening | |||
The scary insects - possibly large marsh horseflies? | United Kingdom | |||
Scary crown rot's keeping me up at night | Orchids | |||
Biodemocracy - long and scary | Edible Gardening |