In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What a silly response. I pointed out that we know NOTHING about these
chemicals. If I had all the answers, I'd be happy to share them.

Silly? Me? Well, probably:-)

I was referring to John's apparent faith in the text of advertising
spewed out by Monsanto to separate lazy "Earth Killers" from their
money. Considering it took three years, AFTER the mutagenic properties
expressed themselves in babies, to get Thalidomide off the market, is it
any wonder that if a product doesn't immediately strike you down stone
dead, it is registered as safe. Meanwhile, Monsanto has gotten an
injunction from the FDA against stevia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia ), a plant the you can grow in your
own back yard, because using its' non-caloric sweetening properties
would cut into Monsanto's "NutraSweet" profits.

Like Donald McDonald, John doesn't seem to see the connection between
his actions and the environment around him.

Before anyone starts splashing chemical soup around their yard they
should look at http://www.oztoxics.org/cmwg/body%20burden/load.html .
The real problem is that MAYBE glyphosate is totally safe (and I'm not
conceding that for a second) BUT, does it work synergistically with any
of the other chemicals or mix of chemicals and, GMOs that are now found
in the environment in our post civilized world?

All I want to do is swim in the non-chlorinated end of the pool.

Your buddy, the choir.

You can have the soap-box back now.

Go get'em JoeSpareBedroom.


- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

"Bill Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What a silly response. I pointed out that we know NOTHING about these
chemicals. If I had all the answers, I'd be happy to share them.

Silly? Me? Well, probably:-)

I was referring to John's apparent faith in the text of advertising
spewed out by Monsanto to separate lazy "Earth Killers" from their
money.

He was being sarcastic! Maybe even funny.

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:12:25 -0700, Bill Rose
wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What a silly response. I pointed out that we know NOTHING about these
chemicals. If I had all the answers, I'd be happy to share them.

Silly? Me? Well, probably:-)

I was referring to John's apparent faith in the text of advertising
spewed out by Monsanto to separate lazy "Earth Killers" from their
money. Considering it took three years, AFTER the mutagenic properties
expressed themselves in babies, to get Thalidomide off the market, is it
any wonder that if a product doesn't immediately strike you down stone
dead, it is registered as safe. Meanwhile, Monsanto has gotten an
injunction from the FDA against stevia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia ), a plant the you can grow in your
own back yard, because using its' non-caloric sweetening properties
would cut into Monsanto's "NutraSweet" profits.

Like Donald McDonald, John doesn't seem to see the connection between
his actions and the environment around him.


No, I pay no attention to Monsanto advertising, or any other for that
matter.

However, I do use some common sense. Roundup has been on the market
for many years and used by professionals and amateurs alike. There
have been no reported problems when the product is used according the
manufacturer's label. Hence, my declaration of Joe's assertion as
nonsense.

I am also quite familiar with the effects of pesticides on the
environment. That familiarity is one of the many requirements for
becoming a licensed pesticide applicator, as I am.

If you go back to my original post on this issue I pointed out that
there are other methods which are just as effective as roundup (or an
other general herbicide) and less problematic.

On my mini-farm I use IPM methods which are using what is most
effective and least invasive, whatever that happens to be. Some of
the techniques are "organic" and others are not. But I always pay
attention to environmental effects, to do otherwise would be a
violation of law, and more importantly, a violation of common sense.

I have not used Roundup or any other general herbicide for many years
but will do so if it is the the appropriate technique for a particular
problem.

John

In article ,
John Bachman wrote:

On my mini-farm I use IPM methods which are using what is most
effective and least invasive, whatever that happens to be. Some of
the techniques are "organic" and others are not. But I always pay
attention to environmental effects, to do otherwise would be a
violation of law, and more importantly, a violation of common sense.

I have not used Roundup or any other general herbicide for many years
but will do so if it is the the appropriate technique for a particular
problem.

John

John, thank you for your response. I don't want to sound confrontational
but out of a purely academic interest, what would be a situation in
which you would use Roundup? According to Wikipedia,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#_note-6 ) "In the US 25 million
applications are used every year on lawns and yards and 18-48 million
pounds are used annually in US agriculture." You haven't used it in
years so, what do you think about putting this much herbicide into the
environment every year?

In footnote 8 (see below) there is a reference to Carolyn Cox, Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides[4]. Do you know of this lady
and her bona fides?
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides,
exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature
birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications.
-------

As I mentioned before, even if glyphosate is completely safe we are
still looking at an incredible amount of an artificial chemical being
released into the environment with little idea of its' and its' residues
synergistic reactions are on the environment. I know I sound like a
"Cassandra" but I would rather be safe than sorry.

I would appreciate any light you may shed on this issue.

Thank you.

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:12:25 -0700, Bill Rose
wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What a silly response. I pointed out that we know NOTHING about these
chemicals. If I had all the answers, I'd be happy to share them.

Silly? Me? Well, probably:-)

I was referring to John's apparent faith in the text of advertising
spewed out by Monsanto to separate lazy "Earth Killers" from their
money. Considering it took three years, AFTER the mutagenic properties
expressed themselves in babies, to get Thalidomide off the market

Thanks to a stubborn FDA physician named Frances Kelsey who bucked
officialdom and the drug companies; who knows how many tragedies she
averted!

http://www.fda.gov/oashi/patrep/nih99.html#kelsey

any wonder that if a product doesn't immediately strike you down stone
dead, it is registered as safe. Meanwhile, Monsanto has gotten an
injunction from the FDA against stevia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia ), a plant the you can grow in your
own back yard, because using its' non-caloric sweetening properties
would cut into Monsanto's "NutraSweet" profits.

Not surprising. Monsanto is an international crazed capitalist (as
opposed to progressive capitalist) monster of Biblical proportions.
Somewhere in my back files of Mother Jones Magazine
there's an article about how they forced third world very poor people
to buy water from them -- whereas in the past, they could just get
it from their wells, springs and rivers. That seems like the ultimate
cruelty. If I find the reference, I'll post.

Persephone!

Like Donald McDonald, John doesn't seem to see the connection between
his actions and the environment around him.

Before anyone starts splashing chemical soup around their yard they
should look at http://www.oztoxics.org/cmwg/body%20burden/load.html .
The real problem is that MAYBE glyphosate is totally safe (and I'm not
conceding that for a second) BUT, does it work synergistically with any
of the other chemicals or mix of chemicals and, GMOs that are now found
in the environment in our post civilized world?

All I want to do is swim in the non-chlorinated end of the pool.

Is that the end where they can't tell if you,uh, YOU know...?

Persephone

Your buddy, the choir.

You can have the soap-box back now.

Go get'em JoeSpareBedroom.


- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

In article , Persephone
wrote:

Thanks to a stubborn FDA physician named Frances Kelsey who bucked
officialdom and the drug companies; who knows how many tragedies she
averted!

http://www.fda.gov/oashi/patrep/nih99.html#kelsey

Thanks for the citation.


Not surprising. Monsanto is an international crazed capitalist (as
opposed to progressive capitalist) monster of Biblical proportions.
Somewhere in my back files of Mother Jones Magazine
there's an article about how they forced third world very poor people
to buy water from them -- whereas in the past, they could just get
it from their wells, springs and rivers. That seems like the ultimate
That seems like the ultimate cruelty. If I find the reference, I'll post.

I think that is a reference to Bechtel taking over the Bolivian water
companies. They even charged Bolivians who collected rainwater. The
movie "Corporation" does a great segment on the affair. The Bolivians
revolted and chased the SOBs out of the country.



All I want to do is swim in the non-chlorinated end of the pool.

Is that the end where they can't tell if you,uh, YOU know...?

No I don't know. Could you tastefully elucidate your drift?

Hasta luego,

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

Bill Rose wrote:

In article ,
John Bachman wrote:


On my mini-farm I use IPM methods which are using what is most
effective and least invasive, whatever that happens to be. Some of
the techniques are "organic" and others are not. But I always pay
attention to environmental effects, to do otherwise would be a
violation of law, and more importantly, a violation of common sense.

I have not used Roundup or any other general herbicide for many years
but will do so if it is the the appropriate technique for a particular
problem.

John


John, thank you for your response. I don't want to sound confrontational
but out of a purely academic interest, what would be a situation in
which you would use Roundup? According to Wikipedia,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#_note-6 ) "In the US 25 million
applications are used every year on lawns and yards and 18-48 million
pounds are used annually in US agriculture." You haven't used it in
years so, what do you think about putting this much herbicide into the
environment every year?

In footnote 8 (see below) there is a reference to Carolyn Cox, Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides[4]. Do you know of this lady
and her bona fides?
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides,
exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature
birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications.
-------

As I mentioned before, even if glyphosate is completely safe we are
still looking at an incredible amount of an artificial chemical being
released into the environment with little idea of its' and its' residues
synergistic reactions are on the environment. I know I sound like a
"Cassandra" but I would rather be safe than sorry.

I would appreciate any light you may shed on this issue.

Thank you.

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)


We may never know how many people lived healthier, longer lives from
exposure to small amount of toxins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis


Carl


--
to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)

"Carl 1 Lucky Texan" wrote in message
. ..
Bill Rose wrote:

In article ,
John Bachman wrote:


On my mini-farm I use IPM methods which are using what is most
effective and least invasive, whatever that happens to be. Some of
the techniques are "organic" and others are not. But I always pay
attention to environmental effects, to do otherwise would be a
violation of law, and more importantly, a violation of common sense.

I have not used Roundup or any other general herbicide for many years
but will do so if it is the the appropriate technique for a particular
problem.

John


John, thank you for your response. I don't want to sound confrontational
but out of a purely academic interest, what would be a situation in which
you would use Roundup? According to Wikipedia, (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#_note-6 ) "In the US 25 million
applications are used every year on lawns and yards and 18-48 million
pounds are used annually in US agriculture." You haven't used it in years
so, what do you think about putting this much herbicide into the
environment every year? In footnote 8 (see below) there is a reference to
Carolyn Cox, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides[4]. Do
you know of this lady and her bona fides?
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides,
exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature
birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications.
-------

As I mentioned before, even if glyphosate is completely safe we are still
looking at an incredible amount of an artificial chemical being released
into the environment with little idea of its' and its' residues
synergistic reactions are on the environment. I know I sound like a
"Cassandra" but I would rather be safe than sorry.

I would appreciate any light you may shed on this issue. Thank you.

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)


We may never know how many people lived healthier, longer lives from
exposure to small amount of toxins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis


Carl


True. We may never know, especially since the results of some studies are
dependent on cash, not data.

In article ,
Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:

We may never know how many people lived healthier, longer lives from
exposure to small amount of toxins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

Uh-huh. You're into homeopathy, right? Talk about your counter
intuitive. So what your saying is that China did us a favor by shipping
us melamine treated gluten and the Bush Administration is doing us
another favor by releasing the tainted chickens, hogs and, fish for
consumption (Started last week. It's a good time to go organic, at least
for awhile.). Boy do you have a hard one to sell. This sounds like a
nice discussion to have over a bucket of margaritas but the bottom line
is that if, there was an evolutionary advantage to ingesting toxins, we
would have found it in the last four and a half billion years. Toxins
are toxic. Why don't you start with something easy, like selling famine.
It has been shown that if lab animals are occasionally starved, they
live longer. By the way, can I freshen up you salmonella?

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

Bill Rose wrote:

In article ,
Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:


We may never know how many people lived healthier, longer lives from
exposure to small amount of toxins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis


Uh-huh. You're into homeopathy, right? Talk about your counter
intuitive. So what your saying is that China did us a favor by shipping
us melamine treated gluten and the Bush Administration is doing us
another favor by releasing the tainted chickens, hogs and, fish for
consumption (Started last week. It's a good time to go organic, at least
for awhile.). Boy do you have a hard one to sell. This sounds like a
nice discussion to have over a bucket of margaritas but the bottom line
is that if, there was an evolutionary advantage to ingesting toxins, we
would have found it in the last four and a half billion years. Toxins
are toxic. Why don't you start with something easy, like selling famine.
It has been shown that if lab animals are occasionally starved, they
live longer. By the way, can I freshen up you salmonella?

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

I am not into homeopathy. Just pointing out an alternative view to
'toxicity'. We have highly evolved organs/systems to deal with many
naturally occuring toxins. But much of your post is some kinda rant
that's difficult to follow so.....

you can have the last word.

Carl



--
to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)

"Carl 1 Lucky Texan" wrote in message
. ..
Bill Rose wrote:

In article ,
Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:


We may never know how many people lived healthier, longer lives from
exposure to small amount of toxins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis


Uh-huh. You're into homeopathy, right? Talk about your counter intuitive.
So what your saying is that China did us a favor by shipping us melamine
treated gluten and the Bush Administration is doing us another favor by
releasing the tainted chickens, hogs and, fish for consumption (Started
last week. It's a good time to go organic, at least for awhile.). Boy do
you have a hard one to sell. This sounds like a nice discussion to have
over a bucket of margaritas but the bottom line is that if, there was an
evolutionary advantage to ingesting toxins, we would have found it in the
last four and a half billion years. Toxins are toxic. Why don't you start
with something easy, like selling famine. It has been shown that if lab
animals are occasionally starved, they live longer. By the way, can I
freshen up you salmonella?

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

I am not into homeopathy. Just pointing out an alternative view to
'toxicity'.
Carl


That's nice, but for much of the crap we're intentionally exposed to for
profit, nobody knows what the toxic levels really are.

In article ,
Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:

I am not into homeopathy. Just pointing out an alternative view to
'toxicity'. We have highly evolved organs/systems to deal with many
naturally occuring toxins. But much of your post is some kinda rant
that's difficult to follow so.....

you can have the last word.

Carl

One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor. Y'all come back, hear?
We wasn't shooting at you and your liver.

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:57:33 -0700, Bill Rose
wrote:

In article , Persephone
wrote:

Thanks to a stubborn FDA physician named Frances Kelsey who bucked
officialdom and the drug companies; who knows how many tragedies she
averted!

http://www.fda.gov/oashi/patrep/nih99.html#kelsey

Thanks for the citation.


Not surprising. Monsanto is an international crazed capitalist (as
opposed to progressive capitalist) monster of Biblical proportions.
Somewhere in my back files of Mother Jones Magazine
there's an article about how they forced third world very poor people
to buy water from them -- whereas in the past, they could just get
it from their wells, springs and rivers. That seems like the ultimate
That seems like the ultimate cruelty. If I find the reference, I'll post.

I think that is a reference to Bechtel taking over the Bolivian water
companies. They even charged Bolivians who collected rainwater. The
movie "Corporation" does a great segment on the affair. The Bolivians
revolted and chased the SOBs out of the country.

That may well be; I'm not familar with Bechtel's crimes; will
research.

I *was* talking about Monsanto, however; I well remember the
article in Mother Jones.

A brief reference to Monsanto and water can be found on this site:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

which takes you directly to "Millions against Monsanto".
On the right side, go to "If you're talking about", and scroll down to
"Water Privatization".

The crimes of Monsanto on the above link are absolutely stupefying!
Wonder who their fellow-criminals in Congress might be...



All I want to do is swim in the non-chlorinated end of the pool.

Is that the end where they can't tell if you,uh, YOU know...?

No I don't know. Could you tastefully elucidate your drift?

Sometimes the urge is so, uh, urgent that I elucidate until I'm BLUE
in the pool...er...in the face...

Persephone

"Bill Rose" wrote in message
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What a silly response. I pointed out that we know NOTHING about these
chemicals. If I had all the answers, I'd be happy to share them.

Silly? Me? Well, probably:-)

I was referring to John's apparent faith in the text of advertising
spewed out by Monsanto to separate lazy "Earth Killers" from their
money. Considering it took three years, AFTER the mutagenic properties
expressed themselves in babies, to get Thalidomide off the market,

???? Bill McBride was the first Doctor to make the connection between
thalidomide and birth defects in 1961 and Persephone's post on Kelsey says
that thalidomide was taken off the market in 1961.

On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:31:08 -0700, Bill Rose
wrote:

In article ,
John Bachman wrote:

On my mini-farm I use IPM methods which are using what is most
effective and least invasive, whatever that happens to be. Some of
the techniques are "organic" and others are not. But I always pay
attention to environmental effects, to do otherwise would be a
violation of law, and more importantly, a violation of common sense.

I have not used Roundup or any other general herbicide for many years
but will do so if it is the the appropriate technique for a particular
problem.

John

John, thank you for your response. I don't want to sound confrontational
but out of a purely academic interest, what would be a situation in
which you would use Roundup? According to Wikipedia,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#_note-6 ) "In the US 25 million
applications are used every year on lawns and yards and 18-48 million
pounds are used annually in US agriculture." You haven't used it in
years so, what do you think about putting this much herbicide into the
environment every year?

I would use some general herbicide (probably Scythe, not Roundup) if I
needed to clear a piece of land which harbored a multitude of weeds,
both grassy and broad-leafed. I may have done so many years ago when
I started my mini-farm, not sure and would have to check my records.

If the land section were small enough I would use my trusty flamer a
tool that is ignored by too many people IMHO.


In footnote 8 (see below) there is a reference to Carolyn Cox, Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides[4]. Do you know of this lady
and her bona fides?
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides,
exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature
birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications.

There have been misuses and overuse in the past. I am not familiar
with the operations of large, commercial farms, just small ones. My
experience is that the small farmers are very aware of the dangers of
overuse of any pesticide and pay close attention to their activities.
The introduction of IPM techniques has dramatically changed small farm
operations for the better.

John