Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found
that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma" in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, March 15, 1999. A conservative assessment of these studies would indicate further study is needed to be sure the indicators, at this point being ALL against glyphosate, can always be substantiated; but the studies could be done fifty times with the same outcome & it would still be unproven by Monsanto's standard of lying & propogandizing. When one begins to accumulate peer-reviewed studies, it soon becomes obvious that the vast majority indict RoundUp's allegedly "safe as salt" key ingredient as a threat to the environment & to human health. In Australia it is already banned for use near wetlands. (During Australian court battles with Monsanto, company flacks were forced to admit to the accuracy of a study that showed glyphosate caused testicular tumors in rabbits, and had caused "severe" environmental damage -- but Monsanto argued this was a localized effect and would not happen elsewhere -- not that they studied that of course.) When one finds "positive" studies they turn out not to be peer reviewed, & were either done at Monsanto labs, written by Monsanto propogandists, were Monsanto-funded studies & did not qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The worst studies are promulgated through corporate-sponsored ExToxNet, & CanTox, which cam look useful at first glance but are complete fraud that exists primarily to whitewash any deadly toxin that is of economic importance to the sponsoring corporations, notably Monsanto. The best studies are ignored or quoted out of context. One way to make glyphosate look "good" in slanted studies is to note only that the chemical breaks down quickly in the environment. Monsanto-bought studies don't look at what glyphosate breaks down into: Glyphosate easily nitrosates, forming N-nitrosoglyphosate, an unsafe chemical in its own right, & which degrades into Formeldehydemm Sarcosine, Methylamine, & aminomethylphosphonic acid -- so if it were even slightly true glyphosate per se does not migrate to water, this would be because deadly break-down chemicals do so instead. To Monsanto this translates "glyphosate does not migrate to water." Well, actually, it does, & Western Australia studies have proven it, but even in environments where the glyphosate itself is broken down rapidly hence cannot itself migrate to water, the harmful chemicals it breaks down into DO migrate to water. Monsanto sources take quotes out of context from real science, mix it with their own fake science such as that which they sponsor through Academic Press (a corporate publisher with sciency-sounding titles on the non-peer-review magazines), then post it to the web via the corporate-sponsored Extoxnet, & voila, easily accessed propoganda with no balance of science remaining. A western Australia study established that three species of frog were now extinct because of glyphosate products. Separate & supportive studies on loss of frogs & tadpoles in Canada have further established at least ONE permanent & irrepairable effect of glyphosate products on frogs: Extinction. The studies that have indicated that glyphosate itself may be involved in the rising rates of lymphatic cancers in humans is frightening enough, but the chemical mixes that have reach wetlands are undeniably involved in the mass extinction of frogs -- so the only sensible decision in light of even that one issue would have to be STOP USING THESE POISONS. Monsanto, while fighting in the Australian courts to not reveal what the miscellaneous ingredients in their glyphosate products really are, & to limit the scope of eventual bans on several once-normative uses of glyphosate in western Australia, rather like the cigarette companies at first would not admit to any faults in their products, but eventually did admit their glyphosate products had indeed caused "severe local effects" in the Australian environment, & also finally admitted that the low-organic-matter soils in Australia meant their glyphosate products would not biodegrade even after a full year. A few years back the EPA was preparing to put some heavy-duty restrictions on glyphosate. But Monsanto has some powerful lobbyists and have bankrolled many a congressional campaign. So congressmen in Monsanto's back pocket instructed the EPA to be more Monsanto-friendly. The public is not even allowed to know what the miscellaneous contents of products like RoundUp really are. The lab tests on pure chemicals ultimately do not apply to the toxic "mixes" of chemicals in these products. "Mixes" of chemicals can become increasingly dangerous; for instance, Monsanto doesn't want anyone to know that glyphosate used in the proxity of phosphates triples in toxicity -- which means really the label should carry the "Warning: do not use near areas that are fertilized." In 1996 Judge Robertson by court order forced Monsanto to reveal other ingredients of their glyphosate-based brands, but the list was then sealed by court order, so the public still does not know. Fifteen chemicals ARE known for RoundUp alone, but the packaging lists far fewer. NO STUDY has ever been done on the actual chemical mixes in play, and the public and independent researchers are not even allowed to know what those chemicals might be. But independent studies have measured toxins in watersheds, & it is clear that these deadly Monsanto products already pollute exactly the kind of areas Monsanto- purchased studies pretend aren't harmed. -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/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[Fwd: Herbicide `Roundup' may boost toxic fungi] | sci.agriculture | |||
Goats Are West's Latest Weed Whackers | sci.agriculture | |||
OT Latest bulletin | Gardening | |||
when's the latest for (re-)planting 'snowdrops in the green'? | United Kingdom | |||
latest issue of Distant Thunder, by the Forest Steward's Guild | alt.forestry |