Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

Well, if you want to compare it to table salt. I wouldn't put it on my
food, but then I wouldn't use salt to kill weeds. Unless it is in the
driveway and I don't plan to grow anything there for many years.
Ok the truth, if you buy the right formulation for the job it would be
effective and safe on the environment. It is not soil active and some
formulations are designed for aquatic use that will breakdown rapidly after
application. But remember to read the label to determine what the safe uses
are for that formulation. There are now over 100 different brands and
formulations of glyphosate, commonly referred to as "Round-UP."

" wrote in message
m...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

Who makes money from you using or not using the product. Who should you
trust?

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


" wrote in message
m...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

From http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pestcide/glyphos.html:

Glyphosate; Pesticide Fact Sheet, Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service by Information Ventures, Inc.

III. Environmental Effects/Fate:

Soil:

Residual Soil Activity: Glyphosate is not generally active in the soil. It
is not usually absorbed from the soil by plants.
Adsorption: Glyphosate and the surfactant used in Roundup are both strongly
adsorbed by the soil.
Persistence and Agents of Degradation: Glyphosate remains unchanged in the
soil for varying lengths of time, depending on soil texture and organic
matter content. The half-life of glyphosate can range from 3 to 130 days.
Soil microorganisms break down glyphosate. In tests, the surfactant in
Roundup has a soil half-life of less than 1 week. Soil microorganisms break
down the surfactant.
Metabolites/Degradation Products and Potential Environmental Effects: The
main break-down product of glyphosate in the soil is aminomethylphosphonic
acid, which is broken down further by soil microorganisms. The main
break-down product of the surfactant used in Roundup is carbon dioxide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Water:

Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water.
Potential For Leaching Into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching is low.
Glyphosate and the surfactant in Roundup are strongly adsorbed to soil
particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from
35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks.
Surface Waters: Studies examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid
(AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British
Columbia with and without no-spray streamside zones. With a no-spray
streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and
sediment after the first heavy rain. Where glyphosate was sprayed over the
stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy
rain, up to 3 weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked
later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over 1 year. These
residues were not easily released back into the water.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Air:

Volatilization: Glyphosate does not evaporate easily.
Potential For By-Products From Burning of Treated Vegetation: Major products
from burning treated vegetation include phosphorus pentoxide, acetonitrile,
carbon dioxide and water. Phosphorus pentoxide forms phosphoric acid in the
presence of water. None of these compounds is known to be a health threat at
the levels which would be found in a vegetation fire.

Dave


" wrote in message
m...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

In article
,
says...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack


If you are comparing the toxicity of the two with LD50
and LDLO of glyphosate has the higher numbers which
means generally it takes more to be toxic to on what
ever tests they are conducting. The oral LD50 of
Glyphosate is 4300 mg/kg and salt is around 3300 mg/kg.
The LDLO of glyphosate is 2143 mg/kg and salt's is
around 1000 mg/kg. LD50 is the amount given in mg per kg
body weight to kill 50% of the test animals. LDLO is the
Lowest Dose for Lethal to have Occurred of the mg given
per kg body weight. A tablespoon holds 14150 mg. Also
if you talking about a specific product like round up,
it may contain less than 2% glyphosate.

--
http://www.geocities.com/larflu/zebra.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

" wrote in message
m...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions?

I've used it for years, either hand-sprayed in a squirt bottle or pained on
with a brush. Not once have I seen any degradation in plants that were close
to the treated foliage except in cases of accidental overspray. It really is
quite amazing how you can kill a plant and one right next to it doesn't even
notice.

I sometimes use plastic to protect a desirable plant, or simply wash it off
with a watering can after spraying.

So for what it's worth, my experience is that Monsanto is telling the truth.

" wrote:

Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath
through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short
stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep
killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if
handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old
question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass
defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this
particular instance?

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:44 -0400, Chris Owens
wrote:

" wrote:

Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath
through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short
stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep
killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if
handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old
question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass
defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this
particular instance?

Chris Owens

What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.

Jack

I believe it was the court in New York State which addressed the idiotic
marketing device they used "...safe as table salt..." and were forced to stop
using said slogan many years ago.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:41:33 GMT, (brojack) wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:44 -0400, Chris Owens
wrote:

" wrote:

Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath
through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short
stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep
killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if
handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old
question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass
defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this
particular instance?

Chris Owens

What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.

Jack

"brojack" wrote in message
...


What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.

Jack

Water:
Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water.
Potential For Leaching Into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching is low.
Glyphosate and the surfactant in Roundup are strongly adsorbed to soil
particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from
35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks.
Surface Waters: Studies examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid
(AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British
Columbia with and without no-spray streamside zones. With a no-spray
streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and
sediment after the first heavy rain. Where glyphosate was sprayed over the
stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy
rain, up to 3 weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked
later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over 1 year. These
residues were not easily released back into the water.

There are plenty of other peer-reviewed studies on glyphosate's effects on
water......

Chris Owens wrote:

Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath
through the invertebrates that encounter it.

Yes there is a question. I spray with RoundUp every year around my
rhododendrons and the mice, deer, turkeys, squirrels, etc. are just as
numerous or more numerous than ever. I use a hand sprayer. I haven't
seen one dead animal or insect. It only kills plants.

When a person uses a statement like "there's no question" or "it goes
without saying" or "it is obvious that", then you know they don't have
any facts.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhody.html
Also visit the Rhododendron and Azalea Bookstore at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhodybooks.html
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

(brojack) wrote:

What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.

We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down
a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we
spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking
it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has
never tested showing any chemicals.

We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by
the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any
clay in the soil.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhody.html
Also visit the Rhododendron and Azalea Bookstore at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhodybooks.html
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

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/

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning"
wrote:

(brojack) wrote:

What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.

We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down
a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we
spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking
it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has
never tested showing any chemicals.

We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by
the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any
clay in the soil.

It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O.
That's what prompted the question.

Jack

brojack wrote:

Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath
through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short
stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep
killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if
handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old
question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass
defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this
particular instance?

Chris Owens

What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.

Jack

Jack, that depends entirely on the type of soil through which the
RoundUp needs to go to get to the groundwater. All soils bind it
to some extent; clay does quite heavily. Howsomever, any that
does reach the ground water will have the same devastating,
albeit brief, effect on the invertebrates there as it does in
your garden. I assuredly would not think it safe for people to
drink from a well supplied by such water until the glyophosphate
had broken down.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----