|
Glyphosate & its side effects
See the full story
http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html Aquatic Effects Seston is particulate matter of organic origin suspended in water, usually detritus from surrounding bush and forest. It adsorbs glyphosate much more readily than soil particles. However, this adsorption can complex the chemical so that it can move into the aquatic environment by erosion. This changes the effect of the compound on aquatic organisms and it can alter the rate of chemical and biological degradation. Several studies have been done on aquatic organisms. However, low concentrations of chemicals in the aqueous environment often can be excreted by most aquatic organisms without adverse effect to either themselves or the community in which they live. For these reasons, in these studies, it becomes difficult to interpret the data. In general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Evidence of the combined effect of glyphosate and the surfactant showed an increasing effect to sockeye salmon, rainbow trout and coho salmon. The investigators reported a 4.8 fold increase in LC50 (for Roundup) as pH decreased from 7.5 to 6.5. The surfactant was tested separately from glyphosate and found to be much more toxic than glyphosate itself and even more toxic when combined. Fish, amphibians and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to glyphosate due to differences in toxicity between the salts and the surfactants used in glyphosate-containing products. The toxicity is increased with higher water temperatures, higher concentration and pH. This toxicity can have a devastating effect on endangered species. In Australia, guidelines state that most glyphosate-containing products should not be used in or near water because of their toxic effects on all aquatic species. Studies conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in South West Australia in 1995 showed that tadpoles (which respire with gills) were more sensitive to the full formulation than adult frogs. The tadpoles were also considerably more sensitive to the formulation of Roundup 360 than to technical grade glyphosate. Some surfactants affect aquatic organisms by damaging the gill membrane. Frogs and other aquatic organisms are exposed to herbicides through runoff or overspray from treated areas adjacent to wetlands. LC50 values for adult frogs in shallow water indicate there may be little difference between lethal and non-lethal concentrations. Fish - Both glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to fish. However, glyphosate alone is less toxic than the glyphosate product such as Roundup. Other glyphosate-containing products have intermediate toxicity. The surfactant in Roundup causes toxicity to fish and it is about 30 times more toxic to fish than glyphosate itself. Acute toxicities of glyphosate alone varies. The median lethal concentration (LD50) ranges from 10ppm to over 1000ppm have been reported depending on the types of fish and test conditions. Acute toxicities of glyphosate-containing products such as Roundup to fish range from an LC50 of 52ppm. However, there are factors that are important in determining the toxicity of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing products to fish. They include; Different species of fish have different susceptibilities. For example, pink or chum salmon are less tolerant of glyphosate than coho and chinook salmon. Water quality. Glyphosate is 20 times more toxic to rainbow trout in soft water than is glyphosate in hard water. Age. Juveniles are often more susceptible than adults. For example, Roundup is 4 times more toxic to rainbow trout fry and fingerlings than it is to larger fish. Nutrition/diet. Hungry fishes are more susceptible to glyphosate than fed fish. Glyphosate toxicity increases with increasing water temperature, pH and concentration. For example, the toxicity of both rainbow trout and bluegills increased with increasing temperature. Roundup was twice as toxic to rainbow trout at 17?C than at 7?C. Roundup was more toxic to both rainbow trout and bluegills at higher pH and even more so if pH exceeds 7.5. Human Effects As with all mammals and aquatic organisms, glyphosate obviously affects humans. Humans do not normally suffer acute toxicity from glyphosate, however acute toxicity was first widely publicised by physicians in Japan who studied 56 cases of Roundup poisoning. Many of the cases were suicides. Symptoms showed in humans were gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, excess fluid in the lungs, pneumonia, clouding of consciousness and destruction of red blood cells. The mean calculated in these cases was more than 200 millilitres (about ? of a cup). It was believed that the surfactant in the product Roundup caused the toxicity. There were also similar symptoms found such as lung congestion or dysfunction, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract, abnormal electrocardiograms, massive gastrointestinal fluid loss, low blood pressure and kidney damage or failure. However, these are caused by larger amounts of Roundup. Smaller amounts of Roundup or glyphosate-containing products also cause less lethal effects. Most incidents reported in humans have involved skin or eye irritation. These are general cases and are mainly confined to farmers or agricultural workers and especially manufacturers’ workers. Nausea and dizziness have also been reported after exposure. Swallowing the Roundup formulation caused mouth and throat irritation, vomiting, low blood pressure, pain in the abdomen, and reduced urine output. The amount swallowed was about 100 millilitres (about ? a cup). The most important ways that people come in contact with glyphosate are through work place exposure, eating of contaminated food, exposure caused by off-target movement following application (drift), contact with contaminated soil and drinking or bathing in contaminated water. Conclusion Glyphosate-containing products can be effective tools in weed control programs. However, they are acutely toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms as well as to humans. Laboratory studies have identified effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing. When glyphosate is added to the environment, a chain of contamination is effected in all parts of the environment including soil-water effects, ecological effects and human health effects. Results of environmental fate studies clearly indicate that if glyphosate is bound to soil particles it can have serious effects on the environment because microbial activity is unable to biodegrade it. Since glyphosate is being marketed as a safe environmentally friendly product, there is a danger to non-target plants as well as endangered plants and animal species. Habitat damage and destruction will increase and food crops will be put at risk. Glyphosate can be seriously detrimental to all living organisms. Most importantly, all herbicide users should be aware of the environmental effects involved. Bibliography/Reference Agriculture Canada. Food Production and Inspection Branch, Pesticides Directorate. 1991. Discussion document: Pre-harvest use of glyphosate. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (November 27). Bidwell, J.R. and Gorrie, J.R. (June 1995), Acute Toxicity of Herbicide to selected frog species: final report. Technical Series: 79, Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection, Perth. Brust, G.E. 1990. Direct and indirect effects of four herbicides on the activity of carabid beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae). Pestic. Sci. 30:309-320. Buhl K.J. and Faerber, N.L. 1989. Acute toxicities of selected herbicides and surfactants to larvae of the midge Chironomus riparius. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18:530-536. Cornell University, “Glyphosate”, 2001, http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...osate-ext.html (Accessed 4 July 2001). Cox, Caroline. 1995, Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology and Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects, Journal of Pesticide Reform, Vol 15, no. 3 and no. 4. Folmar, L.C., Sanders, H.O. and Julin A.M. 1979. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:269-278. Franz, J.E., (1997), Glyphosate — A Unique Global Herbicide, American Chemcial Society, Washington D.C. Greenpeace. “factsheets — Glyphosate Fact Sheet”, April 1997, http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/f...hosatetext.htm (Accessed 7 July 2001). Hassan, S.A. et al. 1988. Results of the fourth joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS - Working group “Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms”. J. Appl. Ent. 105:321-329. Holdway, D.A and Dixon, D.G. 1988. Acute toxicity of permethrin or glyphosate pulse exposure to larral white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and juvenile flagfish (Jordanella floridae) as modified by age and ration level. Eviron. Toxical. Chem, 7:63-68. Kearney, P.C. 1988. Herbicides. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York. Knight, S. “Herbicide Bibliography”, Glyphosate, Roundup and other herbicides - an annoted bibliography, January 1997, http://www.powerlink.net/fen/herb.htm (Accessed 7 July 2001). Levesque, C.A. and Rahe, J.E. (1992), Herbicide interactions with fungal root pathogens, with special reference to glyphosate. Annual Review of Phytopathology v.30 (1992) p.579-602. MacKinnon, D.S. and Freedman, B. 1993. Effects of silvicultural use of the herbicide glyphosate on breeding birds of regenerating clearcuts in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Appl. Ecol. 30(3):395-406. Pesticides Trust, “Glyphosate”, Pesticides News (issues No.33, September 1996), http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/glyphosa.htm (Accessed 4 July 2001). Piccolo, A. et al (1994), Adsorption and desorption of glyphosate in some European soils. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, part B, v.29, pp.1105-1115. Author not mentioned, “ Round up”, 19 November 1997, http://csf.colorado.edu/northwest/nw.../msg00923.html (Accessed 7 July 2001). Sawada, Y., Nagai, Y., Ueyama, M., and Yamamoto, I. 1988. Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate. Lancet 1(8580):299. Servizi, J.A., Gordon, R.W., and Martens, D.W. 1987. Acute toxcity of Garlon 4 and Roundup herbicides to salmon, Daphnia, and trout. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:15-22. Talbot, A.R. et al. 1991. Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): A review of 93 cases. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10: 1-8. Temple, W.A. and Smith, N.A. 1992. Glyphosate herbicide poisoning experience in New Zealand. N.Z. Med. J. 105:173-174. Tominack, R.L. et al. 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center: Survey of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. Clin. Toxicol. 29(1): 91-109. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. National Institutes of Health. NTP technical report on toxicity studies of glyphosate (eas No. 1071-83-6) administered in dosed feed to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. (NIH Publication 92-3135). Toxicity Reports Series No. 16. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances. 1985. Glyphosate; EPA Reg. #524-308; Mouse Oncogenicity Study. Washington, D.C. (April 3). U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1986. Guidance for the reregistration of pesticide products containing glyphosate. Washington D.C (June). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Consumer Factsheet on: Glyphosate”, Main Line News. 1998, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MainLi...age/13040.html (Accessed 7 July 2001). U.S Forest Service Contract, “Glyphosate-Pesticide Fact Sheet”, Information Ventures, Inc, November 1995, http://www.infoventures.com/e-hlth/p...e/glyphos.html ( Accessed 4 July 2001). Wan, M.T., Watts, R.G. and Moul, D.J. 1989. Effects of different dilution water types on the acute toxicity to juvenile pacific salmonids and rainbow trout of glyphosate and its formulated products. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:378-385. Wan, M.T, Watts, R.G. and Moul, D.J. 1991. Acute toxicity to juvenile Pacific Northwest Salmonids of Basacid Blue NB755 and its mixture with formulated products of 2,4-D, glyphosate and triclopyr. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47:471-478. World Health Organisation, United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation. 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria #159. Geneva , Switzerland. Yousef, M.I. et al (1995), Toxic effects of carbofuran and glyphosate on semen characteristics in rabbits. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, part B. v. 30p.513-534. |
Glyphosate & its side effects
In article m,
"" wrote: Several studies have been done on aquatic organisms. However, low concentrations of chemicals in the aqueous environment often can be excreted by most aquatic organisms without adverse effect to either themselves or the community in which they live. For these reasons, in these studies, it becomes difficult to interpret the data. In general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Evidence of the combined effect of glyphosate and the surfactant showed an increasing effect to sockeye salmon, rainbow trout and coho salmon. The investigators reported a 4.8 fold increase in LC50 (for Roundup) as pH decreased from 7.5 to 6.5. The surfactant was tested separately from glyphosate and found to be much more toxic than glyphosate itself and even more toxic when combined. Read that, think about it. Particularly the third sentence. Then if you still don't understand the question we can talk about it. This is not an answer to the original question. It may be a reason to look for lower toxicity detergents for use with herbicides, but it is not an argument against herbicides. If you carry this to its logical conclusion we should be boycotting Unilever for all that dishwashing detergent it sells to consumers unaware of the incipient environmental dangers. After all, a good scouring with sand can get dishes clean. But of course universal replacement of detergents with sand scouring would cause unacceptable pressure on sources of sand. Oh, the dilemmas of modern life..... 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. |
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:54:29 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote: In article m, "" wrote: Several studies have been done on aquatic organisms. However, low concentrations of chemicals in the aqueous environment often can be excreted by most aquatic organisms without adverse effect to either themselves or the community in which they live. For these reasons, in these studies, it becomes difficult to interpret the data. In general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Evidence of the combined effect of glyphosate and the surfactant showed an increasing effect to sockeye salmon, rainbow trout and coho salmon. The investigators reported a 4.8 fold increase in LC50 (for Roundup) as pH decreased from 7.5 to 6.5. The surfactant was tested separately from glyphosate and found to be much more toxic than glyphosate itself and even more toxic when combined. Read that, think about it. Particularly the third sentence. Then if you still don't understand the question we can talk about it. This is not an answer to the original question. It may be a reason to look for lower toxicity detergents for use with herbicides, but it is not an argument against herbicides. I'd rather not play with words, risk my life playing Russian Roulette. the world can live without glyphosate thanks. If you carry this to its logical conclusion we should be boycotting Unilever for all that dishwashing detergent it sells to consumers unaware of the incipient environmental dangers. Many of us already do boycott unilever and other companies who are destroying the planet. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uni...-8&hl=en&meta= After all, a good scouring with sand can get dishes clean. But of course universal replacement of detergents with sand scouring would cause unacceptable pressure on sources of sand. Oh, the dilemmas of modern life..... Not really. 99% of cleaning can be done without poisoning the planet with highly toxic, noxious substances. You might be a fairy fan, I'm not. You may not care about a future for the kids, thankfully some of us do. Ignorance is bliss huh? |
Glyphosate & its side effects
wrote in message s.com... [Snip] I'd rather not play with words, risk my life playing Russian Roulette. the world can live without glyphosate thanks. I am surprised that you risk sitting in frony of a computer. Did you know that high energy electrons suddenly brought to rest by striking an object emit X-Rays? Did you know that there is an intense electron beam in your monitor which initiates X-Rays travelling more or less directly at you? I am surprised that you use electricity at all, considering that there are those of your ilk who think weak EM fields are harmful. I am surprised that you use a mobile, considering that there are Radiofre1quency fields associated with mobiles. I am surprised that you would sit in front of a coal or a wood fire, considering that both these emit more radioactive contamination into the atmosphere (per useful Kwh) than a nuclear power station. I am surprised that you appear not to be aware of the carcinogens emitted by coal and wood fires. To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
wrote in message s.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html Aquatic Effects Seston is particulate matter of organic origin suspended in water, usually detritus from surrounding bush and forest. It adsorbs glyphosate much more readily than soil particles. However, this adsorption can complex the chemical so that it can move into the aquatic environment by erosion. This changes the effect of the compound on aquatic organisms and it can alter the rate of chemical and biological degradation. Several studies have been done on aquatic organisms. So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. However, low concentrations of chemicals in the aqueous environment often can be excreted by most aquatic organisms without adverse effect to either themselves or the community in which they live. For these reasons, in these studies, it becomes difficult to interpret the data. In general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: wrote in message ws.com... [Snip] I'd rather not play with words, risk my life playing Russian Roulette. the world can live without glyphosate thanks. I am surprised that you risk sitting in frony of a computer. Did you know that high energy electrons suddenly brought to rest by striking an object emit X-Rays? Did you know that there is an intense electron beam in your monitor which initiates X-Rays travelling more or less directly at you? What I do to myself, whilst not affecting other species or environments is my choice. I'd rather live in a cave, but I enjoy taking the **** out of saunby too much. I am surprised that you use electricity at all, considering that there are those of your ilk who think weak EM fields are harmful. They are, but once again if I self harm, my choice. I am surprised that you use a mobile, considering that there are Radiofre1quency fields associated with mobiles. Well there you go. I am surprised that you would sit in front of a coal or a wood fire, considering that both these emit more radioactive contamination into the atmosphere (per useful Kwh) than a nuclear power station. Crap. I am surprised that you appear not to be aware of the carcinogens emitted by coal and wood fires. I am. To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. No Fritz, you're the clueless prick who doesn't mind making other species suffer. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. It's not spam, it's education. You're learning fritz. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:08:11 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: wrote in message ws.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html Aquatic Effects Seston is particulate matter of organic origin suspended in water, usually detritus from surrounding bush and forest. It adsorbs glyphosate much more readily than soil particles. However, this adsorption can complex the chemical so that it can move into the aquatic environment by erosion. This changes the effect of the compound on aquatic organisms and it can alter the rate of chemical and biological degradation. Several studies have been done on aquatic organisms. So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. Fritz, you're thicker than a devon toffee, can you actually read? However, low concentrations of chemicals in the aqueous environment often can be excreted by most aquatic organisms without adverse effect to either themselves or the community in which they live. For these reasons, in these studies, it becomes difficult to interpret the data. In general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Poor Fritz, no wonder you lost the war. can I talk about the war now? . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
Glyphosate & its side effects
|
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:25:03 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote: In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. Franz Oh! The light has suddenly dawned. I read "glycophosphate" for "glyphosphate" and really couldn't see the connection with my weak knees - I take 1g of sodium glycophosphate a day and am pretty sure it's helping. How many shorts you had with that? . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Peter wrote in message replying to "Pete the AR fundementalist's" usual type of crossposted OT post ... (snipped) .. After all, a good scouring with sand can get dishes clean. But of course universal replacement of detergents with sand scouring would cause unacceptable pressure on sources of sand. Oh, the dilemmas of modern life..... Well in certain parts of Nepal the women come out after a good downpour and scrub their dishes and pots with the black mud at the bottom of the (now scoured) open sewer. Gets them nice and shiny. I know, I've seen it happen. Eat anything at your peril. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
Glyphosate & its side effects
In message m, ""
writes On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:54:29 +0100, Peter Ashby wrote: In article m, "" wrote: general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Which parts of these sentences do you NOT understand ? The surfactant was tested separately from glyphosate and found to be much more toxic than glyphosate itself and even more toxic when combined. The serious problem is not with the glyphosate but with the wetting agents. Pure glyphosate has roughly about the same toxicity in humans as the caffeine in coffee. Read that, think about it. Particularly the third sentence. Then if you still don't understand the question we can talk about it. This is not an answer to the original question. It may be a reason to look for lower toxicity detergents for use with herbicides, but it is not an argument against herbicides. I'd rather not play with words, risk my life playing Russian Roulette. the world can live without glyphosate thanks. It could live without car washes and dishwashing machines too. And they probably cause a lot more environmental damage by using similarly vicious surfactants. And discharging straight into the foul water drains every day. [Troller's long newsgroup list trimmed somewhat] Regards, -- Martin Brown |
Glyphosate & its side effects
In article , Bob Hobden
writes "Peter wrote in message replying to "Pete the AR fundementalist's" usual type of crossposted OT post ... (snipped) . After all, a good scouring with sand can get dishes clean. But of course universal replacement of detergents with sand scouring would cause unacceptable pressure on sources of sand. Oh, the dilemmas of modern life..... Well in certain parts of Nepal the women come out after a good downpour and scrub their dishes and pots with the black mud at the bottom of the (now scoured) open sewer. Gets them nice and shiny. I know, I've seen it happen. Eat anything at your peril. :-) But then by the time the dahl bhaat has boiled long enough to get cooked, any bugs will be well cooked as well. ;-) -- Surfer! If you really want to send me email then use: five_cats at uk2 dot net |
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:47:14 +0100, Martin Brown
strolled along and threw his dollies from the pram when he wrote: In message m, "" writes On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:54:29 +0100, Peter Ashby wrote: In article m, "" wrote: general, several studies reported that the increased toxicity of Roundup is due to the surfactant (MON 0818) present in the formulation. Which parts of these sentences do you NOT understand ? The surfactant was tested separately from glyphosate and found to be much more toxic than glyphosate itself and even more toxic when combined. The serious problem is not with the glyphosate but with the wetting agents. No, the serious problem is glyphosate and whatever it contains as a package, not individual components DUH, when you buy glyphosate do you get the option of not using the wetting agents? no you don't dimbulb, so why are you splitting it up! Pure glyphosate has roughly about the same toxicity in humans as the caffeine in coffee. Pure bullshit. Read that, think about it. Particularly the third sentence. Then if you still don't understand the question we can talk about it. This is not an answer to the original question. It may be a reason to look for lower toxicity detergents for use with herbicides, but it is not an argument against herbicides. I'd rather not play with words, risk my life playing Russian Roulette. the world can live without glyphosate thanks. It could live without car washes and dishwashing machines too. And they probably cause a lot more environmental damage by using similarly vicious surfactants. And discharging straight into the foul water drains every day. More bullshit. [Troller's long newsgroup list trimmed somewhat] Ask before you edit someone else's posts trollshit. Trimming put right back where it belongs. Regards, Up yours too. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Bernard Hill" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. Franz Oh! The light has suddenly dawned. I read "glycophosphate" for "glyphosphate" and really couldn't see the connection with my weak knees - I take 1g of sodium glycophosphate a day and am pretty sure it's helping. The word is "Glyphosate", in spite of what you think. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Bernard Hill" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. Franz Oh! The light has suddenly dawned. I read "glycophosphate" for "glyphosphate" and really couldn't see the connection with my weak knees - I take 1g of sodium glycophosphate a day and am pretty sure it's helping. The word is "Glyphosate", in spite of what you think. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
In article , Bernard Hill
writes In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. Franz Oh! The light has suddenly dawned. I read "glycophosphate" for "glyphosphate" and really couldn't see the connection with my weak knees - I take 1g of sodium glycophosphate a day and am pretty sure it's helping. Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland Abort that stupid message. It's glucosamine I take. Nothing like what I said. And glucosamine sulphate at that. Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland |
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:34:31 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote: In article , Bernard Hill writes In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes To be blunt: You have not a clue what is what in the world. And quit spamming your nonsense to half the newsgroups in the world. Franz Oh! The light has suddenly dawned. I read "glycophosphate" for "glyphosphate" and really couldn't see the connection with my weak knees - I take 1g of sodium glycophosphate a day and am pretty sure it's helping. Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland Abort that stupid message. It made more sense than most of the rest of the thread! -- Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: http://www.justgiving.com/london2004 |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
wrote in message s.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html SNIP So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. .. Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Franz Franz, You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. This is without all the other bad logic you are using. -- Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/ "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog National Nature Reserve |
Glyphosate & its side effects
" wrote:
Read that, think about it. Particularly the third sentence. Then if you still don't understand the question we can talk about it. This is not an answer to the original question. It may be a reason to look for lower toxicity detergents for use with herbicides, but it is not an argument against herbicides. I'd rather not play with words, risk my life playing Russian Roulette. the world can live without glyphosate thanks. Tell that to the New Zealand dept of Conservation (DoC), they use it to control invasive exotic species which threatent to take over sensitive habitats. It is most useful because replanting with native varieties is not inhibited. Peter |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Neil Jones" wrote in message m... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... wrote in message s.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html SNIP So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. . Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Franz Franz, You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. This is without all the other bad logic you are using. Let me have some samples. If a agree that the logic was bad, I would admit it without further ado. For normal horticultural purposes, glyphosate is inactivated when it enters the soil. I have for a number of decades used glyphosate in my garden in order to kill, for example, giant hogweed, nettles and dandelions which have come up in the midst of garden plants. I have lost all the weeds and none of the garden plants, in spite of the fact that a goodly fraction of the applied glyphosate must have found its way into the soil. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Neil Jones" wrote in message m... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... wrote in message s.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html SNIP So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. . Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Franz Franz, You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. This is without all the other bad logic you are using. Let me have some samples. If a agree that the logic was bad, I would admit it without further ado. For normal horticultural purposes, glyphosate is inactivated when it enters the soil. I have for a number of decades used glyphosate in my garden in order to kill, for example, giant hogweed, nettles and dandelions which have come up in the midst of garden plants. I have lost all the weeds and none of the garden plants, in spite of the fact that a goodly fraction of the applied glyphosate must have found its way into the soil. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Neil Jones" wrote in message m... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... wrote in message s.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html SNIP So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. . Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Franz Franz, You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. This is without all the other bad logic you are using. Let me have some samples. If a agree that the logic was bad, I would admit it without further ado. For normal horticultural purposes, glyphosate is inactivated when it enters the soil. I have for a number of decades used glyphosate in my garden in order to kill, for example, giant hogweed, nettles and dandelions which have come up in the midst of garden plants. I have lost all the weeds and none of the garden plants, in spite of the fact that a goodly fraction of the applied glyphosate must have found its way into the soil. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Neil Jones" wrote in message m... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... wrote in message s.com... See the full story http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosb.html SNIP So what? Roundup is supposed to be used as a herbicide *on land*. How is it supposed to get into the water? Remember that it is deactivated mighty quickly when it gets into the soil. . Would that be the same surfactant which is used in washing liquids? [snip] How long did it take you to copy that from wherever you found it. What on earth does that gaebage have to do with thre use of glyphosate as a herbicide on terrestrial plants? You must be truly short of a case if you have had to resort to copying all that here. Franz Franz, You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. This is without all the other bad logic you are using. Let me have some samples. If a agree that the logic was bad, I would admit it without further ado. For normal horticultural purposes, glyphosate is inactivated when it enters the soil. I have for a number of decades used glyphosate in my garden in order to kill, for example, giant hogweed, nettles and dandelions which have come up in the midst of garden plants. I have lost all the weeds and none of the garden plants, in spite of the fact that a goodly fraction of the applied glyphosate must have found its way into the soil. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
In message , Neil Jones
writes You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst there are some "soils" where glyphosate is not immediately bound up. They are in general so utterly infertile that you aren't likely to be using weedkiller on them in the first place. Glyphosate and for that matter several other common weedkillers are very tightly bound to clays and/or organic material in soils on first contact and so physically deactivated. The destruction of the molecule takes longer but the stuff is very effectively tied up on hitting the ground. It *has* to hit green plant material to work. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. Likewise. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
Glyphosate & its side effects
Martin Brown wrote:
In message , Neil Jones writes You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst there are some "soils" where glyphosate is not immediately bound up. They are in general so utterly infertile that you aren't likely to be using weedkiller on them in the first place. Glyphosate and for that matter several other common weedkillers are very tightly bound to clays and/or organic material in soils on first contact and so physically deactivated. The destruction of the molecule takes longer but the stuff is very effectively tied up on hitting the ground. I am afraid you are quite wrong on your science. You appear not to have a proper understanding of the processes involved. If it were to be as tightly bound as you claim then id would not be degrated. Basically it appears that it is bound rather as phosphate is by adsorption onto the surface of certain materials. In fact it pops on and off and the soil doesn't have to be that poor for a diminution of growth to be observed. This is what just one study says. " Although glyphosate is commonly thought to exhibit no residual activity, recent field work with tomatoes has shown that phytoactive residues can persist, at least in sandy soils. Adsorption may also be low, and phytoactivity high, in soils with a low unoccupied P-sorption capacity. This paper reports experiments designed to re-assess the threat of glyphosate residues to crop plants. http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/19...636cornish.htm So it may depend on the amount of phosphate present. Very fertile soils may have a lot and therefore it is not adsorbed. It *has* to hit green plant material to work. You keep going on about green plants as if this is something significant. You said previously, "It is extremely specific to green plants that are conducting photosynthesis." I think this demonstrates that you don't understand the issue. Glyphosate or N-phosphonomethylglycine, to give its chemical name, does not have a direct effect on photosynthesis and also affects other non-photosynthetic organisms. N-phosphonomethylglycine works by blocking the action of an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase which catalyses an imporant step in the production of amino acids. This metabolic pathway is NOT exclusive to photosythetic organisms and occurs in a wide range of other creatures. For example it does occur in the bug that causes malaria. I certainly cannot judge the validity of whether Glyphosate is safe or not on what you are saying. Whilst I don't necessarily concur with the original posters conclusion, It is not a good idea for you to poke fun and call people clueless when you post things which, to me at any rate, look as if it is YOU who does not understand the processes at work. Likewise. Regards, -- Martin Brown -- Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/ "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog National Nature Reserve |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Neil Jones" wrote in message ... Martin Brown wrote: In message , Neil Jones writes You are being hoisted on your own petard. You continually repeat a statement which is OBVIOUSLY not truthfull. Glyphosate is not necessarily inactivated on contact with soil. There are several studies which show this and I have posted references before. You don't need studies to show this because it is an OBVIOUS conclusion from the nature of the chemistry involved. Whilst there are some "soils" where glyphosate is not immediately bound up. They are in general so utterly infertile that you aren't likely to be using weedkiller on them in the first place. Glyphosate and for that matter several other common weedkillers are very tightly bound to clays and/or organic material in soils on first contact and so physically deactivated. The destruction of the molecule takes longer but the stuff is very effectively tied up on hitting the ground. I am afraid you are quite wrong on your science. You appear not to have a proper understanding of the processes involved. If it were to be as tightly bound as you claim then id would not be degrated. Basically it appears that it is bound rather as phosphate is by adsorption onto the surface of certain materials. In fact it pops on and off and the soil doesn't have to be that poor for a diminution of growth to be observed. This is what just one study says. " Although glyphosate is commonly thought to exhibit no residual activity, recent field work with tomatoes has shown that phytoactive residues can persist, at least in sandy soils. Adsorption may also be low, and phytoactivity high, in soils with a low unoccupied P-sorption capacity. This paper reports experiments designed to re-assess the threat of glyphosate residues to crop plants. http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/19...636cornish.htm So it may depend on the amount of phosphate present. Very fertile soils may have a lot and therefore it is not adsorbed. I bet the effect was at a trivial level, otherwise, since glyphosate is used on a truly vast scale, its deleterious effects would have made themselves visible on a macroscopic scale, via, for example, reduced crop sizes. [snip] Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote: So it may depend on the amount of phosphate present. Very fertile soils may have a lot and therefore it is not adsorbed. I bet the effect was at a trivial level, otherwise, since glyphosate is used on a truly vast scale, its deleterious effects would have made themselves visible on a macroscopic scale, via, for example, reduced crop sizes. I remember using glyphosate (Roundup) to kill a nasty lawn, after the grass was dead I simply raked the soil, no new soil added, and re sowed with dwarf ryegrass. Apart from needing to scare the birds we had no problems. At the time we lived 300m from the sea on a reclaimed salt marsh that had been market gardens. So very fertile, highly sandy soil. If glyphosate was as persistant as claimed under such circumstances why did my new lawn come up fine? 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. |
Glyphosate & its side effects
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:41:21 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote: In article , "Franz Heymann" wrote: So it may depend on the amount of phosphate present. Very fertile soils may have a lot and therefore it is not adsorbed. I bet the effect was at a trivial level, otherwise, since glyphosate is used on a truly vast scale, its deleterious effects would have made themselves visible on a macroscopic scale, via, for example, reduced crop sizes. I remember using glyphosate (Roundup) to kill a nasty lawn, after the grass was dead I simply raked the soil, no new soil added, and re sowed with dwarf ryegrass. Apart from needing to scare the birds we had no problems. At the time we lived 300m from the sea on a reclaimed salt marsh that had been market gardens. So very fertile, highly sandy soil. If glyphosate was as persistant as claimed under such circumstances why did my new lawn come up fine? Peter What a stupid, pathetic, completely illogical argument to support your nonsense cause. I once knew a nip who argued the same for the bomb on Hiroshima. Today Hiroshima LOOKS a fine city, he thinks bombs are now necessary to build fine cities. Needless to say the original bomb obviously affected his marbles, glyphosate has obviously affected yours. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
Glyphosate & its side effects
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... In article , "Franz Heymann" wrote: So it may depend on the amount of phosphate present. Very fertile soils may have a lot and therefore it is not adsorbed. I bet the effect was at a trivial level, otherwise, since glyphosate is used on a truly vast scale, its deleterious effects would have made themselves visible on a macroscopic scale, via, for example, reduced crop sizes. I remember using glyphosate (Roundup) to kill a nasty lawn, after the grass was dead I simply raked the soil, no new soil added, and re sowed with dwarf ryegrass. Apart from needing to scare the birds we had no problems. At the time we lived 300m from the sea on a reclaimed salt marsh that had been market gardens. So very fertile, highly sandy soil. If glyphosate was as persistant as claimed under such circumstances why did my new lawn come up fine? Almost ditto: I used to live on the Bagshot sand. I killed a has-been lawn with two applications of glyphosate and raked up the dry stuff after some weeks. I immediately resowed the patch, without even attempting to cultivate the soil. Within a few months I had a luxurious new lawn. ( I did start feeding it after it had got off to a start). I simply cannot understand why folk continue to bring up negligible second order effects ascribable to the use of glyphosate, except if they do it in order to grind axes. Franz |
Glyphosate & its side effects
Quote:
The soil must have been saturated wtih glyphosate, but I managed to get grass seed germinating there within two months. Also, the edge was so sharp and visible I'm convinced it only killed the grass it touched and did not leach in to the ground killing plants via their roots. However, in comparison I have a few dead patches in the lawn over a year old where my 'helpful' step dad sprinkled a little salt on the slugs to kill them. No ammount of grass seed or watering to wash the salt down below the root level will revive these patchs. I'm going to have to dig them out with a trowl and discard the soil as it's useless and toxic to plants. In summary, four pints of glyphosate proved less toxic to my lawn than a teaspoon (perhaps desert spoon if you want to be generous with the estimate) of table salt. I suspect the adversion to these products is more psychological than scientific because people assume something sold to kill plants/bugs/rodents must be really toxic and full of bad chemicals. Bizarely, those fear inspiring lables with skull and cross-bone symbols and warnings in huge red lettering have to be on weed killers regardless of what's in then, in fact if I was to mix vinegar and salt from my kitchen cupboard with water and sell it as weed killer I would have to by law put one of those lables on it, even though you could safely eat it on chips! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter