|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote or quoted:
:If you want to pick representative contaminated produce for me, :then spinach might be your best bet. I eat a lot more green leafy :vegetables than strawberries. : Unfortunately no spinach, or cabbage. I can't believe they haven't : tested these but I note they are only quoting stuff found over the : reporting level. It seems likely, then, that this sort of product has : none so isn't in the tables. [...] Spinach comes out as the most pesticide-contaminated vegetable in: http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1052595508632 and in: http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/Reports/.../Chapter2.html I would find it hard te believe that they didn't include it because it showed little contamination. Spinach consistently features in the Safety Directorate's produce safety warnings - the last three warnings all concern spinach: http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/citizen...r_residues.htm ``A PSD risk assessment suggests that consuming spinach containing methomyl at concentrations of 6.1 mg/kg would erode safety margins built into the acute reference dose. Any effects on consumers would be minor (e.g. increased salivation, mild upset stomach, headache) and unlikely to last for more than a few hours. Suppliers are reminded that produce containing residues in excess of the MRL should not be put into circulation.'' - http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/citizen..._Spain_AMH.htm : I advise you stick to cabbage and sprouts wherever possible. I'm keen on diversity, though. Consuming lots of any one thing can potentially cause problems if the information you had about it proves to be wrong. It's probably undesirable on nutritional grounds - as well as on safety grounds. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
... "Oz" wrote in message ... GeorgeDawson writes However, the "organic" branding serves as a guide for those consumers who want to control their intake of chemicals, for whatever reason. The fact that organic does allow some chemicals passes the by. The fact that imported organic may not actually be so they conveniently forget (some I think believe that only UK farmers cheat - which in organic I do not think any do, processors, on the other hand .... :( ) I do not think UK organic growers cheat either. However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with associated conventional farms alongside. I have two next to me for example. One day, if margins get tight and 50ac of highly valuable produce is destined for ploughing under at a huge loss, I would be less than certain. good of you to help control their pest problems then isn't it :-) Too right :)). A bit of drift with an insecticide, or fungicide. Herbicides tend to show up a bit much. -- George Dawson Goat farmer |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Jim Webster writes
"Oz" wrote in message I do not think UK organic growers cheat either. However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with associated conventional farms alongside. I have two next to me for example. One day, if margins get tight and 50ac of highly valuable produce is destined for ploughing under at a huge loss, I would be less than certain. good of you to help control their pest problems then isn't it :-) I perhaps didn't quite say it right. "However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with their conventional farm in the same ownership alongside." They don't need me to do it, they have their own sprayman, sprayer and store. -- 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 must confess that the animal welfare thing is the main axe I have to grind with the Soil Association, (SA is such an appropriate acronym). Refusal to allow vaccines (other than for fmd which they enthusiastically advocated) has struck me as just plain cruel. Disease does not give a stuff about the arbitrary whims of a certifying body. I most heartily agree with you. Particularly as it's easy to get to use antibiotics, the vet just has to say it's needed. Which is no different to conventional. So effectively in many cases they are causing antibiotic use by refusal to allow vaccines. Insane. -- 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.
GeorgeDawson writes
I did view the SA as being a little ironic during FMD when they seemingly reversed their policies !!! Hypocritical is what I would call it. Mind you they are masters of spin, and they con most consumers very effectively. -- 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.
GeorgeDawson writes
On a split unit, who can tell where each input ended up. A check against that is farmers do tend to know who is organic, and might start asking questions is they spot a sprayer where one shouldn't be :). I have no idea which fields of my neighbours is organic and which aren't, he does swap them about quite a bit. Outdoor pigs being a 'good entry' to organic. Sometimes one suspect the pretty red fields full of poppy are probably organic. No, opium poppies are purple .... -- 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 ... Jim Webster writes "Oz" wrote in message I do not think UK organic growers cheat either. However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with associated conventional farms alongside. I have two next to me for example. One day, if margins get tight and 50ac of highly valuable produce is destined for ploughing under at a huge loss, I would be less than certain. good of you to help control their pest problems then isn't it :-) I perhaps didn't quite say it right. "However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with their conventional farm in the same ownership alongside." They don't need me to do it, they have their own sprayman, sprayer and store. just being down wind would be cheaper also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the burden on your own land Jim Webster -- 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 ... GeorgeDawson writes On a split unit, who can tell where each input ended up. A check against that is farmers do tend to know who is organic, and might start asking questions is they spot a sprayer where one shouldn't be :). I have no idea which fields of my neighbours is organic and which aren't, he does swap them about quite a bit. Outdoor pigs being a 'good entry' to organic. Sometimes one suspect the pretty red fields full of poppy are probably organic. No, opium poppies are purple .... does organic get a premium in that market? Jim Webster -- 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 ... Jim Webster writes I must confess that the animal welfare thing is the main axe I have to grind with the Soil Association, (SA is such an appropriate acronym). Refusal to allow vaccines (other than for fmd which they enthusiastically advocated) has struck me as just plain cruel. Disease does not give a stuff about the arbitrary whims of a certifying body. I most heartily agree with you. Particularly as it's easy to get to use antibiotics, the vet just has to say it's needed. Which is no different to conventional. So effectively in many cases they are causing antibiotic use by refusal to allow vaccines. Insane. And made far worse by their support for homeopathic treatments. If folks wish to practice witch doctory or themselves then fair enough, but it shouldn't be legal for livestock and pets. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Jim Webster writes
also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the burden on your own land Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres, they are their own neighbour. -- 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
Oz: No, opium poppies are purple .... does organic get a premium in that market? No. I guess they might in some, but they would then be illegal. -- 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
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/citizen...r_residues.htm Spanish spinach. Buy british - you know it's safer. The Pesticide Residue Committee (PRC) concluded that levels of the pesticide methomyl found in Asda spinach meant that the "safety margins would be significantly eroded". Levels were 150% of the safety level for adults and 240% of the safety level for toddlers. The PRC said that it was possible that "symptoms such as increased salivation, an upset stomach or a mild headache could occur, but these effects would be expected to be short-lived (lasting not longer than 6 hours)". Methomyl is a carbamate pesticide which affects the nervous 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.
"Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the burden on your own land Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres, they are their own neighbour. they would need a neighbour crop spraying by plane before they could hope for a bit of useful drift :-(( Jim Webster -- 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
"Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the burden on your own land Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres, they are their own neighbour. they would need a neighbour crop spraying by plane before they could hope for a bit of useful drift :-(( I'm not getting it across, am I? They farm both conventional and organic on the same farm and one field might be organic and the adjacent one conventional. What's more with 3 yr breaks for outdoor pigs they can swap them about quite easily, and do. Hmm, must be very confusing for the sprayman .... -- 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 ... Jim Webster writes "Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the burden on your own land Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres, they are their own neighbour. they would need a neighbour crop spraying by plane before they could hope for a bit of useful drift :-(( I'm not getting it across, am I? They farm both conventional and organic on the same farm and one field might be organic and the adjacent one conventional. What's more with 3 yr breaks for outdoor pigs they can swap them about quite easily, and do. I wonder if you could use sheep as a similar break crop to bring in the organic? Probably could on semi hill Hmm, must be very confusing for the sprayman .... bit of a begger if you have to bring the pigs back in three years early Jim Webster -- 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.
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
writes In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: A toxin is something toxic which poisons us. If it doesn't poison us (i.e. is successfully managed by our digestion) then it's not a toxin. That's something else. That is 'detoxifies'. No, you're just avoiding the issue. If it doesn't poison us it *isn't* a toxin. Wrong. Many, almost certainly all, toxins have a no effect level despite being toxins. If they have no effect, they aren't poisoning us. So things that don't poison us at some dose can still be toxins, and often are. But you've already said that *everything* will kill us at some level so on that basis *everything* is a toxin so it's not a terribly useful word is it! Mind you - don't forget the dose. Very few things are completely non-toxic - not even water. Quite, but that's not a very helpful way to go is it, That may be, but that's how it's defined. Doubtless confuses lots more people than just you. if your argument is that *everything* is a toxin then trying to produce weedkillers (or whatever) that aren't toxic is going to be a bit difficult. Precisely. That's why you find more useful definitions like approved dose, effective dose, noel, adi and LD50, which include an effect (or lack of it) and a dose, used by people who know enough and want to discuss it sensibly. Yes, I quite agree, my original complaint was about the use of the word 'toxic' and its imprecision, it's meaningless (as you say) without any indication of *how* toxic. -- Chris Green ) |
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 :: Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't growing :: the right things. : :Size is the main limiting factor. I estimate I have about ten square :metres to work with. : 3m x 3m! More like 10m x 1m ;-) : Then throw out most of it and stick to 5 sq m of swiss chard and 5 sq m : in runner and climbing french beans. That would be contrary to my stated aim of getting more diversity - and would massively up my bean consumption (I go pretty easy on most legumes). Now this is where I really can't understand what you want from yourself and others. If you genuinely believed that pesticide residues presented a significant risk to you health, and you were rational (granted these two things probably don't go together too well) then surely your objective would be to replace those foodstuffs that you presently obtain from other that present the greatest risk. Surely this would mean growing as much of your staples first and then indulging in wealthy western extravagance once that is in order? Personally I prefer to rear a couple of pigs as needed so that we get to eat decent meat as often as possible, but if you prefer not to eat meat, or don't have the space then grow potatoes. However I'm still far from convinced that pesticide residues are harmful to people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. :I'm not really trying to get my calories from my garden. Indeed, I :grow almost entirely very low calorie produce. My main aim at this stage :is to increase the diversity of fresh, good quality salad vegetables I :have available to me - not to feed myself entirely from my garden. : That can be bought cheaply in the store. I'm /trying/ to grow things I can't easily get in store. My best source for all my chinese salad veggies - for example - is miles away - and their produce is apparently imported - and freshness leaves something to be desired. I'm far from sure this will give you what you really want - unless this is what you really want and the pesticide thing is just frustration resulting from a feeling that you are trapped into eating what others decide you should eat. I can't buy russian kale, american cress - or indeed most of my sprouts at all. : You obviously didn't find the ames link, or uncle al's. You're right there - the only "uncle al" I am familiar with is unlikely to be the one you are referring to. ::::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. ::: :::Rather obviously, I'm talking about growing a greater proportion of :::things "under glass" - or in controlled environments. :: ::: To feed the world? :: ::Yes. :: ::: speechless at the stunning level of ignorance :: ::Don't underestimate technological progress. : :: I don't, I do understand economics. :: Just work out the energy cost of covering the UK arable area under :: glass. Go on, have a go. : :I am not talking about glass. [....] Not /just/ glass, anyway. :And I am /certainly/ not suggesting do[ing] this today. See where I :wrote "eventually". I even did it twice - to emphasize the point. : So what DO you mean, if not under glass? Well, it doesn't /have/ to be glass. For example, some of the operations I know of use polytunnels instead. A great thing to have - recommended. The original idea of using mechanical - rather than chemical - barriers to pests doesn't necessarily require completely enclosing the plants at all - although enclosure is probably the most effective approach. The scarecrow is a form of non-chemical pest control agent - as are slug-moats, fences, and nets. And indeed labour. There are still many places where a great deal of crop protection is provided by children - it's probably good exercise for them too, many prevent all this obesity problem. These are all things that attempt to prevent the pests and produce being in the same place at the same time - rather than poisoning them once they arrive. Dogs, hawk and guns are also good for controlling larger pests. Though even wild owls will help control voles and rats - hence old barns have nesting access built in; something that may come back into fashion. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Michael Saunby writes
Dogs, hawk and guns are also good for controlling larger pests. Though even wild owls will help control voles and rats - hence old barns have nesting access built in; something that may come back into fashion. Unlikely, all approval schemes require effective control of rodents. Without food, owls will perish. With rodents, farms cannot sell their produce easily, if at all. This is supposed to improve human health, although I have never seen any recorded problem in recent decades in the UK associated with farm rodents and *consumer* health. Tough on owls and raptors, then. -- 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.
In article ,
"Michael Saunby" wrote: However I'm still far from convinced that pesticide residues are harmful to people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. Well said. You may be interested to know that in New Zealand the Department of Conservation (affectionatly known as Doc) is a great and avid user of roundup. They use it to clear persistent plant invaders so that native plants and animals can get a fair crack of the whip. Speaking of things toxic they have just announced that they have rendered Campbell Island (Sth of NZ, sub antarctic), free of rats for the first time in 200 years by dropping rat poison from helicopters. this is very good news for the nesting seabirds and should see the return of some species who had to be removed to predator free islands for their own survival. toxins can be our friends too. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Oz" wrote in message ... Michael Saunby writes Dogs, hawk and guns are also good for controlling larger pests. Though even wild owls will help control voles and rats - hence old barns have nesting access built in; something that may come back into fashion. Unlikely, all approval schemes require effective control of rodents. Without food, owls will perish. With rodents, farms cannot sell their produce easily, if at all. This is supposed to improve human health, although I have never seen any recorded problem in recent decades in the UK associated with farm rodents and *consumer* health. Tough on owls and raptors, then. Ah, but there ain't no money in farming. Far better to have a wildlife reserve that produces some surplus for sale to the public. Or perhaps even a museum. There's a pilchard factory in Cornwall that was told it couldn't produce salted pilchards because the method no longer conformed with current food standards. However the method is so ancient (and presents no risk) so the factory is now classed as a museum and life continues pretty much as normal. See http://www.chycor.co.uk/tourism/cata...hard-works.htm Of course this approach might require you to wear a smock while sitting at your PC, and you might have to give up that new fangled metric system too :-) Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. There's always likely to be trade offs. The sheep dip changes are probably 'better' for the people who use them, but 'worse' for invertebrates in run-off watercourses, for example. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... In article , "Michael Saunby" wrote: However I'm still far from convinced that pesticide residues are harmful to people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. Well said. You may be interested to know that in New Zealand the Department of Conservation (affectionatly known as Doc) is a great and avid user of roundup. They use it to clear persistent plant invaders so that native plants and animals can get a fair crack of the whip. Speaking of things toxic they have just announced that they have rendered Campbell Island (Sth of NZ, sub antarctic), free of rats for the first time in 200 years by dropping rat poison from helicopters. this is very good news for the nesting seabirds and should see the return of some species who had to be removed to predator free islands for their own survival. toxins can be our friends too. Yes, this is the 'success story' mentioned by Malcolm O in one of the ship rat threads, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/2938612.stm This is also mentioned at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1456230.stm (which makes clear the 200,000 rats in question were r. norvegicus, not r. rattus, by the way) and alludes to the near disastrous start to the exercise when 18 tonnes of the poison en route to the island for the eradication programme was accidentally dumped in a whale breeding location, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1346931.stm but no harm done, apparently. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. There's always likely to be trade offs. The sheep dip changes are probably 'better' for the people who use them, but 'worse' for invertebrates in run-off watercourses, for example. I'm fine with trade offs, it's dishonesty that ****es me off. Control, reduce, ban, whatever the use of pesticides and herbicides if it will achieve some desired outcome, but don't lie about the reasons. Ban hunting for reasons of puritanical distaste for sport - it that's what the ruling class demand, but not for spurious reasons of least cruelty. Attempting to constantly appeal to an ignorant public for support in every attempt to change the way people interact with the environment is damned stupid. Though I accept that the present alternative may be worse - the currently fashionable notion of "sustainable development" where some unpopular or hard to justify changes are made anyway, since they will, hopefully, benefit future generations, actually gives authority to those in power on the basis that (most of) the present generation don't know what's best for the long term (but government do?). It seems the main trade off at present is between central government and common sense. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
"BAC" wrote: This is also mentioned at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1456230.stm (which makes clear the 200,000 rats in question were r. norvegicus, not r. rattus, by the way) and alludes to the near disastrous start to the exercise when 18 tonnes of the poison en route to the island for the eradication programme was accidentally dumped in a whale breeding location, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1346931.stm but no harm done, apparently. Ah yes, I remember the road spill incident, following the NZ news as I do. I had forgotten the purpose to which the poison was going to be used. It was probably a good thing the sea was relatively calm at the time of the accident, the Kaikoura coast is prone to large swells. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. There's always likely to be trade offs. The sheep dip changes are probably 'better' for the people who use them, but 'worse' for invertebrates in run-off watercourses, for example. actually they are better for the sheep, but less safe for the handlers. For the handlers Organo-phosphates were more dangerous than the organo-chorides they replaced, and they were more dangerous than things like copper sulphate. One of the things which left a nasty taste was the way government and legislaters regarded those forced to use the chemicals as expendable Jim Webster |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :: Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't : :: growing the right things. : : : :Size is the main limiting factor. I estimate I have about ten square : :metres to work with. : : : 3m x 3m! : : More like 10m x 1m ;-) : : : Then throw out most of it and stick to 5 sq m of swiss chard and 5 sq m : : in runner and climbing french beans. : : That would be contrary to my stated aim of getting more diversity - : and would massively up my bean consumption (I go pretty easy on : most legumes). : Now this is where I really can't understand what you want from yourself and : others. If you genuinely believed that pesticide residues presented a : significant risk to you health, and you were rational (granted these two : things probably don't go together too well) then surely your objective : would be to replace those foodstuffs that you presently obtain from other : that present the greatest risk. Surely this would mean growing as much of : your staples first and then indulging in wealthy western extravagance once : that is in order? I eat lots of green salad veg - and I grow lots of green salad veg. I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. I don't grow very many fruit - my perception is that they take up too much space for the volume of produce they produce - and I'm space limited. I /am/ growing strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, taeberries, loganberries, wolfberries, black currants, gooseberries and apricots - but don't expect to get enough fruit to significantly impact my annual levels of consumption. Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh as possible. : Personally I prefer to rear a couple of pigs as needed so that we get to : eat decent meat as often as possible, but if you prefer not to eat meat, : or don't have the space then grow potatoes. ....but I don't eat very many posasoes either - plus they keep well, aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are easily available year-round in nearby shops. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
|
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
On Wed, 28 May 2003 10:13:13 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote: : : Tim Tyler writes : :: Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't : :: growing the right things. : : : :Size is the main limiting factor. I estimate I have about ten square : :metres to work with. : : : 3m x 3m! : : More like 10m x 1m ;-) : : : Then throw out most of it and stick to 5 sq m of swiss chard and 5 sq m : : in runner and climbing french beans. : : That would be contrary to my stated aim of getting more diversity - : and would massively up my bean consumption (I go pretty easy on : most legumes). : Now this is where I really can't understand what you want from yourself and : others. If you genuinely believed that pesticide residues presented a : significant risk to you health, and you were rational (granted these two : things probably don't go together too well) then surely your objective : would be to replace those foodstuffs that you presently obtain from other : that present the greatest risk. Surely this would mean growing as much of : your staples first and then indulging in wealthy western extravagance once : that is in order? I eat lots of green salad veg - and I grow lots of green salad veg. Don't tell me, let's guess - and for the other six months of the year you hibernate? I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. I don't grow very many fruit - my perception is that they take up too much space for the volume of produce they produce - and I'm space limited. I /am/ growing strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, taeberries, loganberries, wolfberries, black currants, gooseberries and apricots - but don't expect to get enough fruit to significantly impact my annual levels of consumption. Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh as possible. So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even you consider a varied diet more important. So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, maybe they're a good thing. : Personally I prefer to rear a couple of pigs as needed so that we get to : eat decent meat as often as possible, but if you prefer not to eat meat, : or don't have the space then grow potatoes. ...but I don't eat very many posasoes either - plus they keep well, aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are easily available year-round in nearby shops. Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been treated with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you ensure that such a valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? I get the impression you don't eat meat, so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. Still making friends I see, Mr Moody? are all farm types this obnoxious or have we just bumped into some rare breeds? -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. [...] : : Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing : my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing : availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh : as possible. : So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even you : consider a varied diet more important. That's accurate. I'm typically prepared to trade some exposure to pesticides in for some diversity. It's hard to quantify the degree of risk - but I think it's worth taking some effort to avoid pesticides. : So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, : maybe they're a good thing. They make food cheaper to produce. They clearly have their upsides - that's why they are used. : ...but I don't eat very many po[tat]oes either - plus they keep well, : aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are : easily available year-round in nearby shops. : Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been treated : with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you ensure that such a : valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? Potatoes keep pretty well with no treatment at all - if kept in darkness. : I get the impression you don't eat meat [...] That's not an accurate impression - I eat turkey, liver and kidneys - and fish and seafood. : so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or : something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. I'm on a low calorie diet. Many of the calories I do eat come from fruit, oils, nuts and seeds. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. [...] : : Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing : my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing : availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh : as possible. : So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even you : consider a varied diet more important. That's accurate. I'm typically prepared to trade some exposure to pesticides in for some diversity. So a varied diet is more important than a long (and healthy?) life? It's hard to quantify the degree of risk - but I think it's worth taking some effort to avoid pesticides. The whole point of risks is that you do quantify them, otherwise they're simply irrational fears and should carry no weight. : So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, : maybe they're a good thing. They make food cheaper to produce. They clearly have their upsides - that's why they are used. : ...but I don't eat very many po[tat]oes either - plus they keep well, : aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are : easily available year-round in nearby shops. : Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been treated : with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you ensure that such a : valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? Potatoes keep pretty well with no treatment at all - if kept in darkness. They might, but I'm pretty certain most don't get the chance. I think you'll find that the use of various chemicals to protect stored potatoes and grain is more common that not doing so. This is an interesting situation though, since environmentalists are very concerned about the use of pesticides in open fields where wildlife might be affected but far less concerned by the use of pesticides in food storage. So I suspect that as with DDT public opinion is being used to achieve what's best for the environment rather than what might be best for people. See http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/committ.../chlorstat.htm I've seen other documents, that I can't find areference for right now that give figures for the proportion of stored potatoes that are treated, I'm pretty sure it's most. : I get the impression you don't eat meat [...] That's not an accurate impression - I eat turkey, liver and kidneys - and fish and seafood. My mistake. Odd choices though - any reason other than personal taste? : so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or : something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. I'm on a low calorie diet. Forever, or just to lose some weight? Many of the calories I do eat come from fruit, oils, nuts and seeds. Not a diet that would suit many, and of course a lot of "food miles", so unhappy environmentalists again. Michael Saunby |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote: people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better for people, because they probably won't. I think it had to be sensible to ban the persistent organochlorines. We are longer lived than other carnivores, and it must be reasonable to conclude that they may also be a threat to us ultimately. Michael Saunby -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Oz wrote: Unlikely, all approval schemes require effective control of rodents. Without food, owls will perish. With rodents, farms cannot sell their produce easily, if at all. This is supposed to improve human health, although I have never seen any recorded problem in recent decades in the UK associated with farm rodents and *consumer* health. Tough on owls and raptors, then. One of our local farmers has installed some 20 to 30 boxes in this area, and in 5 years the number of Barn Owls has increased enormously. Last year, albeit a good vole year, he ringed 97 barn owl chicks. I would thimk they may also help knpck off a few rats as well. Of course you prohably have to have large areas of rough grazing land for this. About 10 years ago we thought we had no Barn Owls. -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Michael Saunby wrote: I'm fine with trade offs, it's dishonesty that ****es me off. Control, reduce, ban, whatever the use of pesticides and herbicides if it will achieve some desired outcome, but don't lie about the reasons. Ban hunting for reasons of puritanical distaste for sport - it that's what the ruling class demand, but not for spurious reasons of least cruelty. Attempting to constantly appeal to an ignorant public for support in every attempt to change the way people interact with the environment is damned stupid. Though I accept that the present alternative may be worse - the currently fashionable notion of "sustainable development" where some unpopular or hard to justify changes are made anyway, since they will, hopefully, benefit future generations, actually gives authority to those in power on the basis that (most of) the present generation don't know what's best for the long term (but government do?). It seems the main trade off at present is between central government and common sense. Michael Saunby We all think we know best, but governments have to take all of our views into consideration. -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In article ,
Jim Webster wrote: actually they are better for the sheep, but less safe for the handlers. For the handlers Organo-phosphates were more dangerous than the organo-chorides they replaced, and they were more dangerous than things like copper sulphate. One of the things which left a nasty taste was the way government and legislaters regarded those forced to use the chemicals as expendable Jim Webster I thought they had gone on to permethrins now, which were generally less toxic to sheep and humans than op but are not deactivated before they filter into water courses. -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Robert Seago" wrote in message ... In article , Jim Webster wrote: actually they are better for the sheep, but less safe for the handlers. For the handlers Organo-phosphates were more dangerous than the organo-chorides they replaced, and they were more dangerous than things like copper sulphate. One of the things which left a nasty taste was the way government and legislaters regarded those forced to use the chemicals as expendable Jim Webster I thought they had gone on to permethrins now, which were generally less toxic to sheep and humans than op but are not deactivated before they filter into water courses. yes, basically the H&SE may well find itself effectively destroyed by European law because of OPs. Effectively H&SE claimed it had no duty of care, hence was not responsible for any injuries or death which occurred if you followed their advice. The OP business going to European level may overturn this. so permethrins are expedient. Jim Webster -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Robert Seago writes
One of our local farmers has installed some 20 to 30 boxes in this area, and in 5 years the number of Barn Owls has increased enormously. Last year, albeit a good vole year, he ringed 97 barn owl chicks. I would thimk they may also help knpck off a few rats as well. Of course you prohably have to have large areas of rough grazing land for this. About 10 years ago we thought we had no Barn Owls. We have had barn owls sporadically for years. At least one pair bred, unfortunately two fledgelings drowned in water troughs (one of ours, one of neighbours). We had, for perhaps 20 years, a resident pair on the downs. These were almost tame. Unfortunately we got done by environmental health on our corn store, and had to kill off all the rodents. The owls were never seen again. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Michael Saunby writes
They might, but I'm pretty certain most don't get the chance. I think you'll find that the use of various chemicals to protect stored potatoes Indeed, sprout suppressants. Actually quite important as sprouted spuds are rather toxic (if green, actually toxic), so really a health measure. and grain is more common that not doing so. Imported grain is usually treated with an OP insecticide. UK grain generally isn't. I've never treated mine in 30 years and we store until april. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
"Robert Seago" wrote in message ... In article , Michael Saunby wrote: I'm fine with trade offs, it's dishonesty that ****es me off. Control, reduce, ban, whatever the use of pesticides and herbicides if it will achieve some desired outcome, but don't lie about the reasons. Ban hunting for reasons of puritanical distaste for sport - it that's what the ruling class demand, but not for spurious reasons of least cruelty. Attempting to constantly appeal to an ignorant public for support in every attempt to change the way people interact with the environment is damned stupid. Though I accept that the present alternative may be worse - the currently fashionable notion of "sustainable development" where some unpopular or hard to justify changes are made anyway, since they will, hopefully, benefit future generations, actually gives authority to those in power on the basis that (most of) the present generation don't know what's best for the long term (but government do?). It seems the main trade off at present is between central government and common sense. Michael Saunby We all think we know best, but governments have to take all of our views into consideration. 'Have to'? Only when it suits them! |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote: : : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ... : : : I would guess most of my pesticides come from fruit. [...] : : : : Reducing pesticide consumption is only one of the motives for growing : : my own food - the other ones are mainly to do with increasing : : availability of foodstuffs - and making sure they are as fresh : : as possible. : : : So how dangerous do you really think pesticides are? It's seems even : : you consider a varied diet more important. : : That's accurate. I'm typically prepared to trade some exposure to : pesticides in for some diversity. : So a varied diet is more important than a long (and healthy?) life? Hopefully, a varied diet is a route to a long (and healthy) life. : It's hard to quantify the degree of risk - but I think it's worth taking : some effort to avoid pesticides. : The whole point of risks is that you do quantify them, otherwise they're : simply irrational fears and should carry no weight. The "I think it's worth taking some effort to avoid pesticides" was my effort at quantification. In other words, I think the risk is too large for me to ignore. : : So if pesticides and herbicides give us access to a more varied diet, : : maybe they're a good thing. : : They make food cheaper to produce. They clearly have their upsides - : that's why they are used. : : : ...but I don't eat very many po[tat]oes either - plus they keep well, : : aren't pesticide-laden (similar to most root vegetables), and are : : easily available year-round in nearby shops. : : : Yeah right; of course they keep well, they've almost certainly been : : treated with sprout suppressant and pesticides. How else do you : : ensure that such a valuable crop doesn't spoil in storage? : : Potatoes keep pretty well with no treatment at all - if kept in darkness. : They might, but I'm pretty certain most don't get the chance. I think : you'll find that the use of various chemicals to protect stored potatoes : and grain is more common that not doing so. This is an interesting : situation though, since environmentalists are very concerned about the use : of pesticides in open fields where wildlife might be affected but far less : concerned by the use of pesticides in food storage. So I suspect that as : with DDT public opinion is being used to achieve what's best for the : environment rather than what might be best for people. : See http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/committ.../chlorstat.htm I've seen : other documents, that I can't find areference for right now that give : figures for the proportion of stored potatoes that are treated, I'm pretty : sure it's most. Potatoes (indeed most root vegetables) are generally regarded as low-pesticide risk foods. http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1052595508632 Has a table (which includes potatoes) which attempts to quantify the relative risks involved. Fruit take all the top places - and leafy vegetables come next. : : I get the impression you don't eat meat [...] : : That's not an accurate impression - I eat turkey, liver and kidneys - and : fish and seafood. : My mistake. Odd choices though - any reason other than personal taste? My diet is oriented around good nutrition. : : so if you don't eat potatoes where do you get your calories; bread, or : : something imported? I'm now even doubting that you're human. : : I'm on a low calorie diet. : Forever, or just to lose some weight? Forever. : Many of the calories I do eat come from fruit, oils, nuts and seeds. : Not a diet that would suit many, and of course a lot of "food miles", so : unhappy environmentalists again. Unfortunately for the environment, I value my blueberries too highly. I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
Tim Tyler writes
I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause. Ultimately the consumer is the polluter. If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution would never have happened. In practice it's managed by their elected governments, which is really much the same thing. Of course these days reducing pollution in the developed world means exporting it to the developing world. I don't think this is very ethical. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter