Glyphosate, Good for what ails you

A couple of bold questions...

Question 1.
If the "official research" concluded that glyphosate was potentially mutenagenic or carcinogenic, who would stop using it ?

Given this unofficial research concludes...
(http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm)

"...Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats)..."

Question 2.
If you or a family member were diagnosed with cancer or illness and you were told it may well have been directly related to your use of chemicals, would you stop using them ?

I thought this was an interesting study...

"...The acute toxicity of glyphosate products to humans was first publicized by physicians in Japan who studied suicide attempts; nine cases were fatal. Symptoms included intestinal pain, vomiting, excess fluid in the lungs, pneumonia, clouding of consciousness, and destruction of red blood cells. They calculated that the fatal cases ingested on average about 200 milliliters (3/4 of a cup). They believed that POEA was the cause of Roundup's toxicity. More recent reviews of poisoning incidents have found similar symptoms, as well as lung dysfunction, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract, abnormal electrocardiograms, low blood pressure, kidney damage, and damage to the larynx..."

hmmmmmm, and they tell us its safe enough to drink

[glassngrass]

Given the well documented (and publicised) adverse effects of cigarette smoking on the body of smokers and others in close proximity, it's a wonder that anybody still smokes. Perhaps its the "won't happen to me". Alternatively, if any other product on the market caused cancer, heart disease, emphysemia, etc.. when used as per manufacturers instructions, then it would be banned from use. I believe the exception in the case of smoking is the HUGE revenue governments earns. This would not be the case with glyphosate!

Perhaps, lifestyle, your reasoning is a bit like this -
A large percentage of vehicle drivers and passengers will be involved in a car accident one day. As a result many will experience varying degrees of adverse physical and psychological conditions, some will have their life span reduced somewhat, some will die tragically. Therefore to avoid these unpleasant and undesirable outcomes we should avoid the use of vehicular transport and ban them from our roads to prevent others from doing so.

Of course, most reasonably minded people would say this conclusion is ludicrous - yet we all agree there are some risks involved. It's about calculating the risks and benefits, the likelyhood of the outcomes. This is why we continue to do what we have done - the benefits continue to outweigh the risk of negative effects.

It is also why I wash after preparing chemicals, avoid spills, store properly, use as directed, etc... - why would we court disaster? Really though, we are much more likely to be adversely affected by motor vehicles than roundup.

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

They calculated that the fatal cases ingested on average about 200 milliliters (3/4 of a cup).

hmmmmmm, and they tell us its safe enough to drink

200 millilitres of roundup - we don't use the stuff neat! In order to ingest 200 mL, that would mean drinking 20 litres
There is no way diluted roundup on weeds can be 'walked' into your mouth - even if it was licked off the ground, how much could you get into you!

If anybody drinks roundup neat or diluted, then I suggest the problem is not with the chemical, but the person. There are many alternatives under the sink that will do the job much better.

[geejay]

read a government report on the great barrier reef,glyphosate is listed as one of the chemicals that is part of the run off mix from commercial farming in northern queensland ,and damages seaweed /coral growth.i thought round up was inactive once it came into contact with soil.

if active glyphosate is running of from commercial farming,it could be part of the active mix running off from household/commercial use into our seas throughout the world.

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Perhaps, lifestyle, your reasoning is a bit like this -
A large percentage of vehicle drivers and passengers will be involved in a car accident one day. As a result many will experience varying degrees of adverse physical and psychological conditions, some will have their life span reduced somewhat, some will die tragically. Therefore to avoid these unpleasant and undesirable outcomes we should avoid the use of vehicular transport and ban them from our roads to prevent others from doing so.

Chemical Build up in the environment and in the body is not only direct but can be passed on to others (our kids, family, pets, wildlife etc,). If all you believe is whats written on the bottle, i'd suggest you do some more research.

Vehicle drivers need to be tested (Learners & Provisional) this doesn't stop accidents but at least it gives some basic knowledge on the use of the weapon (car).

The car is the weapon, therefore using the same comparison the spray pack would be the same weapon. I haven't seen much damage done by a spray pack .

Now if you want to compare the product you should campare the glyphosate to... the petrol in the car.

In both cases any incident is result of the person controlling the car or spray pack.

Glyphosate doesn't need a license to be sprayed (in all states i believe) unless your only job is as a pesty or sprayer. Therefore the majority go to Mitre 10 with no knowledge of the chemical and rely solely on the information presented on the bottle (which is only minimal required by law).

It would seem, from re-reading your replies on this thread that your biggest concern is the "cost". You have pointed this out in several replies. You seem more concerned about how it effects your wallet than how it effects your health

Originally Posted by glassngrass

200 millilitres of roundup - we don't use the stuff neat! In order to ingest 200 mL, that would mean drinking 20 litres
There is no way diluted roundup on weeds can be 'walked' into your mouth - even if it was licked off the ground, how much could you get into you!

If anybody drinks roundup neat or diluted, then I suggest the problem is not with the chemical, but the person. There are many alternatives under the sink that will do the job much better.

lol... They tried to kill themselves (and did). Thats why they drunk it straight. They knew it would do the job.

[administrator]

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Given the well documented (and publicised) adverse effects of cigarette smoking on the body of smokers and others in close proximity, it's a wonder that anybody still smokes. Perhaps its the "won't happen to me". Alternatively, if any other product on the market caused cancer, heart disease, emphysemia, etc.. when used as per manufacturers instructions, then it would be banned from use. I believe the exception in the case of smoking is the HUGE revenue governments earns. This would not be the case with glyphosate!

Perhaps, lifestyle, your reasoning is a bit like this -
A large percentage of vehicle drivers and passengers will be involved in a car accident one day. As a result many will experience varying degrees of adverse physical and psychological conditions, some will have their life span reduced somewhat, some will die tragically. Therefore to avoid these unpleasant and undesirable outcomes we should avoid the use of vehicular transport and ban them from our roads to prevent others from doing so.

Of course, most reasonably minded people would say this conclusion is ludicrous - yet we all agree there are some risks involved. It's about calculating the risks and benefits, the likelyhood of the outcomes. This is why we continue to do what we have done - the benefits continue to outweigh the risk of negative effects.

It is also why I wash after preparing chemicals, avoid spills, store properly, use as directed, etc... - why would we court disaster? Really though, we are much more likely to be adversely affected by motor vehicles than roundup.

Good points all round .
I smoke started at 13 gave up a few times .
This stuff is very addictive .

i also wonder why everybody sues the ones that make the ciggies and not its partner the tax collector .

Now as im reading here in these very informative posts and if this chemical is so dangerous why can every man and his dog buy this stuff of the shelve at bunnings etc

If it is so dangerous then i would suggest only licensed chemical handlers should be able to use it ,if it has to be used at all .

Maybe we need CSIRO to find a better safer product they seem to be pritty good at elimanating fat of the body .

Seriously though we do need to protect ourselves and future generations from harmful products if that be the case .

Has anybody ,association group ever put a case forward to the Health Department .

And in fact is this chemical a health risk to Australians

Maybe if someone is really passionate then they should start the process of changing the law regards this chemical .

.

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

Chemical Build up in the environment and in the body is not only direct but can be passed on to others (our kids, family, pets, wildlife etc,).

It would seem, from re-reading your replies on this thread that your biggest concern is the "cost". You have pointed this out in several replies. You seem more concerned about how it effects your wallet than how it effects your health

Chemical build up a is very real concern not to be minimised, but so is financial viability, not just for us, but more so for our customers who decide how they will part with their hard earned dollar. Until our customers value organic gardening more highly they won't pay extra when cheap fixes are available. I'd like to see levies charged to importers/manufacturers of these chemicals to make their cost more equitable when compared to more labor intensive or chemically 'safer' alternatives - this would 'encourage' more to steer away from glyphosate as the first and primary solution.

And for that matter, I'd like to see cost of smokes increase to cover the burden of extra costs on society throught their increased incidences of sickness and reduced productivity - user pays instead of society - that's only fair!
Perhaps the taxes extracted from cigarette revenue should be viewed as proceeds of crime that should be put entirely towards eliminating this menace from society - really smoking should be outlawed! If I drank roundup you would rightly say I'm 'nuts'. If I jumped in front of moving cars you'd put me in a padded cell. Yet smoking is suicide in slow motion - and legal!

Adverse effects on health are a very real concern that should not be overlooked or minimised, not only in money terms, but quality and longevity of life -we can only guess at just how far reaching the effects on others is. With chemical use now, the customer gains immediate financial advantages - while I expose myself to an increasing toxic burden that is steadily building up in my body. I will be the one who ends up paying in future adverse health, for my customers' decisions. Am I now a convert? For now, as with most, I am trapped in an unfair, inequitable system, that to a large extent mandates the way we operate.

[glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

Chemical Build up in the environment and in the body is not only direct but can be passed on to others (our kids, family, pets, wildlife etc,).

Vehicle drivers need to be tested (Learners & Provisional) this doesn't stop accidents but at least it gives some basic knowledge on the use of the weapon (car).

Now if you want to compare the product you should campare the glyphosate to... the petrol in the car.

In both cases any incident is result of the person controlling the car or spray pack.

Ok, let's compare as you say. Regarding chemical build up in environment, are you suggesting the result of petrol combustion in vehicles is less of a concern than the use of roundup??
The fumes released while filling up are a concern for some.
They did take the lead out of petrol! Some of the intelligensia have indicated the hazards of the new additives are of much greater concern, not to mention the carbon monoxide that damages ozone and contributes to global warming!

Additionally, just how much instruction is given to drivers regarding the dangers of petrol or the exhaust 'bullets' of vehicular 'weapons' , or how to reduce its 'footprint' before licencing?

I'm all for alternatives to internal combustion engines. If we ban roundup NOW, will you next propound we revert to horse and buggy - and sheep??

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Chemical build up a is very real concern not to be minimised, but so is financial viability, not just for us, but more so for our customers who decide how they will part with their hard earned dollar. Until our customers value organic gardening more highly they won't pay extra when cheap fixes are available. I'd like to see levies charged to importers/manufacturers of these chemicals to make their cost more equitable when compared to more labor intensive or chemically 'safer' alternatives - this would 'encourage' more to steer away from glyphosate as the first and primary solution.

And for that matter, I'd like to see cost of smokes increase to cover the burden of extra costs on society throught their increased incidences of sickness and reduced productivity - user pays instead of society - that's only fair!
Perhaps the taxes extracted from cigarette revenue should be viewed as proceeds of crime that should be put entirely towards eliminating this menace from society - really smoking should be outlawed! If I drank roundup you would rightly say I'm 'nuts'. If I jumped in front of moving cars you'd put me in a padded cell. Yet smoking is suicide in slow motion - and legal!

Adverse effects on health are a very real concern that should not be overlooked or minimised, not only in money terms, but quality and longevity of life -we can only guess at just how far reaching the effects on others is. With chemical use now, the customer gains immediate financial advantages - while I expose myself to an increasing toxic burden that is steadily building up in my body. I will be the one who ends up paying in future adverse health, for my customers' decisions. Am I now a convert? For now, as with most, I am trapped in an unfair, inequitable system, that to a large extent mandates the way we operate.

Cigarettes are no longer allowed in pubs and clubs in many places. We can't smoke in shopping centres or on trains and buses. In Tasmania now if you are caught smoking in a car with kids you will be fined around $2000.

Cigarettes are available in most corner stores but are generally under cover. Something IS being done to stop smoking, not enough, but something.

Applying Glyphosate is no different to smoking in the sense its chemical related. Yet we can apply the stuff all over the place.

Contractors apply the stuff then go home to their family. Probably even wash their clothes in the same machine they was their babies clothes. The cuddle their kids when they get home and pat the family dog.

The customer has a family to, they get home and put the clothes on the line walking over the freshly glyphosated path and walk back inside. Baby crawls on the floor sucking and chewing on their toys spilled over... The family dog chases the ball through the freshly sprayed garden bed and gives it back to sonny, to play cricket with.

Smoking is banned from places the public frequent... chemicals are sprayed everywhere (and then some)

Originally Posted by glassngrass

Ok, let's compare as you say. Regarding chemical build up in environment, are you suggesting the result of petrol combustion in vehicles is less of a concern than the use of roundup??
The fumes released while filling up are a concern for some.
They did take the lead out of petrol! Some of the intelligensia have indicated the hazards of the new additives are of much greater concern, not to mention the carbon monoxide that damages ozone and contributes to global warming!

Additionally, just how much instruction is given to drivers regarding the dangers of petrol or the exhaust 'bullets' of vehicular 'weapons' , or how to reduce its 'footprint' before licencing?

I'm all for alternatives to internal combustion engines. If we ban roundup NOW, will you next propound we revert to horse and buggy - and sheep??

lol... i was referring to petrol being an explosive hazardous liquid. Boom!!!!! You know fire, danger, combustion.

One more blade to change and i'm off to work... We had our holiday yesterday for MC day.

[glassngrass]

[QUOTE=lifestyle]
Applying Glyphosate is no different to smoking in the sense its chemical related. Yet we can apply the stuff all over the place.

Contractors apply the stuff then go home to their family. Probably even wash their clothes in the same machine they wash their babies clothes. The cuddle their kids when they get home and pat the family dog.

The customer has a family to, they get home and put the clothes on the line walking over the freshly glyphosated path and walk back inside. Baby crawls on the floor sucking and chewing on their toys spilled over... The family dog chases the ball through the freshly sprayed garden bed and gives it back to sonny, to play cricket with.
QUOTE]

No different? Smoking is far more hazardous.

Proper chemical use should entail use of overalls that are removed between applications and washed daily.

Pat the dog :- I love dogs, but personally I can't harmonise these dirty little beasts with a healthy home. Dog sniff bums, eat excrement and vomit, drag their rear on the carpet (that the baby also crawls on), and get washed (with toxic chemicals!) maybe twice a year! Sonny plays ball on the same lawn the dog bogs on, and baby sucks and chews on the same toys as the dog!

Likely there would be civil war if a group of well intentioned tried to remove our right to decide for ourselves! But dogs are organic so must be okay! We weigh up risks and choose individually, hey!

[geejay]

it looks like the choice could be upto glass house (earth) , that will in the end determine our future lifetsyle.

[QUOTE=glassngrass]

Originally Posted by lifestyle

Applying Glyphosate is no different to smoking in the sense its chemical related. Yet we can apply the stuff all over the place.

Contractors apply the stuff then go home to their family. Probably even wash their clothes in the same machine they wash their babies clothes. The cuddle their kids when they get home and pat the family dog.

The customer has a family to, they get home and put the clothes on the line walking over the freshly glyphosated path and walk back inside. Baby crawls on the floor sucking and chewing on their toys spilled over... The family dog chases the ball through the freshly sprayed garden bed and gives it back to sonny, to play cricket with.
QUOTE]

No different? Smoking is far more hazardous.

Proper chemical use should entail use of overalls that are removed between applications and washed daily.

Pat the dog :- I love dogs, but personally I can't harmonise these dirty little beasts with a healthy home. Dog sniff bums, eat excrement and vomit, drag their rear on the carpet (that the baby also crawls on), and get washed (with toxic chemicals!) maybe twice a year! Sonny plays ball on the same lawn the dog bogs on, and baby sucks and chews on the same toys as the dog!

Likely there would be civil war if a group of well intentioned tried to remove our right to decide for ourselves! But dogs are organic so must be okay! We weigh up risks and choose individually, hey!

We can see dog shi.t on the lawn, and avoid it where possible. Stinky stuff yes, but it usually sits where it stays until someone lucky enough hits it with a mower at which time hopefully its dried .

But yes, dog shi.t is organic if you want to look at it that way.