|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Tim Tyler writes
Of course consumers. Pesticides have caused cancers in consumers and those cancers have killed people. Proof. I have never seen any outside crude unverifiable estimates made in DDT days. Usually based on ames tests, which show most food plants to be naturally even more carcinogenic. -- 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
I was comparing with "raw peppers" - as requested: ``so do a taste bud test and tell us which are safest, raw red kidney beans or raw peppers'' No species was specified. Why are you asking me about jalapenos? We were talking about chillies. People regularly eat raw peppers. Indeed, and raw chillies. Raw chillies definitely taste bad to the uninitiated, kidney beans do not. I don't know of anyone who regularly eats raw red kidney beans. You wouldn't, they are very toxic. This has been explained to you. -- 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
By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the health cost is borne by consumers. 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. -- 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 Mike Humberston wrote: : Tim Tyler wrote: :In uk.rec.gardening Mike Humberston wrote: :: If strawberries are supposed to be covered in fungicide then why :: is it that if I keep strawberries in my fridge for more than a few days :: they rapidly become covered in white fuzz? : :Fungicides are not effective indefinitely. : Because they don't remain on the fruit? Because naturally there are limits to the volume of fungus any fungicide can prevent. You really haven't a clue, have you? :Eventually the forces of decay win out. : Because the fungicides are no longer present in sufficient quantities : for them to be effective? Because chemical transformations change them from fungicides into spent waste matter in the process of fungal attack. No. The fungicide is biodegradeable so levels start falling as soon as tit hits the plant. Eventually there is too little left to control the fungus. sigh :Fungicides merely delay the process - but if the food is sold in :the interim they have served their purpose. : And the fruit is safe for the consumer to eat? That will depent on the fruit in question - and on your desired level of safely. sigh -- 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: : This Tim is a real cookie! : A marvellous example of the failure of education to show show some : people how to think. I have at least one virtue - I try to criticise the arguments of those I disagree with - rather launching personal attacks on the individuals making them. Exasperation sets in when you show excessive inability to comprehend. -- 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
"26 children die after ingesting cereal laced with insecticide" - http://www.getipm.com/articles/peru.htm Yup, misuse. In a country famed for it's regulation and high standard of education. And how many killed every year in the US by the automobile? -- 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 wrote:
In uk.rec.gardening Mike Humberston wrote: : Tim Tyler wrote: re Fungicides on strawberries :Fungicides are not effective indefinitely. : Because they don't remain on the fruit? Because naturally there are limits to the volume of fungus any fungicide can prevent. Either the fungicide will be present in sufficient quantities to prevent growth of fungus or it won't, in which case the fungus will be able to grow. :Eventually the forces of decay win out. : Because the fungicides are no longer present in sufficient quantities : for them to be effective? Because chemical transformations change them from fungicides into spent waste matter in the process of fungal attack. You mean the fungus metabolises the fungicide? If it is converted into metabolic products the it ceases to exist. :Fungicides merely delay the process - but if the food is sold in :the interim they have served their purpose. : And the fruit is safe for the consumer to eat? That will depent on the fruit in question Why do you think that? Here we are talking about strawberries. - and on your desired level of safely. I'm not sure what you mean by "desired level of safety". What you desire has nothing to do with whether something is toxic or not. -- Mike Humberston Barnes, London WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not oblivion. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes :I was comparing with "raw peppers" - as requested: : :``so do a taste bud test and tell us which are safest, raw red kidney : beans or raw peppers'' : :No species was specified. Why are you asking me about jalapenos? : We were talking about chillies. What? I was talking about raw peppers - i.e. capsicum - as apparently was the poster I replied to, since he specifically used the term "raw peppers" above. If you /mean/ chillies, /say/ chillies. :People regularly eat raw peppers. : Indeed, and raw chillies. : Raw chillies definitely taste bad to the uninitiated, : kidney beans do not. No? You have tried eating raw red kidney beans? Most large raw beans are pretty unpalatable. That is the main reason why it is thought that our ancestors didn't consume them - and is likey to be a consequence of their toxicity. They may not taste quite as bad as raw chilles - but so what? I never claimed non-toxic food necessarily tasted good. Nor are chilles /that/ non-toxic. Chillies taste the way they do as a defense against being eaten by mammals - and similar creatures. The threats of their taste is not an empty one - consuming chillies causes a range of unpleasant symptoms in the digestive track - and as a stress response. Indeed, capsaicin is classified is an "irritant poison" - and has been responsible for human deaths. -- __________ |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 Oz wrote: ``so do a taste bud test and tell us which are safest, raw red kidney beans or raw peppers'' People regularly eat raw peppers. I don't know of anyone who regularly eats raw red kidney beans. If you ever ate a raw jalepeno, you would definitely be on the side of the raw beans! M |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Hämisch Macbeth" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... we all die as well This seems to be a common theme in your posts, perhaps your wife should hide the sharp knives ? you must remember in farming, arable or livestock, birth and death are integral parts of the process and you just get used to them Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:42884 uk.rec.birdwatching:67307 uk.rec.gardening:144676 uk.rec.natural-history:14606 uk.business.agricultu113289
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : Tim Tyler writes :By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the :those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the :health cost is borne by consumers. : 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce : contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can reject contaminated produce. There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer. In principle, testing ought to be able to deal with the problem with minimal adverse health consequences - but I believe this is currently prohibitively expensive. In such cases the use of fungicides may be currently better than the alternatives. However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to see them on the label. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Mike Humberston wrote:
: Tim Tyler wrote: :In uk.rec.gardening Mike Humberston wrote: :: Tim Tyler wrote: : re Fungicides on strawberries ::Fungicides are not effective indefinitely. : :: Because they don't remain on the fruit? : :Because naturally there are limits to the volume of fungus any :fungicide can prevent. : Either the fungicide will be present in sufficient quantities to prevent : growth of fungus or it won't, in which case the fungus will be able to grow. Obviously this is not a black and white situation. There is a range of inhibition. ::Eventually the forces of decay win out. : :: Because the fungicides are no longer present in sufficient quantities :: for them to be effective? : :Because chemical transformations change them from fungicides into :spent waste matter in the process of fungal attack. : You mean the fungus metabolises the fungicide? If it is converted into : metabolic products the it ceases to exist. It certainly ceases to exist as an active fungicide. It is converted into other forms. ::Fungicides merely delay the process - but if the food is sold in ::the interim they have served their purpose. : :: And the fruit is safe for the consumer to eat? : :That will depent on the fruit in question : Why do you think that? Here we are talking about strawberries. Nontheless - unlass you think every strawberry gets treated with the same doses of the same fungicides. :- and on your desired level of safely. : I'm not sure what you mean by "desired level of safety". What you desire has : nothing to do with whether something is toxic or not. Toxicity is not a black and white issue - there are levels of toxicity. For example, small doeses of toxins often have no effect - since our body can cope with them. It is only when our defences are overwhelmed that toxicity arises - and then it is often dose-dependent. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Sat, 24 May 2003 07:08:09 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Hämisch Macbeth" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... we all die as well This seems to be a common theme in your posts, perhaps your wife should hide the sharp knives ? you must remember in farming, arable or livestock, birth and death are integral parts of the process and you just get used to them Especially when you are the premature cause of both of them. I seem to recall Himmler once said a similar thing about the numbers that died in Auschwitz once. Eased his conscience no end. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : Interesting stuff, something I have often been concerned about, I : doubted the validity of a quick rinse and usually soak my hard fruits : for a few hours prior to washing, of course this is not possible with : soft fruit. I wondered about the effect of waxing on fruit, would this : not seal the crap in as well, I find some waxes need a quick soak in : the sink with a little detergent before coming off! Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem: don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous Quite. This Tim is a real cookie! A marvellous example of the failure of education to show show some people how to think. I note he still hasn't actually dealt with the point, Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem: don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray with his enthusiasm for detergent. Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Sat, 24 May 2003 08:28:31 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : Interesting stuff, something I have often been concerned about, I : doubted the validity of a quick rinse and usually soak my hard fruits : for a few hours prior to washing, of course this is not possible with : soft fruit. I wondered about the effect of waxing on fruit, would this : not seal the crap in as well, I find some waxes need a quick soak in : the sink with a little detergent before coming off! Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem: don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous Quite. This Tim is a real cookie! A marvellous example of the failure of education to show show some people how to think. I note he still hasn't actually dealt with the point, Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem: don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray with his enthusiasm for detergent. Oh so familiar, unable to compete with well thought our reasoned debate, so destroy the thread with a troll. Do you not have some roses to spray with weedkiller? -- 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 writes
Most large raw beans are pretty unpalatable. Eh? No more so than most food plants. That is the main reason why it is thought that our ancestors didn't consume them - and is likey to be a consequence of their toxicity. Beans figure in the diets of pretty well all societies I can think of. A valuable source of energy and protein. Mind you, they would have known which were particularly toxic, and which weren't, most likely from practical experience, in the same way edible and poisonous mushrooms would have been identified. They may not taste quite as bad as raw chilles - but so what? I never claimed non-toxic food necessarily tasted good. The difference in level of unpleasantness is HUGE. Nor are chilles /that/ non-toxic. Chillies taste the way they do as a defense against being eaten by mammals - and similar creatures. The threats of their taste is not an empty one - consuming chillies causes a range of unpleasant symptoms in the digestive track - and as a stress response. IT has little effect on the digestive tract, the effect is all in the mouth. The chemical activates pain sensors, but is deactivated by acid conditions, hence the relief obtained by swigging vinegar or eating a lemon. The stomach is even more acid than vinegar. Indeed, capsaicin is classified is an "irritant poison" - and has been responsible for human deaths. Dose, remember. Not good stuff to inhale. But red kidney beans will and have killed people voluntarily eating them, chillies have never to my knowledge been a cause of death for this reason. -- 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 :By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the :those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the :health cost is borne by consumers. : 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. I don't think so. Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show this where it's not misuse. : 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce : contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can reject contaminated produce. Rubbish. Most are undetectable at the lethal dose. There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer. So are ergots, vomitotoxins and in fact pretty well all of them. In principle, testing ought to be able to deal with the problem with minimal adverse health consequences - but I believe this is currently prohibitively expensive. Not really. The main problem is that in some EU harvests the organic wheat production would be almost totally rejected, which is considered politically 'difficult'. In such cases the use of fungicides may be currently better than the alternatives. Better to use a safe fungicide than sell dangerous produce. Quite. However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to see them on the label. No need, current use of pesticides leaves minute, usually undetectable, residues which are perfectly safe. Personally I look forward to the time when levels of plant toxins are quoted and safe levels set. Obviously you couldn't use the same safety spec as for pesticides as you would have few, probably no, allowed food plants. However it might avoid problems where conditions (such as bad pest attacks) produce particularly high levels of natural toxins. After all this precise situation killed a few people eating courgettes (squash) is NZ a few years ago from curcubin poisoning in organic courgettes under unusually bad aphid attack. Solanin levels in new potato varieties are now, happily, checked after a close shave with a variety that was in fact acutely toxic. Fortunately it poisoned the breeder at the multiplication phase and was spotted in time. -- 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
For example, small doeses of toxins often have no effect - since our body can cope with them. 10/10 Levels of pesticides in produce are incredibly minute. It is only when our defences are overwhelmed that toxicity arises - and then it is often dose-dependent. sigh Not quite there yet but improving. When the levels reach a toxic dose then the product is toxic. It's always dose-dependent. Note that 'toxic' could mean after observed adverse effects after multi- generational testing. One day, someone will do that for plant toxins too. -- 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 Sat, 24 May 2003 08:57:11 +0100, Oz
wrote: Tim Tyler writes For example, small doeses of toxins often have no effect - since our body can cope with them. 10/10 Levels of pesticides in produce are incredibly minute. But cumulative. One apple a month, maybe no problem, 10 apples in a day, quite a different story! The add a carrot, add 10 carrots, not to mention the lettuce etc, etc, etc Stick with Organic, it's safer. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Jim Webster writes
I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray with his enthusiasm for detergent. Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn. TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing. -- 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
... Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn. TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing. Don't feed the trolls! -- J B |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"J B" wrote in message ... "Oz" wrote in message ... Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn. TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing. Don't feed the trolls! yes, there is a limit to how long you can go on feeding a donkey strawberries Jim Webster |
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 ::By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the ::those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the ::health cost is borne by consumers. : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : I don't think so. : Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show : this where it's not misuse. I should think pesticides killing people is - by definition - a misuse. Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the problem: ``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur in developing countries.'' - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html :: 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce :: contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. : :Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can :reject contaminated produce. : Rubbish. [...] My comment is accurate. :There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in :nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer. : So are ergots, vomitotoxins and in fact pretty well all of them. Many fungal toxins are easily detected by taste and/or appearance. :However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to :see them on the label. : No need, current use of pesticides leaves minute, usually undetectable, : residues which are perfectly safe. Levels of safety of most pesticides are not known. Scientific investigations have difficulty showing things are safe in long-lived organisms like us. Lifetime trials are frequently required - probably across multiple generations - before you can claim something is safe with much in the way of certainty. Such trials have not been performed in humans. There are so many things that can go wrong. If pesticides weaken your immune system (one of the most common effects) than this likely won't show up in lab studies - since these are typically done in relatively disease-free environments. I don't regard today's level of testing pesticides to provide much more than minimal protection. : Personally I look forward to the time when levels of plant toxins are : quoted and safe levels set. Indeed. : Obviously you couldn't use the same safety spec as for pesticides as : you would have few, probably no, allowed food plants. I think you'll find eating no food at all kills you fairly rapidly. Eating fruit and vegetables is important to good health. Eating pesticides on the other hand is not required at all. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Tim Tyler wrote:
: In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : : : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : : I don't think so. : : Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show : : this where it's not misuse. : I should think pesticides killing people is - by definition - a misuse. : Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the : problem: : ``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and : mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million : severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some : 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur : in developing countries.'' : - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html I've also found some concrete figures for England and Wales: ``Deaths from pesticide poisoning in England and Wales: 1945-1989. Casey P, Vale JA. Pesticide Monitoring Unit, National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham Centre), Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham, UK. 1. Data on deaths from pesticide poisoning occurring in England and Wales between 1945 and 1989 (no data are available for 1954) have been collated; pesticides were responsible for only 1012 (1.1%) of the 87,385 deaths from poisoning (excluding those due to carbon monoxide) occurring over this 44 year period. At least 73% of all pesticide fatalities were due to suicide and overall there was a predominance of males (male:female ratio 2.4:1). No deaths from pesticide poisoning in children under 10 years have been reported since 1974 although almost 50% of suspected pesticide poisoning incidents involve this age group. 2. Herbicides were responsible for 787 (78%) fatal poisonings, 110 (11%) were caused by insecticides, 69 (6.8%) by rodenticides, 30 (3.0%) by wood preservatives and 16 (1.6%) by other pesticides. 3. The herbicide, paraquat, was responsible for 570 of 1012 (56%) deaths and, although there has been a progressive decline in the annual number of deaths from paraquat poisoning since 1982, paraquat remains the most common cause of fatal pesticide poisoning in England and Wales. 4. Sodium chlorate caused 113 (11.2%) deaths, most of these fatalities occurring between 1965 and 1983; only one death has been recorded since 1984. The phenoxyacetate herbicides resulted in 50 deaths; 2,4-D was implicated most commonly. Sixty-eight deaths were due to organophosphorus insecticides; demeton-S-methyl, malathion and mevinphos were involved most frequently. Only eight deaths resulted from organochlorine insecticides and two of these also involved an organophosphorus insecticide. [...]'' - PMID: 7908817 Most pesticide deaths are likely to be lingering ones - rather than straight poisonings. The cancer deaths are not likely to show up in studies like this one. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
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 ::By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the ::those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the ::health cost is borne by consumers. : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : I don't think so. : Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show : this where it's not misuse. I should think pesticides killing people is - by definition - a misuse. It's a technical term, it means not following the instructions on the label. This is sometimes modified to include not *quite* following the label. It's just the same as cars and knives kill people when misused, as well as a wide range of other unnatural causes of death. You wouldn't suggest banning knives because some people kill others with them, for example. Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the problem: ``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur in developing countries.'' - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html Almost certainly due to misuse. The giveaway is 'acute'. Quite a few people in the world also die from 'acute' shortage of food. :: 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce :: contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. : :Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can :reject contaminated produce. : Rubbish. [...] My comment is accurate. No, it's rubbish. Most really toxic fungal toxins are quite undetectable at the lethal dose. :There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in :nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer. : So are ergots, vomitotoxins and in fact pretty well all of them. Many fungal toxins are easily detected by taste and/or appearance. No, you are confusing 'food attacked by fungi' with 'food rendered toxic by fungi', the two being quite distinct. Many foods are flavoured by fungi (cheese, some soy products etc) and it's only food you do not expect to taste 'fungal' that you reject. Of course most of the fungi you reject are NOT toxic. :However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to :see them on the label. : No need, current use of pesticides leaves minute, usually undetectable, : residues which are perfectly safe. Levels of safety of most pesticides are not known. ********. I quoted some of the info. ALL approved pesticides have a full toxicology, far far more detailed than pharmaceuticals or materials you find in the home (plastics and detergents for example). And that is despite the fact that your consumption of residual pesticide remnants and residues is at worst in microscopic quantities. Scientific investigations have difficulty showing things are safe in long-lived organisms like us. Lifetime trials are frequently required - probably across multiple generations - before you can claim something is safe with much in the way of certainty. Such trials have not been performed in humans. They have been performed in a range of mammals and appropriate safety levels set. If you followed your dictum then we should not be using any modern plastics, paints and other things found in life. Indeed many of them have been shown to be toxic, yet they are still used because people want their utility. There are so many things that can go wrong. If pesticides weaken your immune system (one of the most common effects) than this likely won't show up in lab studies - since these are typically done in relatively disease-free environments. Labs are not particularly 'low disease', no high accumulation of animals ever is. Further this does get detected and appropriate action taken as required. I don't regard today's level of testing pesticides to provide much more than minimal protection. Then you are an idiot or quite ignorant about it. : Personally I look forward to the time when levels of plant toxins are : quoted and safe levels set. Indeed. : Obviously you couldn't use the same safety spec as for pesticides as : you would have few, probably no, allowed food plants. I think you'll find eating no food at all kills you fairly rapidly. Yes but: 1) I could select less toxic plant foods. 2) I could use low toxicity cultivars. Noting the strong relationship between plant toxins and pest resistance (it's why the toxins are there in the first place) it would almost certainly be safer to use plants bred for low toxin production and use the much safer pesticides to control the pests. Eating fruit and vegetables is important to good health. Eating healthy meat and veg is, and pesticides help enormously here. Not only that, but the abundance of food available today is DIRECTLY the result of the introduction of safe effective pesticides. Eating pesticides on the other hand is not required at all. 1) Usually undetectable levels. 2) You would get less food, of much poorer (ie infected) quality without them. I am old enough to remember the 50's when few pesticides (pretty well DDT only) was used, and remember picking caterpillars out of the veg before cooking. Quite a common occurrence, in some years usual. -- 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
1. Data on deaths from pesticide poisoning occurring in England and Wales between 1945 and 1989 (no data are available for 1954) have been collated; pesticides were responsible for only 1012 (1.1%) of the 87,385 deaths from poisoning (excluding those due to carbon monoxide) occurring over this 44 year period. At least 73% of all pesticide fatalities were due to suicide and overall there was a predominance of males (male:female ratio 2.4:1). No deaths from pesticide poisoning in children under 10 years have been reported since 1974 although almost 50% of suspected pesticide poisoning incidents involve this age group. 2. Herbicides were responsible for 787 (78%) fatal poisonings, 110 (11%) were caused by insecticides, 69 (6.8%) by rodenticides, 30 (3.0%) by wood preservatives and 16 (1.6%) by other pesticides. 3. The herbicide, paraquat, was responsible for 570 of 1012 (56%) deaths and, although there has been a progressive decline in the annual number of deaths from paraquat poisoning since 1982, paraquat remains the most common cause of fatal pesticide poisoning in England and Wales. 4. Sodium chlorate caused 113 (11.2%) deaths, most of these fatalities occurring between 1965 and 1983; only one death has been recorded since 1984. The phenoxyacetate herbicides resulted in 50 deaths; 2,4-D was implicated most commonly. Sixty-eight deaths were due to organophosphorus insecticides; demeton-S-methyl, malathion and mevinphos were involved most frequently. Only eight deaths resulted from organochlorine insecticides and two of these also involved an organophosphorus insecticide. [...]'' - PMID: 7908817 OK, so most people don;t choose pesticides to commit suicide with: so? Also the data goes back to 45, when rather toxic products were in use. Most pesticide deaths are likely to be lingering ones - rather than straight poisonings. The cancer deaths are not likely to show up in studies like this one. Pesticides cannot be carcinogenic if they are to be approved. Unlike natural toxins, which can be and often are. -- 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.
J B writes
"Oz" wrote in message ... Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn. TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing. Don't feed the trolls! It's coming to a natural close anyway. He has comprehensively lost the argument and now is clutching at straws. The killfile for morons beckons. -- 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
yes, there is a limit to how long you can go on feeding a donkey strawberries I think the word is "ass". -- 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 Sat, 24 May 2003 11:45:40 +0100, Oz
wrote: It's just the same as cars and knives kill people when misused, as well as a wide range of other unnatural causes of death. You wouldn't suggest banning knives because some people kill others with them, for example. Knives above a certain size are banned in UK. The govt. is proposing to lock up people for up to 10 years for killing people with a car. -- martin |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article , martin writes On Sat, 24 May 2003 11:45:40 +0100, Oz wrote: It's just the same as cars and knives kill people when misused, as well as a wide range of other unnatural causes of death. You wouldn't suggest banning knives because some people kill others with them, for example. Knives above a certain size are banned in UK. ITYM, *carrying* knives above a certain size is banned. The govt. is proposing to lock up people for up to 10 years for killing people with a car. -- Malcolm |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : Tim Tyler writes :In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: :: Tim Tyler writes ::By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the ::those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the ::health cost is borne by consumers. : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : I don't think so. : Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show : this where it's not misuse. I should think pesticides killing people is - by definition - a misuse. Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the problem: ``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur in developing countries.'' - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html I think you really ought to read the websites you quote Introduction "Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur in developing countries" At this point you stopped your quote. But the next bit is far more interesting "There is a diversity of farming operations in Iran with more than 500 different pesticide compounds available for agricultural use. In our previous study it was indicated that pesticides are the third most common cause of poisoning and the principal cause of poisoning-related mortality in Iran.2 There is also evidence of chronic occupational exposure to pesticides in pesticide manufacturing factories as well as instances of acute toxicity.3-5 For these reasons, this retrospective study was undertaken to determine the extent and mortality of pesticide-related poisoning and to assess the effects of variables such as age, season, sex and agent on poisoning frequency." So actually these are not consumers, these are producers and people working in the manufacture Working our way down the page we come across "A total of 700 pesticide poisoning cases referred to either Loghman-Hakim Hospital or reported to the TDPIC concerning the period between April 1, 1995 to September 21, 1997 were identified. In 65 instances, calls were made to the TDPIC concerning patients who were subsequently referred to Loghman-Hakim Hospital after receiving first-aid management such as induction of vomiting, dilution of ingested stomach contents by water or milk, etc. Cases included a variety of intentional (n=665, 93%), accidental (n=39, 5.6%), occupational (n=9, 1.3%) and criminal (n=1, 0.1%) instances. All cases in children, (n=36, 64%) were accidental. All occupational cases occurred in workers at pesticide factories. Of 700 cases of pesticide poisoning, 92% (n=644) occurred in adults. Overall, there were 365 females (52%) and 335 males (48%). Among adults , 59.43%(n=383, 95% confidence interval=59.39%-59.47%) were married and the remainder 40.57% (n=261, 95% confidence interval=40.53%-40.61%) were unmarried and hence significantly different (p0.01). The overall married to unmarried ratio was 1.5. The most common route of pesticide exposure was by ingestion followed by dermal absorption and inhalation. The highest frequency of poisoning (32%) was found in the age range of 20-30 years (Fig. 1). One-third of patients referred to Loghman-Hakim Hospital were from outside Tehran. The frequency of pesticide poisoning was greater in spring (39%) and summer (35%) than other times of the year. Sixty percent of cases were graded as mild, 27% as moderate, and 13% as severe poisoning. In the majority of instances (85%), patients presented to the hospital 6 to 10 hours after exposure. The majority of cases (55%) were hospitalized for one day only. Sweating, slow pulse, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and respiratory difficulties were the most common clinical features of admission. In most cases, incorporating all of the ingestion cases, lavage was instituted as the first therapeutic step in hospital management. Ipecac syrup was never used. Frequencies of poisoning and fatal outcomes by different types of pesticides are shown in Table 1. Organophosphates were the most common cause of poisoning (52%) followed by unknown compounds (20%), carbamates (12%), fumigants including Al or Zn phosphide (8%), rodenticides (4%), herbicides (3%) and organochlorines (1%). The overall mortality in this study was 7%, with 61% being due to organophosphates followed by unknown pesticides (22%) and Al/Zn phosphide (6%)." Somehow you neglected to mention that 93% of those cases mentioned were intentional. Indeed the page then goes on to say "The high frequency of poisoning with pesticides revealed in the present study supports our previous report.2 As indicated in the present study, self-poisoning by pesticides in the age range of 20-30 years old is most common, with a higher frequency in women, and a preponderance of married to unmarried women. This might be due to social or familial problems. Most of the self-poisoning instances with pesticides were among those who use poison occupationally and therefore had easy access to such poisons. Although no significant relation was found between poisoning events and socio-economic status, it is, however, assumed that pesticides are the modality of choice for low income strata in attempted suicide" Perhaps you would like to explain how the fact that people commiting suicide in the third world use pesticides because they are cheap makes these products dangerous to people eating vegetables in the UK? Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening Tim Tyler wrote: : In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : : : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : : I don't think so. : : Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show : : this where it's not misuse. : I should think pesticides killing people is - by definition - a misuse. : Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the : problem: : ``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and : mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million : severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some : 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur : in developing countries.'' : - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html I've also found some concrete figures for England and Wales: ``Deaths from pesticide poisoning in England and Wales: 1945-1989. Casey P, Vale JA. Pesticide Monitoring Unit, National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham Centre), Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham, UK. 1. Data on deaths from pesticide poisoning occurring in England and Wales between 1945 and 1989 (no data are available for 1954) have been collated; pesticides were responsible for only 1012 (1.1%) of the 87,385 deaths from poisoning (excluding those due to carbon monoxide) occurring over this 44 year period. At least 73% of all pesticide fatalities were due to suicide and overall there was a predominance of males (male:female ratio 2.4:1). No deaths from pesticide poisoning in children under 10 years have been reported since 1974 although almost 50% of suspected pesticide poisoning incidents involve this age group. 2. Herbicides were responsible for 787 (78%) fatal poisonings, 110 (11%) were caused by insecticides, 69 (6.8%) by rodenticides, 30 (3.0%) by wood preservatives and 16 (1.6%) by other pesticides. 3. The herbicide, paraquat, was responsible for 570 of 1012 (56%) deaths and, although there has been a progressive decline in the annual number of deaths from paraquat poisoning since 1982, paraquat remains the most common cause of fatal pesticide poisoning in England and Wales. 4. Sodium chlorate caused 113 (11.2%) deaths, most of these fatalities occurring between 1965 and 1983; only one death has been recorded since 1984. The phenoxyacetate herbicides resulted in 50 deaths; 2,4-D was implicated most commonly. Sixty-eight deaths were due to organophosphorus insecticides; demeton-S-methyl, malathion and mevinphos were involved most frequently. Only eight deaths resulted from organochlorine insecticides and two of these also involved an organophosphorus insecticide. [...]'' - PMID: 7908817 Most pesticide deaths are likely to be lingering ones - rather than straight poisonings. The cancer deaths are not likely to show up in studies like this one. most pesticide deaths are suicides or accidents where children have drunk out of the wrong bottle. How does this relate to food safety? Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Sat, 24 May 2003 09:00:36 +0100, Oz
wrote: Jim Webster writes I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray with his enthusiasm for detergent. Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn. TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing. Easy to see why you feel safe in your home group, no wonder you don't want to get out much.. It really is a big world out here, come and join us sometime. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Sat, 24 May 2003 11:49:33 +0100, Oz
wrote: J B writes "Oz" wrote in message ... Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn. TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing. Don't feed the trolls! It's coming to a natural close anyway. He has comprehensively lost the argument and now is clutching at straws. Not from where we stand, looks like your sheep dip theories just hit rock bottom. The killfile for morons beckons. Better be quick before your made to look an sillier, if that were possible. Back to the SMASH advert in your own group, don't mind if we laugh at you! -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Sat, 24 May 2003 00:42:17 +0100, Mike Humberston
wrote: Tim Tyler wrote: The Friends of the Earth have a report that deals with some of the fungicides used on strawberries in the UK in 2001: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefi...isrupting.html It is of little value though because it contains no quantitative information, either about the amounts detected on strawberries or about the amounts required to cause toxic effects. More then enough to show we should steer well clear of the crap, and more then enough to show we should take the bullshitters like you with a pinch of salt. -- 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 Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes :In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: :: Tim Tyler writes ::In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: ::: Tim Tyler writes :Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the :problem: : :``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and : mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million : severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some : 220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur : in developing countries.'' : : - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html : Almost certainly due to misuse. : The giveaway is 'acute'. It does seem likely that these statistics are unlikely to cover many of the slower deaths from pesticide exposure. Some of the deaths will be things like suicides - i.e. they would happen anyway - but by some other means. However some other ones are like the deaths of the 26 children I cited - who consumed the pesticide in their breakfasts. Accidents. If the toxic chemical had not been around in the first place they would never have happened. In such cases it's harder to avoid pointing the finger at the pesticides making the environment a more dangerous place by their presence. ::: 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce ::: contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. :: ::Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can ::reject contaminated produce. : :: Rubbish. [...] : :My comment is accurate. : No, it's rubbish. I was quite accurate. Note that I went on immediately to say "There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins". : Most really toxic fungal toxins are quite undetectable at the lethal : dose. My comment related to "fungal infections". You seem to have changed this to "really toxic fungal toxins". Don't you think that change is in danger of obliterating the other range of cues which individuals might use to determine infection - besides the taste of the toxin itself - including the appearance and taste of the other parts of the fungus? ::There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in ::nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer. : :: So are ergots, vomitotoxins and in fact pretty well all of them. : :Many fungal toxins are easily detected by taste and/or appearance. : No, you are confusing 'food attacked by fungi' with 'food rendered toxic : by fungi', the two being quite distinct. [...] Well, you will note that the former group /does/ contain the latter one. Rejecting food with fungal infections will also reject food with toxic fungal infections. Most foodstuffs are attacked by rather visible and obvious forms of fungus. Leave things out for a while and see. When food goes mouldy, people usually throw it out - a practice which takes any fungal toxins with them. ::However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to ::see them on the label. : :: No need, current use of pesticides leaves minute, usually undetectable, :: residues which are perfectly safe. : :Levels of safety of most pesticides are not known. : ********. It's true. Science doesn't offer certainty - and there are a very large number of ways in which human health can be adversely affectd - it's impossible to test them all - and testing is usually the only way to be at all sure. Of course there are ethical problems associated with testing pesticides on humans. This makes things even harder - often the very tests that are most needed can't legally be performed. : I quoted some of the info. ALL approved pesticides have a : full toxicology, far far more detailed than pharmaceuticals or : materials you find in the home (plastics and detergents for example). : And that is despite the fact that your consumption of residual pesticide : remnants and residues is at worst in microscopic quantities. Plastics tend to be inert. Detergents are often poisonous. I can easily believe more effort is put into testing pesticides than detergents - but that hardly means that they are safe. :Scientific investigations have difficulty showing things are :safe in long-lived organisms like us. Lifetime trials are :frequently required - probably across multiple generations - :before you can claim something is safe with much in the way :of certainty. Such trials have not been performed in humans. : They have been performed in a range of mammals and appropriate safety : levels set. If you followed your dictum then we should not be using any : modern plastics, paints and other things found in life. Indeed many of : them have been shown to be toxic, yet they are still used because people : want their utility. I don't mind other people eating pesticides - if they choose to. Basically what I want is more ability to control my own level of pesticide consumption - so I can down-regluate it in areas I am concerned about. Doing that today would restrict the diversity of foods available in my diet. :There are so many things that can go wrong. If pesticides :weaken your immune system (one of the most common effects) :than this likely won't show up in lab studies - since these :are typically done in relatively disease-free environments. : Labs are not particularly 'low disease', no high accumulation : of animals ever is. Yes they are. Disease is often a function of the environment. Lab animals are in a highly artificial environment - and face different challenges. For example normally there are no predators. That might mean that running speed doesn't show up in lifespan studies in the way that it usually would. :I don't regard today's level of testing pesticides to provide :much more than minimal protection. : Then you are an idiot or quite ignorant about it. I mean that it's minimal compared to what it could be - not that it doesn't protect people from pesticides at all. In other words the safely level could usefully be many times higher - and the risk could be made many times lower. :: Obviously you couldn't use the same safety spec as for pesticides as :: you would have few, probably no, allowed food plants. : :I think you'll find eating no food at all kills you fairly rapidly. : Yes but: : 1) I could select less toxic plant foods. : 2) I could use low toxicity cultivars. Well only up to a point - eventually you will run out of less-toxic foods to switch to. : Noting the strong relationship between plant toxins and pest resistance : (it's why the toxins are there in the first place) it would almost : certainly be safer to use plants bred for low toxin production and use : the much safer pesticides to control the pests. You seem heavily in favour of spending pesticide research dollars on eliminating natural food toxins - perhaps by breeding. /Eventually/ I would rather have safe man-made toxins to deter predators than poisonous natural ones. However - currently - many of the natural toxins have their upsides - often in the form of cancer prevention. E.g.: L-Canavanine A Potential Chemotherapeutic Agent for Human Pancreatic Cancer http://www.szp.swets.nl/szp/journals/pb363194.htm Resveratrol - which belongs to a group of compounds known as stilbenes, which are spontaneously synthesized on the surface of grapes as an immune response to attack by fungal diseases - and improves heart health; Glycosides: http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/.../glucosin.html ....and Phytoestrogens: http://www.herbalchem.net/Introductory.htm I'm not sure it would be a good idea to breed such "toxic" agents out of food - since one of the things they are good at killing is human cancers. ....and at the moment I am not satisfied that enough is known about the long-term effects of man-made pesticides to take such steps. The natural toxins have been around longer, our bodies have had a chance to get used to them - and there has been more opportunity for study. :Eating fruit and vegetables is important to good health. : Eating healthy meat and veg is, and pesticides help enormously here. : Not only that, but the abundance of food available today is DIRECTLY : the result of the introduction of safe effective pesticides. ....amongst many other modern farming techniques - including the use of machinery - and things like a global market in seeds and produce. Frankly, food abundance matters little to me personally these days. I live in a western country - where there is more food than can be eaten, and there's a plague of obesity on the land. If there are food shortages - then by all means do what's necessary to stop people from starving. However when food is plentiful, I would rather have good quality food than even more masses of it. :Eating pesticides on the other hand is not required at all. : 1) Usually undetectable levels. : 2) You would get less food, of much poorer (ie infected) quality without : them. I am old enough to remember the 50's when few pesticides (pretty : well DDT only) was used, and remember picking caterpillars out of the : veg before cooking. Quite a common occurrence, in some years usual. I'm hoping in the future that food quality will improve - /and/ that pesticide usage will decline. I suspect that eventually mechanical barriers to pests will eventually make many of today's pesticides redundant. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Jim Webster wrote - or quoted:
: : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : : : : : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : : Most pesticide deaths are likely to be lingering ones - rather than : straight poisonings. The cancer deaths are not likely to show up in : studies like this one. : most pesticide deaths are suicides or accidents where children have drunk : out of the wrong bottle. That has not been established - since the frequency of other pesticide-caused deaths has probably not been so well documented. : How does this relate to food safety? It relates to /pesticide/ safety - and whether pesticides have "no direct health cost" - as was claimed at the head of this message. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
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 Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : :: Tim Tyler writes : ::By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the : ::those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the : ::health cost is borne by consumers. : : : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : Perhaps you would like to explain how the fact that people commiting suicide : in the third world use pesticides because they are cheap makes these : products dangerous to people eating vegetables in the UK? That's not my claim - rather I'm being critical of the notion that pesticides have "no direct health cost". The pesticide situation in the UK needs improving. Banned chemicals are still being found sprayed on produce. Regulations are no good if they are unenforced. A report on a recent government survey of UK pesticide usage: `` TOXIC COCKTAIL IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES June 19, 20002 FOE Friends of the Earth¹s analysis of the latest Government survey of pesticide residue results reveal that a cocktail of pesticides above legal and safety limits has been found in a range of fruit and vegetables. The results were published today by the Pesticides Residues Committee (PRC) http://www.pesticides.gov.uk Some of the key findings of the report a * UK grown non-organic strawberries contained dicofol at illegal levels. Dicofol is not approved for use on strawberries in the UK. Dicofol is similar to DDT and is a suspected hormone disrupter. The 3 organic strawberry samples were free of residues. * Organophosphate (OP) pesticides were found above legal limits in, grapes, starfruit, nectarines and peaches. In peaches and nectarines the OP methamidophos exceeded safety levels for adults and toddlers, the PRC admitted that ³safety levels have been significantly eroded². * All 'soft citrus' fruit contained residues including imazalil at levels which the PRC described as "an unacceptable risk for all consumer groups" but went on to say that most of the residue was assumed to be in the peel. * Potatoes were found to contain aldicarb above safety levels. Aldicarb is a carbamate insecticide which works on the nervous system, it is highly toxic and is classified by the World Health Organisation as Œextremely hazardous¹. * Iprodione, a suspected hormone disrupter, was found above legal limits in UK celery although it is not approved for use on celery here. * Most grapefruits (83%) and lemons (93%) tested contained pesticide residues. * Lindane was found in mushrooms. This pesticide is now banned in the EU and there are fear that exposure to this pesticide may be linked to breast cancer. * One sample of tomatoes from Spain contained residues of 6 different pesticides, none of the 5 organic samples of tomatoes contained residues. * 97% of the fresh salmon samples contained residues. DDT was found in fresh and canned salmon (due to contamination of food or the environment). Pesticides were also found in bread but milk was found to be free of residues. The Pesticides Residues Committee states that none of the samples present safety concerns for consumers but only looks at exposure levels in individual foods, not the overall cocktail of pesticides that people are being exposed to. Recently Dr Brown, the chair of the Committee admitted that there was "cause for concern" about the threat to young children being exposed to pesticide residues in food. He said was he "particularly worried" about the potential risks where food was contaminated by several similar chemicals, such as different forms of heavily restricted organophosphate pesticide, which could combine to create a "cocktail effect" (Independent on Sunday 9/6/02) In recognition of the additional vulnerability of babies and young children to pesticide residues new regulations will be introduced on 1st July this year which effectively prohibits residues in baby food by setting the allowable level at the limit of detection. But no such protection is extended to toddlers eating fresh fruit and vegetables. Although more of the pesticides exceeding legal limits were found in imported produce, nine UK samples contained illegal levels of residues (above the Maximum Residue Level) and nine other UK samples were found to contain pesticides which are not approved for use in the UK. The Government has a policy to minimise pesticide use. These results suggest it is not doing enough to implement it. It¹s very disappointing to see that high levels of pesticides were found in UK foods as well as imports and that illegal use of pesticides continues to be a problem. We want the Government to take more action to crack down on dodgy chemicals in imported food but it must also do more to help farmers in the UK to get off the chemical treadmill². '' - http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/UKFruits602.cfm -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote - or quoted: : : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing. : : : : : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually. : : Most pesticide deaths are likely to be lingering ones - rather than : straight poisonings. The cancer deaths are not likely to show up in : studies like this one. : most pesticide deaths are suicides or accidents where children have drunk : out of the wrong bottle. That has not been established - since the frequency of other pesticide-caused deaths has probably not been so well documented. wrong again, it is very well documented in the website whose address you posted I refer you to http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html perhaps you should read web pages before you quote them Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Tim Tyler writes
It does seem likely that these statistics are unlikely to cover many of the slower deaths from pesticide exposure. What slower deaths? Give me a government website giving these consumer deaths. Some of the deaths will be things like suicides - i.e. they would happen anyway - but by some other means. However some other ones are like the deaths of the 26 children I cited - who consumed the pesticide in their breakfasts. I'm sure this was not due to residues. Accidents. If the toxic chemical had not been around in the first place they would never have happened. In such cases it's harder to avoid pointing the finger at the pesticides making the environment a more dangerous place by their presence. So ban knives, cars and alarm clocks first. Rather than something that is completely safe when used as directed. By the way you are aware that for some years all UK spraystores must be kept locked? ::: 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce ::: contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example. :: ::Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can ::reject contaminated produce. : :: Rubbish. [...] : :My comment is accurate. : No, it's rubbish. I was quite accurate. Note that I went on immediately to say "There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins". Most of them are, so that's a stupid and misleading statement of no relevance to the discussion. : Most really toxic fungal toxins are quite undetectable at the lethal : dose. My comment related to "fungal infections". You seem to have changed this to "really toxic fungal toxins". Fungal infections, gross ones, are detectable. Mostly they are safe to eat. Many fungal toxins are produced where there is no evidence of 'fungal infections'. Don't you think that change is in danger of obliterating the other range of cues which individuals might use to determine infection - besides the taste of the toxin itself - including the appearance and taste of the other parts of the fungus? No, generally speaking. ::There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in ::nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer. : :: So are ergots, vomitotoxins and in fact pretty well all of them. : :Many fungal toxins are easily detected by taste and/or appearance. : No, you are confusing 'food attacked by fungi' with 'food rendered toxic : by fungi', the two being quite distinct. [...] Well, you will note that the former group /does/ contain the latter one. Rejecting food with fungal infections will also reject food with toxic fungal infections. No, because you would not detect many toxic (that is harmful levels) of toxins by that route. Consequently it's an illusion. Rather like your illusion that you can detect poisons by taste. Most foodstuffs are attacked by rather visible and obvious forms of fungus. Leave things out for a while and see. When food goes mouldy, people usually throw it out - a practice which takes any fungal toxins with them. That's the sporulating bodies, in most cases. Fungi can (and usually do) attack stuff days or often weeks before fruiting bodies are seen. That's pretty typical of many cereal diseases for example. To control phoma in rape, which becomes visible in spring, you spray in autumn when the fungus is spreading invisibly through the plant. If a fungus needs live tissues, then it doesn't kill the tissues it's infecting. Remember, many of these toxins do NOT affect plants. ::However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to ::see them on the label. : :: No need, current use of pesticides leaves minute, usually undetectable, :: residues which are perfectly safe. : :Levels of safety of most pesticides are not known. : ********. It's true. Science doesn't offer certainty - and there are a very large number of ways in which human health can be adversely affectd - it's impossible to test them all - and testing is usually the only way to be at all sure. Certainty is NOT the same as 'the levels of safety are well known'. Nobody can ever be certain about anything, so it's a moronic thing to say. Of course there are ethical problems associated with testing pesticides on humans. This makes things even harder - often the very tests that are most needed can't legally be performed. They aren't needed. Animal and cells give more than adequate security, particularly when combined with the huge safety margins and very low incidence of residues near the allowed levels anyway. : I quoted some of the info. ALL approved pesticides have a : full toxicology, far far more detailed than pharmaceuticals or : materials you find in the home (plastics and detergents for example). : And that is despite the fact that your consumption of residual pesticide : remnants and residues is at worst in microscopic quantities. Plastics tend to be inert. Take a look at pthalates used in plastic manufacture. Take a look at the carcinogenic properties of benzene (in your fuel tank). Detergents are often poisonous. Yet you wash your veg for ten minutes in them. I can easily believe more effort is put into testing pesticides than detergents - but that hardly means that they are safe. It does, because they must pass ALL the tests to be approved. :Scientific investigations have difficulty showing things are :safe in long-lived organisms like us. Lifetime trials are :frequently required - probably across multiple generations - :before you can claim something is safe with much in the way :of certainty. Such trials have not been performed in humans. : They have been performed in a range of mammals and appropriate safety : levels set. If you followed your dictum then we should not be using any : modern plastics, paints and other things found in life. Indeed many of : them have been shown to be toxic, yet they are still used because people : want their utility. I don't mind other people eating pesticides - if they choose to. Remember antibiotics are a pesticide, too. One little pill probably contains more than a lifetimes exposure to pesticide residues. I'll bet you will jump at the chance to swallow lots when you get your first tooth abcess or have your first operation. Basically what I want is more ability to control my own level of pesticide consumption - so I can down-regluate it in areas I am concerned about. Then don't buy organic. There are lots of pesticides available for organic use. The Bt toxin for example. Doing that today would restrict the diversity of foods available in my diet. Tough. Grow your own food. :There are so many things that can go wrong. If pesticides :weaken your immune system (one of the most common effects) :than this likely won't show up in lab studies - since these :are typically done in relatively disease-free environments. : Labs are not particularly 'low disease', no high accumulation : of animals ever is. Yes they are. Disease is often a function of the environment. Quite, and packing lots of animals together tends to a high disease challenge. Lab animals are in a highly artificial environment - and face different challenges. For example normally there are no predators. Predators are not diseases. Few farm livestock have predators either. No difference there. That might mean that running speed doesn't show up in lifespan studies in the way that it usually would. Indeed it works fine. :I don't regard today's level of testing pesticides to provide :much more than minimal protection. : Then you are an idiot or quite ignorant about it. I mean that it's minimal compared to what it could be - not that it doesn't protect people from pesticides at all. At 50M quid a hit, more than has been spent on plant toxin research since the dawn of time, it's most certainly not minimal but (in the view of manufacturers) excessive overkill. In other words the safely level could usefully be many times higher - How? and the risk could be made many times lower. How do you know? We are using the safest products ever found right now. :: Obviously you couldn't use the same safety spec as for pesticides as :: you would have few, probably no, allowed food plants. : :I think you'll find eating no food at all kills you fairly rapidly. : Yes but: : 1) I could select less toxic plant foods. : 2) I could use low toxicity cultivars. Well only up to a point - eventually you will run out of less-toxic foods to switch to. Indeed, but you could influence it. Of course the big problem, and why no significant work has been done, is that everyone expects plant toxins to be so dangerous that all vegetable foods would have to be banned for safety reasons. Nobody wants to go down that route. : Noting the strong relationship between plant toxins and pest resistance : (it's why the toxins are there in the first place) it would almost : certainly be safer to use plants bred for low toxin production and use : the much safer pesticides to control the pests. You seem heavily in favour of spending pesticide research dollars on eliminating natural food toxins - perhaps by breeding. Hardly. We would need more and much better pesticides to keep pests off the very highly disease susceptible plants that would result. /Eventually/ I would rather have safe man-made toxins to deter predators than poisonous natural ones. However - currently - many of the natural toxins have their upsides - often in the form of cancer prevention. Claims rarely (if ever) supported by solid evidence. E.g.: L-Canavanine A Potential Chemotherapeutic Agent for Human Pancreatic Cancer http://www.szp.swets.nl/szp/journals/pb363194.htm Resveratrol - which belongs to a group of compounds known as stilbenes, which are spontaneously synthesized on the surface of grapes as an immune response to attack by fungal diseases - and improves heart health; Glycosides: http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/.../glucosin.html ...and Phytoestrogens: http://www.herbalchem.net/Introductory.htm I'm not sure it would be a good idea to breed such "toxic" agents out of food - since one of the things they are good at killing is human cancers. They may also *cause* human cancers, cell killers often do. ...and at the moment I am not satisfied that enough is known about the long-term effects of man-made pesticides to take such steps. Hardly surprising since you have shown no evidence of solid knowledge of pesticides or their toxicity other than scaremonger websites. The natural toxins have been around longer, our bodies have had a chance to get used to them - and there has been more opportunity for study. 1) So what if they have been around longer. Think strychnine. 2) Our bodies didn't evolve to consume a small range of food plants. Take out the brassicae and solanum groups and there isn't much left. 3) There has been virtually NIL study on plant toxins. So wrong on all three counts. :Eating fruit and vegetables is important to good health. : Eating healthy meat and veg is, and pesticides help enormously here. : Not only that, but the abundance of food available today is DIRECTLY : the result of the introduction of safe effective pesticides. ...amongst many other modern farming techniques - including the use of machinery - Irrelevant. It does nothing more than could be and was done by hand (better). and things like a global market in seeds and produce. That's always been there (not that it has any relevance to your submission). Frankly, food abundance matters little to me personally these days. I live in a western country - where there is more food than can be eaten, and there's a plague of obesity on the land. Take out pesticides and that would change within 12 months to world famine. Your 'abundance' of food is only good for the current harvest. If there are food shortages - then by all means do what's necessary to stop people from starving. However when food is plentiful, I would rather have good quality food than even more masses of it. With pesticides you get both. Unfortunately. :Eating pesticides on the other hand is not required at all. : 1) Usually undetectable levels. : 2) You would get less food, of much poorer (ie infected) quality without : them. I am old enough to remember the 50's when few pesticides (pretty : well DDT only) was used, and remember picking caterpillars out of the : veg before cooking. Quite a common occurrence, in some years usual. I'm hoping in the future that food quality will improve - /and/ that pesticide usage will decline. So do I. The resultant shortages will mean fat profits for farmers instead of the current less than breakeven. I suspect that eventually mechanical barriers to pests will eventually make many of today's pesticides redundant. Dream on, you have no idea what you are talking about. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter