scientist studies on gmo and roundup - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 91
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,037

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    After reading the valuable information presented here I've just figured it out. Monsanto is secretly feeding everyone roundup to turn them into retards, so they are too dumb to know better and keep buying more roundup. Which suits perfectly the doctors cos they want everyone to be sick so they can make more money.

    One world view
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Miami, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    9,340

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Who are you calling retards .... lol

  4. #63

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    This persecution mania will lead nowhere because the world is like it is.

    But donīt call people who care retards. Science is not one sided, science can be helpful to find better ways. If there are no studies about the negative aspects of chemicals we would all be at the mercy of chemical industry profits.

    Watch the scandal about fipronil we have in germany and europe just now. We are fed what we donīt want and itīs dangerous for the newborn.

    Iīm of the "contergan" generation. Thank the lord my mother never used this medicamentation when she was with child.
    It was declared harmless.
    I would probably not have any arms or legs to work the bees.

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,760

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    >Officially roundup is not carcinogenic (yet)

    Actually I believe it "officially" is a likely cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It has been classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and Monsanto is being sued by people who have been exposed to Glyphosate and gotten non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

    http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/defe...gkin-lymphoma/

    And several other cancers are being linked to it:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27058477
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

    Agent orange and DDT were other chemicals that used to be "officially" harmless and were also produced by Monsanto... and I think we know how that worked out...
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Overgaard,AZ
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    thanks for the morning funnies, at least there is one poster who understands scientific truths, thanks RC.
    thanks for the funnies. what a great laugh today!!!

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,760

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Here is the study on Glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  8. #67
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    689

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post

    Agent orange and DDT were other chemicals that used to be "officially" harmless and were also produced by Monsanto... and I think we know how that worked out...
    Agent Orange was a mix of 2,4D and 2,4,5T. This was a very effective herbicide and also both these components were quite safe to use. You can buy 2,4D at most any store that sells any kind of pesticides today. The problem was simple. During manufacture of 2,4,5T you made very tiny amounts of a byproduct named 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin. This tiny amount of byproduct was horribly toxic and accumulates badly in biological organisms and is very difficult to remove from the 2,4,5T. Its primary effect is to cause very severe chlor-acne. Industry has a lot of experience with worker exposure issues with this dioxin and had no interest in making the 2,4,5T as a result. The government did not give industry a choice. Quite a few companies in addition to Monsanto were ordered by the Government to produce agent orange for the war effort. You younger people do not have a clue what the government can and has done in the past to force industry to support various war efforts. I will give you one hint. Go and try to find a 1944 Ford or General Motors or American Motors or Studebaker car to buy. They do not exist for the simple reason that during the war the Government ordered all car companies to stop making cars and make stuff the Government wanted for the war. Anyone who holds Monsanto in a negative light because they and many other chemical companies were ordered by the government to make agent orange is simply totally ignorant of reality and needs to grow up.

    DDT is still widely used in some parts of the world and is causing no environmental issues. The lies that Carson told in her book about DDT are legion. Of course now we know they were lies as studies such as feeding studies done by the government to birds have shown that egg shell thinning by DDT was a myth. Even the Audubon Society during the hearings to ban DDT in 1972 admitted there was no evidence at all that DDT was the cause of the decline in raptor populations during the 1930s and 1940s as DDT was not even known then and they also admitted that their own bird count data showed most raptor populations were starting to recover by about 1960 when DDT use was at its greatest. All of this is a matter of public record as it all came out during the hearings to ban DDT held by the government. So, if you do not believe me go look it up and stop making up facts.

  9. #68
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Knox Co, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,244

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    The big problem with DDT was the amount that was used and its persistence in the environment. It led to development of resistance in insects relatively quickly which made it ineffective.

    This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused. Look at miticide use on honey bees.

    Products used in the past were often worse for bees than ones currently used.

    Tom

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Southern NSW Australia
    Posts
    81

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Quote Originally Posted by TWall View Post
    This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused.
    Maybe I am pedantic but it annoys me when glyphosate is called a pesticide, it is a herbicide designed to kill grasses and some broad leaf plants.
    Glyphosate has been in widespread use for nearly 50 years, there has been resistance to it in some grasses for decades.

  11. #70
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Knox Co, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,244

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Quote Originally Posted by 220 View Post
    Maybe I am pedantic but it annoys me when glyphosate is called a pesticide, it is a herbicide designed to kill grasses and some broad leaf plants.
    Glyphosate has been in widespread use for nearly 50 years, there has been resistance to it in some grasses for decades.
    Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticide is a broad term that includes things like herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pesticide?s=t

    Tom

  12. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    clifton hill mo usa
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    Here is the study on Glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670
    thanks .. isn't it nice to hear all this scientific studies by scientist to convince us chemicals are ok.. sounds like some bee mags.lol

  13. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    clifton hill mo usa
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    I have been fighting for a year now 6 cancers, two which should of killed me within weeks or months. how am I alive... diet and non gmo products . clean foods. If you eat any roundup ready foods get ready for it too shorten your life. now the big pharms will say its not true because they are making the money from it , and the scientist.lol

  14. #73
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    689

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Quote Originally Posted by TWall View Post
    The big problem with DDT was the amount that was used and its persistence in the environment. It led to development of resistance in insects relatively quickly which made it ineffective.

    This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused. Look at miticide use on honey bees.

    Products used in the past were often worse for bees than ones currently used.

    Tom
    After 70 years of use resistance is an insignificant problem in mosquitoes. Now why do you suppose that is the case when resistance happened in ten years for flies? The answer turns out to be dirt simple. Flies had a metabolic pathway before DDT came along that allowed them to strip chlorine atoms off aromatic rings. DDT has chlorines attached to aromatic rings. Removal of those chlorines makes the metabolites non toxic to flies. So, all the fly had to do was take existing genetics that controlled this metabolic pathway and up regulate the pathway. No mutations required at all. Just minor changes in the control function for the gene and you have instant resistance.

    So, why after all these years have mosquitoes not developed a high degree of resistance just like flies did? Mosquitoes lack that dechlorination metabolic pathway. They have no starting point. Now, it will happen at some point. Mom nature will move the genetics from flies or some other insect or bacteria that has this pathway into mosquitoes making the mosquitoes a brand new GMO species. Nothing new there at all.

    Resistance does not happen because of over use. Resistance happens when some pre existing metabolic path can be re-optimized to degrade or stop the transport of the toxin. A lot degree of use simply slows the development of resistance. That is why when you use a pesticide you really should generally not attempt to get more than about a 70% kill rate on the target. This low kill will leave lots of wild types available so any resistant individuals will have their genetics diluted every generation.

    It also turns out that most of the claims about how persistent DDT was in the environment were flat out lies that were the result of the poor ability to do analytical chemistry at sub ppm levels until way after the DDT was banned in the US.

    Just as a matter of interest, the last time I checked, which was a number of years ago, DDT was still registered in the US as a human use pharmaceutical drug. It turns out you can register chemicals as a drug that are far too dangerous to register as a pesticide. Practically every drug you are likely to get prescribed by your doctor for your whole life could not be registered as a pesticide because it is too dangerous. For example, the law forbids any pesticide from being registered that causes cancer in any test animal unless that test animal can be shown to have a metabolic pathway that allows the cancer and that pathway does not exist in humans. No such law exists for drugs your doctor gives you. Many of them are proven to cause cancer in test animals. Millions and millions of people take a statin to control blood cholesterol. Every single statin on the market causes cancer in mice at plasma drug levels about equal to what doctors want to see in treated humans.

  15. #74

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    None of the studies has an influence about how they are used and how the are mixed with other chemicals in practical use by farmers and what the result of this is.

    The extensive use of chemicals is like throwing waste into the ocean and believing it went away because itīs not here anymore before your eyes.
    Resistance does not happen because of over use. Resistance happens when some pre existing metabolic path can be re-optimized to degrade or stop the transport of the toxin. A lot degree of use simply slows the development of resistance. That is why when you use a pesticide you really should generally not attempt to get more than about a 70% kill rate on the target. This low kill will leave lots of wild types available so any resistant individuals will have their genetics diluted every generation.
    This started a new kind of use with antibiotics, if I get that right. First antibiotics ( for humans) were used prophylactically ( like they are still used with animals for food), then you should have used them until all bacteria was dead, now you use them until you have no symptoms anymore. Needed years to find out, the science. Now many bacteria are resistant.

    Please correct me if I do not understand, dick, Iīm no scientist.

  16. #75
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    689

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Quote Originally Posted by SiWolKe View Post


    This started a new kind of use with antibiotics, if I get that right. First antibiotics ( for humans) were used prophylactically ( like they are still used with animals for food), then you should have used them until all bacteria was dead, now you use them until you have no symptoms anymore. Needed years to find out, the science. Now many bacteria are resistant.

    Please correct me if I do not understand, dick, Iīm no scientist.
    At the doses used in treatments many antibiotics never kill any bacteria at all. Instead what they do is slow the growth rate of the bacteria way down and in the process give you several days for your immune system to engage and actually clear the bacteria from your body. For many diseases this is the whole objective. So, how long you need to treat depends greatly on the particular bacteria and how fast your immune system will respond. That can range from two or three days for some diseases to months for things like TB. Like many things there is no one rule fits all.

    Stopping as soon as you feel better can be highly risky. For instance I have responded dramatically to antibiotic treatment in as little as eight hours and I have seen my wife and kids do the same. Eight hours is no place close to the time needed to activate your immune system. In general stopping before a minimum of four days is risky regardless of how great you feel and the most likely result will be the disease symptoms will be back 48 or 72 hours after you stopped. Actually, if you do not get a response within 36 hours you most likely do not even have a bacterial problem and it is a virus instead. In that case you are wasting the antibiotics as they are not going to help you other than perhaps stop a secondary infection from establishing.

  17. #76

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Many thanks. How interesting!

    Then how do the bacteria become resistant?

    As to vaccination my husband developed polio when he was vaccinated and nearly died as a child. Then living stuff was used. Now itīs not as dangerous with prepared stuff.

    But back to bees.

  18. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Southern NSW Australia
    Posts
    81

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    Livestock drenches are a classic example of resistance developing.
    For years there were only 2 basic families of drench, white & clear. Poor use be it under dosing, putting stock back into contaminated pastures, drenching to frequently, using only one type etc lead to resistance. Once there is some resistance then the only option is to drench more frequently and resistance builds even faster.

    The ivermectin family of drenches were a god send when they became available not only where they a new family for which there was no existing resistance the fact they continue to work for 3 weeks or so after administration increases their effectiveness.
    Still it only took a short while before resistance started to be noticed in isolated pockets due to the same poor practises that had lead to resistance to the other families.

  19. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    4,012

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    It was reported on TV that the inventer of penicillin had said (as I remember and maby not right) that his invention would not last for long due to humans not using enough. I took that to mean that if you were using it and did not go far enough to kill all the stuff you were trying to kill, some would be left to grow resistance.
    Just mentioned this due to apparrently the last research company has quit working on antibodies due to the profit margin potential compared to other things they could put their research dollars toward.
    Cheers
    gww
    zone 5b

  20. #79
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Knox Co, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,244

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    This is a little off-topic but has already become part of the thread. Mosquito's and house flies grab the headlines with searches on DDT resistance. There are other pests of crops that quickly became resistant and now have other products/methods for control. One of the classic ones was San Jose scale on citrus. Mode of action and life cycles can be key to development of resistance. The fog of time has made me a little shaky on details. I took Biological Control if Insects close to 30 years ago.

    Tom

  21. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,037

    Default Re: scientist studies on gmo and roundup

    An interesting aside. Here in NZ we got varroa mites in year 2000, or at least that's when they were first identified and treatment programs started.

    The treatments used were apistan and bayvarol, (synthetic pyrethroid), a little later apivar (amitraz) became available. These worked well but there was a sense of foreboding because the overseas experience was that mites develop resistance to apistan and bayvarol in sometimes just a few seasons.
    Yet 17 years later, all these products are working fine. Every now and then somebody claims they treated and it failed, but seems there may have been other factors at play because in following seasons there has not been resistance.

    The very interesting thing, would be a research project to discover why in some countries resistance has developed so fast, and here it has not. This could be a more useful use of time for all those scientists who run constant studies based on the theme of force feeding poison to bees, to prove it hurts them. Which any reasonably intelligent person already knows.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •