Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
http://www.ptech.co.nz/digthis/knowl...lyphosate.html
Knowledge Base Question on Glyphosate Is Glyphosate weed killer safe?? Eion's Answer This is an article written by Wally Richards and I agree totally with it. It was published in Dig This magazine, Eion Scarrow IS GLYPHOSATE SAFE? Glyphosate is the active chemical in several of the most popular weed killers such as Roundup, Zero and Network along with several other brand names. Roundup, the original glyphosate product was introduced into New Zealand about 20 years ago and these days is extensively used by gardeners, horticulturists, farmers and market gardeners. It was toted as the silver bullet to weeds and unwanted plants, quickly breaks down in the soil and safe to use. One should also realise at the time of glyphosate's introduction other chemicals such as DDT and Lindane were also in common use and these chemicals which have since been banned were also considered safe to use and it was not realised that they had such a devastating effect on our environment and health. Is it possible that glyphosate could also be dangerous to our environment and health? There is a good number of people that believe that glyphosate is not all its cracked up to be. You only have to place the word 'glyphosate' into any good search engine on the Internet to find disturbing evidence from researchers, universities and scientists. ( A good page of search engines is at http://www.peacockfamily.co.nz/directory.html , Eion ) Have these research people an axe to grind against the chemical companies that manufacture glyphosate? Maybe but in mind highly unlikely. In the mean time companies such as Monsanto have their paid researches and in some cases independent researches, giving favourable comments and data on glyphosate. So who are we to believe? If it is found out positively, sometime in the future, that glyphosate is in our food chain and effecting our health and the environment, then it will be likely too late for anyone that may suffer as a result. Lets look at what we can call the possible negative aspects of glyphosate. My source of information comes from the likes of, http://www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html#pesticides on the glyphosate link. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes. Estimated use in the U.S. is between 38 and 48 million pounds per year. Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with a surfactant, chemicals that help glyphosate to penetrate plant cells. Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea, numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic. Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats). In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides, exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry applications. Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects, birds, and small mammals by destroying vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter. In laboratory tests, glyphosate increased plants' susceptibility to disease and reduced the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria." "In California, the state with the most comprehensive program for reporting of pesticide-caused illness, glyphosate-containing herbicides were the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers" "Earthworms: A study of the most common earthworm found in agricultural soils in New Zealand showed that repeated applications of glyphosate significantly affect growth and survival of earthworms. Biweekly applications of low rates of glyphosate, (one twentieth of typical rates) caused a reduction in growth, and increase in time to maturity and an increase in mortality" "Mycorrhizal fungi are beneficial fungi that live in and around plants roots. They help plants absorb nutrients and water and can protect them from cold and drought. Roundup is toxic to Mycorrhizal fungi in laboratory studies. Effects on some species associated with conifers have been observed at concentrations of 1 part per million (ppm), lower than those found in soil following typical applications." "Plant Diseases: Glyphosate treatment increases the susceptibility of crop plants to a number of diseases. For example, glyphosate increased the susceptibility of tomatoes to crown and root disease." Further reading, you can write to "Soil and Health Assn" Box 36170 Northcote Auckland and send $3.00 asking for their "Roundup Information Summary" In the sheets you will find, Quote, "Dr Ricky Gorringe of Hamilton estimates, based on cases presenting to his clinic, that probably 1 in 20 New Zealanders are sensitive to Roundup. Dr Gorringe has observed that the most commonly occurring symptoms as unnatural fatigue, a band-like headache, a strange 'spaced out' feeling with loss of confidence, a skin rash, and an otherwise unexplained sudden increase in blood pressure." Elsewhere I read of a trial where an area was sprayed with glyphosate and one month later lettuces were planted. Three months later the lettuces were cropped and found to contain glyphosate. As glyphosate is the most commonly used weed killer in horticulture it would pertain that much of the produce that we consume contains the chemical. It makes one wonder. GENETIC FOOD CROPS Genetics has been in and out of the news over recent times with two sides fighting for and against Genetic use in New Zealand. Many of us are unsure about the subject and through lack of understanding we tend to take a neutral stance. I believe that there is some applications that genetic engineering can be used to the benefit of the human race but there are other areas that appear to be profit originated without too much other concern for consequences either in the short or long term. I received copies of GE Digest recently (the digests are compiled to disseminate information about genetic engineering biotechnology and related subjects.) I found some interesting aspects from the digests that I would like to share with you. My reference is the stated publication and its references. Transgenic Soybeans "It took Monsanto nine years to create a soybean that survived applications of Roundup. Finally, a 100 seedlings spliced with DNA from soil bacteria, a cauliflower virus and a petunia plant, were spray-tested. All survived. Transgenic soybeans have now been grown commercially for five years. The 2001 plantings were 68% of the national acreage. In the USA, transgenic soy is in foods from baby formulas to margarine, ice cream to muesli bars; in around 70% of processed foods. Transgenic soy, corn, canola and cotton-seed oil entered the food chain so quickly most processors did not know. When European buyers of US soy protested, US processors began investigating safety. The Director of Scientific Policy for the Grocery Manufacturers of America said: "We really learned after the fact." Dan Glickman, former US Agriculture Secretary, says transgenic products, such as RoundupReady® (RR®) beans, have not received objective scrutiny, industry has been allowed to take the lead and regulators have largely ceded their watchdog role. "Regulators even viewed themselves as cheer-leaders for biotechnology. It was viewed as science marching forward, and anyone who wasn't marching forward was a Luddite." Physicians in Britain, the US and Canada became concerned when allergies to soy increased 50 per cent after transgenic soy was introduced into foods. The York Nutritional Laboratory confirmed this rise in 1999. It was the first time in 17 years soy was in the top ten foods to cause allergic reactions. In 2000, Irish doctors reported the same increase. (NB: Reports suggest 20-25 percent of people suffer allergic reactions to foods and other substances. An allergy is a body's response to an allergic substance. It may be immediate or delayed. It may be worsened by an impaired immune system with a pathological response that can range from hives to anaphylactic death. Monsanto says its simplicity sells the RR® system. RR® soy allows a farmer to spray Roundup herbicide over the growing beans, killing most weeds, but leaving the transgenic soybeans unharmed." Now one does not have to have much between ones ears to work out that a Roundup Ready food crop that is sprayed during the term of its growth with glyphosate will take into itself more glyphosate than one that cant be sprayed with glyphosate while its growing. Quote, "Dr Benbrook says that, contrary to Monsanto's claims, field data provided by the USDA also clearly shows, "Total herbicide use on RR® soybeans in 1998 was greater on average than conventional varieties in six states" and higher overall in 10 of the 16 states surveyed. Dr Benbrook warns that by the time industry acknowledges the problem of herbicide-resistant weeds, glyphosate-resistant genes will be irretrievable, that we cannot "put the genie back in the bottle." He is concerned that Monsanto is not addressing the question of resistance. "American agriculture is really at risk with all the disinformation perpetuated by the biotech industry." The Farmers Weekly (US, 4 May 2001) reports nearly 70% of US soy bean value now comes from government subsidies, that (a) these have created a 25 per cent increase in soy planting in the US since 1998 and (b) a consequent collapse in world oilseed prices, and (c) an artificial domestic and international market for US soy, the world's largest source of transgenic food and animal feed, and that (d) the subsidy has artificially promoted transgenic production at the expense of conventional oilseeds grown elsewhere where no similar levels of subsidy exist. The question has been raised, for whose benefit is this? Brazil's exports of non-GE soybeans to Europe rose from 10,135 million tonnes in 1996 to 15,130 million tonnes in 1998, a 50 per cent increase, while US soy exports to Europe dropped from 8.854 to 6.572 million tonnes. From 1995 to 2000, the US lost 14.3% of its share of the export soy market, while Brazil's share climbed 10.7% because it could supply conventional soybeans. In the European Union (EU), nearly 50 percent of imported soy meal comes from regions where RR® soy plantings are prohibited; 44 percent from Brazil alone. A significant amount goes into animal feed. Demand for meat and meat products, produced from animals fed on feed free of transgenic DNA, grew from almost zero to 20-25 percent in only 12 months. In 1987, the US Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable pesticide residues in soy in animal feed from 6ppm to 20ppm for Roundup (glyphosate). No tolerance level is set for meat. Animal products may have residues." I submitted the above to Monsanto for their comments and here is the reply; Monsanto: "Glyphosate is arguably the most studied molecule in the history of agriculture. Regulatory agencies around the world who reviewed the toxicology of glyphosate on several occasions over its 25-year history have concluded that glyphosate is NOT mutagenic nor carcinogenic (see US EPA's Re-registration Eligibility Decision, September 1993, World Health Organisation's Environmental Criteria 159, 1994, and the EU's ECCo peer review 1999.) In addition, two definitive textbooks written on the molecule and glyphosate has been the subject of thousands of independent scientific studies. Human/animal toxicity Glyphosate kills plants by interrupting an essential plant nutrient pathway a pathway that is only present in green plants. Various studies reported in the literature describe the effects observed after accidental and intentional ingestion of Roundup® herbicide. Accidental exposure results in, at most, only mild effects. Carcinogenicity A recent independent study of glyphosate (Williams et al., 2000) reviewed glyphosate and potential mutagenicity. Their conclusions we " Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorgenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it has been concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. " No effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in multigenerational reproduction studies with glyphosate. " Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. " Williams et al. (2000) concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. Soil-borne Organisms Interestingly cultivation, a common farming practice, kills more earthworms and beneficial insects than any other practice. Farmers adopting no-tillage through the use of Roundup to control competing vegetation are measuring increases in earthworm populations compared with the practices of old! An international review panel rejected the New Zealand earthworm study mentioned by Mr Richards, as it did not meet the criteria for concluding glyphosate effects on earthworms. In this study only 6 worms per treatment were used and the variability among worms and treatments was not thoroughly characterised to satisfy the rigorous demands of the expert panel. A recent study has been completed investigating chronic effects of glyphosate on earthworms. No effects on growth, survival or reproduction were observed after 56 days of exposure to very high concentrations. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria Numerous field studies have confirmed that application of glyphosate and Roundup® herbicide at label-recommended rates does not have long-term negative effects on mycorrhizae, actinomycetes, or bacteria, nitrification, dehydrogenase activity, or decomposition. Conclusion Roundup® herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate have been extensively investigated in ecological toxicity studies to support registrations in over 160 countries. This significant body of scientific evidence, over 1,000 studies during the past 25 years has demonstrated the favourable environmental health and safety profile of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® herbicide. These regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern. In New Zealand, the Pesticides Board are responsible for the regulatory approval of herbicides. Roundup® herbicide has been registered for use in New Zealand for over 20 years." During the last six years a number of transgenic crops have been commercialized around the world, predominantly in North America. This has been the fastest uptake of any new agricultural technology by growers we have witnessed with over 50 million hectares being planted in 2001. Farmers are gaining significant benefits from these crops including reduced costs, greater net income, better yields and quality as well as a reduction in the overall use of pesticides particularly insecticides, a clear benefit to the environment. Before these new crops are commercialised they are subjected to rigorous testing for health, safety and environmental reasons. The products from these crops are now widely used in many food processing systems as well as whole foods and have clearly been shown to be as safe as the same products of conventional crops. Despite these assurances from the regulators a number of questions continue to be raised by those opposing the technology some of which are posed in your article and my response is as follows; 1. Roundup Ready soybeans and allergens It would appear that this article is trying to suggest that there is a link between Roundup Ready soy and allergens. Historically soybeans are considered to be in the top 8 foods responsible for allergies. Testing for allergenicity is one of the many rigorous procedures which must be undertaken for all products from GM crops before they are approved for commercial release and subsequently for human consumption. All the testing on Roundup Ready soybeans clearly showed there was no difference in allergenic potential between conventional soybeans and those with the herbicide tolerance gene. There has not been a single documented case of any illness as a result of eating GM food sin the six years since their commercialisation. Allergic reactions to soybeans have been reported in the literature for more than 25 years and the York study merely shows consistency with these findings. It has been suggested that these allergenic increases attributed to soy consumption in Britain may be linked to a change of consumer diet from dairy products to soy products. 2. Safety of Roundup herbicide As earlier response to these allegations on Roundup have clearly shown the safety of Roundup herbicide has been extensively examined for 25 years by a wide range of International organisations all concluding the product should be ranked in the most favourable category possible for pesticides, Category E, which concludes evidence of non-carcinogenicity to humans. With respect to spraying crops with Roundup the regulations and Product label allow for only 1-2 sprays to be applied early in the growth phase. All residue studies carried out on the subsequent plants and grain products have clearly shown any detectable residues to be well below the Maximum Residue Limits permitted by law. 3. Roundup usage and herbicide resistance Dr Benbrook has made several claims of this nature on his US website and these have been challenged by representatives of the USDA themselves who report the use of selected and non- statistical data to support these claims. A more recent (2001) study by Dutch researchers has shown a 10% reduction in overall herbicide usage by farmers using Roundup Ready soybeans. Perhaps of more significance than the amount of herbicides being used is the type of product now being sprayed. The widespread use of Roundup replaces many applications of soil residual herbicides which have known detrimental environmental features. In over 25 years of continued widespread use in global agriculture only 3 published incidents of resistance to Roundup have been shown. The mode of action of this herbicide is unique and further resistance findings are expected to be rare despite the growing of Roundup Ready crops. Monsanto takes great care with the introduction of these new technologies to ensure the sustainability of the products. Farmers must adhere to strict herbicide usage procedures to ensure Roundup is not overused on a field in any one or subsequent years. 5. Roundup Ready canola in New Zealand Monsanto at no stage planned any commercial canola release in New Zealand. In 1999 there was initial planning to conduct an out of season trial as a seed increase for the Northern Hemisphere plantings. End of Monsanto's comment. So readers, you have two sides of the glyphosate argument. As mentioned before there is a lot more information on the Internet if you care to seek it out. If you come to believe that the product could be harmful to you then you are going to have to either grow your own food crops or purchase organically grown food. Wally Richard's web address is http://www.gardenews.co.nz -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
In article baf6fbe9c51d088907bb24812c5f0a5d@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote: Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea, numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic. For surfactant read detergent. Yes, you are quite correct drinking detergent is not a good idea and will make you feel ill. Ingesting anything with detergent in it will assist that substance in entering cells, so that is not controversial. None of it however proves that glyphosate is dangerous. This is crude guilt by association designed to impress the credulous. If you are so bloody sure that glyphosate is dangerous how about citing some scientific publications by all the researches (sic) you imply have done lots of work on it. What organs/tissues of the body does it target? What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:07:54 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote: In article baf6fbe9c51d088907bb24812c5f0a5d@TeraNews, Malcolm wrote: Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea, numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic. For surfactant read detergent. Yes, you are quite correct drinking detergent is not a good idea and will make you feel ill. Ingesting anything with detergent in it will assist that substance in entering cells, so that is not controversial. None of it however proves that glyphosate is dangerous. This is crude guilt by association designed to impress the credulous. If you are so bloody sure that glyphosate is dangerous how about citing some scientific publications by all the researches (sic) you imply have done lots of work on it. What organs/tissues of the body does it target? What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. Do you really need your hand holding, even at this age? You can lead a horse to water...........! -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
Peter Ashby writes
What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
On Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100, Oz
wrote: Peter Ashby writes What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. Non of which is borne out by the facts. millions of gallons are used throughout the world, and it is extremely toxic. I think I would prefer to trust those who do not have an "agenda" for it's use! rather than those who earn a living from cutting corners. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
In article ,
Oz wrote: Peter Ashby writes What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we humans aren't plants don't you think? Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile? Thankyou for an informative reply. 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
In article 83f87cbf26db3fd36877c726bb8e3504@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote: On Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100, Oz wrote: LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. Non of which is borne out by the facts. millions of gallons are used throughout the world, and it is extremely toxic. I think I would prefer to trust those who do not have an "agenda" for it's use! rather than those who earn a living from cutting corners. So the fact that it is very, very hard to eat enough glyphosate to kill you doesn't affect your faith in this 'dangerous substance'? In that case I have this wonderful product I would like to sell you, it protects you against that terribly toxic chemical dihydrogen monoxide. It's more toxic than glyphosate don't you know! It just so happens that I have some dehydrated water here sealed in a sterile container that I can let you have at a discounted price of £500 a vial. This once in a lifetime offer is only available to you for a short time only. Don't delay, you owe yourself and your loved ones the protection only this product can offer. 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:17:47 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote: In article , Oz wrote: Peter Ashby writes What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we humans aren't plants don't you think? Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile? Thankyou for an informative reply. The blind leading the blind. Almost sound like Monsanto salespeople. Should anyone require completed impartial information on any products www.google.com is a most valuable resource. Many thousands of pages on any subject you care, once you sift the one's who profit from selling us toxic substances, you'll then be left with the facts. see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...+health+hazard It really is quite good, ensures we cannot be baffled by bullshit. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:35:40 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote: In article 83f87cbf26db3fd36877c726bb8e3504@TeraNews, Malcolm wrote: On Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100, Oz wrote: LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. Non of which is borne out by the facts. millions of gallons are used throughout the world, and it is extremely toxic. I think I would prefer to trust those who do not have an "agenda" for it's use! rather than those who earn a living from cutting corners. So the fact that it is very, very hard to eat enough glyphosate to kill you doesn't affect your faith in this 'dangerous substance'? In that case I have this wonderful product I would like to sell you, it protects you against that terribly toxic chemical dihydrogen monoxide. It's more toxic than glyphosate don't you know! It just so happens that I have some dehydrated water here sealed in a sterile container that I can let you have at a discounted price of £500 a vial. This once in a lifetime offer is only available to you for a short time only. Don't delay, you owe yourself and your loved ones the protection only this product can offer. Why should we want to buy anything from someone who is obviously intent on pulling the wool over our eyes, in recommending glyphosate is safe! We're not as green as you are cabbage looking. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
"Malcolm" wrote in message news:4fef136dc4b780c4c396014978f06b97@TeraNews... On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:17:47 +0100, Peter Ashby wrote: In article , Oz wrote: Peter Ashby writes What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we humans aren't plants don't you think? Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile? Thankyou for an informative reply. The blind leading the blind. Almost sound like Monsanto salespeople. Should anyone require completed impartial information on any products www.google.com is a most valuable resource. Many thousands of pages on any subject you care, once you sift the one's who profit from selling us toxic substances, you'll then be left with the facts. God Damn - those it call my frickin weeds are not? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:53:12 +0100, "jd" wrote:
"Malcolm" wrote in message news:4fef136dc4b780c4c396014978f06b97@TeraNews. .. On Fri, 16 May 2003 12:17:47 +0100, Peter Ashby wrote: In article , Oz wrote: Peter Ashby writes What is the lethal dose? remembering that water has an LD50 too. What is its mode of action, what enzymes does it inhibit? or maybe it induces dominant postitives? You are so bloody sure it is nasty you must have this information to hand. Surely. LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note folks that is neat glyphosate, not Roundup. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we humans aren't plants don't you think? Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile? Thankyou for an informative reply. The blind leading the blind. Almost sound like Monsanto salespeople. Should anyone require completed impartial information on any products www.google.com is a most valuable resource. Many thousands of pages on any subject you care, once you sift the one's who profit from selling us toxic substances, you'll then be left with the facts. God Damn - those it call my frickin weeds are not? Ha ha. That it will, just don't spray it anywhere near things you eat, or anything else eats. -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
Peter Ashby writes
Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we humans aren't plants don't you think? Indeed so. To get an analogy, if plants wished to produce a highly specific pesticide for mammals then they might choose one that quickly and rapidly destroys haemoglobin. Nobody would be surprised if the toxin didn't affect plants, as they have no haemoglobin. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile? The book doesn't say, just says 'glyphosate is rapidly excreted by mammals'. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
On Fri, 16 May 2003 13:47:05 +0100, Oz
wrote: Peter Ashby writes Yup, less toxic than water when diluted as spray. Might be because we humans aren't plants don't you think? Indeed so. To get an analogy, if plants wished to produce a highly specific pesticide for mammals then they might choose one that quickly and rapidly destroys haemoglobin. Nobody would be surprised if the toxin didn't affect plants, as they have no haemoglobin. " less toxic than water when diluted as spray" just how gullible can one get? -- So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate? I understand. /´¯/) /¯../ /..../ /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ /'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') \.................'...../ ''...\.......... _.·´ \..............( \.............\.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
Oz writes
Peter Ashby writes That too is interesting, wonder what pathway it slots into for that to happen. Is it excreted by the kidneys or into bile? The book doesn't say, just says 'glyphosate is rapidly excreted by mammals'. NB It's (very) water soluble so I would expect kidneys being the preferred route. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is Glyphosate weed killer safe??
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
the glyphosate is safe enough to drink myth | Edible Gardening | |||
Weed Killer and Ant Killer that is dog friendly | Lawns | |||
Help, weed name? Best weed killer? | Gardening | |||
Pet Safe slug killer???? | Gardening | |||
The dangers of weed killers - Glyphosate aka Roundup, the hidden killer. | United Kingdom |