Glyphosate, Good for what ails you

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

Kamba M is another "Bug Bear" of mine.

It is promoted as having "...the Disruptors of plant cell
growth mode of action..." Hello ? If it disrupts plant cells, what evidence is there it doesn't disrupt the sells of humans & animals as well ?

What evidence is that that Kamba-M DOES disrupt human/animal cells? Hello! If it's not white, it must be black???

Contains MCPA - Its toxicity and biodegradation are topics of current research. One formulation is described by its manufacturer as "designed for specific markets that require the safest possible phenoxy product"

Other products that contain this include
Weed'n'Feed
Zero Bindii & Clover Weeder

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Mmmm. Kamba-M, my other favorite. Between Roundup (glyphosate), Kamba-M (MCPA salts and Dicamba blah blah blah!), and occassionally bending down to pick up a weed, we got weeds beat!

Don't go hurting your back now.

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Other products that contain this include
Weed'n'Feed
Zero Bindii & Clover Weeder

Yep, all of which i don't use.

[glassngrass]

We know YOU don't use Eric - this information is for interest of those that DO, or might in the future - so we can make informed choices.

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

I don't want to sway anyone to my way of thinking.

Come on Eric! Yes, you do!

[glassngrass]

Don't go hurting my back now??

Ouch!

Originally Posted by Mrs HMS

comments such as that are not going to sway anyone over to your way of thinking....you cannot convince people by insulting them (just as those that have also insulted you aren't going to make me think...."yeah what he said").

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

Here's your flame thrower...

http://www.hotdevil.com.au/hotdevil/products.htm#10

Dean advises he checked this out already. Great in theory, but in practice this unit just didn't 'cut it' - pity!

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by Mrs HMS

Interesting debate. ...

I have young kids, and you know if I even thought that something I had done caused them permanent harm, made their lives more difficult I think I would be refusing to do whatever it was again too. In the analagies used here...if I drove a car that was in an accident (due to my negligent driving) that resulted in my daughers having an acquired brain injury, para or quadriplegia etc I don't think I could ever get into a car again, let along behind the wheel.

Just a thought (I now speak as Devil's advocate.) Yes, we love our kids and want to protect them from harm. It would be a real shame (and a bit late) to reassess and adjust our actions once something that could have been avoided has already happened!

A bit like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted!

Sad thing about chemicals (and many other safety/OHS issues), we may only consider seriously about avoiding serious consequences when we already have them!

Thanks for you input in this thread.

[glassngrass]

A neighbor hates broadleaf weeds in his garden and lawns, but doesn't want to use toxic chemicals and damage environment.

So...he puts a little mineral turps in a spray bottle and squirts his weeds!

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Eric

Bluey picked up on my thought you haven't quite grasped yet.
It is not just chemicals that cause deformities and mutations, but reproductive cells that have already been damaged by past chemical exposure that have a much greater chance of producing eggs/sperm with messed up DNA.

Although you are clean NOW you mentioned low sperm count -this means the effects of PAST exposure are ongoing for you. More importantly, what about sperm QUALITY. How is it you are prepared to guarantee this isn't effected?

If I shut my eyes and can't see you, does that mean you can't see me?

I fully grasped what your saying, i'm just not going to lay my entire life story, health and associated treatment on the table. Suffice to say, everything you mentioned is or has been investigated. I will also add that some points i made were hypothetical to keep my medical history MY business (The facts are the same).

The point here being, you recognise that...

"...this means the effects of PAST exposure are ongoing for you..."

... in doing so i assume you admit synthetic chemicals can cause health problems, but you continue to use chemicals without consideration for the health risks associated.

Fair enough, YOU are protected by wearing all the gear (which in itself says "Toxic" otherwise why would you need it?), but what about the people who come in contact with the sprayed area AFTER you have left? Are you saying you don't give a shi.t about what happens after you leave.

I see council workers decked out to almost unrecogniosable in safety gear spraying weeds along paths as kids walk past them going top school.

The other day i saw someone spraying weeds with full safety gear on, around the wood chips in the school playground, half an hour later the kids were out playing on the same sprayed ground on their lunch break, playing and eating in the same area that was sprayed. Why should he be protected if the kids have full exposure ?

If you can spray then walk away without a second thought, good for you. But i have a conscience and logic tells me, anything that is disruptive to any living thing, plant or animal, has the potential to be more than just a mild irritant or to cause a simple rash.

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Just a thought (I now speak as Devil's advocate.) Yes, we love our kids and want to protect them from harm. It would be a real shame (and a bit late) to reassess and adjust our actions once something that could have been avoided has already happened!

A bit like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted!

Sad thing about chemicals (and many other safety/OHS issues), we may only consider seriously about avoiding serious consequences when we already have them!

Thanks for you input in this thread.

So, let me see if i understand that point. If you found out a product you was using whether chemical or not could cause harm to someone, be it yourself or others, you wouldn't try to get the point across about the harm it does ?

You'd say, heck its already happened, why worry about it now ?

Is that the attitude you would take ?

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

So, let me see if i understand that point. If you found out a product you was using whether chemical or not could cause harm to someone, be it yourself or others, you wouldn't try to get the point across about the harm it does ?

You'd say, heck its already happened, why worry about it now ?

Hardly. Any good debate should entail considering the view from the other side, which is what I am doing. It also entails conceding valid points, including aknowledging the "let's worry about that IF/WHEN it happens" attitude as irresponsible. I was not suggesting it is ever too late to make a positive change, only, don't wait for the negative consequences before making that change.

Originally Posted by lifestyle

...i have a conscience and logic tells me, anything that is disruptive to any living thing, plant or animal, has the potential to be more than just a mild irritant or to cause a simple rash.

By this rationale, rather than control weeds we should cultivate and encourage. But what if the weeds become more than just a mild irritant?

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

The point here being, you recognise that...
Quote:
"...this means the effects of PAST exposure are ongoing for you..."
... in doing so i assume you admit synthetic chemicals can cause health problems, but you continue to use chemicals without consideration for the health risks associated

Actually Eric, YOU made the link between these in YOUR case. I accepted that and made reference to it.

I consider the hazards and assess the risk of ALL my activities with a view to avoiding or controlling and minimising them.

Inhalation and contact with airborn particles of spray are of much greater concern than stationary applied chemical on ground. There are times when space suits are appropriate eg. length of exposure and type of chemical used, etc

At least try and be reasonable in your posts

So you do recognise the health risks or not ?

Would you conclude children are more susceptible to the effects of chemicals and systemic absorption through their skin would be equally if not more volatile than an adult breathing its vapour ?

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

...everything you mentioned is or has been investigated.

Good - I was concerned it hadn't

Originally Posted by lifestyle

keep my medical history MY business (The facts are the same.

Ummm... You did post many of your medical details on a public forum that can be accessed world wide If for privacy you used hypothetical facts which are the same, then whats the difference?

Children ARE more susceptible than adults. Absorption is generally more an issue with breathing than skin contact. Once chemical is applied (no longer airborne) and dry, then neither is really an issue. There are exceptions - any ester compound - the smelly pesticides whose vapours linger for a while.

PPE is designed to protect during application of chemical. The degree of PPE used is not neccessarily a guage of the remaining hazard to others after application.

Anyway, you started this thread to alert us to dangers of glyphosate which has been well debated. Unless we have more info on this or alternatives to its use, seems you are hijacking your own thread!