I have to say how impressed I am with the new containers of Roundup. The
Initial plastic sprayer and container will cost more that undiluted
stuff but once you've used up what's in there you cam mix your own.
It's a largish plastic holder with a long plastic tube that goes through
the cap and at the other end is a gun with a pull back plunger,

In essence what you have to do is pull back the plunger very slowly
which loads the gun with a quantity of the roundup weedkiller and then
you can manually spray quite a large area before the plunger is sucked
back down to the gun, whereupon you can start all over again.

No pumping up incessantly to create vacuum, not pouring out various
amounts of mix.

I've found it really handy and so thought I'd tell you
A sensible configuration so must have been invented by some female
input.......................
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:31:34 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

I have to say how impressed I am with the new containers of Roundup. The
Initial plastic sprayer and container will cost more that undiluted
stuff but once you've used up what's in there you cam mix your own.
It's a largish plastic holder with a long plastic tube that goes through
the cap and at the other end is a gun with a pull back plunger,

In essence what you have to do is pull back the plunger very slowly
which loads the gun with a quantity of the roundup weedkiller and then
you can manually spray quite a large area before the plunger is sucked
back down to the gun, whereupon you can start all over again.

No pumping up incessantly to create vacuum, not pouring out various
amounts of mix.

I've found it really handy and so thought I'd tell you
A sensible configuration so must have been invented by some female
input.......................

Far better not to use it at all, cheaper and saves the planet, plus
the excercise weeding helps get rid of the lard arses.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:08:25 GMT, (Paula) wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:31:34 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

I have to say how impressed I am with the new containers of Roundup. The
Initial plastic sprayer and container will cost more that undiluted
stuff but once you've used up what's in there you cam mix your own.
It's a largish plastic holder with a long plastic tube that goes through
the cap and at the other end is a gun with a pull back plunger,

In essence what you have to do is pull back the plunger very slowly
which loads the gun with a quantity of the roundup weedkiller and then
you can manually spray quite a large area before the plunger is sucked
back down to the gun, whereupon you can start all over again.

No pumping up incessantly to create vacuum, not pouring out various
amounts of mix.

I've found it really handy and so thought I'd tell you
A sensible configuration so must have been invented by some female
input.......................

Far better not to use it at all, cheaper and saves the planet, plus
the excercise weeding helps get rid of the lard arses.


What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?

In article , Jupiter
writes
What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?



Well it's the only thing that nearly controls the ground elder that is
growing in from next door. I can't dig it all out as the main part is in
their overgrown flower beds.

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:46:05 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:08:25 GMT, (Paula) wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:31:34 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

I have to say how impressed I am with the new containers of Roundup. The
Initial plastic sprayer and container will cost more that undiluted
stuff but once you've used up what's in there you cam mix your own.
It's a largish plastic holder with a long plastic tube that goes through
the cap and at the other end is a gun with a pull back plunger,

In essence what you have to do is pull back the plunger very slowly
which loads the gun with a quantity of the roundup weedkiller and then
you can manually spray quite a large area before the plunger is sucked
back down to the gun, whereupon you can start all over again.

No pumping up incessantly to create vacuum, not pouring out various
amounts of mix.

I've found it really handy and so thought I'd tell you
A sensible configuration so must have been invented by some female
input.......................

Far better not to use it at all, cheaper and saves the planet, plus
the excercise weeding helps get rid of the lard arses.


What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?


Just google it and stop kidding yourselves, everything has a
consequence and most of it is completely uneccesary anyway.

Probably also explains the rapid decline in plant and species numbers
throughout the world, you simply cannot just spray
herbicides/pesticides and not expect trouble.

See
http://tinyurl.com/c9478

and
http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/

Called the wonder herbicide, RoundUp is one of the top-selling
herbicides. Made by Monsanto, it is now used on plants that have been
genetically engineered to tolerate RoundUp without dying.

This means:


Higher residues of RoundUp in our food chain

Over 90 percent of soy and canola in our food chain are 'RoundUp
Ready' genetically engineered to withstand large quantities of RoundUp

Increased RoundUp usage by farmers

More danger to the public


RoundUp Herbicide has been touted by its maker, Monsanto, as safe and
environmentally friendly. As such, it has become the most popular
herbicide in use today. Advertising by Monsanto has led the public to
believe that RoundUp is "safe as table salt," a phrase used quite
often by its proponents to describe it.

Studies used for RoundUp's initial registration were fraudulent. There
is no indication that these studies have been replaced with other,
more valid, studies. The public perception of RoundUp as safe,
environmentally friendly, and no more harmful than table salt has
impeded the normal scientific study to which a pesticide would
normally be subjected. Research grants have been concentrated in the
areas of pesticides perceived to be more detrimental to humans.

New York State's Attorney General has sued Monsanto for claiming that
RoundUp is "safe" and "environmentally friendly." This suit ended in
a settlement with Monsanto in which Monsanto agreed to cease and
desist from using these terms in advertising RoundUp in the state of
New York. Monsanto, while not admitting any wrongdoing, paid the
state of New York $250,000 in settlement of this suit. When Monsanto
violated the first settlement agreement by advertising within New York
that RoundUp is "safe," a second agreement was negotiated.

Most of the studies identifying RoundUp's true toxicity are recent,
and certain areas of RoundUp's toxicity have yet to be thoroughly
studied. Case law involving RoundUp victims is almost non-existent
due to this lack of scientific information with which to prove
causation.

It is for these reasons that it is important to also look to anecdotal
information about RoundUp's toxicity to humans in order to develop a
full picture of the symptomology it causes.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:00:42 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from (Paula) contains these words:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:46:05 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?


Just google it and stop kidding yourselves, everything has a
consequence and most of it is completely uneccesary anyway.

The evidence you presented in this post says

Most of the studies identifying RoundUp's true toxicity are recent,
and certain areas of RoundUp's toxicity have yet to be thoroughly
studied. Case law involving RoundUp victims is almost non-existent
due to this lack of scientific information with which to prove
causation.

Do you understand that statement?

It is for these reasons that it is important to also look to anecdotal
information about RoundUp's toxicity to humans in order to develop a
full picture of the symptomology it causes.

Only, anecdotal evidence isn't a full picture of symptomology, or even
a reliable one.

When copying stuff en masse from American websites, you should be
aware that different formulations of Roundup are licensed for use in
the UK today, from formulations used in America several years ago.
Anecdotal evidence IN AMERICA about a different formulation used here,
is more or less meaningless.

GM crops are produced,marketed and eaten in the USA. But they are
not produced here, largely because the UK public declined to buy them.
Some UK supermarkets make a selling point of "no GM products in foods we
sell". So why are you quoting anecdotal, unproven, specifically American
food reports about consumption of GM foods, as if they relate to the
very different circumstances/consumption here in the UK?

GM IS produced in the UK and is used globally. I suggest you actually
do a little research instead of lying through your teeth even if it is
through ignorance, its no excuse.

Show us the peer reviewed data confirming your daft fantasy.

I note that every single website you have quoted refers to reports and
research originating from other countries. Wouldn't it be more effective
to provide UK gardeners with UK research evidence, performed in the UK,
peer reviewed in the UK, relevant to UK climate, soils, conditions,
farming practices, forestry practices and UK products containing
glyphosate?

Not really if we're a global economy. My local shops stock daily
foodstuffs from all over the world, Im surprised yours doesnt!

Sheesh.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:53:51 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from (Paula) contains these words:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:00:42 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

GM crops are produced,marketed and eaten in the USA. But they are
not produced here, largely because the UK public declined to buy them.
Some UK supermarkets make a selling point of "no GM products in foods we
sell". So why are you quoting anecdotal, unproven, specifically American
food reports about consumption of GM foods, as if they relate to the
very different circumstances/consumption here in the UK?

GM IS produced in the UK and is used globally. I suggest you actually
do a little research instead of lying through your teeth even if it is
through ignorance, its no excuse.

There have only been GM * trials* in the UK. The trial crops were for
scientific examination only, and were not processed into or used for
food ( either animal or human).

Any particular reason your misinformation is trying to sidetrack us
from Monsanto and herbiceds/pesticides or do you just have some
attention disorder, which, no doubt is do to ingestion of said
chemicals perhaps?


I note that every single website you have quoted refers to reports and
research originating from other countries. Wouldn't it be more effective
to provide UK gardeners with UK research evidence, performed in the UK,
peer reviewed in the UK, relevant to UK climate, soils, conditions,
farming practices, forestry practices and UK products containing
glyphosate?

Not really if we're a global economy.

The UK has its own agricultural economy, which is heavily researched.
How very odd that you, a very concerned public informant on the subject,
can't produce a single example of accredited UK research about the
topics you're discussing.

What part of GM being a global issue do you not understand?

My local shops stock daily
foodstuffs from all over the world, Im surprised yours doesnt!

My local supermarket (Co-op) provides the provenance of all its
foodstuffs, from all over the word, and guarantees them free of GM
products. The rest of our food is produced locally, or bought from
accredited organic sources.

Well bully for you, most people in the UK shop at Tesco so I guess
that doesnt quite add up to your fantasy then?

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:09:31 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Jupiter
writes
What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?



Well it's the only thing that nearly controls the ground elder that is
growing in from next door. I can't dig it all out as the main part is in
their overgrown flower beds.

Janet

Glad that we're back to the practicalities without the drivel about
'destroying the planet'. Ground Elder is virtually impossible to
eradicate by digging out, especially if it's on clay soil.
I still have a stock of Gramoxone, requiring carefuland judicious use
-banned not because of destroying the planet but because of destroying
those humans idiotic enough to drink it.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:24:18 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:09:31 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Jupiter
writes
What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?



Well it's the only thing that nearly controls the ground elder that is
growing in from next door. I can't dig it all out as the main part is in
their overgrown flower beds.

Janet

Glad that we're back to the practicalities without the drivel about
'destroying the planet'. Ground Elder is virtually impossible to
eradicate by digging out, especially if it's on clay soil.
I still have a stock of Gramoxone, requiring carefuland judicious use
-banned not because of destroying the planet but because of destroying
those humans idiotic enough to drink it.

Only by those silly enough to have it in the garden shed anyway.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:44:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from (Paula) contains these words:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:53:51 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

My local supermarket (Co-op) provides the provenance of all its
foodstuffs, from all over the word, and guarantees them free of GM
products. The rest of our food is produced locally, or bought from
accredited organic sources.

Well bully for you, most people in the UK shop at Tesco

Then they can shop GM-free there if they choose, same as me:

Damn that Monsanto down the pan then! sigh.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:00:42 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from (Paula) contains these words:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:46:05 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the planet?


Just google it and stop kidding yourselves, everything has a
consequence and most of it is completely uneccesary anyway.

The evidence you presented in this post says

Most of the studies identifying RoundUp's true toxicity are recent,
and certain areas of RoundUp's toxicity have yet to be thoroughly
studied. Case law involving RoundUp victims is almost non-existent
due to this lack of scientific information with which to prove
causation.

Do you understand that statement?

It is for these reasons that it is important to also look to anecdotal
information about RoundUp's toxicity to humans in order to develop a
full picture of the symptomology it causes.

Only, anecdotal evidence isn't a full picture of symptomology, or even
a reliable one.

When copying stuff en masse from American websites, you should be
aware that different formulations of Roundup are licensed for use in
the UK today, from formulations used in America several years ago.
Anecdotal evidence IN AMERICA about a different formulation used here,
is more or less meaningless.

GM crops are produced,marketed and eaten in the USA. But they are
not produced here, largely because the UK public declined to buy them.
Some UK supermarkets make a selling point of "no GM products in foods we
sell". So why are you quoting anecdotal, unproven, specifically American
food reports about consumption of GM foods, as if they relate to the
very different circumstances/consumption here in the UK?

I note that every single website you have quoted refers to reports and
research originating from other countries. Wouldn't it be more effective
to provide UK gardeners with UK research evidence, performed in the UK,
peer reviewed in the UK, relevant to UK climate, soils, conditions,
farming practices, forestry practices and UK products containing
glyphosate?

Janet

Janet.

Is one "Janet" not enough? :-))

I suspect what is toxic in the USA mught be toxic here.

Caroline Cox, scientific editor of the Northwest Coalition for
Alternatives to Pesticides has carried out an excellent study of the
hazards of Roundup.

From memory, it appears that some of the surfactants are more toxic
than the Glyphosate itself. In other words, it's the cocktail in
total that's the problem.

You can download "Glyphosate.pdf" from their website at
www.pesticide.org


My interest in this is that the fake conservationists use it :-(



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Paula wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:24:18 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:09:31 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Jupiter
writes
What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the
planet?



Well it's the only thing that nearly controls the ground elder
that
is growing in from next door. I can't dig it all out as the main
part is in their overgrown flower beds.

Janet

Glad that we're back to the practicalities without the drivel
about
'destroying the planet'. Ground Elder is virtually impossible to
eradicate by digging out, especially if it's on clay soil.
I still have a stock of Gramoxone, requiring carefuland judicious
use
-banned not because of destroying the planet but because of
destroying those humans idiotic enough to drink it.

Only by those silly enough to have it in the garden shed anyway.

Paula, I've been pondering your messages. You seem anxious to
disagree even with those who would agree with you. Most people in
this group avoid the use of synthetic chemicals, and say so; those
who do readily use them are very cautious about it, and, if prompted,
say so.

Have you ever paused to consider the possibility that you're nuts?

I know I am: it makes life so much calmer if one recognises it.

--
Mike.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:55:00 GMT, (Paula) wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:44:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from (Paula) contains these words:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:53:51 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

My local supermarket (Co-op) provides the provenance of all its
foodstuffs, from all over the word, and guarantees them free of GM
products. The rest of our food is produced locally, or bought from
accredited organic sources.

Well bully for you, most people in the UK shop at Tesco

Then they can shop GM-free there if they choose, same as me:

Damn that Monsanto down the pan then! sigh.

See my earlier post.

Look up NCAP's website www.pesticide.org and download Glyphosate.pdf

If Janet only buys organic she must suspect there's something wrong
with non-organic :-))


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:51:11 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:55:00 GMT, (Paula) wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:44:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from (Paula) contains these words:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:53:51 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

My local supermarket (Co-op) provides the provenance of all its
foodstuffs, from all over the word, and guarantees them free of GM
products. The rest of our food is produced locally, or bought from
accredited organic sources.

Well bully for you, most people in the UK shop at Tesco

Then they can shop GM-free there if they choose, same as me:

Damn that Monsanto down the pan then! sigh.

See my earlier post.

Look up NCAP's website www.pesticide.org and download Glyphosate.pdf

If Janet only buys organic she must suspect there's something wrong
with non-organic :-))


Yep, funny old world huh? lol

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:45:25 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Paula wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:24:18 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:09:31 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Jupiter
writes
What evidence is there that a contact herbicide with no residual
properties, inactive on ground contact, is destroying the
planet?



Well it's the only thing that nearly controls the ground elder
that
is growing in from next door. I can't dig it all out as the main
part is in their overgrown flower beds.

Janet

Glad that we're back to the practicalities without the drivel
about
'destroying the planet'. Ground Elder is virtually impossible to
eradicate by digging out, especially if it's on clay soil.
I still have a stock of Gramoxone, requiring carefuland judicious
use
-banned not because of destroying the planet but because of
destroying those humans idiotic enough to drink it.

Only by those silly enough to have it in the garden shed anyway.

Paula, I've been pondering your messages. You seem anxious to
disagree even with those who would agree with you. Most people in
this group avoid the use of synthetic chemicals, and say so; those
who do readily use them are very cautious about it, and, if prompted,
say so.

Actually not from what I see, most of the idiots here want to kill all
the wildlife and plants in their gardens in the naive quest for some
sort of still life picture of an actual unnatural garden.

Have you ever paused to consider the possibility that you're nuts?

Said the village idiot.

I know I am:

That figures.