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

Michael Saunby writes
Now there's an idea for promoting agricultural products. "Adopt a Granny"
Use an ancient, but agile, granny to advertise your produce. If there are
enough "Tims" living in urban UK you may well be able to sell almost
anything this way - "Granny has eaten half a pound of tripe every day of
her life". Indeed why produce anything? How about "freshly squeezed
country air"?

Now that is a potentially winning advertising campaign.

Granny would, of course, have a very elegant 18yr old great
granddaughter to educate on eating.

--
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.
 

"Oz" wrote in message
...

It's not at all as simple as you think.
There was also work done on stress which indicates that pathological
worrying about your diet increases illness.


Has any research been done on worrying about other things? I would be
quite ironic if the US or UK governments were to be sued by smokers for the
damage done to their health by constantly reminding them of the dangers of
smoking.

Michael Saunby

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

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

::: Worse still you peculiar diet isn't likely to let you live
::: a longer and healthier life. [...]
::
::The scientific evidence is against you there.
:
:: So how big an experiment on humans on this diet has been completed for
:: their lifetime and what was the result?
:
:No lifetime studies in humans.

: OK, so not even the evidence you require of pesticides.

A different level of certainty is required - I'd be quite happy to go
on a diet that had a 90% chance of incresing my life and health -
whereas I'd be very cautious about consuming insecticides that
has a 90% chance of not giving me cancer.

:The results come from other animals -

: Which animals?

All the mammals that have been tested (excepting some short-lived
genetic screw-ups) - and almost all the animals that have been tested.

:and from non-lifespan studies in man.

: Tricky to estimate life extension before death.

Tricky to do it exactly - but I don't much care about that.

:http://www.calorierestriction.org/ (and its resources) explains the
:situation regarding the scientific evidence relating to dietary
:interventions and human aging.

: Indeed so. Similar effects have been shown for mice fed ad-lib every
: other day. These mice do NOT show the low weight but DO show the
: increased life. Recently reported in either new scientist or
: scientific american.

You're /probably/ thinking of the Mattson study:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993668

....though note that this didn't actually measure lifespan or mortality.

: It's not at all as simple as you think.

Uh - how simple do you think I think it is?

: There was also work done on stress which indicates that pathological
: worrying about your diet increases illness.

What's that got to do with anything?

: You are heading along an untested route that is supported by very
: limited evidence, much of it contradictory. That's your problem.

It's not a problem at all - since it's not true.

The evidence that life extension will occur in humans seems pretty
convincing - not least since it does so in practically every other mammal
studied - and much the same physiological changes that are seen in other
restricted animals are produced in humans.

The main controversy is over the extent involved.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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

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

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words. [...]

: People do pretty much have the freedom to speak in the UK; it's just that
: they don't always have the freedom to lie - a freedom that probably does
: help anyone much.

At least until you try broadcasting some copyrighted material - or - as in
the discussion here - plotting to murder some prominent individual.

Lying is - for the most part - permitted and tolerated by the legal
system - though there are a few places where it can get you into trouble
with the law.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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

On Sat, 31 May 2003 10:05:35 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout
"fire" in a crowded theatre

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." - United States
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1919)


--
Peter Duncanson
UK

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

In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: But your thinking, that it is only the person who does the final (or
: initial in the case of farming) act is the only one to blame silly.

I'm not sure that's a sentence.

Anyway, contrary to what you seem to be saying above, I certainly don't
think there should be any blame attached to growing and selling crops.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

Indeed why produce anything? How about "freshly squeezed
country air"?


available bottled in a reusable bottle!

Jim Webster


Michael Saunby

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

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...
: In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:

: Try it this way Tim. If the plane were pilot less. Not true today,
but
: far from impossible. Same for the warehouse, the supermarket, even
the
: farm. All done with machines. In such a situation presumably only
God
can
: be blamed for the whole mess - certainly not the consumer.

A ridiculous argument.

Actually a very good one.
So good you can't answer it.


I don't see why God should be blamed, after all, He created the Devil to
take the rap for things which go wrong like that :-)

yep, get your scapegoats lined up really early. Sign of efficient planning

Jim Webster

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

"BAC" wrote in message
...
Personally, I would 'blame' both, since mens rea applies to the pair of
them. Actually, I would blame the instigator of the act rather more than
the
person who comitted it, since the latter, presumably, would not have acted
in the matter if the former had not promoted it. However, that's a matter
of
opinion.

I suspect circumstances might alter cases. For example if you hire a
professional hitman, then I think blame is more equally shared as if he
hadn't killed your target he would still have killed someone else.
If, on the other hand, you conned some total innocent into doing the act,
then I would suggest you would carry far more of the blame as you suggest

Jim Webster

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

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 May 2003 10:05:35 +0100, "Jim Webster"

wrote:

Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout
"fire" in a crowded theatre

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." - United States
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1919)

that's the one. Thanks

said it rather nicely as well didn't he

Jim Webster



--
Peter Duncanson
UK

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

Michael Saunby writes

Has any research been done on worrying about other things? I would be
quite ironic if the US or UK governments were to be sued by smokers for the
damage done to their health by constantly reminding them of the dangers of
smoking.

Increasingly it's being shown that worry adversely affects health. They
can measure the levels of various hormones and see increases and
decreases related to stress. A number of these hormonal changes are
known to negatively affect the immune system.


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

::: Worse still you peculiar diet isn't likely to let you live
::: a longer and healthier life. [...]
::
::The scientific evidence is against you there.
:
:: So how big an experiment on humans on this diet has been completed for
:: their lifetime and what was the result?
:
:No lifetime studies in humans.

: OK, so not even the evidence you require of pesticides.

A different level of certainty is required - I'd be quite happy to go
on a diet that had a 90% chance of incresing my life and health -
whereas I'd be very cautious about consuming insecticides that
has a 90% chance of not giving me cancer.

In your case it would be nearer a 10% chance of increasing your life by
a a few years vs a 99.99% chance of seeing no effect from your ingestion
of pesticide residues.

But who am I to change someone's deeply held religious views?

:The results come from other animals -

: Which animals?

All the mammals that have been tested (excepting some short-lived
genetic screw-ups) - and almost all the animals that have been tested.

:and from non-lifespan studies in man.

: Tricky to estimate life extension before death.

Tricky to do it exactly - but I don't much care about that.

Tricky to do it at all.

: There was also work done on stress which indicates that pathological
: worrying about your diet increases illness.

What's that got to do with anything?

To take such extreme measures over your diet suggests great concern.
High levels of concern imply high levels of stress.
No blueberries today - aaagh another two minutes off my life ....

: You are heading along an untested route that is supported by very
: limited evidence, much of it contradictory. That's your problem.

It's not a problem at all - since it's not true.

Ahh, religion 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.
 

Jim Webster writes

I suspect circumstances might alter cases. For example if you hire a
professional hitman, then I think blame is more equally shared as if he
hadn't killed your target he would still have killed someone else.

I doubt the number of targets is limited by number of hitmen.

If, on the other hand, you conned some total innocent into doing the act,
then I would suggest you would carry far more of the blame as you suggest

Probably, at least ethically. In a way you would be responsible for the
person killed AND the sentence of someone who without your persuasive
manner, would never have got involved in such things.

So more than the hitman, but by addition.

--
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.
 

Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:43589 uk.rec.gardening:146701 uk.rec.natural-history:15074 uk.business.agricultu114533

Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words.

: ah, so it is OK to convince someone to kill someone else, pay them to do it,
: and walk away knowing that you were only using your freedom of speech and
: any resulting deaths are not your fault.

That's how I would prefer blame to be distributed: people should be
held responsible for their own actions.

Accepting financial incentive as a cause of "diminished responsibility"
seems like a terrible thing to do to me - the reality is that people
can still choose their own course of action.

As for the idea of tracing causal chains back to their roots, if you
do that then you might well wind up imprisoning the murderer's mother :-(

: Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout
: "fire" in a crowded theatre

Many people - but "freedom of speech" fairly clearly involves just that.

Fortunately, that particular action is not against the law anywhere -
AFAIK. You might get chucked out of the theatre, though ;-)

While these "moral philosophy" topics are no doubt stimulating to
some, I'm painfully aware that they are not remotely on topic in
the groups where they are occurring.

If they don't burn themselves out soon, I expect I'll walk away
from them.

We got here by considering the environmental impact of importing
fruit. Could we go back in that general direction - or else wind
things up?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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

Tim Tyler writes
Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words.

: ah, so it is OK to convince someone to kill someone else, pay them to do it,
: and walk away knowing that you were only using your freedom of speech and
: any resulting deaths are not your fault.

That's how I would prefer blame to be distributed: people should be
held responsible for their own actions.

Paying someone else to kill a third party sounds like an action to be
held responsible for to me.

Face it, you have lost the argument and only a fool would carry on.

This is what successive judgements, over centuries, have held all over
the world, too.

Accepting financial incentive as a cause of "diminished responsibility"
seems like a terrible thing to do to me - the reality is that people
can still choose their own course of action.

As for the idea of tracing causal chains back to their roots, if you
do that then you might well wind up imprisoning the murderer's mother :-(

You are being even more stupid than normal.
If your logic and ethical position is that abnormal that you can't
rather easily sort this out for yourself then you should get help.
Shrinks and priests are trained to do this for people.

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