Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 162

Thread: Glyphosate

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    860

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by crofter View Post
    If a person is interested in a study of what an intensive non consumption, non polluting life style looks like, do a search on the "Edo Period" in Japan. They had, living light on the land, down to a science. Trying to coerce our present population to engage in anything approaching that concerted effort would be the "creative social engineering" I referred to earlier. It is what we probably should do, but mans inherent nature is to discount the future for the sake of immediate fulfillment.
    Not really Frank. I use technologies all the time and use science to make progress. The ongoing project to improve the insulation in my house has not only reduced bills, but increased comfort. If the house was designed properly, its would require very little additional heat at all. It wasn't material that stood in the way of efficiency back in the day, but poor design, and poor investment decisions and generally a lack of knowledge. Its not about a poorer life, but a better one. I burn wood in the winter and each load I cart up represents the mass of product (natural gas) I would normally use if I used the furnace more. I would like to reduce that size of the wood pile I need, less work, more comfort. Meanwhile I'm stuck retrofitting a poorly designed building, even so improvements have been dramatic. But changes on the technology front are happening fast. By investing in some of them down the road, I don't think I'm following some kind of Edo period modes of living. That said I walk more than most, leaving my truck at home, but walking is good for people.

    Again with stuff, the things that really make life comfortable could be made so much better. Longer life, designed to be easily fixed. Would be good for all our pocketbooks, and we would still have conveniences. Not so good for business, showing the shortcomings of economic models. There are disruptive technologies, and ways of thinking about technology that can turn the planned obsolescence model on its head even if government refuses to regulate properly.

    In my opinion its knowledge that represents real wealth,


    Certainly the internet and the potential to make knowledge available to many more people is probably a game changer in so many ways.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma dr. Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,175

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Preaching to the choir is easy! I have looked at lots of high priced energy efficient creations and they are an insult to the masses living in the cities. Then we have the nerve to berate class envy! I burn wood too and have all my life. That is no solution if you try to scale it up. The forests in the US would be gone in less than 10 years.

    Reality is a problem. When energy consumption in all its manifestations is greater than the rate it is being renewed, simplistic solutions are only a distraction. Energy return on energy invested ratios are worsening rapidly and the whole infrastructure is crumbling. Money spent on trying to keep it going is being borrowed in the name of future generations. It can never be repaid.

    Before we reach a sustainable energy consumption level I think we are in for some far worse compromises than the use of glyphosate and genetically modified produce. Utopian solutions that give a few people a warm feeling are not easy to fullfil when a species has outgrown the carrying capacity of its environment. Once the Four Horsemen start cavorting around, the noble ideas will go for a squat.

    Anyway, I dont think we are doing a darn thing to change each others ideas. Time will likely alter some of yours; I have entertained some of those same ideas so they are not entirely an unknown.
    Frank

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    860

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Firewood is old technology. I want to burn less with time. The cost curve for renewable energy is coming down hard. Battery people see at least a 3X increase in energy density in lithium batteries. A literal explosion in diversification of strategies. Jump in at the right time and be rewarded. But be smart about it. 5 cents a kwh is now being contracted for major solar applications. Wind is cheaper. Trends may be pointing to a dead man walking fossil fuel industry.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lee\'s Summit, MO
    Posts
    2,401

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by lharder View Post
    Firewood is old technology. I want to burn less with time. The cost curve for renewable energy is coming down hard. Battery people see at least a 3X increase in energy density in lithium batteries. A literal explosion in diversification of strategies. Jump in at the right time and be rewarded. But be smart about it. 5 cents a kwh is now being contracted for major solar applications. Wind is cheaper. Trends may be pointing to a dead man walking fossil fuel industry.
    With no mention of the extreme destruction of the environment to mine out this rare earth element lithium. Do a quick google search on images of lithium mines. I guess as long as the utter destruction of the land is not in your backyard one can delude themselves into thinking they're having no impact on the environment. Whistling past the graveyard...

    Wind power... gosh how many migrating birds are killed by those? "Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy." www.audubon.org Is that no impact there either?

    Oppose Glyphosate for what has yet to be proven it could do to the environment but support lithium batteries and wind turbines ignoring the negative environmental impact they clearly have. Isn't this a bit convoluted?
    Ninja, is not in the dictionary. Well played Ninja's, well played...

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    west central Arkansas
    Posts
    859

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by crofter View Post
    I have looked at lots of high priced energy efficient creations and they are an insult to the masses living in the cities. Then we have the nerve to berate class envy!
    This. Most folks can't afford to live green at this point, let alone try and juggle a healthy diet while figuring out how to pay the rent. Bologna is a lot cheaper than grass raised beef. I'm sure the single mother with two kids would love to feed her kids the best of the best, but it's not feasible for 70% of the population. Grass raised beef for the masses would be fraught with it's own set of ecological problems. What's possible for me or you, these are entirely different matters altogether. I'm glad you brought this into the conversation, Frank.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    1,121

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    DCoatse
    Wind power... gosh how many migrating birds are killed by those? "Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy." www.audubon.org Is that no impact there either?
    I don't believe near as many birds are killed buy wind turbins as are killed by picture windows. I have both and I know where I find the most dead bird.
    Cheers
    gww
    zone 5b

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    860

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    I had an old cat that came home with dead birds. Didn't know how he did it. I saw him sleeping on a landing outside one day when a bird thwacked into a window. He woke up, trotted down to collect the bird.

    I think the numbers between cats and windows is millions. I'm guessing there will be problems with lithium mines, but they are probably better than what we are facing with tar sands here in Canada and you can't recycle fossil fuels.

    What poor people can or cannot do and what should be done is another debate. I know I am not high income, yet can take steps. Its not the domain for rich people.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sedgwick Co. KS
    Posts
    618

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    This will cover it.........dead horse.gif

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona USA
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by D Coates View Post
    Okay then, since others won't do it you directly answer my question. What's the timeframe that you'd find acceptable to test a product like Glyphosate, GMO's, etc. before introduction? Keep in mind Glyphosate has been on the market for over 4 decades already without any real issues.
    I will attempt to briefly answer your question, here it goes:

    The item being tested for safety should, in my opinion, undergo testing on many different animal species prior to the testing of humans. The control group must be fed an entirely Organic diet of whatever it is they naturally eat and the test group needs to be fed the same items which only have been treated with the chemical/etc. in question. The research should be conducted by several unaffiliated and non-governmental teams of researchers from around the world.

    First, it is my personal belief that testing must begin during infancy of the said creature and continue on until at least the third generation offspring. Second, there must be a control group that is closely related, drinks from the same water supply, breaths the same air and lives in the same conditions but does not consume the item being tested. If after 3 generations there is absolutely no difference between the organically fed creatures and the creatures being tested, the experiment can continue onto the next type of creature, which should be a larger specie.

    If it is shown that after multiple tests, the product produces no ill effects in animals, the item is now 'safe' to test on humans. If the item produces no differing effects in humans, the research should be published and the test substance, in my opinion, should be safe for release for public use/consumption.


    Quote Originally Posted by D Coates View Post
    Your sliding off the deep end McBain. Vaccines do infinitely more good than bad. Have you ever had chickenpox as an adult, shingles? It's awful. Flu... ever hear of the Spanish Flu? Killed 3-5% of the worlds population just under 100 years ago. Should we go back to no vaccination for the flu or anything else too? Polio, measles, mumps, and rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tuberculosis, and tetanus, all those are nothing but money makers for Big Pharm? Please keep singing this argument from the hilltops, it makes you appear bat guano crazy and weakens any other arguments you have better than I could ever do.
    It has been estimated that the vaccine industry is a 24 billion dollar industry. That may be small coin for you, but that's serious money to me! Now, in comparison to the entire industry, it only represents 2 - 3%, but still $24,000,000,000 is a lot of money, even if it only adds a small amount of padding to the inside of the Big Pharma pocket.

    (Excellent points in this article if you can overlook the bias): http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...o-what/385214/

    I would also like to point out that vaccination is not immunization.

    (Great thoughts in this article if you can overlook the bias): http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-0...incidence.html

    http://www.naturalnews.com/2016-08-1...t-the-flu.html


    Quote Originally Posted by D Coates View Post
    Yes, for 2 reasons, the employees have families too, and they'll get the bejeebers sued out of them when the truth eventually come out. Anything they do affects their own families as much as they do everyone else's. Logically, you'd never intentionally injure your own family for money. Falsifying any data, or knowingly introducing a known defective/dangerous product will be found out eventually. Companies, don't like bad press and really don't like big settlements.
    Right, that is a very valid argument and I agree, rational people would never harm their loved ones.

    I have a theory about how this can actually work though and it starts with the research. Who doesn't believe what 'scientists' say? If 'scientists' say that a product causes 0 harm, why wouldn't the employees believe what is said? Fabricated research is the magic wand of the corporation because all of a sudden, everyone honestly believes they aren't hurting anyone, rather they believe they are doing something good in the world, 'solving world hunger'.

    I have no doubt there are thousands of honest, noble and upright Monsanto/Bayer employees. The issue isn't the average employee, they are just doing their job and teaching what they have been taught. The true issue is the 3% at the top who earn the humongous bucks. Back in 2015 Hugh Grant earned approximately $36,986 per day. Yes, that's per day if you break things down.

    The 3% are geniuses, don't get me wrong. Think about all this logically:

    If you knock out bees (the largest pollination force) using chemicals that kill insects and you get the public to believe such chemicals are safe, you now have a 'green light' to continue knocking out the bee populations while the public and beekeepers blame mites for the problems. (Very similar to blaming wax moths for the death of your hive when tracheal mites were the underlying and true issue.)

    Next as bee populations have declined to the point where pollination is no longer possible on a large scale. Where does everyone turn? The simple answer is: GMO corn and GMO soy which are both self pollinating and both grown by none other than Monsanto/Bayer. Genious. They now literally control the industry because very little else gets pollinated, and what does is sold at ridiculously high prices (law of supply and demand).

    We continue to see stories like this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...rusty-patched/ When will we wake up?

    I am glad we have awoken to the point where we are at least willing to discuss controversial issues and think critically and logically.


    Quote Originally Posted by D Coates View Post
    Wind power... gosh how many migrating birds are killed by those? "Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy." www.audubon.org Is that no impact there either?
    You do realize that 988,000,000 birds die annually because of windows and 1,400,000,000 - 3,700,000,000 birds annually because of cats? https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.ec5dead02e55 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...study/1873871/

    So, until we are willing to deconstruct skyscrapers and cage up all feral cats, we have no reason to fuss about the 148,000 - 328,000 bird deaths due to wind turbines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rader Sidetrack View Post
    For example ...

    photo credit

    Note the 'Organic' spinach. Spinach, [whether 'organic' or not] along with some other leafy green vegetables, is naturally high in oxalic acid. See this chart from the USDA: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-a...ed-vegetables/

    According to this CDC page: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0474.pdf
    ingesting 5 grams of oxalic acid can be fatal to humans.

    Based on the USDA chart, one could potentially ingest 5 grams of oxalic acid from 550 grams (about 1lb) of spinach. Now, most people are unlikely to chow down on a pound of spinach, and various processing steps like canning / freezing may reduce the level of oxalic acid somewhat, and some individuals may be more tolerant of oxalic acid than others.

    The clear message, though, is that the oxalic acid in "Organic" spinach is toxic.

    But, as always, it is the DOSE that makes the poison / toxic. After all, humans cannot live without water, yet ingesting too much water is fatal.



    Yes and organic apples can contain arsenic, etc. When I talked about toxins I meant synthetic chemicals: Neonicotinoids/Glyphosate/etc. Sorry for the confusion. ; )
    Mclain

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lee\'s Summit, MO
    Posts
    2,401

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    I will attempt to briefly answer your question, here it goes:

    The item being tested for safety should, in my opinion, undergo testing on many different animal species prior to the testing of humans. The control group must be fed an entirely Organic diet of whatever it is they naturally eat and the test group needs to be fed the same items which only have been treated with the chemical/etc. in question. The research should be conducted by several unaffiliated and non-governmental teams of researchers from around the world.

    First, it is my personal belief that testing must begin during infancy of the said creature and continue on until at least the third generation offspring. Second, there must be a control group that is closely related, drinks from the same water supply, breaths the same air and lives in the same conditions but does not consume the item being tested. If after 3 generations there is absolutely no difference between the organically fed creatures and the creatures being tested, the experiment can continue onto the next type of creature, which should be a larger specie.

    If it is shown that after multiple tests, the product produces no ill effects in animals, the item is now 'safe' to test on humans. If the item produces no differing effects in humans, the research should be published and the test substance, in my opinion, should be safe for release for public use/consumption.
    Notice the lack of an actual timeframe answer? The very thing I was lamenting but then accused of make a straw man out of? It's been on the market for over 4 decades with nothing substantial even hinting at a smoking gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    It has been estimated that the vaccine industry is a 24 billion dollar industry. That may be small coin for you, but that's serious money to me! Now, in comparison to the entire industry, it only represents 2 - 3%, but still $24,000,000,000 is a lot of money, even if it only adds a small amount of padding to the inside of the Big Pharma pocket.
    It's pennies at best in the big scheme. There's no real money in it for "Big Pharma." To think it's a huge money making scheme is complete nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    You do realize that 988,000,000 birds die annually because of windows and 1,400,000,000 - 3,700,000,000 birds annually because of cats?
    Yes. I'm using it to prove a point. After over 4 decades Glyphosate has yet to be proven to kill anything but weeds if used correctly. But, some are willing to get rid of it because of nothing but agenda driven innuendos. If it could be proven that Glyphosate directly killed 140,000 to 328,000 birds there would be a public outcry. Imagine the rallies with pictures of beautiful song birds, the congressional hearings, the social media bashing of "Big Chem", the fundraising campaigns to end the use of XYZ product... But it's "acceptable losses" when it come to wind turbines because they're "green." A dead bird is still a dead bird. Anything any of us does will incur what we consider acceptable losses (otherwise we'd not do it). For some reason, even though when used correctly Glyphosate is benign to everything but weeds any innuendo of possible "acceptable losses" sends some here into an apoplectic fit with foaming at the mouth demands for its outright banning.
    Ninja, is not in the dictionary. Well played Ninja's, well played...

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Penobscot County, ME, USA
    Posts
    905

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    Next as bee populations have declined to the point where pollination is no longer possible on a large scale. Where does everyone turn? The simple answer is: GMO corn...self pollinating and...grown by none other than Monsanto/Bayer. Genious. They now literally control the industry because very little else gets pollinated, and what does is sold at ridiculously high prices (law of supply and demand).
    So, you are trying to say that non-GMO corn requires bees to pollinate it? I grow non-GMO (organic) corn and I know this is absolutely not true. Corn, both GMO and non, is wind pollinated. There are only two reasons why you would post something so obviously fallacious...and it doesn't take a genius to figure them out.

    I am glad we have awoken to the point where we are at least willing to discuss controversial issues and think critically and logically.
    Except that such discussions can only be conducted with people who *are* capable of logical thought, otherwise, you might as well try to teach a pig to sing.

    Yes and organic apples can contain arsenic, etc. When I talked about toxins I meant synthetic chemicals: Neonicotinoids/Glyphosate/etc. Sorry for the confusion. ; )
    Almost anything grown in the ground may contain arsenic, which is a natural organic compound in a form that is basically harmless. Maybe you should worry about cyanide instead. Apple seeds and the pits of a number of stone fruits such as peaches, plums and apricots contain amygdalin and cassava contains linamarin, which are naturally formed glucosides that are readily metabolized into hydrogen cyanide. Maybe we should ban those too?
    Last edited by BadBeeKeeper; 01-12-2017 at 11:12 AM. Reason: Correct quote tags
    If you want to be successful, study successful people and do what they do.
    Zone 4a/b

  12. #152
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    418

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    I will attempt to briefly answer your question, here it goes:

    The item being tested for safety should, in my opinion, undergo testing on many different animal species prior to the testing of humans. The control group must be fed an entirely Organic diet of whatever it is they naturally eat and the test group needs to be fed the same items which only have been treated with the chemical/etc. in question. The research should be conducted by several unaffiliated and non-governmental teams of researchers from around the world.

    First, it is my personal belief that testing must begin during infancy of the said creature and continue on until at least the third generation offspring. Second, there must be a control group that is closely related, drinks from the same water supply, breaths the same air and lives in the same conditions but does not consume the item being tested. If after 3 generations there is absolutely no difference between the organically fed creatures and the creatures being tested, the experiment can continue onto the next type of creature, which should be a larger specie.

    If it is shown that after multiple tests, the product produces no ill effects in animals, the item is now 'safe' to test on humans. If the item produces no differing effects in humans, the research should be published and the test substance, in my opinion, should be safe for release for public use/consumption.
    ; )
    This rather superficial testing you suggest is a very tiny portion of the required testing to gain registration of any pesticide. The only exception is your meaningless requirement that test animals are fed diets made from "organic" food components as there is no need to risk exposure to the toxins all too often found in organic labeled foods and your requirement of testing the substance on humans. The companies that manufacture the diets fed to test animals are not going to analyze every single little batch of "organic" food for a near endless list of possible toxins that may be present. Human testing is banned by law and ethics so will never be done and is not needed anyhow.

    The reports on this data are all submitted to the Federal agency that will register the pesticide. That agency has the right to inspect all raw data and lab records related to those reports and does spot inspections routinely on all labs doing such testing. Your requirement of publication in an open source will never happen as this work is all paid for by private funds and is the property of the company that paid for the studies. They do on occasion publish some of this data. But, much of it is not published for a variety of very good reasons. Reasons such as there are not enough technical journals in the world to publish all these studies. Reasons such as they may use special methods and techniques they developed specifically for some tests and they do not wish to disclose trade secrets to the competition. Another excellent reason is it is none of your business what the details of those studies show. The details are the business of the company and the Federal agency and no one else's. All you need to know is the tests were done. Granting registration assures you the tests were done. These tests may be conducted in the companies own internal tox labs or they may and often are contracted to outside labs who specialize in conducting tox studies.

    The only other limitation is it is easy enough to get highly inbred rats and mice for such tests. These are inbred brother to sister for many generations to produce the test and control animals so you know the animals are genetically uniform. With other test animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits and monkeys you can not have highly inbred test animals as those species do not stand such inbreeding. However, those animals are also produced by companies that are in the business of supplying test animals and are selected to be uniform and reproducible test animals. No one in his right mind would ever think of using anything other than test animals produced specifically for use in lab tests nor consider animals from a source not in the business of breeding and selling such test animals. Some invertebrates or fish are often produced as needed by the test lab itself. For example insects, daphnia or fat head minnows. Usually such tests are conducted by a hired contract lab that specializes in those types of tests. Bird tests are nearly always contracted out to specialist labs also.

    There is also zero reason to run all tests on different species sequentially as you demand.

    Just to put it in perspective how small a deal the tests you suggest really are they amount to no more than 5% of all the money spent on lab tests to gain registration. There is a reason it takes ten years plus and half a billion dollars of lab testing to register a new pesticide. And the diddly little tests you demand are but a tiny portion of the requirements and have been part of the requirements for over the last 50 plus years. But, if you can convince the Federal agencies this is all that is required business will love you as you have saved years of testing and huge $. Business would even be happy waste the money to feed an all "organic" diet under those circumstances althou they would likely have to double the number of test animals to cancel out the statistical variations due to the all "organic" diet. Extra animals in the test is a minor cost. And you have freed up a lot of tox lab capacity so space would not be an issue. Of course the animal rights people would have a fit about more animals in the test as they constantly pressure for fewer test animals.

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona USA
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by BadBeeKeeper View Post
    So, you are trying to say that non-GMO corn requires bees to pollinate it? I grow non-GMO (organic) corn and I know this is absolutely not true. Corn, both GMO and non, is wind pollinated. There are only two reasons why you would post something so obviously fallacious...and it doesn't take a genius to figure them out.
    Sorry, it seems you misunderstood what I wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    If you knock out bees (the largest pollination force) using chemicals that kill insects and you get the public to believe such chemicals are safe, you now have a 'green light' to continue knocking out the bee populations while the public and beekeepers blame mites for the problems. (Very similar to blaming wax moths for the death of your hive when tracheal mites were the underlying and true issue.)

    Next as bee populations have declined to the point where pollination is no longer possible on a large scale. Where does everyone turn? The simple answer is: GMO corn and GMO soy which are both self pollinating and both grown by none other than Monsanto/Bayer. Genious. They now literally control the industry because very little else gets pollinated, and what does is sold at ridiculously high prices (law of supply and demand).
    As bee populations decline to the point where they can no longer be used to pollinate millions of acres of (fill in the blank), those crops cannot be cultivated. Bayer/Monsanto already has the answer to this problem, their self-pollinating GMO corn and GMO soy which do not need bees, are already grown on a large scale across large parts of the world.

    Sorry about the confusion of wording. ; )

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    This rather superficial testing you suggest is a very tiny portion of the required testing to gain registration of any pesticide. The only exception is your meaningless requirement that test animals are fed diets made from "organic" food components as there is no need to risk exposure to the toxins all too often found in organic labeled foods and your requirement of testing the substance on humans. The companies that manufacture the diets fed to test animals are not going to analyze every single little batch of "organic" food for a near endless list of possible toxins that may be present. Human testing is banned by law and ethics so will never be done and is not needed anyhow.

    The reports on this data are all submitted to the Federal agency that will register the pesticide. That agency has the right to inspect all raw data and lab records related to those reports and does spot inspections routinely on all labs doing such testing. Your requirement of publication in an open source will never happen as this work is all paid for by private funds and is the property of the company that paid for the studies. They do on occasion publish some of this data. But, much of it is not published for a variety of very good reasons. Reasons such as there are not enough technical journals in the world to publish all these studies. Reasons such as they may use special methods and techniques they developed specifically for some tests and they do not wish to disclose trade secrets to the competition. Another excellent reason is it is none of your business what the details of those studies show. The details are the business of the company and the Federal agency and no one else's. All you need to know is the tests were done. Granting registration assures you the tests were done. These tests may be conducted in the companies own internal tox labs or they may and often are contracted to outside labs who specialize in conducting tox studies.

    The only other limitation is it is easy enough to get highly inbred rats and mice for such tests. These are inbred brother to sister for many generations to produce the test and control animals so you know the animals are genetically uniform. With other test animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits and monkeys you can not have highly inbred test animals as those species do not stand such inbreeding. However, those animals are also produced by companies that are in the business of supplying test animals and are selected to be uniform and reproducible test animals. No one in his right mind would ever think of using anything other than test animals produced specifically for use in lab tests nor consider animals from a source not in the business of breeding and selling such test animals. Some invertebrates or fish are often produced as needed by the test lab itself. For example insects, daphnia or fat head minnows. Usually such tests are conducted by a hired contract lab that specializes in those types of tests. Bird tests are nearly always contracted out to specialist labs also.

    There is also zero reason to run all tests on different species sequentially as you demand.

    Just to put it in perspective how small a deal the tests you suggest really are they amount to no more than 5% of all the money spent on lab tests to gain registration. There is a reason it takes ten years plus and half a billion dollars of lab testing to register a new pesticide. And the diddly little tests you demand are but a tiny portion of the requirements and have been part of the requirements for over the last 50 plus years. But, if you can convince the Federal agencies this is all that is required business will love you as you have saved years of testing and huge $. Business would even be happy waste the money to feed an all "organic" diet under those circumstances althou they would likely have to double the number of test animals to cancel out the statistical variations due to the all "organic" diet. Extra animals in the test is a minor cost. And you have freed up a lot of tox lab capacity so space would not be an issue. Of course the animal rights people would have a fit about more animals in the test as they constantly pressure for fewer test animals.
    The lack of testing proves my point. Instead of testing the safety of any of these products on humans they just release them straight to the market calling them 'generally recognized as safe' products. If the intention is to prove something is safe, how can you truly know if it has not been tested on its intended users? If it is too dangerous to test, it is too dangerous to release for public use.

    What synthetic toxins are found within Organic foods?

    I answered the question very briefly, sorry for not spelling out every detail but thank you for filling in some of the blanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by D Coates View Post
    Notice the lack of an actual timeframe answer? The very thing I was lamenting but then accused of make a straw man out of? It's been on the market for over 4 decades with nothing substantial even hinting at a smoking gun.

    It's pennies at best in the big scheme. There's no real money in it for "Big Pharma." To think it's a huge money making scheme is complete nonsense.

    Yes. I'm using it to prove a point. After over 4 decades Glyphosate has yet to be proven to kill anything but weeds if used correctly. But, some are willing to get rid of it because of nothing but agenda driven innuendos. If it could be proven that Glyphosate directly killed 140,000 to 328,000 birds there would be a public outcry. Imagine the rallies with pictures of beautiful song birds, the congressional hearings, the social media bashing of "Big Chem", the fundraising campaigns to end the use of XYZ product... But it's "acceptable losses" when it come to wind turbines because they're "green." A dead bird is still a dead bird. Anything any of us does will incur what we consider acceptable losses (otherwise we'd not do it). For some reason, even though when used correctly Glyphosate is benign to everything but weeds any innuendo of possible "acceptable losses" sends some here into an apoplectic fit with foaming at the mouth demands for its outright banning.
    The timeframe I gave was 3 generations, which varies from creature to creature. For humans that is about 76 and a half years of testing to prove safety of GMO's and synthetic toxin safety. (Again, if it cannot be tested, it should not be released in my opinion. There is simply no reason to release a potentially dangerous product that cannot, by law, be tested on its intended consumers.)

    So a couple hundred thousand birds would cause the entire industry to take a serious hit, in your opinion, but hundreds of millions of human deaths due to a suspicious rise in cancer obviously has no effect on the industry whatsoever, because it continues to grow. I just don't agree with the logic there. Hundreds of millions of humans being at risk gets me excited about fighting back, a few hundred thousand birds...

    Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of birds dying either, but what is the bigger fish to fry? Hundreds of millions of cancer deaths or a few hundred thousand birds... I think you can now see where I am coming from on this issue.

    I'm not saying the cancer deaths are the direct result of any one issue, I'm just saying not enough testing has been done to figure out if they are related or not, and not enough time for long term testing has passed.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    418

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Mclain said "The lack of testing proves my point. Instead of testing the safety of any of these products on humans they just release them straight to the market calling them 'generally recognized as safe' products. If the intention is to prove something is safe, how can you truly know if it has not been tested on its intended users? If it is too dangerous to test, it is too dangerous to release for public use.

    What synthetic toxins are found within Organic foods? "

    Perhaps if you would bother to educate your self on the law and on science of the registration process and how human safety for pesticides is actually determined and how daily exposure limits are determined you would not make stupid suggestions like human testing is required. Hint: Results from human testing would be meaningless as it is not practical to do a 50 year study for something that can be determined from animal testing in a few years. Hint: It would be rather hard to get humans to sign up for a study which at the end requires they be killed and necropsied for tissue samples to send to the path lab and during the study they must live in a small climate controlled lab and fed a lab diet that would be the same every single day.

    If you do not know about the range of toxins commonly found in "organic" foods that are unlikely in normally produced crops I am not about to try and educate the uneducable.

    If you really want to worry about chemicals that could harm you I suggest you should worry vastly more about any pills your doctor gives you. They are well known to be far more dangerous in many cases than any pesticide exposure you will ever experience from applications that follow the law. About the only really safe things from your doctor are vaccines. We have zero people dying from pesticides, other than a few suicides where the pesticide is purposely consumed, while the same sure can not be said for medicines. Your risk from chemical exposure is far greater when you fill the gas tank on your car than from pesticides applied according to label.

    By the way, no Ag pesticide is ever placed on the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) list. Your total lack of knowledge makes your suggestions a total joke. But, I suggest you take the subject up with EPA. By law they set the rules. You want them to change the rules give them your ideas rather than wasting time on Bee Source.

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    138

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    The other point to make here is that the worldwide life expectancy continues to increase. This is related to better nutrition and better healthcare (including vaccinations). Much of the cancer diagnoses are for people that would have died of other causes in the past. An aging population will have higher rates of cancer.

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    6,247

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    I do think we are getting "trolled" to a degree here but a few factual inaccuracies shouldn't be allowed to stand. Soybeans are self pollinating and always have been since long before Monsanto began doing genetic alterations, though insect pollination may possibly marginally increase yields. Corn is wind pollinated and, again, always has been. While there may be situations where insects will gather corn pollen there is no reason why they would ever carry it to the waiting corn silks to complete the pollination process. Again, nothing Monsanto has ever done that's changed either of these plants methods of reproduction.
    Thanks to Mr. Cryberg for His knowledgeable posts on the EPA approval process, I think we've all learned something from them, that is those who choose to learn.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    2,988

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Nevermind
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX, USA
    Posts
    1,962

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by jonsl View Post
    The other point to make here is that the worldwide life expectancy continues to increase. This is related to better nutrition and better healthcare (including vaccinations). Much of the cancer diagnoses are for people that would have died of other causes in the past. An aging population will have higher rates of cancer.

    I do not have the time to research the childhood cancer rates but if the news is any indicator the children turning up with cancer seem to be a higher percentage of the population by age group. I wish I had time to research it. Cancer rates among the children of migrant farm workers picking strawberries are particularly high, but glyphosate isn't the culprit there, and since children of migrant farm workers are unlikely to have lawsuits filed on their behalf that goes un-noted for the most part.

    Methyl Iodide was pulled off the market in 2012 after a lawsuit I think. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...-iodide-cancer

    But there are others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health..._of_pesticides
    Stuck in Texas. Learning Permaculture in drought, flood and strange weather. The bees are still alive.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    138

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsi View Post
    I do not have the time to research the childhood cancer rates but if the news is any indicator the children turning up with cancer seem to be a higher percentage of the population by age group. I wish I had time to research it. Cancer rates among the children of migrant farm workers picking strawberries are particularly high, but glyphosate isn't the culprit there, and since children of migrant farm workers are unlikely to have lawsuits filed on their behalf that goes un-noted for the most part.

    Methyl Iodide was pulled off the market in 2012 after a lawsuit I think. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...-iodide-cancer

    But there are others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health..._of_pesticides
    News always tries to sensationalize everything. The childhood cancer rate is very low. Here is a graph from the National Cancer Institute:

    seer.cancer.gov.jpg

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Penobscot County, ME, USA
    Posts
    905

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    Sorry, it seems you misunderstood what I wrote:
    Oh no, I understood perfectly, as I illustrated with my quote.

    The problem is that *you* don't understand what you're writing, in more ways than one.
    If you want to be successful, study successful people and do what they do.
    Zone 4a/b

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads