g6oaef
"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to La Puce ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 26 Jul, 19:00, "
wrote:
We use sprays when necessary, organic is superb but growing
food and crops commercially is not viable without their use. It is
said that in some countries, the yield would be so small that it
would be inadequate for the populace.

Do you grow commercially?! No, so why do you use glyphosade? For your
horsetail?
And show me the yield results you mention and in which country does
this refers to?

Certainly there is a lot to be said for restricting sprays, as much
as is reasonably possible but not to take it to the lengths of some
nutty fanatics, their reasoning is flawed.

Oh, that's what you call people who wants to preserve our birds,
insects, mamals and plants fanatics?
I had no idea.

:-)

I am going to say this only once ...

G L Y S O P H A T E

What a typo!

On Jul 26, 9:55 am, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:14:25 -0700, "

wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:02 pm, "Bob Hobden" wrote:

Inactive on contact with soil, are you sure?

I am "pretty" sure Bob as we use it.

It has to make contact green parts of the plant to have an effect.
Some extremely waxy plants like holly seedlings can resist it
(although this is not something to depend upon). After two weeks it is
fully replantable even for seedlings. I have never had any
difficulties with it at all. It is extremely lethal to plants and
relatively benign in animals (although the wetting agents used in real
formulations are pretty bad).

Try growing mustard & cress seedlings to test for weedkiller residue -
it is a sensitive test.

And don't buy Monsantos Roundup unless you like their GM monopoly, buy
the cheaper generic Glyphosate own brand with the highest proportion
of active ingredient per £.

It becomes inactive/breaksdown after some time.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=508121

It is to all intents and purposes inactivated physically by adsorption
on contact with normal soil (unless you live somewhere with very free
draining pure sand). The glyphosate decomposes completely over a few
weeks under normal conditions in the UK. In a US arid desert all bets
are off.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Sacha laid this down on his screen :

snip

I beleive that if we want these suffering to stop, we must eat
seasonnal vegs/fruits and not rely on imports. Then
we must ban these chemicals, because what is ok today will not be
tomorrow. See how many chemicals have been
removed from our shops. There's a reason for that. So why give me such
a bad time for thinking what is best?

Nobody is giving you a bad time. You made a case and some others don't
agree with it. This is a discussion forum so people are discussing.
Personal insults (not you Sacha) are not discussing,they are of no use,
other than to give the recipient a bad time.

snip

--
Regards From
Wane Smooth

Help feed the Hungry,goto
http://www.thehungersite.com
It's Free!

On 27 Jul, 11:24, Sacha wrote:
Nobody has said it is wrong for you to try to eat as healthily as possible.
What we are saying is that your claims that children are dying because of
the use of glyphosate appear unsubstantiated.

Why don't you look at the reports that I have shown? And it's not only
about food, but about flowers too, where precautions are not being
taken by the workers using all these sprays. Why? Because they are not
regulated as we are here in the UK. Sadly.

Nobody is giving you a bad time. You made a case and some others don't
agree with it. This is a discussion forum so people are discussing.

I understand that. But there's some strange comments always added,
please be honest. Calling me a 'fanatic' is a bit far fetched. We all
have the good intentions towards our environment, even Judith has, but
we must be an example of good practice and not be selective. If you
have horsetail in your garden, dig it up. Don't use chemicals.

Of glyphosate on someone's garden? I don't think so. That's the problem as
far as I can see. You're painting with too broad a brush for the purposes
of the group.

You must see the bigger picture, I'm sure you are quite capable of
this. Sadly what I've come to realise is that when you make a point,
quickly, you won't come back onto it even if you haven't entirely
thought about your answer and realise there's more to it. And that is
so annoying. We all must accept that we cannot have the solution first
time around. *That* is the point of a discussion.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:04:21 +0100, Uncle Marvo wrote
(in article ):

snip


I am going to say this only once ...

G L Y S O P H A T E



But ... G L Y P H O S A T E on Monsanto's web site! (And the commercial
agricultural product says G L Y P H O G A N.)



--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church with conservation
churchyard:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

On 27 Jul, 11:11, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:
In reply to Bob Hobden ) who wrote this in
Happens in France so why not here.

You don't want me to answer that really, do you?

Please do ;o)

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:28:07 +0100
Sacha wrote:

AIUI, the more sulfites the more the chance of headaches and the cheaper the
white wine the more sulfites? Or so I was told in USA some years ago,
though not by a wine grower.
snip

Hi Sacha,

The cost of the wine has nothing to do with the amount of sulfites, except perhaps
in the sense that good cellar hygiene costs money, and that might be passed on.
But most of the ocean of cheap white plonk is produced industrially under perfectly
hygienic conditions.

White wine has more sulfites than red, as I recall. Unless you have a problem
with sulfites, which seems actually rare enough, it is unlikely that you'll get
a headache from any wine that's sulfite related.

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

In reply to La Puce ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 27 Jul, 11:11, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:
In reply to Bob Hobden ) who wrote this in
Happens in France so why not here.

You don't want me to answer that really, do you?

Please do ;o)

It is an easy one. The answer is "priorities".

In reply to Martin Brown ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :

On Jul 26, 9:55 am, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:14:25 -0700, "

wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:02 pm, "Bob Hobden" wrote:

Inactive on contact with soil, are you sure?

I am "pretty" sure Bob as we use it.

It has to make contact green parts of the plant to have an effect.
Some extremely waxy plants like holly seedlings can resist it
(although this is not something to depend upon). After two weeks it is
fully replantable even for seedlings. I have never had any
difficulties with it at all. It is extremely lethal to plants and
relatively benign in animals (although the wetting agents used in real
formulations are pretty bad).

Try growing mustard & cress seedlings to test for weedkiller residue -
it is a sensitive test.

And don't buy Monsantos Roundup unless you like their GM monopoly, buy
the cheaper generic Glyphosate own brand with the highest proportion
of active ingredient per £.

It becomes inactive/breaksdown after some time.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=508121

It is to all intents and purposes inactivated physically by adsorption
on contact with normal soil (unless you live somewhere with very free
draining pure sand). The glyphosate decomposes completely over a few
weeks under normal conditions in the UK. In a US arid desert all bets
are off.

I will mention again, quietly, that because something is on the internet it
doesn't mean it's true, false, made up, mischievous - but it could be a
combination of any or all of these.

I agree with the Monsanto comment.

I threw away my glyphosate ages ago after something La Puce mentioned. And
yes, it was properly disposed of, along with the AK47.

In reply to Sally Thompson ) who wrote
this in , I, Marvo, say :

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:04:21 +0100, Uncle Marvo wrote
(in article ):

snip


I am going to say this only once ...

G L Y S O P H A T E



But ... G L Y P H O S A T E on Monsanto's web site! (And the
commercial agricultural product says G L Y P H O G A N.)

See above :-)

Silly me.

It was in answer to someone else's other typo :-)

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 27/7/07 11:22, in article ,
"Uncle Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :

On 27/7/07 10:06, in article ,
"Uncle Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :

I'm very wary of the organic claims from far flung countries
because I'm not au fait with how they're inspected or set. In
any case, I try not to buy foods that have flown thousands of
miles to get here. They're not only not fresh, they're not
'planet friendly'.

I have read that it makes more sense to fly them here than force
them in heated greenhouses here.

The real answer is to eat only seasonal food, like wot we always
used to.

It won't happen, sadly.


No but it's what I aim for. I don't succeed all the time but I do
try. I use a fair bit of frozen veg too which, recent research has
shown, apparently, has often got more of the natural vitamins than
that which has been trucked around UK, let alone flown from Peru or
Chile!

The freezer was invented so that we could eat broad beans with our
gammon in winter, IMHO :-)

Yes, but they're British broad beans. ;-)

I know. And British Aunt Bessie's chips :-)

I don't actually own one, apart from the little bit in the top of the
fridge. It will hold ice cubes plus a bag of either broad beans or
Aunt Bessie's Oven Chips.


Freezers bring out my siege mentality. We have two and both are
always bursting at the seams!

As they should be. Most efficient way to run them, full up. If they're not,
you should stuff them with newspapers rather than try to freeze a pile of
air. Apparently.

On 27/7/07 11:22, in article , "Uncle
Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 27/7/07 10:06, in article ,
"Uncle Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :

I'm very wary of the organic claims from far flung countries because
I'm not au fait with how they're inspected or set. In any case, I
try not to buy foods that have flown thousands of miles to get here.
They're not only not fresh, they're not 'planet friendly'.

I have read that it makes more sense to fly them here than force
them in heated greenhouses here.

The real answer is to eat only seasonal food, like wot we always
used to.

It won't happen, sadly.


No but it's what I aim for. I don't succeed all the time but I do
try. I use a fair bit of frozen veg too which, recent research has
shown, apparently, has often got more of the natural vitamins than
that which has been trucked around UK, let alone flown from Peru or
Chile!

The freezer was invented so that we could eat broad beans with our gammon in
winter, IMHO :-)

Yes, but they're British broad beans. ;-)

I don't actually own one, apart from the little bit in the top of the
fridge. It will hold ice cubes plus a bag of either broad beans or Aunt
Bessie's Oven Chips.


Freezers bring out my siege mentality. We have two and both are always
bursting at the seams!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...

As they should be. Most efficient way to run them, full up. If they're
not, you should stuff them with newspapers rather than try to freeze a
pile of air. Apparently.



Space is better filled with 4 pint milk plastic cartons well washed out and
filled to within a couple of inches from the top with water. The water
freezes and expands into the space and hold the freezing conditions a lot
longer than newspaper.

We buy a week's supply of milk at a time and put these down in the freezer.
They take "about" 12 hours to thaw out. Nothing detrimental to the milk :-))

If you lay the cartons down in the bottom of a chest freezer, the food can
be stacked on top thus making it easier to reach.

Mike


--
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
Reunion Bournemouth August/September 2007
www.rneba.org.uk
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will have a Stand

On 27/7/07 11:40, in article , "Emery
Davis" wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:28:07 +0100
Sacha wrote:

AIUI, the more sulfites the more the chance of headaches and the cheaper the
white wine the more sulfites? Or so I was told in USA some years ago,
though not by a wine grower.
snip

Hi Sacha,

The cost of the wine has nothing to do with the amount of sulfites, except
perhaps
in the sense that good cellar hygiene costs money, and that might be passed
on.
But most of the ocean of cheap white plonk is produced industrially under
perfectly
hygienic conditions.

That makes sense, thanks Emery.

White wine has more sulfites than red, as I recall. Unless you have a problem
with sulfites, which seems actually rare enough, it is unlikely that you'll
get
a headache from any wine that's sulfite related.

I certainly find that some white wines give me a stuffed up head and sinuses
almost immediately and in some cases, a headache to go with it. It doesn't
seem to happen with red wine, no and your information bears that out.


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 27/7/07 11:38, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 27 Jul, 11:24, Sacha wrote:
Nobody has said it is wrong for you to try to eat as healthily as possible.
What we are saying is that your claims that children are dying because of
the use of glyphosate appear unsubstantiated.

Why don't you look at the reports that I have shown? And it's not only
about food, but about flowers too, where precautions are not being
taken by the workers using all these sprays. Why? Because they are not
regulated as we are here in the UK. Sadly.

I do not dispute that sprays - some sprays - are bad for us. We use
biological controls here and sprays are used so rarely as to be virtually
unknown. After all, there are claims that washing up liquids are
carcinogenic and I am scrupulous about rinsing every glass or dish that I
wash by hand. But the simple, if sad, truth is market forces rule. If
people in a foreign country are trying to make a living out of growing
flowers or veg. and use sprays to do it, what motivates them is paying their
workers and keeping their own families. The same goes for people in this
country - they have to make their businesses profitable and now that we do
have refrigeration and cut flowers and vegetables being flown all over the
world, we, the British producers, are in direct competition with growers in
Egypt, Israel, Chile, Peru, France, Thailand, Holland and Spain. Until and
unless, we either ban all sprays or exports of food, all will continue to be
in competition with each other. And then, when all that is banned, children
will be dying of disease and starvation because their parents can't work to
earn money to feed their families. It just isn't as simple as "don't use
sprays".

Nobody is giving you a bad time. You made a case and some others don't
agree with it. This is a discussion forum so people are discussing.

I understand that. But there's some strange comments always added,
please be honest. Calling me a 'fanatic' is a bit far fetched. We all
have the good intentions towards our environment, even Judith has, but
we must be an example of good practice and not be selective. If you
have horsetail in your garden, dig it up. Don't use chemicals.

Your original reaction did smack of the evangelical, if you prefer that to
'fanatical'! I think the problem is that people are less easily or readily
convinced by emotional reactions and arguments, however they are expressed,
than by a calmer approach. Not everyone has the time or patience or
physical ability to dig. I don't But I'm lucky that I live with people who
can do the digging. But for those who can't, sprays are undoubtedly useful
and while the science is available, not everyone is going to read it or be
swayed by it. They're going to do what is most useful for them. And "even
Judith" is entirely unnecessary, BTW. Judith has children and
grandchildren, works within the medical profession and has a husband who is
a respected scientist. I think she knows more about environmental concerns
and has as much invested in them, as anyone here.

Of glyphosate on someone's garden? I don't think so. That's the problem as
far as I can see. You're painting with too broad a brush for the purposes
of the group.

You must see the bigger picture, I'm sure you are quite capable of
this. Sadly what I've come to realise is that when you make a point,
quickly, you won't come back onto it even if you haven't entirely
thought about your answer and realise there's more to it. And that is
so annoying. We all must accept that we cannot have the solution first
time around. *That* is the point of a discussion.


We can all see the bigger picture but your reaction to one person talking
about glyphosate for his garden was extreme and didn't do your pov any
favours in the way you expressed it. And I have no idea what you mean about
me making a point and not coming back to it. I have now done so twice.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'