Posted on 04/08/2019 7:48:34 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Took my wife's cooking and several years of aging to do that, not that I am obese but I am probably a little heavier than I should be. But the strong winds no longer rule me either. 9>)
That is what the article says. I didn’t say I believe it.
A good solid concrete pad is my favorite weed killer.
I don't think 2-4-D and Roundup are similar enough to be compared. IIRC 2-4-D only affects broad-leaf weeds and has no effect on grass, while Roundup kills almost everything green, including lawn grasses.
What’s new is how much and how. It didn’t used to be used directly on food then Monsanto started genetically engineering food crops to withstand it. So now it’s in far more of our food than ever before. I’m not saying the alarmists are right, but it’s a legitimate issue to be looked at, not all lies.
I caught that too. The writer was wrong.
Without GM (genetic modification) more of the world would starve and many would be malnourished.
An estimated 50 million people died from malaria when they banned DDT, and they used lies to ban DDT. Same process in effect here.
I'm all for study, as long as it is an honest study, and not an emotional study riddled with lies to win the argument.
But is it better that a small number may be adversely affected while millions more get the food they need, or do we make millions suffer from starvation and malnutrition to save the smaller numbers who may be adversely affected?
While that may turn some people off, it's a decision we must make. I will go for the few being adversely affected, even if I number in those who are.
Like man made global warming this is just another attempt to control the masses. In this case they want to thin the population. So attack those who would be most vulnerable by the banning of pesticides that may or may not be safe for humans. That point, safety, is irrelevant to them and their true agenda.
Maybe not. They have to follow strict safety/handling regs every day while Pedro just sloshes it around the back of his pickup on the way to his next gig.
Round-Up Ready dandelions. What could go wrong?
..and its been linked to colony collapse disorder (CCD) in honey bees.
Not necessarily. The molecule is a Glycolysis blocker, in a way which many cancers exhibit. Sugar can be broken down partly into building blocks, or fully into energy. It is supposed to go you use it for energy first, and anything left over gets put into growth. Usually the idea is you break it down into energy until the organism is saturated in energy to do work, then the breakdown slows, and building blocks accumulate so cells can proliferate and the organism shifts from survival to growth.
It is one of the reasons a lot of people say, go on a sugar-free diet if you have cancer, because it has been observed a lot of cancer cells exhibited a deranged process which produces a lot of building blocks, and not a lot of energy. You won’t get those building blocks glycolysis produces because there will be no sugar to make them on a sugar-free diet.
Glyphosate mucks up a step of that glycolysis, which causes building blocks to accumulate, and sets in motion one of the factors observed in some cancers.
Now it doesn’t create cancer, but cancer is the process of winning several lotteries, many of which the odds increase if you have won others. So get exposed to glyphosate, and it is possible you have completed one step of getting to cancer, and the increased number of building blocks may cause you to “buy” more lottery tickets, increasing your chance of winning a cancer diagnosis.
I think it probably does something, because exposure correlates with lymphomas, IIRC, but it isn’t a case of it gives it to you or it doesn’t. It just increases the chances. Of course when it is being fed to everyone in everything from cereals to beer, it has the potential to create a lot of cancers.
I wonder if the jury was aloud to consider the fact that the older a person is the more likely they are to have cancer.
A simple statistical fact. If you live long enough, you will have cancer.
In his seventy years I am sure that the man had been exposed to a huge number of carcinogens. Saying that one or another was a “substantial factor” in his illness is impossible.
I would never be chosen to be on such a jury. I am too rational.
2-4-D (mechamine) kills everything except grass. Use 1-2 oz per gal on grass to kill weeds - do not use when weather hot and dry.
Roundup kills everything including grass.
They can be mixed in the spray tank.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has called glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,”
Their choices were Yes or No. No in between or other choice
Usual junk science. It pays no attention to the critical variable which is dosage. An axiom of toxicology is that dosage determines toxicity. Minute doses of Round Up such as would be encountered by the average user would be harmless.
Citing research showing it to be in 93% of subjects, without mentioning levels, Is worse than junk science. it is deliberate agenda-driven demogoguery.
It only causes cancer in the court room.
Chlordane was the best - and is now banned. 2-4 D is widely available
Ignorance is Bliss. Russell Bliss.
I had my commercial herbicide/pesticide license for years. I had no need for it anymore so I left it expire. Forgot much of it.
I’ll never forget using atrazine to kill the grass along the driveway and it rained, killing a much wider area than I expected.
Or finding out that crappie bass were highly allergic to copper sulfate and they all went through the overflow pipe to escape it.
School of hard knocks learning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.