|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. There's always likely to be trade offs. The sheep dip changes are probably 'better' for the people who use them, but 'worse' for invertebrates in run-off watercourses, for example. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... In article , "Michael Saunby" wrote: However I'm still far from convinced that pesticide residues are harmful to people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. Well said. You may be interested to know that in New Zealand the Department of Conservation (affectionatly known as Doc) is a great and avid user of roundup. They use it to clear persistent plant invaders so that native plants and animals can get a fair crack of the whip. Speaking of things toxic they have just announced that they have rendered Campbell Island (Sth of NZ, sub antarctic), free of rats for the first time in 200 years by dropping rat poison from helicopters. this is very good news for the nesting seabirds and should see the return of some species who had to be removed to predator free islands for their own survival. toxins can be our friends too. Yes, this is the 'success story' mentioned by Malcolm O in one of the ship rat threads, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/2938612.stm This is also mentioned at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1456230.stm (which makes clear the 200,000 rats in question were r. norvegicus, not r. rattus, by the way) and alludes to the near disastrous start to the exercise when 18 tonnes of the poison en route to the island for the eradication programme was accidentally dumped in a whale breeding location, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1346931.stm but no harm done, apparently. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. There's always likely to be trade offs. The sheep dip changes are probably 'better' for the people who use them, but 'worse' for invertebrates in run-off watercourses, for example. I'm fine with trade offs, it's dishonesty that ****es me off. Control, reduce, ban, whatever the use of pesticides and herbicides if it will achieve some desired outcome, but don't lie about the reasons. Ban hunting for reasons of puritanical distaste for sport - it that's what the ruling class demand, but not for spurious reasons of least cruelty. Attempting to constantly appeal to an ignorant public for support in every attempt to change the way people interact with the environment is damned stupid. Though I accept that the present alternative may be worse - the currently fashionable notion of "sustainable development" where some unpopular or hard to justify changes are made anyway, since they will, hopefully, benefit future generations, actually gives authority to those in power on the basis that (most of) the present generation don't know what's best for the long term (but government do?). It seems the main trade off at present is between central government and common sense. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
"BAC" wrote: This is also mentioned at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1456230.stm (which makes clear the 200,000 rats in question were r. norvegicus, not r. rattus, by the way) and alludes to the near disastrous start to the exercise when 18 tonnes of the poison en route to the island for the eradication programme was accidentally dumped in a whale breeding location, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1346931.stm but no harm done, apparently. Ah yes, I remember the road spill incident, following the NZ news as I do. I had forgotten the purpose to which the poison was going to be used. It was probably a good thing the sea was relatively calm at the time of the accident, the Kaikoura coast is prone to large swells. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. There's always likely to be trade offs. The sheep dip changes are probably 'better' for the people who use them, but 'worse' for invertebrates in run-off watercourses, for example. actually they are better for the sheep, but less safe for the handlers. For the handlers Organo-phosphates were more dangerous than the organo-chorides they replaced, and they were more dangerous than things like copper sulphate. One of the things which left a nasty taste was the way government and legislaters regarded those forced to use the chemicals as expendable Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :: Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't : :: growing the right things. : : : :Size is the main limiting factor. I estimate I have about ten square : :metres to work with. : : : 3m x 3m! : : More like 10m x 1m ;-) : : : Then throw out most of it and stick to 5 sq m of swiss chard and 5 sq m : : in runner and climbing french beans. : : That would be contrary to my stated aim of getting more diversity - : and would massively up my bean consumption (I go pretty easy on : most legumes). : Now this is where I really can't understand what you want from yourself and : others. If you genuinely believed that pesticide residues presented a : significant risk to you health, and you were rational (granted these two : things probably don't go together too well) then surely your objective : would be to replace those foodstuffs that you presently obtain from other : that present the greatest risk. Surely this would mean growing as much of : your staples first and then indulging in wealthy western extravagance once : that is in order? I eat lots of green salad veg - and I grow lots of green salad veg. I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. I don't grow very many fruit - my perception is that they take up too much space for the volume of produce they produce - and I'm space limited. I /am/ growing strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, taeberries, loganberries, wolfberries, black currants, gooseberries and apricots - but don't expect to get enough fruit to significantly impact my annual levels of consumption. Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh as possible. : Personally I prefer to rear a couple of pigs as needed so that we get to : eat decent meat as often as possible, but if you prefer not to eat meat, : or don't have the space then grow potatoes. ....but I don't eat very many posasoes either - plus they keep well, aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are easily available year-round in nearby shops. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Wed, 28 May 2003 10:13:13 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :: Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't : :: growing the right things. : : : :Size is the main limiting factor. I estimate I have about ten square : :metres to work with. : : : 3m x 3m! : : More like 10m x 1m ;-) : : : Then throw out most of it and stick to 5 sq m of swiss chard and 5 sq m : : in runner and climbing french beans. : : That would be contrary to my stated aim of getting more diversity - : and would massively up my bean consumption (I go pretty easy on : most legumes). : Now this is where I really can't understand what you want from yourself and : others. If you genuinely believed that pesticide residues presented a : significant risk to you health, and you were rational (granted these two : things probably don't go together too well) then surely your objective : would be to replace those foodstuffs that you presently obtain from other : that present the greatest risk. Surely this would mean growing as much of : your staples first and then indulging in wealthy western extravagance once : that is in order? I eat lots of green salad veg - and I grow lots of green salad veg. Don't tell me, let's guess - and for the other six months of the year you hibernate? I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. I don't grow very many fruit - my perception is that they take up too much space for the volume of produce they produce - and I'm space limited. I /am/ growing strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, taeberries, loganberries, wolfberries, black currants, gooseberries and apricots - but don't expect to get enough fruit to significantly impact my annual levels of consumption. Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh as possible. So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even you consider a varied diet more important. So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, maybe they're a good thing. : Personally I prefer to rear a couple of pigs as needed so that we get to : eat decent meat as often as possible, but if you prefer not to eat meat, : or don't have the space then grow potatoes. ...but I don't eat very many posasoes either - plus they keep well, aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are easily available year-round in nearby shops. Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been treated with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you ensure that such a valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? I get the impression you don't eat meat, so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. Still making friends I see, Mr Moody? are all farm types this obnoxious or have we just bumped into some rare breeds? -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. [...] : : Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing : my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing : availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh : as possible. : So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even you : consider a varied diet more important. That's accurate. I'm typically prepared to trade some exposure to pesticides in for some diversity. It's hard to quantify the degree of risk - but I think it's worth taking some effort to avoid pesticides. : So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, : maybe they're a good thing. They make food cheaper to produce. They clearly have their upsides - that's why they are used. : ...but I don't eat very many po[tat]oes either - plus they keep well, : aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are : easily available year-round in nearby shops. : Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been treated : with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you ensure that such a : valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? Potatoes keep pretty well with no treatment at all - if kept in darkness. : I get the impression you don't eat meat [...] That's not an accurate impression - I eat turkey, liver and kidneys - and fish and seafood. : so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or : something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. I'm on a low calorie diet. Many of the calories I do eat come from fruit, oils, nuts and seeds. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. [...] : : Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing : my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing : availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh : as possible. : So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even you : consider a varied diet more important. That's accurate. I'm typically prepared to trade some exposure to pesticides in for some diversity. So a varied diet is more important than a long (and healthy?) life? It's hard to quantify the degree of risk - but I think it's worth taking some effort to avoid pesticides. The whole point of risks is that you do quantify them, otherwise they're simply irrational fears and should carry no weight. : So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, : maybe they're a good thing. They make food cheaper to produce. They clearly have their upsides - that's why they are used. : ...but I don't eat very many po[tat]oes either - plus they keep well, : aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are : easily available year-round in nearby shops. : Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been treated : with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you ensure that such a : valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? Potatoes keep pretty well with no treatment at all - if kept in darkness. They might, but I'm pretty certain most don't get the chance. I think you'll find that the use of various chemicals to protect stored potatoes and grain is more common that not doing so. This is an interesting situation though, since environmentalists are very concerned about the use of pesticides in open fields where wildlife might be affected but far less concerned by the use of pesticides in food storage. So I suspect that as with DDT public opinion is being used to achieve what's best for the environment rather than what might be best for people. See http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/committ.../chlorstat.htm I've seen other documents, that I can't find areference for right now that give figures for the proportion of stored potatoes that are treated, I'm pretty sure it's most. : I get the impression you don't eat meat [...] That's not an accurate impression - I eat turkey, liver and kidneys - and fish and seafood. My mistake. Odd choices though - any reason other than personal taste? : so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or : something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. I'm on a low calorie diet. Forever, or just to lose some weight? Many of the calories I do eat come from fruit, oils, nuts and seeds. Not a diet that would suit many, and of course a lot of "food miles", so unhappy environmentalists again. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote: people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. I think it had to be sensible to ban the persistent organochlorines. We are longer lived than other carnivores, and it must be reasonable to conclude that they may also be a threat to us ultimately. Michael Saunby -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Oz wrote: Unlikely, all approval schemes require effective control of rodents. Without food, owls will perish. With rodents, farms cannot sell their produce easily, if at all. This is supposed to improve human health, although I have never seen any recorded problem in recent decades in the UK associated with farm rodents and *consumer* health. Tough on owls and raptors, then. One of our local farmers has installed some 20 to 30 boxes in this area, and in 5 years the number of Barn Owls has increased enormously. Last year, albeit a good vole year, he ringed 97 barn owl chicks. I would thimk they may also help knpck off a few rats as well. Of course you prohably have to have large areas of rough grazing land for this. About 10 years ago we thought we had no Barn Owls. -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote: I'm fine with trade offs, it's dishonesty that ****es me off. Control, reduce, ban, whatever the use of pesticides and herbicides if it will achieve some desired outcome, but don't lie about the reasons. Ban hunting for reasons of puritanical distaste for sport - it that's what the ruling class demand, but not for spurious reasons of least cruelty. Attempting to constantly appeal to an ignorant public for support in every attempt to change the way people interact with the environment is damned stupid. Though I accept that the present alternative may be worse - the currently fashionable notion of "sustainable development" where some unpopular or hard to justify changes are made anyway, since they will, hopefully, benefit future generations, actually gives authority to those in power on the basis that (most of) the present generation don't know what's best for the long term (but government do?). It seems the main trade off at present is between central government and common sense. Michael Saunby We all think we know best, but governments have to take all of our views into consideration. -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Jim Webster wrote: actually they are better for the sheep, but less safe for the handlers. For the handlers Organo-phosphates were more dangerous than the organo-chorides they replaced, and they were more dangerous than things like copper sulphate. One of the things which left a nasty taste was the way government and legislaters regarded those forced to use the chemicals as expendable Jim Webster I thought they had gone on to permethrins now, which were generally less toxic to sheep and humans than op but are not deactivated before they filter into water courses. -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Robert Seago" wrote in message ... In article , Jim Webster wrote: actually they are better for the sheep, but less safe for the handlers. For the handlers Organo-phosphates were more dangerous than the organo-chorides they replaced, and they were more dangerous than things like copper sulphate. One of the things which left a nasty taste was the way government and legislaters regarded those forced to use the chemicals as expendable Jim Webster I thought they had gone on to permethrins now, which were generally less toxic to sheep and humans than op but are not deactivated before they filter into water courses. yes, basically the H&SE may well find itself effectively destroyed by European law because of OPs. Effectively H&SE claimed it had no duty of care, hence was not responsible for any injuries or death which occurred if you followed their advice. The OP business going to European level may overturn this. so permethrins are expedient. Jim Webster -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter