The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

Robert Seago writes
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.

We have had barn owls sporadically for years.
At least one pair bred, unfortunately two fledgelings drowned in water
troughs (one of ours, one of neighbours).

We had, for perhaps 20 years, a resident pair on the downs. These were
almost tame. Unfortunately we got done by environmental health on our
corn store, and had to kill off all the rodents. The owls were never
seen again.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

Michael Saunby writes

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

Indeed, sprout suppressants. Actually quite important as sprouted spuds
are rather toxic (if green, actually toxic), so really a health measure.

and grain is more common that not doing so.

Imported grain is usually treated with an OP insecticide.

UK grain generally isn't. I've never treated mine in 30 years and we
store until april.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
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.


'Have to'? Only when it suits them!

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 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?

Hopefully, a varied diet is a route to 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.

The "I think it's worth taking some effort to avoid pesticides" was
my effort at quantification. In other words, I think the risk is
too large for me to ignore.

: : 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.

Potatoes (indeed most root vegetables) are generally regarded as
low-pesticide risk foods.

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1052595508632

Has a table (which includes potatoes) which attempts to quantify the
relative risks involved.

Fruit take all the top places - and leafy vegetables come next.

: : 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?

My diet is oriented around good nutrition.

: : 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?

Forever.

: 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.

Unfortunately for the environment, I value my blueberries too highly.

I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

Tim Tyler writes

I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.

If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution would
never have happened.

In practice it's managed by their elected governments, which is really
much the same thing.

Of course these days reducing pollution in the developed world means
exporting it to the developing world. I don't think this is very
ethical.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:29:01 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Tim Tyler writes

I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.

If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution would
never have happened.

How the mind of the criminally insane works, blame it on everyone but
themselves.

I can see jack the ripper using it as an excuse now!!

ARe you for real?
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
should
tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

so if you are rich you are allowed to pollute?, rather than conspicuous
consumption we should watch for conspicuous pollution as the sign of the
ostentatiously rich.

"try some of this imported fruit, obviously it is horrendously imported
compared to British, the pollution tax you know, but I can afford it whereas
the poor cannot"

Jim Webster

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
: should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage
: they cause.

: so if you are rich you are allowed to pollute? [...]

Basically you would only be permitted to make a mess if
reasonable steps to clean it up afterwards followed.

More realistic than attempts to curb pollution entirely -
and more environmentally friendly than permitting it to
go on unchecked.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes

:I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
:tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

: Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.

: If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
: pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution
: would never have happened.

The consumer just wants the fruit.

Where it is grown - and whether it is transported by burning fossil fuels
- is not under their control, and consequently it's hard to see how they
can be held responsible for any resulting damage.

Even if they /could/ specify how it was done, blame would still not
be clear:

If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?
--
__________
|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 Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
: should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage
: they cause.

: so if you are rich you are allowed to pollute? [...]

Basically you would only be permitted to make a mess if
reasonable steps to clean it up afterwards followed.

More realistic than attempts to curb pollution entirely -
and more environmentally friendly than permitting it to
go on unchecked.

just stop the pollution in the first place. ban the flying of fruit. If it
cannot survive by sea then tough

lot easier than trying to undo the damage the plane did in the first place

Jim Webster
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

On Thu, 29 May 2003 09:45:52 GMT, Malcolm wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:29:01 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Tim Tyler writes

I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.

If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution would
never have happened.

How the mind of the criminally insane works, blame it on everyone but
themselves.

Oz criminally insane? Probably not! (Or only on special occasions.)

There are vicious circles involved in production/consumption/pollution.

Consider the pollution caused in the South East of England by commuting to
and from London each day (or any other large city). The pollution is caused
directly or indirectly by the vehicles and the provision of the transport
infrastructure.

1. Should we blame the bus/train/taxi companies and the drivers of
buses/trains/taxis? They would say that if people did not buy their services
this source of pollution would cease. So the fault lies with commuters.

2. Should we blame the commuters? They would say that they travel only
because they can't find suitable homes within walking distance of their
employment (or vice versa). So the fault lies with employers who locate
their businesses too far from residential areas.

3. Should we blame the employers? They would say that they locate their
businesses in places to which their actual and potential employees are able
and willing to travel.

You can see how this will get back to 1 and recycle indefinitely.

There is a similar vicious circle involved in food
production/processing/distribution.

The people who have the power to break these vicious circles are
governments. Unfortunately some of the actions they would need to take are
so disruptive and draconian that they recoil from them.

So the vicious circles spin merrily on.

I can see jack the ripper using it as an excuse now!!

JtR is dead, so we shouldn't be hearing from him.

ARe you for real?

I have never met Oz, but I reckon he is for real.

--
Peter Duncanson
UK

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes

:I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
:tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

: Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.

: If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
: pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution
: would never have happened.

The consumer just wants the fruit.

Where it is grown - and whether it is transported by burning fossil fuels
- is not under their control,

********. Just refuse to buy imported products.

and consequently it's hard to see how they
can be held responsible for any resulting damage.

By buying them. They are the SOLE cause.
If they didn't buy them, they wouldn't be shipped over.
YOU are responsible.

Even if they /could/ specify how it was done, blame would still not
be clear:

If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?

A and B, in all courts of law I know of.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

Tim Tyler writes

Basically you would only be permitted to make a mess if
reasonable steps to clean it up afterwards followed.

Most pollution happens when what people do in clear conscience today,
turns out to be bad tomorrow.

Gasworks sites, old smelting plants and even old mines were not
considered to be doing anything wrong at the time.

After all, I have a friend who farmed land originally mined for lead by
the romans. Cows new to the farm tended to die, and the land was heavily
polluted with lead. I'm quite sure the romans did not consider they were
doing anything untoward, and getting them to pay for a cleanup might be
problematic.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

Peter Duncanson writes

1. Should we blame the bus/train/taxi companies and the drivers of
buses/trains/taxis? They would say that if people did not buy their services
this source of pollution would cease. So the fault lies with commuters.

2. Should we blame the commuters? They would say that they travel only
because they can't find suitable homes within walking distance of their
employment (or vice versa). So the fault lies with employers who locate
their businesses too far from residential areas.

3. Should we blame the employers? They would say that they locate their
businesses in places to which their actual and potential employees are able
and willing to travel.

Indeed an apt example.

Of course in my youth, in central london, it was quite easy to work
within walking distance of home (say 2 miles). It was astonishing how
many industrial works were about in backstreets and behind houses.

Of course people tended to object to these (nasty, noisy, smelly, dirty,
traffic,...) and one by one they got redeveloped into housing.

Now, if you tried to put a small factory in a residential area, you
would be lynched.

So, industry (and even offices) tend to be located separately from
housing. So people have to commute. The tendency is to concentrate
'industrial stuff' (which is any business, really) in large industrial
estates far from housing. Often with only one main one per county.
Obviously nearly everyone has to commute.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:14:24 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2003 09:45:52 GMT, Malcolm wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:29:01 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Tim Tyler writes

I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.

Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.

If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution would
never have happened.

How the mind of the criminally insane works, blame it on everyone but
themselves.

Oz criminally insane? Probably not! (Or only on special occasions.)

There are vicious circles involved in production/consumption/pollution.

Consider the pollution caused in the South East of England by commuting to
and from London each day (or any other large city). The pollution is caused
directly or indirectly by the vehicles and the provision of the transport
infrastructure.

1. Should we blame the bus/train/taxi companies and the drivers of
buses/trains/taxis? They would say that if people did not buy their services
this source of pollution would cease. So the fault lies with commuters.

2. Should we blame the commuters? They would say that they travel only
because they can't find suitable homes within walking distance of their
employment (or vice versa). So the fault lies with employers who locate
their businesses too far from residential areas.

3. Should we blame the employers? They would say that they locate their
businesses in places to which their actual and potential employees are able
and willing to travel.

You can see how this will get back to 1 and recycle indefinitely.

There is a similar vicious circle involved in food
production/processing/distribution.

Yeah but not many of us will deliberately coat liberal; quantities of
highly toxic poisons onto peoples foodstuffs, not knowingly anyway,
and then still claim innocence.

The people who have the power to break these vicious circles are
governments. Unfortunately some of the actions they would need to take are
so disruptive and draconian that they recoil from them.

I blame the producers in equally parts, no one forces them to use
poisons, they choose to.

So the vicious circles spin merrily on.

I can see jack the ripper using it as an excuse now!!

JtR is dead, so we shouldn't be hearing from him.

No he isn't, he was here only a few weeks ago, one of Derek moody's
sock puppets.

ARe you for real?

I have never met Oz, but I reckon he is for real.

Without doubt.
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..