"David Hill" wrote in message
...
In the UK in Victorian times no garden was without it loam wall. this was
made of turf cut about 2 inches thick and then placed face down layer by
layer,

....OK, but in Victorian times, one had "people" to do all this work! :-)
Were gardeners held in higher esteem than the women who cleaned the lord &
lady's chamber pots?

Which human population did the manufacturer use to test the "safety" of
Roundup? You know...the way drug manufacturers are required to test new
medicines on a certain number of humans.....

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
...
Hi Bob,

While I sort of agree, the industry standard up here is to wait 7-10 days
in
order to get maximum degradation of the glyphosphate. I worked a very
large
planting bed that was established this way about 3 years ago, and as an
experiment I also laid in a lot of organic material (cow manure, rotted
oak
leaf) on top of the Roundup'd grass in most of the areas before mulching
in.
That is to say, I sprayed the turf, waited 10 days, amended thickly,
planted
in, and mulched. Those areas this year are *very* rich looking and the
tilth
and organic matter extend down a good 10 inches into the soil...

Dave

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
David J Bockman wrote:

The simplest way is to deliniate the area you wish to convert (I use
garden
hose to play with the shape until it looks good) and then spray it
with
Roundup. After 10 days or so, you can plant right in wherever you wish
and
mulch/edge the space.

Dave

I agree completely; but I don't think you have to wait that long before
planting. The dead grass will break down into the soil if you bury it
with
mulch or topsoil. You can dig it all in and add more compost next
spring.

Best regards,
Bob

"Alexander Pensky" wrote in message
...

No argument there. My question was, if you are going to
remove the sod, why would you ALSO cover with newspaper?


It sounds like a cheap insurance policy. Grass might not make a U-turn and
grow upward from the inverted sod, but some crazy weeds might. Perhaps the
newspaper buys you extra time during which the weeds' roots can die.

To the best of my knowledge, scientific experiments using chemicals against
humans is not a traditional process of determining a product's health hazard
(unless of course it's the US Military). Perhaps from wherever you're
posting from it's allowed, but not in the US.

Cheers,

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
t.net...
Which human population did the manufacturer use to test the "safety" of
Roundup? You know...the way drug manufacturers are required to test new
medicines on a certain number of humans.....

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
...
Hi Bob,

While I sort of agree, the industry standard up here is to wait 7-10
days
in
order to get maximum degradation of the glyphosphate. I worked a very
large
planting bed that was established this way about 3 years ago, and as an
experiment I also laid in a lot of organic material (cow manure, rotted
oak
leaf) on top of the Roundup'd grass in most of the areas before mulching
in.
That is to say, I sprayed the turf, waited 10 days, amended thickly,
planted
in, and mulched. Those areas this year are *very* rich looking and the
tilth
and organic matter extend down a good 10 inches into the soil...

Dave

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
David J Bockman wrote:

The simplest way is to deliniate the area you wish to convert (I use
garden
hose to play with the shape until it looks good) and then spray it
with
Roundup. After 10 days or so, you can plant right in wherever you
wish
and
mulch/edge the space.

Dave

I agree completely; but I don't think you have to wait that long
before
planting. The dead grass will break down into the soil if you bury it
with
mulch or topsoil. You can dig it all in and add more compost next
spring.

Best regards,
Bob

David, that was precisely my point. You know of no such experiments because
they don't exist. I assume you would not take a medicine that had been
tested only on animals, unless you were explicitely told the medicine was
experimental and that you were part of the experiment.

So, why use chemicals in your garden which have not been, and never will be
tested on the target population?
-Doug

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
...
To the best of my knowledge, scientific experiments using chemicals
against
humans is not a traditional process of determining a product's health
hazard
(unless of course it's the US Military). Perhaps from wherever you're
posting from it's allowed, but not in the US.

Cheers,

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
t.net...
Which human population did the manufacturer use to test the "safety" of
Roundup? You know...the way drug manufacturers are required to test new
medicines on a certain number of humans.....

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
...
Hi Bob,

While I sort of agree, the industry standard up here is to wait 7-10
days
in
order to get maximum degradation of the glyphosphate. I worked a very
large
planting bed that was established this way about 3 years ago, and as
an
experiment I also laid in a lot of organic material (cow manure,
rotted
oak
leaf) on top of the Roundup'd grass in most of the areas before
mulching
in.
That is to say, I sprayed the turf, waited 10 days, amended thickly,
planted
in, and mulched. Those areas this year are *very* rich looking and the
tilth
and organic matter extend down a good 10 inches into the soil...

Dave

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
David J Bockman wrote:

The simplest way is to deliniate the area you wish to convert (I
use
garden
hose to play with the shape until it looks good) and then spray it
with
Roundup. After 10 days or so, you can plant right in wherever you
wish
and
mulch/edge the space.

Dave

I agree completely; but I don't think you have to wait that long
before
planting. The dead grass will break down into the soil if you bury
it
with
mulch or topsoil. You can dig it all in and add more compost next
spring.

Best regards,
Bob

wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:06:18 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:
In article , "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D.
P.A." wrote:
snip
Scalp the bed with a mower. Cover with newspapers and mulch. Dig in
a few perennials now if you like. Wait.
snip some more
I tried all sorts of methods in the past but this paper barriering method
is the big winner. If one is in no hurry to plant an area, extensive areas
can be prepped by building up with filldirt mixed with unfinished compost.
This year I built a long raised bed behind stackable stones, filling the
area up with weedy sod, miscellaneous clippings & stems. A nice mix of
dirt with "greens & browns" not at all composted will compost right there
in place. This would obviously become a weed-patch if just left, but I
covered it over with unfolded & flattened cardboard boxes & newspaper
layers, put composted manure on top just so it looked like topsoil, & I
will plant that area next year after the dirt & sod & clippings are all
fully composted. Might need a bit more dirt & finished compost on top
merely because it'll shrink down behind the stacked-stone barrier as the
organic component decays, but will otherwise not even need stirring to be
exceptionally rich soil for next spring.
-paghat the ratgirl
I've been thinking of trying this, but how long will I have to wait
before it'll be ready for planting?

I want to clear some lawn and seed it with wildflowers. If I were to
put down newspaper now (or soon anyway), and place some sod on top,
would I be able to seed this fall, or even next spring? And what do
you mean by sod -- bags of topsoil from Home Depot, or just dirt from
other parts of the garden?

Swyck

I was talking about two ways I've barriered. Stacks of sod (meaning
grass I dug out somewhere & stacked to create raised beds) would not
be ready to plant in for a few months as it could harbor fungal
diseases until fully composted or will at least change its depth as it
composts down. But just flipping over some spaded sod, putting paper
barrier on top, & some sterile compost on top of the paper, it could
be planted in right away, though any hole you cut in the paper to
plant something in would be a place where the old sod (grass) could
come through, so might want to dig the hole bigger than needed then
re-paper around the edges to keep down the grass long enough to
compost rather than grow.

As for planting a whole lot of wildflower seeds, I might be tempted to
try it a bit differently, as any sterile compost on top of paper will
not be a good medium for seeds or seedlings. So flip the sod, barrier
with paper, but then put some very clean topsoil on top of the paper
to maybe three inches thick at least, & plant the wildflower seeds in
that. With regular watering, by the time the wildflowers want to root
more deeply, than three inches, the sod underneath the paper will have
composted & the paper with it. I've never tried exactly that, but it
seems totally rational no-hard-work way of transforming a stretch of
lawn into a stretch of seed-mix wildflowers.

-paghat the ratgirl

Doug, your analogy is pointless, because (as David just tried to tell
you) the testing standards for medicinal drugs in the US are unique unto
themselves and require human clinical trials to evaluate their safety
and effectiveness. In no other circumstances are human tests either
required or permitted, *regardless* of the fact that the product in
question is designed to be, or may incidentally be, ingested by
humans. This includes not only garden chemicals, but also cosmetics,
and food and beverages. They must be demonstrated safe, but not by
testing them on humans.

- Alex




Doug Kanter wrote:

David, that was precisely my point. You know of no such experiments because
they don't exist. I assume you would not take a medicine that had been
tested only on animals, unless you were explicitely told the medicine was
experimental and that you were part of the experiment.

So, why use chemicals in your garden which have not been, and never will be
tested on the target population?
-Doug

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
...

To the best of my knowledge, scientific experiments using chemicals
against humans is not a traditional process of determining a
product's health hazard (unless of course it's the US Military).
Perhaps from wherever you're posting from it's allowed, but not in
the US.

Cheers,

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
net.net...

Which human population did the manufacturer use to test the "safety" of
Roundup? You know...the way drug manufacturers are required to test new
medicines on a certain number of humans.....

Alexander Pensky wrote in message ...
paghat wrote:

I use the newspaper method myself, but I do flip sod upside-down first, so
that the roots have even less chance of surviving long enough to grow any
grass back when the newpaper has composted, & even more so that the ground
will be "worked" & loosened under the newspaper thus better prepped for
shrub & flower plantings.

I don't get it; why bother with the newspaper if you're going to
the trouble of cutting off the sod anyway? Why not just flip the
sod and cover with manure and/or topsoil? The point of the
newspaper is so you don't have to do any digging or sod stripping
at all.

- Alex

I flip sod over just so that the area is immediately loose & worked,
rather than compacted, for the sake of whatever new gets planted
there.

Obviously if all one wanted to do was kill the grass but not plant
anything there until much later, the soil could be worked or plowed or
anything at a much later date, & it would be wasted work to flip the
sod before putting down a paper barrier. But as I always jump the gun
& plant in paper-barriered former lawns, without waiting for all the
grass to turn entirely to compost, I work the area minimally before
barriering, by flipping the sod.

There's all sorts of minor variants how one might go about it.

-paghat the ratgirl

Right. We're going around in circles. But here's the clincher: The largest
non-point source of chemical pollution in America is homeowners. "Point
source" means a single source of specific pollution, like a manufacturer
such as Kodak, here in Rochester. NON-point source pollution means multiple
undefined sources which are known to pollute only because of their known
consumption of chemicals. For instance, it's KNOWN that x amount of crap is
sprayed by Chem Lawn each year, at the behest of homeowners.

Why be a part of this, simply because it's convenient, when as you and I
have said (in different ways) that it will never be proven safe according to
accepted scientific methods? It sets a horrible precedent for our children
and grandchildren.

-Doug


"Alexander Pensky" wrote in message
...
Doug, your analogy is pointless, because (as David just tried to tell
you) the testing standards for medicinal drugs in the US are unique unto
themselves and require human clinical trials to evaluate their safety
and effectiveness. In no other circumstances are human tests either
required or permitted, *regardless* of the fact that the product in
question is designed to be, or may incidentally be, ingested by
humans. This includes not only garden chemicals, but also cosmetics,
and food and beverages. They must be demonstrated safe, but not by
testing them on humans.

- Alex




Doug Kanter wrote:

David, that was precisely my point. You know of no such experiments
because
they don't exist. I assume you would not take a medicine that had been
tested only on animals, unless you were explicitely told the medicine
was
experimental and that you were part of the experiment.

So, why use chemicals in your garden which have not been, and never will
be
tested on the target population?
-Doug

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
...

To the best of my knowledge, scientific experiments using chemicals
against humans is not a traditional process of determining a
product's health hazard (unless of course it's the US Military).
Perhaps from wherever you're posting from it's allowed, but not in
the US.

Cheers,

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
net.net...

Which human population did the manufacturer use to test the "safety" of
Roundup? You know...the way drug manufacturers are required to test new
medicines on a certain number of humans.....

Doug Kanter wrote:
For instance, it's KNOWN that x amount of crap is
sprayed by Chem Lawn each year, at the behest of homeowners...

O, that they were spraying crap, instead of ammonium phosphate, 2,4-d,
and dursban (or whatever). Hey. That might be the solution to the hog
farm lagoon problem. A "natural" alternative to Chem Lawn -- load those
tanker trucks with pig s! from the waste lagoons and spray city lawns
with that. The solution to pollution is dilution!

Best regards,
Bob

--
"Stealing a Rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly" --Kehlog Albran

I'm not disputing whether or not Roundup is safe or
desirable to use in one's garden.
(I don't use it, personally.)

My point is that, of all the nasty synthetic chemicals you and
I might be tempted to use anywhere in our homes or gardens, some
are more dangerous than others, but NOT A SINGLE ONE has been
tested on human beings, and NEVER WILL BE, because that is NOT
an "accepted scientific method" for product safety testing. It
is in fact an UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL method of testing.

So, if you ever plan to use any product, whether Roundup or
anything else, you're just gonna have to trust the animal tests.

- Alex



Doug Kanter wrote:
Right. We're going around in circles. But here's the clincher: The largest
non-point source of chemical pollution in America is homeowners. "Point
source" means a single source of specific pollution, like a manufacturer
such as Kodak, here in Rochester. NON-point source pollution means multiple
undefined sources which are known to pollute only because of their known
consumption of chemicals. For instance, it's KNOWN that x amount of crap is
sprayed by Chem Lawn each year, at the behest of homeowners.

Why be a part of this, simply because it's convenient, when as you and I
have said (in different ways) that it will never be proven safe according to
accepted scientific methods? It sets a horrible precedent for our children
and grandchildren.

-Doug


"Alexander Pensky" wrote in message
...

Doug, your analogy is pointless, because (as David just tried to tell
you) the testing standards for medicinal drugs in the US are unique unto
themselves and require human clinical trials to evaluate their safety
and effectiveness. In no other circumstances are human tests either
required or permitted, *regardless* of the fact that the product in
question is designed to be, or may incidentally be, ingested by
humans. This includes not only garden chemicals, but also cosmetics,
and food and beverages. They must be demonstrated safe, but not by
testing them on humans.

- Alex




Doug Kanter wrote:


David, that was precisely my point. You know of no such experiments

because

they don't exist. I assume you would not take a medicine that had been
tested only on animals, unless you were explicitely told the medicine

was

experimental and that you were part of the experiment.

So, why use chemicals in your garden which have not been, and never will

be

tested on the target population?
-Doug

"David J Bockman" wrote in message
.. .


To the best of my knowledge, scientific experiments using chemicals
against humans is not a traditional process of determining a

product's health hazard (unless of course it's the US Military).
Perhaps from wherever you're posting from it's allowed, but not in
the US.

Cheers,

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
ernet.net...


Which human population did the manufacturer use to test the "safety" of
Roundup? You know...the way drug manufacturers are required to test new
medicines on a certain number of humans.....

Alexander Pensky wrote in
:

I'm not disputing whether or not Roundup is safe or
desirable to use in one's garden.
(I don't use it, personally.)

My point is that, of all the nasty synthetic chemicals you and
I might be tempted to use anywhere in our homes or gardens, some
are more dangerous than others, but NOT A SINGLE ONE has been
tested on human beings, and NEVER WILL BE, because that is NOT
an "accepted scientific method" for product safety testing. It
is in fact an UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL method of testing.

hehe, that stuff is tested every time somebody uses it. It's just not
tested 'scientifically'. If it's not safe (in other words, the toxicity is
discovered to be greater than the "normal" "background" toxicity)
eventually, it'll be regulated (or not). Stuff like lead, mercury,
asbestos, etc were all considered 'not harmful', until someone pointed out
a connection with people going slow, nuts or emphysemic. Just think of it
as a long term test, laundered to avoid any silly complications with things
such as laws or morals. Seeing as the current testing alternatives are
objectionable to most people, what are you going to do but 1) suck it up or
2) not play the game?

- Salty

Alexander Pensky wrote:

I wish I had that much patience!

Aah, a limited budget and some really bad experience with the invasives
will do that to you. I can't afford to put the plants in the wrong spot
and have them die. Nor can I get plants that are sufficiently thug like
that they'll kill their neighbors for me.

I buy lots and lots of perennials
on impulse and just stick them in the ground wherever there's a few
inches of room left. After a season or two of growing, it becomes
obvious if they're in the wrong spot, and I dig them up and move
them.

Waaay too much work! I'm short on manpower, so whatever I stick in the
ground is going to stay there for a looong time. I make enough mistakes
that I still do a lot of moving around, but at least, I don't have to
move all 300 plants that I put in, all at the same time.
Having said that, I should say that my "shade garden" is a big bust. I
observed this sucker from August of last year, plotted and planned and
chose my plants well. Guess what? I should have watched it starting in
April. Right now, the bed is in practically full sun, and my poor ferns
are getting charred to a crisp. If they make it that far, they'll be
happy come August.


My "lazy man's gardening" experiment for this year is: for any of
my perennials which look like they might propagate OK from stem
or softwood cuttings, I am taking some cuttings and just jamming
them into the ground in a flower bed. I want to see which ones
are so easy-to-grow that I can succeed this way without rooting
hormone or plastic baggies or misting or any of that nonsense.

I did this, unintentionally. It turns out that butterfly bush roots
just fine from cuttings, and what I had stuck in the ground barely
qualifies as such (small piece of twig I was using to clean something
out, and left in the ground).


Anyone else admit to doing this?

Not intentionally, but maybe I should.

Suja wrote:
Alexander Pensky wrote:

I wish I had that much patience!


Aah, a limited budget and some really bad experience with the invasives
will do that to you. I can't afford to put the plants in the wrong spot
and have them die. Nor can I get plants that are sufficiently thug like
that they'll kill their neighbors for me.


I've never had one literally *die* because I put it in the wrong spot.
They just don't do as well as I'd like them to, or get crowded
by their neighbor, or something.

Sometimes when I buy a 3-pack of young perennials, if it's a plant
I've never grown before, I don't know which spot in my yard best
matches the conditions the plant likes, so I will plant each of
the three in a slightly different setting and compare their
progress. If there is a big difference, the next year I move the
worst two next to where the best one is growing.


- Alex

In article , Alexander Pensky
wrote:

I'm not disputing whether or not Roundup is safe or
desirable to use in one's garden.
(I don't use it, personally.)

My point is that, of all the nasty synthetic chemicals you and
I might be tempted to use anywhere in our homes or gardens, some
are more dangerous than others, but NOT A SINGLE ONE has been
tested on human beings, and NEVER WILL BE, because that is NOT
an "accepted scientific method" for product safety testing. It
is in fact an UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL method of testing.

So, if you ever plan to use any product, whether Roundup or
anything else, you're just gonna have to trust the animal tests.

- Alex

This is not entirely true Alex. There are no valid models for human
allergy responses, or human headache responses, besides the fact that no
animal studies are regarded as having broad applicability to human
physiological responses even for things that can be measured without a
speaking subject who can tell the researchers what they are experiencing.
So herbicides & pesticides get tested as a matter of course on human
volunteers. "Only tests using human volunteers have the broad specificity
and relevance to human physiology needed to detect the wide range of
allergens & toxins that might result from unexpected side-effects of the
genetic engineering process" notes Dr John Fagan, who purports to be an
activist for safety in such human testing, but primarily argues like a
lobbyist trying to keep Congress from banning scientists from feeding
toxins to people desparate for the fifty dollars.

Human test subjects volunteered to breathe extremely high levels of toxic
fumes from the resins used in those yellow pesticide strips, trade-name
Vapona. It had already been done on dogs & all sorts of other mammals &
always found that when delivered as a gas it could not reacha toxic level
in the bloodstream, even though with long-term physical contact with the
resins one's liver can be completely destroyed. The manufacturers found
out all they could with animals then wanted to try it on people too, &
you'd be surprised how easy it is to get volunteers -- mainly unemployed
students & the homeless.

Not all scientists are proud to poison students & the homeless, but pretty
much all of them do need human subjects. To quote from a Wallstreet
Journal article, "In what became known within CibaGeigy [a Dow Corning
subsidiary] as 'The Directors' Study,' the company recruited six top
managers at its Greensboro, N.C., offices to swallow atrazine, a herbicide
used on corn & other crops, to determine its rate of elimination in
urine." The theory was that "top managers" could've said "No!" if they'd
wanted, & no one could afterward fault the company.

MDS Harris Laboratory in Lincoln Nebraska has conducted many pesticide
exposure studies on human volunteers, who are asked to ingest some of the
nastiest toxins imaginable, & do so for small amounts of money. In 1999
they conducted 14 human test studies on 10 toxic chemicals for the EPA, &
the EPA acquired 13 more studies of the same type from the United Kingdom.
"While some at the EPA, which regulates pesticides, see clear
value in these human studies, which are legal, many do not," said John
Carley, special assistant in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs.

As for herbicides like glyphosate, same picture. While the majority of
studies of the effects of glyphosate on humans have been with people
exposed to RoundUp & other glyphosate products outside the laboratory (&
two studies have shown that it causes lymphic disease in humans), more
than a few studies have been done with volunteers willing to be exposed to
herbicidal poisons. Such studies were in fact MOST necessary because
Monsanto wants to "prove" it is safe to eat fruits & vegetables that have
been genetically engineered to survive glyphosate dosings. In fact
Monsanto has the lion's share of their future invested in the idea that
future crops will be so resistant to glyphosate, that all the weeds can be
poisoned by just dumping HUGE amounts of the toxins in agricultural
fields. So of course Monsanto is paying for & orchestrating a number of
studies the intent of which is to prove you can eat a lot of herbicide &
not get sick & die. Since INDEPENDENT studies show it to be linked to
lymphic cancer & to be a suspected mutagen, Monsanto also pays
editorialists to discredit all independent science, while promulgating
only their own science (which even in courts of law have been proven time
& again to have been falsified).

Any of us who do not radically seek out & pay more to restrict ourselves
to organicly grown produce are already the non-volunteer human test
subjects, with a few independent studies in progress to track how bad off
we get.

A Latin American study showed that RoundUp was dangerously toxic &
Monsanto responded in Latin America by providing an alternative
formulation they claimed was less toxic, but before the study could be
translated in the United States, Monsanto's propoganda machine had already
began getting the word out that Latin American scientists are nothing but
wetbacks & beaners who can't possibly do good science. Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman, formerly a paid Monsanta propogandist who got in
good with Bush, claimed Latin American scientists are so stupid that their
studies "were so poorly designed that they do not provide any conclusive
results." (Las Vegas Sun, 9.05.2002). Indeed according to all Monsanto
mouthpieces the only conclusive results anyone anywhere in the world ever
achieved was bought & paid for by themselves.

So if you'd like to eat some RoundUp for Monsanto or some similar kind of
poison, & get paid to do it, I'm sure you can find some lab somewhere
nearby that has Monsanto or Dow Corning or Dupont funding & they are eager
to have you volunteer. Obviousy it's not the sort of thing chemical
companies intentionally promote, but some of the places you can go first
if you want to get paid to eat herbicides & pesticides would certainly
include MDS Harris Labs & Maharishi U., but also the
wouldn't-you-think-they'd-know-better University of California in Davis.
Mike Russell, neurobiologist, was set up to test herbicides & pesticides
on human subjects specifically for Amvac, Zeneca & other chemical
companies who paid all the bills & salaries. Any impoverished desparate
sod can get paid a whopping $150 to $300 for a single day of exposure in
your eyes (you get paid more if you can hold out longest, so there's
clearly a sadistic aspect to the research). Even though some of the same
chemicals had plenty of independent studies that found they caused
vomiting, nausea, burning of the eyes & nasal membranes, & headaches,
Davis's non-independent findings with full funding from the chemical
companies actually managed to produce data that permitted them to publish
the declaration of "no ill effects whatsoever" (a real quote from one of
the published studies as quoted in a Nature Magazine investigative
article). The chemical companies had been extremely dissatisfied with
independent findings of the California's Department of Pesticide
Regulation, which findings the chemical companies dismissed because they
were done on cats. To counter the negative findings of dangerousness, the
companies bought & paid for a brand spanking new lab at Davis with the
express purpose of creating more chemical-friendly data, obtainable by
asking subjective questions of paid volunteers.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/