# Glyphosate



## dadux

In the Des Moines Register 12/4/16. Two national advocacy groups are suing a Sioux City cooperative they say is falsely advertising its honey as pure, despite tests that show it contains traces of glyphosate. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2016/12/03/iowa-companys-100-pure-honey-laced-weed-killer-lawsuit-says/94223744/


----------



## johnbeejohn

As much as the farmers are using no till practices now I would not be surprised if a lot of our honey had it in it they spray it everywhere 100s of acres at a time wind and all


----------



## McBain

dadux said:


> In the Des Moines Register 12/4/16. Two national advocacy groups are suing a Sioux City cooperative they say is falsely advertising its honey as pure, despite tests that show it contains traces of glyphosate. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2016/12/03/iowa-companys-100-pure-honey-laced-weed-killer-lawsuit-says/94223744/


You can put almost anything you want on a label except for 'Organic'. I have heard, however, that in some cases glyphosate has been found in Organic honey products because there is simply no way to control where your bees forage, unless you keep them in a secluded location far away from chemical laced, GMO agricultural crops. It is my personal belief that the only sources of Organic honey must be sourced from countries where glyphosate, neonicotinoids and GMO's have been banned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/055395_honey_glyphosate_FDA_emails.html

https://www.davidwolfe.com/us-honey-full-monsanto-glyphosate/


----------



## aunt betty

One day this weird railroad machine went thru. It smelled like chemicals pretty bad. The dang thing was basically a rolling sprayer and it killed everything green on the entire right of way for miles. All that goldenrod...gone.


----------



## JRG13

Why don't the studies show or report anything else found in the honey? I find it very hard to believe just glyphosate shows up.


----------



## funwithbees

The tests only show the results for each specific chemical tested for. Glyphosate not only shows up in honey, but I read an article blogged by thefoodbabe that showed test results in high levels in many of the common cereals we eat as well as oreos and others. It also showed up in testing of breast milk in a Canadian study. This product is in most everything if you test for it. The FDA/USDA and EPA has been negligent in testing products , especially after the roundup formulations were changed a few years back making it much more potent. The full article was published in the Kelley beekeeping newsletter a month or do ago.:lookout:
Nick


----------



## Tim KS

Everyone seems to get their panties in a wad every time the word glyphosate is used. I've probably absorbed more glyphosate through my little finger than most people will ever swallow in a three lifetimes.....and I'm still here.


----------



## McBain

Tim KS said:


> Everyone seems to get their panties in a wad every time the word glyphosate is used. I've probably absorbed more glyphosate through my little finger than most people will ever swallow in a three lifetimes.....and I'm still here.


I'm glad you have good health, I truly am, but what about your children? 

In the year 2000 1 in 150 children were born with autism. In 2010 that number was over 100% higher, 1 in 68 children were born with autism. A new government survey suggests that number today is 1 in 45. (https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-government-survey-pegs-autism-prevalence-1-45 , http://www.autism-society.org/what-is/facts-and-statistics/)

Do you have a guess as to what the leading cause of death by disease past infancy among children in the United States today is? Cancer in the form of leukemia, brain and other central nervous system tumors, lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms tumor, bone cancer, and gonadal (testicular and ovarian) germ cell tumors. (cancer.gov)

Everything is what it eats. If our bees forage on garbage, they suffer. If we eat garbage, we suffer. It's as simple as that.


----------



## JRG13

The foodbabe isn't very credible. It's not surprising that glyphosate is found in cereal. It's common practice to spray a field a few weeks prior to harvesting wheat in the midwest to get the crop to dry down faster and more uniform.


----------



## McBain

JRG13 said:


> The foodbabe isn't very credible.


Do you have facts that back this statement up? 



JRG13 said:


> It's not surprising that glyphosate is found in cereal. It's common practice to spray a field a few weeks prior to harvesting wheat in the midwest to get the crop to dry down faster and more uniform.


Exactly, and thus:



McBain said:


> In the year 2000 1 in 150 children were born with autism. In 2010 that number was over 100% higher, 1 in 68 children were born with autism. A new government survey suggests that number today is 1 in 45. (https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-government-survey-pegs-autism-prevalence-1-45 , http://www.autism-society.org/what-is/facts-and-statistics/)
> 
> Do you have a guess as to what the leading cause of death by disease past infancy among children in the United States today is? Cancer in the form of leukemia, brain and other central nervous system tumors, lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms tumor, bone cancer, and gonadal (testicular and ovarian) germ cell tumors. (cancer.gov)
> 
> Everything is what it eats. If our bees forage on garbage, they suffer. If we eat garbage, we suffer. It's as simple as that.


----------



## jim lyon

McBain said:


> I'm glad you have good health, I truly am, but what about your children?
> 
> In the year 2000 1 in 150 children were born with autism. In 2010 that number was over 100% higher, 1 in 68 children were born with autism. A new government survey suggests that number today is 1 in 45. (https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-government-survey-pegs-autism-prevalence-1-45 , http://www.autism-society.org/what-is/facts-and-statistics/)
> 
> Do you have a guess as to what the leading cause of death by disease past infancy among children in the United States today is? Cancer in the form of leukemia, brain and other central nervous system tumors, lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms tumor, bone cancer, and gonadal (testicular and ovarian) germ cell tumors. (cancer.gov)
> 
> Everything is what it eats. If our bees forage on garbage, they suffer. If we eat garbage, we suffer. It's as simple as that.


You have to love it when people use children as pawns in their causes. No one cares more about the safety of future generations than I do but please don't simply plug in glyphosate to make a cause and effect argument or try to assume all autism statistics are using the same yardstick. While I'm not sure the use of glyphosate as a drydown is a particularly good practice at least one needs to concede that there is probably not another pesticide as benign as glyphosate. No amount of hatred of large agribusiness or gmo's really changes the fact that it is far less toxic than many other environmental pollutants that we are exposed to or products that we choose to consume on a day to day basis.


----------



## D Coates

jim lyon said:


> You have to love it when people use children as pawns in their causes. No one cares more about the safety of future generations than I do but please don't simply plug in glyphosate to make a cause and effect argument or try to assume all autism statistics are using the same yardstick. While I'm not sure the use of glyphosate as a drydown is a particularly good practice at least one needs to concede that there is probably not another pesticide as benign as glyphosate. No amount of hatred of large agribusiness or gmo's really changes the fact that it is far less toxic than many other environmental pollutants that we are exposed to or products that we choose to consume on a day to day basis.


The only thing I won't agree with here is it's an herbicide not insecticide. But I'm being picky. 

Beyond that, spot on Jim. The children are also used in supposed autism link is with the anti vaccination folks use too. GMO as well. Heck even the govt. uses it when they try to get various taxes passed. "It's for the Children...."


----------



## psm1212

McBain said:


> In the year 2000 1 in 150 children were born with autism. In 2010 that number was over 100% higher, 1 in 68 children were born with autism. A new government survey suggests that number today is 1 in 45. (https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-government-survey-pegs-autism-prevalence-1-45 , http://www.autism-society.org/what-is/facts-and-statistics/)


Born with? or Diagnosed with? As the autism spectrum has been expanded over the last few decades, so has, necessarily, the number of people included in that spectrum.

The article you linked is actually discussing a lack of school-based services for the increase in children DIAGNOSED with autism. It does not provide any data that indicates more children are BORN with autism today than in 2000.


----------



## jim lyon

D Coates said:


> The only thing I won't agree with here is it's an herbicide not insecticide. But I'm being picky.
> 
> Beyond that, spot on Jim. The children are also used in supposed autism link is with the anti vaccination folks use too. GMO as well. Heck even the govt. uses it when they try to get various taxes passed. "It's for the Children...."


Actually I said pesticide not insecticide. Not that I'm being picky.


----------



## AHudd

Tim KS said:


> Everyone seems to get their panties in a wad every time the word glyphosate is used. I've probably absorbed more glyphosate through my little finger than most people will ever swallow in a three lifetimes.....and I'm still here.


Have you seen the Sixth Sense, starring Bruce Willis? 

Alex


----------



## McBain

jim lyon said:


> You have to love it when people use children as pawns in their causes. *No one cares more about the safety of future generations than I do* but please don't simply plug in glyphosate to make a cause and effect argument or try to assume all autism statistics are using the same yardstick. While I'm not sure the use of glyphosate as a drydown is a particularly good practice at least one needs to concede that there is probably not another pesticide as benign as glyphosate. No amount of hatred of large agribusiness or gmo's really changes the fact that it is far less toxic than many other environmental pollutants that we are exposed to or products that we choose to consume on a day to day basis.


Everything that is done has an effect. Here is what has changed and you can draw your own conclusion:









Source: http://streamdynamics.us/resource/glyphosate-usage-graphs-usgs



psm1212 said:


> Born with? or Diagnosed with? As the autism spectrum has been expanded over the last few decades, so has, necessarily, the number of people included in that spectrum.
> 
> The article you linked is actually discussing a lack of school-based services for the increase in children DIAGNOSED with autism. It does not provide any data that indicates more children are BORN with autism today than in 2000.


All right, the spectrum may have been widened to include more people, but how many people did you know growing up who had autism? *How many people did you know growing up who were dependent upon their asthma puffers? *

You also failed to explain why cancer, which is basically genetic collapse within the body, is the leading cause of death after infancy. What could possibly cause genetic collapse? Perhaps genetically engineered organisms that are laced in toxic chemicals. 

*We know glyphosate kills plants and neonicotinoids kill insects. We also know (and if you don't know, it's simply a fact) we humans consume both of these toxins along with the organism they have been sprayed on. Those organisms are not found in nature because they have been modified by man (genetically modified organism) and they have physically been changed to the point where it can survive both toxins when all other plants die from a mixture of both. Now, who actually believes that something toxic to plants and something else toxic to insects, when consumed by a human, is perfectly safe? That is simply foolish and irrational.* 

*Explain to me why such reasoning is wrong.*

In addition, children are more susceptible and if people truly care about the next generation, they need to seriously consider what has been said. http://npic.orst.edu/health/child.html

Furthermore, who honestly believes that neonicotinoids have no effect on bees whatsoever? Most of what we eat (weather toxic or not) has been pollinated by a bee. *If we as humans grow toxic food do you honestly think that does not affect bees?*


----------



## Dave Burrup

Mcbain here is another way to look at what you site. Modern medicine and our culture keep weak individuals alive to reproduce and thus weaken the gene pool. Cancer, autism, Diabetis, and a host of other problems maybe nothing more than poor genetics, and have nothing to do with chemicals.


----------



## Tim KS

AHudd said:


> Have you seen the Sixth Sense, starring Bruce Willis?
> 
> Alex


Yes, I've seen it, but don't know what a supernatural horror-thriller (fiction) has to do with glyphosate. :scratch:


----------



## Tim KS

Dave Burrup said:


> Mcbain here is another way to look at what you site. Modern medicine and our culture keep weak individuals alive to reproduce and thus weaken the gene pool. Cancer, autism, Diabetis, and a host of other problems maybe nothing more than poor genetics, and have nothing to do with chemicals.


Exactly! Genetic changes in plant & animal life has been going on for millions of years. Now suddenly that man has begun to dabble in it, it has become dangerous to our health?


----------



## jim lyon

No, Mcbain is correct. The problem is glyphosate, it's the only variable.....the only possible explanation.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Jim I hope that is tongue in cheek


----------



## Vance G

I have been using it since the mid seventies mostly with no protective gear past blue jeans. I wonder when the hammer is going to fall! When will I sprout a rectum between my eyes or my children develop birth defects in their middle age! Maybe my grand daughter in college can be excused for her poor grades and nose ring because of my profligate disregard of my exposure to round up! I am so ashamed! I need a safe zone to cower in.


----------



## McBain

Vance G said:


> I have been using it since the mid seventies mostly with no protective gear past blue jeans. I wonder when the hammer is going to fall! When will I sprout a rectum between my eyes or my children develop birth defects in their middle age! Maybe my grand daughter in college can be excused for her poor grades and nose ring because of my profligate disregard of my exposure to round up! I am so ashamed! I need a safe zone to cower in.


:applause: :lpf:

That's a good one there near the end!!!

In all seriousness though, it will not (and has not) happened overnight. Fruit flie experiments give us an idea of what happens over generations on a certain diet: http://cssf.usc.edu/History/2013/Projects/J1730.pdf

"The 1st generation fruit flies which were fed organic papaya lived longer on average than the flies fed GMO papaya by 22%. The difference became more pronounced with the 2nd generation; the 2nd generation flies fed organic papaya lived longer by by 41% on average. Regarding dietary effects on reproductive rates, flies fed organic papaya produced more larvae than flies fed GMO papaya media by 12%." (View) 

Basically this tells us GMO fruit flies died 22% quicker than their potential lifespan. The second generation died out 41% faster than their potential lifespan. 



Dave Burrup said:


> Mcbain here is another way to look at what you site. Modern medicine and our culture keep weak individuals alive to reproduce and thus weaken the gene pool. Cancer, autism, Diabetis, and a host of other problems maybe nothing more than poor genetics, and have nothing to do with chemicals.


This could be a contributing factor but I don't think 'bad genetics' are causing the massive decline in health we are seeing. The way we could prove or disprove this idea would be to take a sample of the general public in places where all of these toxins are banned and see if they generally live longer or shorter lives than those on non-toxic diets.



Tim KS said:


> Exactly! Genetic changes in plant & animal life has been going on for millions of years. Now suddenly that man has begun to dabble in it, it has become dangerous to our health?


While I do not agree with your belief that plants and animals have been changing for millions of years, I will say that even if that were happening, *it never takes foreign genetics (such as from a fish) and implants it into something like corn. Never.*



jim lyon said:


> No, Mcbain is correct. The problem is glyphosate, it's the only variable.....the only possible explanation.


: )

I disagree. There are other chemicals contributing to human decay such as fluoride in drinking water. = ) 

Thanks for being agreeable. = )


----------



## Dave Burrup

Mcbain people with a mindset like yours, while I was in college, forecast the end of mankind by the turn of the century. We are a ways past that. I agree we would probably be better off without the chemical pollutants in our life, but that is a question too. Without seeing the details of the fruit fly experiment, my response is BS. I have seen far too many research projects carried out with an agenda to prove a point. Your point about foreign genetics is wrong too. Viruses transfer foreign genetics often. DNA research is finding foreign fragments in us and other organisms. I have no hope that you will even consider any of this.


----------



## Tim KS

> it never takes foreign genetics (such as from a fish) and implants it into something like corn. Never.


Oh, but what about my neighbor down the road.....when he plants his tomatoes he buries a carp (fish) in each hole with the new tomato plant...? Where do you think those scales on tomatoes comes from? 

I also believe that the human lifespan keeps getting longer, so we must be doing something right. :thumbsup:


----------



## JRG13

And people eat mercury contaminated fish all the time??? So what's the difference if you put that gene into a plant??? You eat fish, you eat plant, now u get some fish DNA in your plant, what's the big deal?? Do you not see the absurdity of that argument now??


----------



## McBain

Dave Burrup said:


> Mcbain people with a mindset like yours, while I was in college, forecast the end of mankind by the turn of the century. We are a ways past that. I agree we would probably be better off without the chemical pollutants in our life, but that is a question too. Without seeing the details of the fruit fly experiment, my response is BS. I have seen far too many research projects carried out with an agenda to prove a point. Your point about foreign genetics is wrong too. Viruses transfer foreign genetics often. DNA research is finding foreign fragments in us and other organisms. I have no hope that you will even consider any of this.


I will consider anything with facts to support it. 

None of my ideas are 'set in stone' and I've said this before on other topics, however, no one could really argue with the points I brought up. If someone said to me 'this is wrong because of this 50 years study done on the effects of glyphosate, neonicotinoids and GMO's' I would have no problem saying I was wrong. No such studies exist to my knowledge and the majority of research has been done with the producers interests and pocket books (weather that be Monsanto/Bayer or another corporation) in mind rather than those of the general public.

Foreign organisms do exist inside our bodies. If they did not, we would never be sick, correct? I fail to see how that is relevant in this discussion because foreign organisms generally cause sickness, unless you are referring to something else. Can you post some of that research for us? - Thanks.


----------



## McBain

Tim KS said:


> Oh, but what about my neighbor down the road.....when he plants his tomatoes he buries a carp (fish) in each hole with the new tomato plant...? Where do you think those scales on tomatoes comes from?  I also believe that the human lifespan keeps getting longer, so we must be doing something right. :thumbsup:





JRG13 said:


> And people eat mercury contaminated fish all the time??? So what's the difference if you put that gene into a plant??? You eat fish, you eat plant, now u get some fish DNA in your plant, what's the big deal?? Do you not see the absurdity of that argument now??


I will explain the process of genetic modification to the best of my abilities so that you better understand it. I am not talking about the nutrients contained within a dead fish being used by a plant.

Genetic code from fish was inserted into tomatoes and strawberries. These were not dead fish nor were they dead tomatoes or strawberries. This is actually modification of the genetic code which tells the fish/tomato/strawberry how to grow. The goal was to keep the tomatoes and strawberries from freezing, a trait the fish had. You do not have both a fish and a tomato, you have a tomato that now has genetic code from both its original variety and from fish. - What is sad is we cannot figure out how genetic collapse disorders such as cancer are within the human family. Perhaps genetic modification = genetic collapse.

When a plant's roots take in nutrients from the soil, say from a fish, that does not change the tomatoes genetic code one bit. If a tomato is floating in a lake and a fish eats it, that does not change the fish's genetic code one bit.

View: http://www.occupyforanimals.net/stu...ectly-linked-to-causing-cancerous-tumors.html

Another issue I have is, why does Monsanto/Bayer try and dismiss stuff like this? If their food is truly 'safe', why do they have an entire department that discredits studies like this one? Why the need for secrecy unless you are hiding something?


----------



## Dave Burrup

I am not talking about foreign organisms I am talking about foreign DNA mixed into our DNA. 
When the Beeffalo breeding was a hot topic they found that only 3% of Bison could breed successfully with beef. Genetic research in Buffalo has found that there are almost no bison that are not contaminated with beef DNA. How did the beef DNA get into the Buffalo? Mosquitoes and the viruses they carry. The 3% that can breed successfully because they are already a GMO? Who knows.


----------



## McBain

Dave Burrup said:


> I am not talking about foreign organisms I am talking about foreign DNA mixed into our DNA.
> When the Beeffalo breeding was a hot topic they found that only 3% of Bison could breed successfully with beef. Genetic research in Buffalo has found that there are almost no bison that are not contaminated with beef DNA. How did the beef DNA get into the Buffalo? Mosquitoes and the viruses they carry. The 3% that can breed successfully because they are already a GMO? Who knows.


Where is the research that backs this up? No one can just pull numbers out of the air and make claims with them.

Where is the research that tells us whether or not mosquitoes and and viruses can modify DNA? 

When you say beef, do you mean cattle?


----------



## Arnie

jim lyon said:


> No, Mcbain is correct. The problem is glyphosate, it's the only variable.....the only possible explanation.


No way, Jim.
Global Warming is the answer. To everything. Terrorism, income inequality, CCD, plant death, bee death, glyphosate, the crappy US postal service, halitosis, college debt, the Yugo(or worse, the Trabant).................................you name it. 

Glyphosate's just another word for Global Warming blues.


----------



## jim lyon

Arnie said:


> No way, Jim.
> Global Warming is the answer. To everything. Terrorism, income inequality, CCD, plant death, bee death, glyphosate, the crappy US postal service, halitosis, college debt, the Yugo(or worse, the Trabant).................................you name it.
> 
> Glyphosate's just another word for Global Warming blues.


 Stop! Your confusing me. Hey, wouldn't Kia sales have a graph similar to glyphosate's?


----------



## beecavalier

Man I wish I knew the answers to a lot of these questions. All I can do is take some middle ground because I don't know the answers...but I can state some observations that make me wonder what is going on.

My daughter is a school principal in a local rural community. She's taught there before becoming principal and I taught there in the previous generation. We chat quit a bit and about a year ago she told me that out of a class of pre-school children, 14 out of 17 required speech therapy...there was a delay of normal speech progress...enough so that they enrolled in an early intervention program ( known as the PUF in Alberta). She was quite concerned about that as was I...historically there may have been 1 or 2 students that required special help...and that wasn't necessarily every year. In my time as a teacher in that community I never saw anything like that...perhaps the occasional kid with a speech impediment is all I can recall. I consider these speech delays as fitting into the "autistic spectrum" and as it varies in severity from child to child, hard to generalize where it fits exactly into that spectrum.

So I wrote a letter to our provincial Minister of Education and asked if this was normal across the school district and she responded that there was one other rural community in the area with similar statistics. I didn't ask for data across the province. I must say I was very impressed with the research she did to come up with her response.

At the same time, a family member (not in that rural setting but in that general area) was having the same issue with his daughter...my grand daughter. So this issue of delayed normal speech onset has touched our family.

I cannot equivocally say delayed normal speech is because of glycosate but it is still in the back of my mind that pesticides may be to blame...as well as a few other possibilities.

They say a beehive...limited by physical flying distance i.e circumference around the hive...forages on approximately 8000 acres. In my area pesticides are routinely being applied to 4000 of the 8000 acres up to 3 times per year (this is often the case with field peas). My estimate is that some neighboring beekeepers have 7000 out of 8000 acres being treated this way. The accelerated use of glycosate coincides with the patent expiring on Roundup...it's cheap in this part of the world. So is it any wonder I'm "keeping one eye open"...I for one would like some more research done.


----------



## Tim KS

McBain said:


> - What is sad is we cannot figure out how genetic collapse disorders such as cancer are within the human family. Perhaps genetic modification = genetic collapse.


If we can't say how cancer got into our genetic code, how can you know how genetic codes can or can't move between fish & plants?


----------



## Dave Burrup

Mcbain the supporting research is not hard to find, but you will reject it hands down, and probably will not even bother looking for it. One hint I will give you, it is not all in one paper. Viruses were some of the first methods for creating GMOs.


----------



## psm1212

There has been no scientifically proven connection between vaccines, glyphosate, or neonics, or pesticides or herbicides or any other cide to autism. However, there are multiple studies which show a higher prevalence of autism in older mothers. 

In the past 20 years, teen pregnancy has dropped in half in this country and the average first-time mother is now almost 2 years older. That is just the AVERAGE first-time mother. 

So we have a KNOWN risk factor, with a KNOWN variable movement that is increasing that risk factor -- yet we hear nothing of it. 

Instead, we tilt at windmills. 

Because it is easy to hate big AG and big Pharma. It is political suicide to tell women to stop having babies past age 35. 

If nature or God or whatever you believe in did not want women to have children at young ages, they would not become fertile before they leave middle school.

Do I think aged mothers are the cause of autism? I have no idea. But I have a hell of a lot more compelling evidence that old mothers are the cause than you do that Round Up is the culprit.


----------



## Arnie

jim lyon said:


> Hey, wouldn't Kia sales have a graph similar to glyphosate's?


You might be on to something, Jim.

If you study the charts you notice that the rise in Kia sales and the rise in autism and glyphosate correspond to the rise in temperature across the globe.

So global warming has caused Kia disease , autism and glysophate syndrome. 

Great research Jim!!


----------



## Dave Burrup

The problem with figuring out what is causing these concerns is there are too many of them interplaying with each other. Plastics, and synthetic materials give off pseudo-estrogens. What do they do to developing fetuses? Another factor that is seldom considered is the stress hormones produced because of our life styles we lead. Autism, and other developmental issues likely develop during pregnancy. Diabetes ll is a life style issue. We pick our favorite evil, and ignore the others. The horror is they are all working together.


----------



## Tim KS

It's a well know fact that we will not get out of this life without dying. If we get a handle on everything that ails us, then well we all be dying of good health before you know it.


----------



## johno

Don't worry, be happy, America must be one of the healthiest countries in the world with a large percentage of the population living well over 100 years. I have heard that there are over 6 million Americans over the age of 112 still collecting social security, so be happy or what.
Johno


----------



## D Coates

jim lyon said:


> Actually I said pesticide not insecticide. Not that I'm being picky.


Touche'!


----------



## D Coates

psm1212 said:


> There has been no scientifically proven connection between vaccines, glyphosate, or neonics, or pesticides or herbicides or any other cide to autism. However, there are multiple studies which show a higher prevalence of autism in older mothers.
> 
> In the past 20 years, teen pregnancy has dropped in half in this country and the average first-time mother is now almost 2 years older. That is just the AVERAGE first-time mother.
> 
> So we have a KNOWN risk factor, with a KNOWN variable movement that is increasing that risk factor -- yet we hear nothing of it.
> 
> Instead, we tilt at windmills.
> 
> Because it is easy to hate big AG and big Pharma. It is political suicide to tell women to stop having babies past age 35.
> 
> If nature or God or whatever you believe in did not want women to have children at young ages, they would not become fertile before they leave middle school.
> 
> Do I think aged mothers are the cause of autism? I have no idea. But I have a hell of a lot more compelling evidence that old mothers are the cause than you do that Round Up is the culprit.


There are some pretty good points here. My wife and I decided to stop having kids at 40 as the standard risk of birth defects increase substantially (no idea of autism was included in this). I do also remember reading that there's a link between men who father children while in their 60's+ and autism in the offspring.


----------



## Tim KS

johno said:


> Don't worry, be happy, America must be one of the healthiest countries in the world with a large percentage of the population living well over 100 years. I have heard that there are over 6 million Americans over the age of 112 still collecting social security, so be happy or what.
> Johno


I'll bet those 6 million are still on the voting rolls too.


----------



## jim lyon

As Mark Twain once said. "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, ****ed lies and statistics". Just think, that was before Google put a world of them at our fingertips where it's pretty easy to find the "graph du jour" that confirms exactly what you already have your mind made up about. (See signature)


----------



## johno

Just like Abe Lincoln said, you can't believe everything you read on the internet.
Johno


----------



## cervus

Tim KS said:


> I also believe that the human lifespan keeps getting longer, so we must be doing something right. :thumbsup:


Life expectancy _was_ increasing. Just heard this on the radio coming into work this morning.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds


----------



## McBain

Tim KS said:


> If we can't say how cancer got into our genetic code, how can you know how genetic codes can or can't move between fish & plants?


This is exactly what I just proposed. The process of genetic modification between fish and plants, or whatever and whatever. All DNA does the same job, it tells the structure how to reproduce. When the DNA/genetics are modified the code tells the organism a different way to reproduce. 

That all sounds good in theory and we know it is possible because there are organisms with altered genetics today, but *we have no long-term studies showing us that any of it is safe. You can easily prove me wrong by showing everyone a long-term study of the effects of glyphosate, neonicotinoids and GMO's on mankind. *

*What is the job of both glyphosate and neonicotinoids? Their job is to destroy living organisms and they do that very well.* You seem to be missing my point here, so let me illustrate this way:

You inject a substance into a whale, it survives. As you continue this year after year, you discover that the first generation whale lives a life that is 22% shorter than average and it's offspring (that is also being injected) lives to only 41% of the average lifespan.

*Because no long-term studies have been done on the safety of this product, what can you assume about the safety? One can safely assume that it is not safe to continue injecting the whale, correct?* (view)

Are you seeing my point? *We don't have long-term studies and proper information, but we do have a lot of short-term information that shows the product is not safe.* We also do know the results of Agent Orange which is a similar compound produced by the same company.

Why would the government allow unsafe products, you may ask? First I don't think they *know* whether or not the products are safe. Second, who pays who? If you spend some time reading up on how many lobbyists and people in high places Monsanto/Bayer has, you can take a good guess as to why the government would allow an unsafe product on the market. There are so many people with conflicting interests in government that it isn't even funny.



Dave Burrup said:


> Mcbain the supporting research is not hard to find, but you will reject it hands down, and probably will not even bother looking for it. One hint I will give you, it is not all in one paper. Viruses were some of the first methods for creating GMOs.


You seem to be pretty familiar with the research and I may stumble across the wrong stuff which will point me further away from your views. Since you quoted stats earlier, why don't you post the source of it to enlighten us? 

You seem all to confident that I am fixated on my current view. That is simply not correct, as I said earlier. However, in my view, the strongest research is currently showing that glyphosate, neonicotinoids and GMO's (weather that be Genetically Modified or Genetically Engineered) are dangerous to the health of mankind and that of our bees. 



psm1212 said:


> There has been no scientifically proven connection between vaccines, glyphosate, or neonics, or pesticides or herbicides or any other cide to autism. However, there are multiple studies which show a higher prevalence of autism in older mothers.
> 
> In the past 20 years, teen pregnancy has dropped in half in this country and the average first-time mother is now almost 2 years older. That is just the AVERAGE first-time mother.
> 
> So we have a KNOWN risk factor, with a KNOWN variable movement that is increasing that risk factor -- yet we hear nothing of it.
> 
> Instead, we tilt at windmills. Because it is easy to hate big AG and big Pharma. It is political suicide to tell women to stop having babies past age 35. If nature or God or whatever you believe in did not want women to have children at young ages, they would not become fertile before they leave middle school.
> 
> Do I think aged mothers are the cause of autism? I have no idea. But I have a hell of a lot more compelling evidence that old mothers are the cause than you do that Round Up is the culprit.


First off, you have no supporting facts to back up your statements. Where did all of those numbers come from?

Second, here are 22 studies that have been done which potentially link autism to vaccines. The other two topics have been previously discussed throughout this form. (View 22 studies linking autism to vaccines) 

I don't think on is right and one is wrong, I think there are two contributing factors. If what you said is true, that could be a contributing factor. If these independent studies are correct, vaccines are a contributing factor. 

*You may wonder why these reports are never highlighted in the mainstream media. I've wondered that too and found this very interesting:* "Concerns regarding vaccinations continue to increase exponentially in light of all of the information and documentation that has surfaced over the past few years. As a result, corporate media has responded to alternative media, stating that the increase of persons who are choosing to opt out of vaccines and the recommended vaccine schedule is a result of ‘fear mongering.’This may not be too surprising as the corporate media is owned by the major vaccine manufacturers, and the major vaccine manufacturers are owned by corporate media(1)(2)(3)(4). Given this fact, it’s easy to fathom the possibility that these institutions are desperately trying to protect the reputation of their product.

For example, if we take a look at GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, they are owned by the same financial institutions and groups that own Time Warner (CNN, HBO etc.) and General Electric (NBC, Comcast, Universal Pictures etc.).(1)(2)(3)(4) This is seen throughout all of the major vaccine manufacturers and all of the 6 corporations that control our mainstream media. Keep in mind that these are the major funders of all ‘medical research’ that’s used to administer drugs and vaccinations. Despite these connections, medical research and documentation exists to show that vaccines might indeed be a cause for concern." (View)

I appreciate that even though you disagree with me, we can talk about these issues and we are both big enough to do so professionally. 




beecavalier said:


> Man I wish I knew the answers to a lot of these questions. All I can do is take some middle ground because I don't know the answers...but I can state some observations that make me wonder what is going on.
> 
> My daughter is a school principal in a local rural community. She's taught there before becoming principal and I taught there in the previous generation. We chat quit a bit and about a year ago she told me that out of a class of pre-school children, 14 out of 17 required speech therapy...there was a delay of normal speech progress...enough so that they enrolled in an early intervention program ( known as the PUF in Alberta). She was quite concerned about that as was I...historically there may have been 1 or 2 students that required special help...and that wasn't necessarily every year. In my time as a teacher in that community I never saw anything like that...perhaps the occasional kid with a speech impediment is all I can recall. I consider these speech delays as fitting into the "autistic spectrum" and as it varies in severity from child to child, hard to generalize where it fits exactly into that spectrum.
> 
> So I wrote a letter to our provincial Minister of Education and asked if this was normal across the school district and she responded that there was one other rural community in the area with similar statistics. I didn't ask for data across the province. I must say I was very impressed with the research she did to come up with her response.
> 
> At the same time, a family member (not in that rural setting but in that general area) was having the same issue with his daughter...my grand daughter. So this issue of delayed normal speech onset has touched our family.
> 
> I cannot equivocally say delayed normal speech is because of glycosate but it is still in the back of my mind that pesticides may be to blame...as well as a few other possibilities.
> 
> They say a beehive...limited by physical flying distance i.e circumference around the hive...forages on approximately 8000 acres. In my area pesticides are routinely being applied to 4000 of the 8000 acres up to 3 times per year (this is often the case with field peas). My estimate is that some neighboring beekeepers have 7000 out of 8000 acres being treated this way. The accelerated use of glycosate coincides with the patent expiring on Roundup...it's cheap in this part of the world. So is it any wonder I'm "keeping one eye open"...I for one would like some more research done.


I agree and thank you for posting your experiences. I wish long-term testing from independent sources was a requirement before any company can produce potentially toxic products and release them on the market as 'food'. 




Dave Burrup said:


> The problem with figuring out what is causing these concerns is there are too many of them interplaying with each other. Plastics, and synthetic materials give off pseudo-estrogens. What do they do to developing fetuses? Another factor that is seldom considered is the stress hormones produced because of our life styles we lead. Autism, and other developmental issues likely develop during pregnancy. Diabetes ll is a life style issue. We pick our favorite evil, and ignore the others. The horror is they are all working together.


There are a lot of factors that are all working together but some can be eliminated and other can be avoided. I cannot really control the air I breath, I cannot always control the food I eat, I cannot always control where my bees forage, etc. I can, however, eliminate possible risks whenever possible because, at the end of the day, I only live once and will always to live life to the fullest. 



johno said:


> Don't worry, be happy, America must be one of the healthiest countries in the world with a large percentage of the population living well over 100 years. I have heard that there are over 6 million Americans over the age of 112 still collecting social security, so be happy or what.
> Johno


Actually, the United States does not even place in the top 40 countries with the longest life expectancies and almost every first-world country on earth ranks above the U.S. in that regard. (U.S.A. places 43) View stats: 



cervus said:


> Life expectancy _was_ increasing. Just heard this on the radio coming into work this morning. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds


What is a primary difference between the diet of an American and that of a person in say, Iceland? An American has no idea weather they are consuming GMO products or not, because very few states here have labeling laws in place. People here can only purchase 'Organic' or 'non-GMO project verified' products to ensure they are not consuming glyphosate and the other chemicals associated with GMO products. The Icelandic citizens (average life expectancy of 82.97 years) know when they purchase a product if it contains GMO's or not because they have labeling laws in place.

Here are just a few other countries with longer average life expectancies than the U.S. that have GMO laws in place which vary from complete bans on GMO products to forced labeling:

Iceland

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Italy (View I. Introduction near the bottom)

Sweden

France

Norway

Netherlands

Germany




jim lyon said:


> As Mark Twain once said. "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, ****ed lies and statistics". Just think, that was before Google put a world of them at our fingertips where it's pretty easy to find the "graph du jour" that confirms exactly what you already have your mind made up about. (See signature)
> 
> "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney


Easy enough for the person with the vast majority of research on their side, very difficult for people who believe what they want in spite of the evidence. 

*Anyone has the right to believe what they want to, but simply believing does not make a person's view right, nor does it make what that person believes true. *

--->


johno said:


> Just like Abe Lincoln said, you can't believe everything you read on the internet.


 #1 right there folks. = ) Tweeted no doubt by Abraham Lincoln himself. ; )


----------



## johno

I think a problem with McBain or McLain is he has difficulty in separating fact, fiction and humor.
Johno


----------



## D Coates

McBain said:


> What is a primary difference between the diet of an American and that of a person in say, Iceland? An American has no idea weather they are consuming GMO products or not...


That statement is utter horse hockey. The primary difference is fat and caloric intake (vs. activity is a whole different ball of ball of wax). Fat and a sedentary lifestyle and the negative health issues attributed therein are infinitely more dangerous and easily controlled that the perceived dangers of the GMO boogieman. The problem is reducing fat and caloric intake is much harder for a person to do than blame GMO's and faceless corporations for their ills...., (as they shove another fried twinkie down their pie hole). Don't get me wrong, I love a fried twinkie on occasion and I could afford to lose a couple pounds but claiming the only difference between an American diet and someone from Iceland is whether or not they're knowing consuming GMO's? That's a steaming pile fertilizer.


----------



## psm1212

McBain said:


> What is a primary difference between the diet of an American and that of a person in say, Iceland? An American has no idea weather they are consuming GMO products or not, because very few states here have labeling laws in place.


Not to pile on McBain, but surely you can't believe this. There is absolutely no chance you can justify it.

We live in a country where a white male with over 12 years of education outlives a black male with under 12 years of education by an AVERAGE OF 14 YEARS!!!!!! We know EXACTLY why we trail some countries in life expectancies.

Once again, the obvious and statistically proven variables are ignored, while the unproven, undemonstrated and agenda-driven variables are announced as "primary" culprits.

Find me the double-blind, peer-reviewed study that conclusively shows glyphosate or GMOS shorten the average American life or cause autism or cause cancer. Until then I just don't understand how we take this seriously.

I lived through the DDT era. Where DDT was sprayed all over my home state. My children still do not understand why I get so excited when I see a hawk. Because I remember a time when I did not see any hawks.

So when science developed a way to modify seeds, or embed them with a small amount of insecticide that allows them to sprout out of the ground without being eaten by a pest, I applaud the accomplishment. I remember the old way we use to do it. Until PROVEN wrong, I believe this is better. I am not going to stand in its way just because of an unverified hunch.


----------



## Nabber86

McBain said:


> I'm glad you have good health, I truly am, but what about your children?
> 
> In the year 2000 1 in 150 children were born with autism. In 2010 that number was over 100% higher, 1 in 68 children were born with autism. A new government survey suggests that number today is 1 in 45. (https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-government-survey-pegs-autism-prevalence-1-45 , http://www.autism-society.org/what-is/facts-and-statistics/)
> 
> Do you have a guess as to what the leading cause of death by disease past infancy among children in the United States today is? Cancer in the form of leukemia, brain and other central nervous system tumors, lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms tumor, bone cancer, and gonadal (testicular and ovarian) germ cell tumors. (cancer.gov)
> 
> Everything is what it eats. If our bees forage on garbage, they suffer. If we eat garbage, we suffer. It's as simple as that.


Are you serious? Everyone knows that Autism is caused by vaccines. I thought that was common knowledge.


----------



## Arnie

Is aluminum one of the components of glyphosate?


Wait...............found it............

http://www.naturalnews.com/047354_glyphosate_vaccine_injury_autism.html


----------



## jonsl

Nabber86 said:


> Are you serious? Everyone knows that Autism is caused by vaccines. I thought that was common knowledge.


I hope you're being tongue in cheek about this. If not, you're scaring me. There are no scientific studies that prove this, just internet legends. People who refuse to vaccinate their kids are endangering them. There are risks with anything but they are extremely low for vaccines. And don't tell me that it's just large pharma trying to make profits. Money is not made on vaccines and most companies stay out of the business because there
s nothing to be made on it.


----------



## jim lyon

jonsl said:


> I hope you're being tongue in cheek about this. If not, you're scaring me. There are no scientific studies that prove this, just internet legends. People who refuse to vaccinate their kids are endangering them. There are risks with anything but they are extremely low for vaccines. And don't tell me that it's just large pharma trying to make profits. Money is not made on vaccines and most companies stay out of the business because there
> s nothing to be made on it.


Nabber tongue in cheek? Naaaaaa.


----------



## jonsl

The internet is a really great tool but at the same time it is really screwing up humanity.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I'm very confident that _Nabber86_'s most recent comment above was meant as _tongue-in-cheek_ and that comment was not intended to be a literal fact. 

These kinds of mistaken assumptions could be lessened if people would use at least *one smiley* to suggest that their comment was meant to have some element of humor in it! :shhhh:

May I suggest more frequent use of my favorite smiley ....

:ws:




.


----------



## Barry

And if I were to say "beekeeping", that would turn this thread into an on-topic discussion! k:


----------



## jonsl

You're right Barry. It seems some of our conversations are drifting a bit lately. Graham, thanks for straightening that out. Not enough humor floating around some times and with texts it's hard to get the emotional context. 

Jon


----------



## Nabber86

Ok, I was being serious.


----------



## SS Auck

mcbain, maybe instead of looking at a herbacide or GMO, look into plastics and how they are made. or any of the medicine you take or herbal supplements. In a high enough dose these could be very dangerous. Maybe even mutagens, these change DNA sequences. There is a lot of stuff now that can hurt you not just one of the chemicals they spray on weeds. 
Also has anyone noticed the amount of time kids sit in front of screens or there parents phones and then do not interact with other kids. Or that people dont have more than one or two kids for there kids to be around and vocalize with. There are better explanations for the symptoms of autism than to say this kid or that kid is autistic, especially since autism is different with every kid. how can that be the same disease if it is different. That is like saying chicken pox and polio are the same but they present different in each kid. some kids just get spots others cant walk.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

The usual definition for a GMO is some organism that has DNA moved into that organism form some other species. Mclain seems to follow this definition with his meaningless example of fish DNA moved into tomatoes. So, I just wonder if he realizes that using this exact definition makes him a GMO product. After all, he without doubt has cells in his body that contain DNA integrated into his chromosomes that came from non human species and did not come from either of his parents. I can say this with confidence because everyone has such cells in their body. If you happen to have a pet dog your dog will have such cells in its body. If you keep bees those bees will have such cells. The fact is every thing we eat is GMO by this definition of GMO. Cattle DNA for instance is loaded to about the 30% level with DNA that moved into cattle from a snake within the last ten million years. So Mclain, every time you eat any beef you are eating a GMO product that contains snake DNA. Nature has been moving DNA between species for over the last three billion years and is going to continue to move DNA between species in the future. She is very good at moving DNA between species. Unlike scientists in the lab who move DNA between species nature does not care a bit if she causes harm with such DNA movements. That is why scientists do not cause cancers in the recipient species when they do it but nature often causes cancers in the recipient species when she does it.


----------



## SS Auck

richard you talking delta S? 
Also any DNA ingested is broken down in the mouth and stomach. also large molecules like DNA cannot be absorbed through the skin. so no worries about altering genome unless you have a run in with a CRISPR protien.


----------



## jonsl

There are three ways that DNA can be introduced into organisms. 1) alteration by viruses, 2) cross breeding with closely related species, ie: dogs mating with wolves, cayotes,etc. and 3) humans causing genetic modification of a species, ie: the recent genetic modification of farm raised salmon to include genes from other fish to make them grow faster.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

jonsl said:


> There are three ways that DNA can be introduced into organisms. 1) alteration by viruses, 2) cross breeding with closely related species, ie: dogs mating with wolves, cayotes,etc. and 3) humans causing genetic modification of a species, ie: the recent genetic modification of farm raised salmon to include genes from other fish to make them grow faster.


Plus at least one or two other ways we know of so far. There are likely more we have no inkling about yet.


----------



## SS Auck

jonsl- I was speaking to the crazy talk that glyphosate in honey is somehow harmful to our DNA. which it is not. It is none of these things you mentioned. it is a small molecule, not a protein, or even an amino acid.


----------



## jonsl

SS Auck said:


> jonsl- I was speaking to the crazy talk that glyphosate in honey is somehow harmful to our DNA. which it is not. It is none of these things you mentioned. it is a small molecule, not a protein, or even an amino acid.


My comment was related to the statement about the snake DNA moving to cows above which I thought was unlikely. However, I've done some research since and discovered information about the inter-species transfer of DNA. You learn something new every day. Thanks Richard for turning me on to that!

I think the concern with glyphosate is that it could be carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as 2A, probably carcinogenic. That doesn't mean that it is definitely carcinogenic. The jury is still out on that.


----------



## SS Auck

well if that is all your worried about, look around it all causes cancer. ethanol, the sun, the VOC in your home and car. really it keeps going. bee venom might be too, lets not find out, ignorance is bless.


----------



## D Coates

jonsl said:


> I think the concern with glyphosate is that it could be carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as 2A, probably carcinogenic. That doesn't mean that it is definitely carcinogenic. The jury is still out on that.


Bacon is probably carcinogenic as per the WHO. http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ Yep, still eating it on occasion. Bacon wrapped venison stuffed jalapenos.... woah nellie... tasty. Grilling, carcinogenic too. I love to grill and BBQ too (No, NOT the same). None of us are getting out of this alive. I'm going to enjoy as much as I can (in relative moderation) and not waste my time worrying about GMO's, Neonics, Glyphosate, Glutens or other similarly hyped boogie man dejours.


----------



## Arnie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oDAkmfoAgA


----------



## jim lyon

jonsl said:


> That doesn't mean that it is definitely carcinogenic. The jury is still out on that.


Well its been on the market for almost 50 years, is perhaps the most widely used pesticide ever and has virtually no measurable toxicity to insects yet, still, no one knows for sure if its carcinogenic? That strike me as a bit odd. Wonder how much longer the jury is going to be out.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

jim lyon said:


> Well its been on the market for almost 50 years, is perhaps the most widely used pesticide ever and has virtually no measurable toxicity to insects yet, still, no one knows for sure if its carcinogenic? That strike me as a bit odd. Wonder how much longer the jury is going to be out.


Under US law any synthetic food additive that causes cancer in humans or any species of test animal is banned as a food additive at any concentration no matter how it gets into the food. So, the US EPA has looked at the best available science and determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer. Some other agencies around the world have looked at the data differently and concluded the data says there is a very slight chance it could cause cancer if ingested in rather huge and totally unrealistic doses over a life time. I think it is only fair to point out this US law that governs food additives that cause cancer, the Delany Clause by name, does not regulate the thousands of natural products we eat daily that are known to cause cancer. It turns out that about one in three lab produced chemicals causes cancer when tested. It also turns out that about one in three naturally produced chemicals also causes cancer when tested. For example the essential oil Thymol loved and used by many "natural" bee keepers is a suspected carcinogen. It is also far more toxic on an acute basis than glyphosate.


----------



## D Coates

jim lyon said:


> Well its been on the market for almost 50 years, is perhaps the most widely used pesticide ever and has virtually no measurable toxicity to insects yet, still, no one knows for sure if its carcinogenic? That strike me as a bit odd. Wonder how much longer the jury is going to be out.


I've asked that direct question to folks here hashing this out. The answers are always non committal. Basically it's always more time is needed to study it. I believe it's a tactic used by some meant to thwart anything they see as not 100% "natural." We'd still be dying of every disease under the sun (no vaccines) living in mud huts, and stuck in the 1800's if we followed this approach. It's an organic utopian pipe dream they want but from the comfort of their air conditioned home.

My mother in law feels food is better when it's all natural. She'll pay twice as much for a ham labelled as "all natural" then crow about how it's better for you because it's got no "chemicals"... I pointed out lead, arsenic, and mercury is "all natural", so is what that coyote just left in my yard. It doesn't mean they're good to eat. "All natural" is marketing hype to separate money from those who "feel" it's better. Needless to say, on occasion she's a bit annoyed by me when she goes on Lola granola tangents.


----------



## lharder

Between proper diet, better habits and decreased toxic load in environments, baseline cancer incidence could probably be considerably reduced.


----------



## Tim KS

Alright now.......are we ready to take another tangent? Probably not, but here goes anyway. 

Mr. Coates put the word 'feelings' in quotes above, thereby stumbling onto one of my pet peeves. Some folks "feel" everything and never "think" anything. 

A feeling should be described with usually one word such as 'I feel ....sad....happy....lonely....tired.....depressed...angry...etc. If you can follow the your "feeling" with the word 'that' and it still makes sense, then you are expressing a thought...not a feeling. So thoughts are not feelings. :no: :scratch: 

Okay....back to bees.


----------



## crofter

lharder said:


> Between proper diet, better habits and decreased toxic load in environments, baseline cancer incidence could probably be considerably reduced.



Lots of luck with that! Maybe you are drifting off again into utopian fantasy

A person has only so much "attention"; for best results we have to focus it where it pays the best dividends. I think that his fecundity, not cancer is one of mans major threats to survival. 

There are things about glyphosate that I dont like but the alternatives are even less likable. Before the masses leave the cities and take up hoes on the land there will be a lot of blood spilled. There are many lofty ideologies but they can only be entertained on a full stomach!


Reality trumps ideology.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Richard Cryberg said:


> For example the essential oil Thymol loved and used by many "natural" bee keepers is a suspected carcinogen. It is also far more toxic on an acute basis than glyphosate.


Richard can you indicate the source please?
I am very interested in demystifying in my blog this idea that organic treatments are completely harmless to human health, very much in vogue in my country.


----------



## Gypsi

Actually mercury buildup in soil, fish, water is probably responsible for the autism increase. We've burned coal for a LONG time, and the mercury gets in the air and water, and it has been known for a long time that mercury affects the brain. (mad hatter syndrome). I get vaccinations. I keep tropical fish. But I do not eat much fish. I might have eaten a can of salmon this year, it's just not safe to eat AND I am not crazy about fish.

I did eat the catfish and tilapia I raised, I don't live near a power plant. 

I do not donate to pink ribbon campaigns and anti-cancer stuff because I think those are pretty trumped up and not producing results. I mean cancer is a big profitable business. A cure would crash it. I do think that Roundup may be responsible for some cancer increases.

I raised my dogs on Purina dog chow for years. In 2005 Spike was born and Purina went to GMO corn and soy. In 2009 he started getting bumps and lumps, my vet was an idiot, said nothing to worry about, in Jan 2013 apparently a tumor on his pancreas suddenly took effect in some way, diabetes insipidus, lost 15 pounds in 3 DAYS. We played ball and rode in the truck and walked for 3 days, went to the vet, had him put down.
Switched dogs off soy corn and wheat feeds, August 2014 Bronx had mast cell tumor removed, age 7. it had metastasized, nearly died after surgery, put him on turmeric paste, which I make. He is still alive. I take it too. 

I eat a little corn in a dorito now and then, I avoid soy as much as I can, and wheat bothers me. Didn't used to, but I have a migraine the day after I eat a bagel. I don't know if it is or isn't glyphosate, but I am rather fond of living. I don't buy the stuff.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Richard can you indicate the source please?
> I am very interested in demystifying in my blog this idea that organic treatments are completely harmless to human health, very much in vogue in my country.


From this link:

https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@[email protected]+866

" 0.2.21.2 HUMAN OVERVIEW
A) Although one study found a high risk of lung cancer
among woodworkers exposed to phenol, subsequent studies
have not demonstrated an increased risk of cancer.
There is, however, a report of squamous cell cancer in
situ related to creosote exposure.
0.2.21.3 ANIMAL OVERVIEW
A) Phenol was not considered carcinogenic to rats or mice
after oral exposure in drinking water. It was a
promoter of skin cancer in mice.
0.2.22 GENOTOXICITY
A) Phenol has caused DNA damage, mutations, chromosomal
aberrations, unscheduled DNA synthesis, DNA inhibition
and micronuclei in experimental animals and cultured
cells."

The above tests on phenol are used as an indicator for thymol which is a phenol derivative. There are lots of references if you do a google scholar search.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Thank you Richard. In my country there is an idea that synthetic treatments are always dangerous for human health and that organic ones are always clean as regards residues in honey. 

A view that takes into account MRLs and the dynamics of detoxification mechanisms seems to me more appropriate in light of the current state of the art.


----------



## D Coates

Eduardo Gomes said:


> In my country there is an idea that synthetic treatments are always dangerous for human health and that organic ones are always clean as regards residues in honey.


Yep, that misguided idea is unfortunately here too.


----------



## Gypsi

I will definitely concur that not all natural products are safe - someone tried to tell me that in about 1990 and I mentioned lead, mercury, etc.

However, glyphosate isn't looking good, and seems to be causing non-hodgkins lymphoma. Study here: https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/more-evidence-linking-monsanto’s-roundup-cancer


----------



## jwcarlson

D Coates said:


> Yep, that misguided idea is unfortunately here too.


No kidding. There is a rather large subset of the population who would dump rat poison down their throats by the gallon if it were labelled the right way. Same people who think a teaspoon of honey and cinnamon cures the common cold, cancer, the flu, herpes, and foul moods.

I saw one yesterday that suggested that when you drink water effects your body in different ways. For example, a glass of water right before bed "prevents heart disease or stroke"... I'd like to know how you choose which is prevents. Also you're supposed to drink two glasses of water as soon as you wake up to "activate internal organs". I skipped drinking two glasses this morning and all of my internal organs failed to activate and I died.


----------



## crofter

Here is one of the comments on that link. 

_The WHO has 4 parts that opined on glyphosate and 3 said it is not a carcinogen but 1 put it into the same hazard group as eating processed meats ! They spent 4 hours reviewing its safety. The same WHO group has opined on about 100 items and only one was not a cancer threat - that was yoga pants. The German agency spent 4 years and concluded it was safe as well as many others_

I dont know whether this is any more accurate than a lot of other verbiage about Glyphosate but it is suggestive that cherrypicking for only the items that appear to support the view being put forth, is a practice that is alive and well.


----------



## lharder

crofter said:


> Lots of luck with that! Maybe you are drifting off again into utopian fantasy
> 
> A person has only so much "attention"; for best results we have to focus it where it pays the best dividends. I think that his fecundity, not cancer is one of mans major threats to survival.
> 
> There are things about glyphosate that I dont like but the alternatives are even less likable. Before the masses leave the cities and take up hoes on the land there will be a lot of blood spilled. There are many lofty ideologies but they can only be entertained on a full stomach!
> 
> 
> Reality trumps ideology.


We make our reality for good or bad. Giving up on a good idea and calling it reality just smells like defeatism to me. The point of an education is knowing that one doesn't have to accept somebody else's reality. We make changes, make mistakes, learn and maybe make some progress. But you don't win anything by never showing up.


----------



## Gypsi

" I dont know whether this is any more accurate than a lot of other verbiage about Glyphosate but it is suggestive that cherrypicking for only the items that appear to support the view being put forth, is a practice that is alive and well. 

Frank"

-------------------------------

Now I'm embarrassed. I ran across the headline in an email and posted a link, trying to get the new computer up for 1099s and sales taxes.

However, in my own experience, I'm losing dogs that are fed corn and soy. and I'm losing them to cancer. This is not a scientific study that is cherry picked. After watching my relatively young dog die in January 2013 I discontinued corn soy, and greatly reduced wheat in my diet, same for the dogs. And I'm staying that way. I'm already a melanoma survivor, sunlight, vitamin D deficiency or whatever. Not adding to my risk. To each their own. 

I think maybe the soy is the worst, because I am not losing chickens to feeding them corn. and I know it was sprayed. But, this again is not scientific.


----------



## D Coates

lharder said:


> We make our reality for good or bad. Giving up on a good idea and calling it reality just smells like defeatism to me. The point of an education is knowing that one doesn't have to accept somebody else's reality. We make changes, make mistakes, learn and maybe make some progress. But you don't win anything by never showing up.


But what's the "good idea" referenced? "Make mistakes", who pays for these mistakes?



lharder said:


> Between proper diet, better habits and decreased toxic load in environments, baseline cancer incidence could probably be considerably reduced.


"Could probably" are 2 enormous grey words and there are 3 variables mentioned. How much are you willing to give up or pay for the promise of words that sound good but give no assurance? Imagine being fed only what someone else dictates as healthy and doing compulsory exercise for something that "could probably" reduce cancer incidence. No doubt we'd live longer but at what cost? Are you willing to give up your freedoms to do as you wish for a "good idea." Decreased toxic load, to what and of what? What if there's no difference in cancer rates are you going to be okay with going back and using the chemicals that were banned to decrease the toxic load?

Can you now see how a "good idea" turns into a bad idea?


----------



## Gypsi

I don't legislate what others eat, or don't eat, spray on their yard, crops etc, or don't. I just decide for me. I haven't found Roundup to be at all effective on the worst weeds I've got (I sprayed in spring 2009 attempting to wipe out sand spur, my shovel did a MUCH better job, and dragging the ground for seeds with a blanket and brick behind my riding lawn mower.) I find it generally risky and mostly unimportant to my existence.

And of the foods I eat, none are sprayed with it, since I dropped the sprayed ones. Perhaps my groceries cost more. My dog food certainly does, but the last dog who got cancer did so in Sept 2014 and is still alive, so far no new victims. It's a change I can live with.


----------



## crofter

lharder said:


> We make our reality for good or bad. Giving up on a good idea and calling it reality just smells like defeatism to me. The point of an education is knowing that one doesn't have to accept somebody else's reality. We make changes, make mistakes, learn and maybe make some progress. But you don't win anything by never showing up.


Spin!

Choosing more practical demons than jousting at windmills is not defeatism it is wisdom! 

As for creating ones own reality there seems to be quite a range of how whimsical people are in pursuit of it.


----------



## Nabber86

cervus said:


> Life expectancy _was_ increasing. Just heard this on the radio coming into work this morning.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds


From the article:

_On average, the overall life expectancy, for someone born in 2015, fell from 78.9 years to 78.8 years._

0.1 years. That is a meaningless blip in the statistics. They also say that they have to analyze the data for the second half of 2016 before they can say for sure. I really like NPR, but reporting this kind of crap is criminal.


----------



## jonsl

..


----------



## Gypsi

jonsl said:


> For the world as a whole it increased by 5 years. When you look at that and compare the fact that the US decreased it has more meaning.



Indeed we have slipped a bit in life span and even more in health, despite having the most expensive health care system in the world. I don't donate a plug nickel to cancer research organizations, their jobs depend on not eliminating cancer. And for all the money they spend the cancer rates continue to go up it seems, especially for children. Odd. Very odd. Human breast milk, and a good deal of honey, test positive for glyphosate. 

while they may be better at chemically treating cancer, so the death rate does drop, the incidence is rising. actually it depends on where you live, whether you will die of cancer. this site has a lot of interesting statistics, although I have yet to find the historical incidence rate per 100,000 going back prior to 2000. (there are tools) https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/?_ga=1.252648265.1330708349.1483667811#/


----------



## jonsl

My post should have noted worldwide increase was from 2000-2015. US statistics will mean more over a few years.


----------



## jonsl

A lot of the cancer rise is probably do to better reporting also.


----------



## Gypsi

maybe yes maybe no. I've had dogs all my life. Haven't had the cancer flu go through until the GMO glyphosate hit the dog food. I don't have fancy full blooded dogs that are prone to cancer. I have mutts with 2 or more breeds mixed, tend to be phenomenally healthy. I stopped the cancer flu when I changed food. You tell me.


----------



## jonsl

Unfortunately your sample size isn't big enough to be meaningful.


----------



## jonsl

At any rate, dogs probably shouldn't be fed grain.


----------



## McBain

Gypsi said:


> maybe yes maybe no. I've had dogs all my life. Haven't had the cancer flu go through until the GMO glyphosate hit the dog food. I don't have fancy full blooded dogs that are prone to cancer. I have mutts with 2 or more breeds mixed, tend to be phenomenally healthy. I stopped the cancer flu when I changed food. You tell me.


Thanks for sharing your story with us. 

I also argue along side with you ragarding bees by saying "our bees should not be fed glyphosate and neonicotinoid infused, GMO corn syrup or HFCS for their winter fed."



D Coates said:


> I've asked that direct question to folks here hashing this out. The answers are always non committal. Basically it's always more time is needed to study it. I believe it's a tactic used by some meant to thwart anything they see as not 100% "natural." We'd still be dying of every disease under the sun (no vaccines) living in mud huts, and stuck in the 1800's if we followed this approach. It's an organic utopian pipe dream they want but from the comfort of their air conditioned home.
> 
> My mother in law feels food is better when it's all natural. She'll pay twice as much for a ham labelled as "all natural" then crow about how it's better for you because it's got no "chemicals"... I pointed out lead, arsenic, and mercury is "all natural", so is what that coyote just left in my yard. It doesn't mean they're good to eat. "All natural" is marketing hype to separate money from those who "feel" it's better. Needless to say, on occasion she's a bit annoyed by me when she goes on Lola granola tangents.


This is a classic example of straw man fallacy. You built the argument that opposes your own views incorrectly so you can easily 'knock it down'. 

*'All natural' means nothing.* The only label worth paying extra for is the one that says "Organic", because an "Organic" label cannot be put on products that contain toxins. (Carrageenan was the only exception to that, but it has recently been voted out of the 'Organic' family of products.) I agree with you when you said: ""All natural" is marketing hype..." In addition, I am not opposed to the vaccines used 'back in the day'. Back then there was no billion dollar industry surrounding the general public's fear of the flu or chickenpox. 

However I notice again you fail to address the underlying issues here. That leads me to ask you one question: Do you honestly trust and believe that mega corporations such as Bayer/Monsanto or even a corporation such as General Mills puts public safety _before_ their profits? 

I can find a few historical examples where they put profits first, one of which is Agent Orange and another is DDT. We've already been talking about DDT on the other thread and I noticed Richard Cryberg claimed that DDT does not actually cause thinning of shells in the bird population. I did some reading on DDT and found out what the research says about it rather than what people want to believe about it: 

"Studies have shown that DDT is highly toxic to insects, shrimp, and fish (Fisk et al. 2005; Galindo et al. 1996; Metcalf 1973) and adversely affects the reproduction of wild birds through thinning of egg shells (Ratcliffe 1967).

DDT and its metabolic products present in the global environment have originated mostly from its previous large-scale use in agriculture and domestic hygiene. 

Source (and a very good read): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801202/

Anyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but strongly believing something does _not_ make it true.


----------



## D Coates

McBain said:


> This is a classic example of straw man fallacy. You built the argument that opposes your own views incorrectly so you can easily 'knock it down'.


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.



McBain said:


> I am not opposed to the vaccines used 'back in the day'. Back then there was no billion dollar industry surrounding the general public's fear of the flu or chickenpox.


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.



McBain said:


> Do you honestly trust and believe that mega corporations such as Bayer/Monsanto or even a corporation such as General Mills puts public safety _before_ their profits?


 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.

DDT and Agent Orange... The 60's called they want their anti-corporate hippie cliche' back.

Anyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but strongly believing something does _not_ make it true.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more...


----------



## Richard Cryberg

McBain said:


> The only label worth paying extra for is the one that says "Organic", because an "Organic" label cannot be put on products that contain toxins.
> 
> 
> 
> I can find a few historical examples where they put profits first, one of which is Agent Orange and another is DDT.
> 
> "Studies have shown that DDT is highly toxic to insects, shrimp, and fish (Fisk et al. 2005; Galindo et al. 1996; Metcalf 1973) and adversely affects the reproduction of wild birds through thinning of egg shells (Ratcliffe 1967).


A product labeled organic can be loaded with toxins and carcinogens. In fact they typically have identical toxins and carcinogens as the same product which is not labeled organic. The reason is simple. All kinds of natural products are toxins and carcinogens and anyone who thinks other wise is simply ignorant of reality. The most toxic chemical known is a natural product. Several of the most potent carcinogens known are natural products.

When the government orders you to make a product you make it. You are probably way to young to remember when the government ordered automobile companies to not make cars any longer. You probably are even too young to remember when the government imposed wage and price controls in the 1970s. Well, our government can and did do both of those things. It also ordered a number of chem companies including Monsanto, Dow and Diamond Shamrock to make agent orange for the war effort in Nam. Profits had nothing to do with those companies making that product.

By the time DDT was banned those making it were over joyed to see it banned. Everybody with a bath tub and wooden paddle was set up to make the stuff in his garage resulting in market prices so low no one was making any money on DDT any more. The result of the DDT ban was the sudden ability to sell organophosphates at much higher prices as they were so hard to make the garage guys could not make them without killing themselves. Of course this lead to terrible honey bee kills compared to anything experienced during the DDT years.

You jokingly site a study from the 1960s supporting egg shell thinning due to DDT. There must be 100 such technical journal publications form that era when we could not even do the trace level analyses required to draw valid conclusions. If you look at the few hundred more recent papers on the topic you will find an entirely different conclusion. In particular I suggest you look up the feeding study publications by the USDA where massive doses far above any environmental exposure did NOT cause even slight egg shell thinning. As a professional scientist I will tell you that anything published on environmental exposures before roughly 1980 is totally meaningless as the analytical techniques to do analyses at those detection levels of DDT and its metabolites in environmental samples simply did not exist. Yes, lots of people reported lots of meaningless numbers thinking they were right. But, later data clearly showed their data was garbage. If you looked at the data back then as it was published you knew it was in trouble. The conflicting data on the same topic between papers was staggering.


----------



## jonsl

A lot of non factual statements flowing from both sides of the argument here. The problem right now is that people in general don't understand scientific principles and cherry pick "facts".


----------



## lharder

D Coates said:


> But what's the "good idea" referenced? "Make mistakes", who pays for these mistakes?
> 
> 
> 
> "Could probably" are 2 enormous grey words and there are 3 variables mentioned. How much are you willing to give up or pay for the promise of words that sound good but give no assurance? Imagine being fed only what someone else dictates as healthy and doing compulsory exercise for something that "could probably" reduce cancer incidence. No doubt we'd live longer but at what cost? Are you willing to give up your freedoms to do as you wish for a "good idea." Decreased toxic load, to what and of what? What if there's no difference in cancer rates are you going to be okay with going back and using the chemicals that were banned to decrease the toxic load?
> 
> Can you now see how a "good idea" turns into a bad idea?


You make it sound so difficult. Exercise, shopping the outside of the grocery store, making most of your own meals, not smoking, reducing drinking, not using chemicals in the garden. With a little extra legwork, buy local grass fed beef (not expensive), etc. I buy very little soy, corn, working on wheat (like bread), almonds. There steps taken, no harm done. I may get a cancer diagnosis tomorrow, but statistically I'm most likely much better off than a person who doesn't do these things. Do you argue this point? My last blood panel was perfect as a 50 +. I don't think its about making farmers or people do anything, but a cultural shift that translates to a market shift. In some cases the destruction of the market altogether. Meanwhile somebody's freedom (to pollute for example) is somebody else's hardship. I think there should be a cash payment from the farming industry to the Gulf of Mexico fishing industry to compensate for reduced fish production due to death zones from excessive nutrient.


----------



## Gypsi

jonsl said:


> Unfortunately your sample size isn't big enough to be meaningful.


My sample size is only meaningful to me. And I fed my dogs grain for years and they were healthy. Ran out of dog food, cooked corn meal, stirred in bacon grease, fed dogs. When grain isn't healthy, well why? Why is it suddenly unhealthy and grain free dog foods are all the rage? Just got that way in the last 10 years. Hmmm....


there was one study on GMO corn sprayed with Roundup in Europe that ran longer than Monsanto's. To reference Monsanto fed rats GMO Roundup sprayed corn for 3 months with no ill effects compared to the control group. And that got them approved by the EPA and a European governing body. 

Then there was another study run by an independent scientist named Seralini, not funded by Monsanto that fed the rats the same GMO corn sprayed with Roundup for a longer period. And there was a control group fed non GMO corn that didn't get tumors. the GMO rats had huge tumors.

Monsanto got the independent study thrown out as bad science here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

The Seralini study was republished here: http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne...y_gmo_maize_causes_serious_health_damage.html

I think this is the foundation of the WHO calling glyphosate a carcinogen.

Yes, my sample size is small. And you are free to eat this stuff and feed it to your animals. But I don't have to. Even if it remains unlabeled I can simply avoid corn, soy and wheat.


----------



## jim lyon

To be clear, Seralini's glyphosate study never did pass the all important peer review process, it was only published in an alternative medicine journal.
But things still seem to be working out pretty well for Mr. Seralini
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....-gilles-eric-seralinis-homeopathy-detox-hoax/


----------



## Gypsi

Ok, Jim, I am not a peer reviewed scientist. I am a follow-the-money type, and yeah that looks suspicious. And Seralini's study passed 3 peer reviews and released all of its statistics when re-published. Monsanto's study only released a report, not their stats.

However many subjects in Monsanto's scientific testing I consider a 90 day test period to be inadequate for a chemical we may be eating or feeding our pets for a lifetime. 

Monsanto has a lot of money. So does Syngenta. One of the news sources I trust most is publicly supported by people like myself. Mother Jones. I searched for "who owns the Genetic Literacy Project" and this popped up. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine

I maintain a 90 day test on rats is inadequate for something that can poison me, my grandchildren and my dogs. I do this with a grand High School diploma that I take great pride in. It wasn't bought, and I don't owe anyone for it.


----------



## lharder

Meanwhile general health parameters continue to get worse in the American population, largely related to obesity related ailments. Longevity may be holding its own because of improving crisis intervention. But this is like finding improved ways of gathering the herd after leaving the barn door open. 

The food system should be careful about their market. If folks start to take action about their poor health, then the food system should be an ally, not an opponent. If people lose trust, then perfectly reasonable things can be said, but they will be discounted.


----------



## Nabber86

McBain said:


> *'All natural' means nothing.* The only label worth paying extra for is the one that says "Organic", because an "Organic" label cannot be put on products that contain toxins. (Carrageenan was the only exception to that, but it has recently been voted out of the 'Organic' family of products.) I agree with you when you said: ""All natural" is marketing hype..." In addition, I am not opposed to the vaccines used 'back in the day'. Back then there was no billion dollar industry surrounding the general public's fear of the flu or chickenpox.
> 
> Do you honestly trust and believe that mega corporations such as Bayer/Monsanto or even a corporation such as General Mills puts public safety _before_ their profits?
> .


Federal guidelines for labeling a food product as "Organic" has nothing to do with toxins. There are simply no criteria in the regs to define what a toxin is, how much is allowable, and how to quantify it. You statements proves by default that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It is fine to logically debate evidence that is presented in various scientific papers and not come to any agreement afterwards, but you have to at least have an understanding of the basic concepts before you start debating. The USDA Organic Regulations are out there for anyone to read and understand. And as regulations go, these are pretty straight forward to follow. I may not agree with some of the definitions, but the regs are technically sound and fairly easy to follow:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic

Anyway, can you at least show us that you have any understanding of the basic concept of what an Organic label represents? You might start by showing us where the term "toxins" appears in the text. 


As far as your Monsanto and GM question, the answer is Capitalism 101 -- Don't kill the consumers.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

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-...s/oxalic-acid-content-of-selected-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.

:ws:


----------



## Nabber86

Here is one for the doom and gloom crowd. The death rate from cancer is down 25% since 1991. Obviously this proves that glyphosate does not cause cancer:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/cancer-facts-and-figures-death-rate-down-25-since-1991


----------



## tmwilson

Dose in relation to time, not just the size of the dose if you really want to be correct about the toxicity of a particular substance.

I read nearly all of the posts about chemicals and I see many people from both sides of the argument post studies as a reference and then cherry pick which part of the study to quote. I wonder sometimes if most on here realize the truth about these issues probably lies somewhere in the middle and you argue on this forum as a source of entertainment, or if you guys/gals truly believe the other side is completely wrong and purposely trying to destroy the world or your way of life. I own a farm, grow nearly all my own food but otherwise buy organic food, and spray my johnson grass and sericea lezpedeza with herbicide. I "bale hay and walk acres" as someone mentioned in a different post. I may be the most unpopular person on the forum with only about 10 posts to my credit. 

Why don't we consider how US crop production would be far less profitable in the world market without the use of chemicals and genetic engineering? Doesn't it also make sense that taking in fat soluble toxins on a daily basis, even in small amounts, would likely be hard on the human body and potentially cause long term consequences? Neither of these statements would be hard to back up with studies you could find on the internet with a quick google search, but I have better things to do, like go cut nuc boxes.


----------



## lharder

Rader Sidetrack said:


> 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-...s/oxalic-acid-content-of-selected-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.
> 
> :ws:


Yes there is some naturally toxic stuff in our environment. But that doesn't mean we should add to it and consider toxicity of individual compounds in isolation. I would be more interested in how burdened our bodies are by detoxification processes in general, and how much accumulation takes place with time in certain tissues. Some are hormone mimics and can have large effects in small doses. Where it becomes really interesting is during fetal development where effects become magnified. Is it possible for brain development be affected by low dose neurotoxins? Mental health, autism, weird allergies, all sorts of stuff seems a bit off the rails to make one question. To be sure its a complicated nebulous subject as is our response to toxicity. I've heard some interesting stuff recently on positive body stress response to cold, heat, toxic stuff in plants. The difficulty is getting a baseline. Maybe a series of baselines could be established and detailed metabolic response work done at each one. Maybe the first one should be getting lead out of the US water supply.


----------



## Nabber86

tmwilson said:


> Dose in relation to time, not just the size of the dose if you really want to be correct about the toxicity of a particular substance.
> 
> Doesn't it also make sense that taking in fat soluble toxins on a daily basis, even in small amounts, would likely be hard on the human body and potentially cause long term consequences? Neither of these statements would be hard to back up with studies you could find on the internet with a quick google search, but I have better things to do, like go cut nuc boxes.


As soon as you can give a coherent and semi-plausible definition of the word "toxin" and how a "toxin" may affect human health and the environment, I might listen to you. 

TOXINS, TOXINS, TOXINS!!!!

:ws::ws:


----------



## D Coates

lharder said:


> You make it sound so difficult. Exercise, shopping the outside of the grocery store, making most of your own meals, not smoking, reducing drinking, not using chemicals in the garden. With a little extra legwork, buy local grass fed beef (not expensive), etc. I buy very little soy, corn, working on wheat (like bread), almonds. There steps taken, no harm done. I may get a cancer diagnosis tomorrow, but statistically I'm most likely much better off than a person who doesn't do these things. Do you argue this point? My last blood panel was perfect as a 50 +. I don't think its about making farmers or people do anything, but a cultural shift that translates to a market shift. In some cases the destruction of the market altogether. Meanwhile somebody's freedom (to pollute for example) is somebody else's hardship. I think there should be a cash payment from the farming industry to the Gulf of Mexico fishing industry to compensate for reduced fish production due to death zones from excessive nutrient.


Personal steps? Nope, not hard to do but legislating them is a huge no-no in my eyes. That's what we're talking about. Legislating to reduce or eliminate something that's yet to be proven to dangerous if used properly. Grass fed beef? Heck, I kill and butcher my own deer for my family. Organic, low fat, range fed, native, gluten free, sustainable, blah, blah, blah. Undoubtedly, all of those things you mention are better for the longevity of our lives, but that's up to us individually to decide. Currently, Glyphosate has the cancer causing potential of bacon. Bacon... who doesn't eat bacon? And yet here we are arguing about using Glyphosate that's been on the market for over 4 decades. How long has bacon been on the market? Yet, here we are still living.

"Cultural shift" and market destruction... so sterile sounding yet truly onerous if you're livelihood is in the crosshairs. Got a bit of a Mao Cultural Revolution sound to it. What if something came out about the evils of XYZ coming out of Canada that you rely upon for your income? It's not true but it's just a social media campaign pushing for a cultural shift which will create a bit of market destruction as a byproduct.

"... cash payment from the farming industry to the Gulf of Mexico fishing industry to compensate for reduced fish production due to death zones from excessive nutrient." A govt instituted cultural shift nudge masquerading as a tax, pure and simple. Who pays this tax? Farmers. How do they make up the difference? Increase prices. Who pays these increased prices? Consumers. You're simply fooling yourself to think you're not paying for this. Then, who is going to be making sure it's going to the fishing industry? How many legislative hands will this go through who get their bit and what improvement will this actually make to the fishing industry?


----------



## D Coates

tmwilson said:


> Dose in relation to time, not just the size of the dose if you really want to be correct about the toxicity of a particular substance.
> 
> I read nearly all of the posts about chemicals and I see many people from both sides of the argument post studies as a reference and then cherry pick which part of the study to quote. I wonder sometimes if most on here realize the truth about these issues probably lies somewhere in the middle and you argue on this forum as a source of entertainment, or if you guys/gals truly believe the other side is completely wrong and purposely trying to destroy the world or your way of life. I own a farm, grow nearly all my own food but otherwise buy organic food, and spray my johnson grass and sericea lezpedeza with herbicide. I "bale hay and walk acres" as someone mentioned in a different post. I may be the most unpopular person on the forum with only about 10 posts to my credit.
> 
> Why don't we consider how US crop production would be far less profitable in the world market without the use of chemicals and genetic engineering? Doesn't it also make sense that taking in fat soluble toxins on a daily basis, even in small amounts, would likely be hard on the human body and potentially cause long term consequences? Neither of these statements would be hard to back up with studies you could find on the internet with a quick google search, but I have better things to do, like go cut nuc boxes.


I was the one who mentioned "bale hay and walk acres". Why would you be the most unpopular person with only 10 posts? While I agree that US production would be far less profitable w/o chemicals and genetic engineering there will be others that will argue the opposite with various studies. Those studies invariably come from earth/green organizations that are low on fact but high on fund gathering rhetoric. As for the ease of finding studies on fat soluble toxins and long term consequences found on the internet? Depends on who you consider reputable. There are pseudo scientific reports claiming all sorts of stuff but nothing even close to resembling a smoking gun.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Everything you eat is GMO. There is no such thing as a non GMO food if by that you mean a food that does not carry any DNA from other species. You yourself are a GMO. You have DNA in some of your cells in your body that did not come from either of your parents, nor for that matter from any other human.

For most people something like 99% of the toxic substances they consume are natural products. The exceptional person who consumes less than 99% is on a heck of a lot of meds from his doctor. Many meds are quite toxic. Eating organic labeled foods will not avoid any significant amount of toxins and in fact generally exposes you to more naturally produced toxins than non organic labeled foods.

Yes, pesticides will kill insects, plants, birds, aquatic organisms, etc. If pesticides were not poisonous and capable of killing things they would not be of any use and would not be sold. Pesticide companies today spend some $500 million doing lab research on safety issues before EPA grants a registration. That lab research is aimed at showing the product is safe to the environment, safe to the applicator and safe to the consumer who buys and eats the treated crops. There never will be any law that requires the pesticide manufacturer to make all those studies available to the public. Frankly, the details of those studies is none of the public's business. The full details of every such study are submitted to the agencies in charge of registration. Those agencies have the right to audit any lab that participated in the work. The agencies have the right to interview any and all employees who did any aspect of the work. The agencies do not announce such audits nor interviews. They show up at your door in the morning and announce they are there for an audit. I do not care what you had planned for that day you can forget it. You will spend your day providing the agency anything they ask you to provide or taking them to any place on your site they want to visit. You will provide them with any record they ask for. That includes every thing from lab notebooks to personal records, salary history or time sheets. I have never heard of them asking for medical records. If they asked my recommendation would be to supply the records. The agency has the right to stay as long as they need to stay to conduct the audit. Generally on site audits take two to three days. If they see red flags they will be there longer. If they find major problems they have the right to close the place down.

Many people seem to think getting a pesticide registration is some dirt easy process that only takes a few studies. I was involved in a re-registration study 25 years ago. The reports on the lab studies for that re-registration filled a UHaul trailer that was about eight feet long, five feet wide and six feet tall. The full stack of paper work behind those reports was probably 50 times greater in volume.


----------



## lharder

D Coates said:


> Personal steps? Nope, not hard to do but legislating them is a huge no-no in my eyes. That's what we're talking about. Legislating to reduce or eliminate something that's yet to be proven to dangerous if used properly. Grass fed beef? Heck, I kill and butcher my own deer for my family. Organic, low fat, range fed, native, gluten free, sustainable, blah, blah, blah. Undoubtedly, all of those things you mention are better for the longevity of our lives, but that's up to us individually to decide. Currently, Glyphosate has the cancer causing potential of bacon. Bacon... who doesn't eat bacon? And yet here we are arguing about using Glyphosate that's been on the market for over 4 decades. How long has bacon been on the market? Yet, here we are still living.
> 
> "Cultural shift" and market destruction... so sterile sounding yet truly onerous if you're livelihood is in the crosshairs. Got a bit of a Mao Cultural Revolution sound to it. What if something came out about the evils of XYZ coming out of Canada that you rely upon for your income? It's not true but it's just a social media campaign pushing for a cultural shift which will create a bit of market destruction as a byproduct.
> 
> "... cash payment from the farming industry to the Gulf of Mexico fishing industry to compensate for reduced fish production due to death zones from excessive nutrient." A govt instituted cultural shift nudge masquerading as a tax, pure and simple. Who pays this tax? Farmers. How do they make up the difference? Increase prices. Who pays these increased prices? Consumers. You're simply fooling yourself to think you're not paying for this. Then, who is going to be making sure it's going to the fishing industry? How many legislative hands will this go through who get their bit and what improvement will this actually make to that industry?


So you against personal/corporate responsibility?


----------



## lharder

The general argument is that high toxic loads are not healthy, and low ones are better. Action proceeds from there. As we learn, we take better action. We want to leave the place better than we found it, at least I do.


----------



## D Coates

lharder said:


> So you against personal/corporate responsibility?


Personal/corporate responsibility to whom and how?



lharder said:


> The general argument is that high toxic loads are not healthy, and low ones are better. Action proceeds from there. As we learn, we take better action. We want to leave the place better than we found it, at least I do.


High toxic loads of what? What exactly is this high toxic load you're referencing that needs to be reduced? If action is to be taken a benchmark and goal is to be set. No details have been given.

Better how? Devoid of humans, in it's original condition from before Lucy? As natural as when native American lived here? An 1800's era sod buster settlement? A 60's commune? A thriving industrial location that allows many people to make a living there? So much of this is gobbledygook.


----------



## tmwilson

I don't need a study to come to the conclusion that consuming synthetic substances on a daily basis is probably worse than not consuming those synthetic substances. It may not be worse, but it's definitely not better. When it comes to what my kids eat, I error on the side of caution. There are so many studies and it would be ignorant to think that either side is conducting those studies totally in good faith. Sometimes we do a study to prove one thing or another, but not really to find out the truth. No amount of government workers would be able to fix that. There is a huge IRS staff and I wonder if that keeps everyone 100 percent honest when it's tax time?

The government is not always honest with the general public. I know, I worked for the government for 12 years. The industry I work in now has a slew of lobbyists to get their way in Washington, and it usually works. I would be foolish to think other large corporations did not have the same thing, and I know many of them do. "Safe" is a relative term. It doesn't mean anything to me when someone I don't trust is spouting it off. I see a lot of disconnect these days between the producers and consumers of ag products in our country. I think it's mostly a trust issue. Farmers think consumers are misinformed or stupid, or both. Consumers think farmers are dishonest and out for the big bucks regardless of the consequences. Often times it would seem that neither is really true. But these are just guesses and cannot be backed up by any study that I am aware of, although there could be some surveys floating around that may back up my latter points.


----------



## lharder

crofter said:


> Spin!
> 
> Choosing more practical demons than jousting at windmills is not defeatism it is wisdom!
> 
> As for creating ones own reality there seems to be quite a range of how whimsical people are in pursuit of it.


Jesus Frank, I'm going to have to give up on using my brain, being interested in stuff and making some changes. I've noticed when coaching that people often get in their own way in all sorts of ways when trying to improve. True of me as well looking back and still true to some extent. 

So if I apply what I learn from competition, is aim high. Results will generally be better no goals at all. Pay some attention to health and results are generally positive. I may only become a decent rower but it is better than the lousy one I would be without goals and work. At the same time, I am realistic, and systematic, and learning is done along the way. Methods improve. Training is systematic with benchmarks along the way to tailor training to individual athletes. 

Some whales will encircle schools of fish with an illusionary net of bubbles to concentrate them for feeding. The fish could swim out with some effort, but behaviour constrains them. We internalize all sorts of societal axioms that we take as true, but are simply somebody else's model of the world. Some are more or less true, but without scraping beneath the surface you will never know. 

Now if things were working well, things were improving for not just people, but other living things, then we know that are axioms are more or less working and we can be more or less content. Since things are getting worse in general, on so many fronts, then we need to be more critical of our assumptions.


----------



## Arnie

lharder said:


> Meanwhile somebody's freedom is somebody else's hardship. .


This is the crux of what most of these discussions involve. The free society vs the command and control society.

Here in Boulder County there is a pretty high density of hardcore lefties. They have a vision of what society should be and how people should live and freedom gets in the way of implementing that vision.

I heard one of them say, quoting somebody I believe, that "Giving the people abundant, affordable fossil fuel is like giving an eight year old a machine gun." That's how they view us; as eight year olds.

There is an ordinance, a restriction, a regulation about pretty much every aspect of our lives here. If I get up to urinate at night there is an ordinance involved....... my toilet tank capacity is restricted here. 

It's not about glyphosate..........it's about power and control; and restricting our freedom.


----------



## crofter

Yes we definitely "need to be more critical of our assumptions"! 

There is a plaque that I have often seen on peoples walls;

The gist of it is _ _ _ grant me the strength to change the things I can,

The patience to endure the things I cannot change, 

And the wisdom to know the difference!

I just dont get very congratulatory over someones "hand wringing about rather minimal problems" when a bit of cost/benefit analysis and focused action would seem to be in order. People as a whole are easily distracted by symbolic action even if it is fruitless. Personally I am more impressed by someone a bit more meditative about the root cause of the symptom rather than making a big noise about flogging it.

I agree that conditions globally are getting worse; search up Tainter's cost of complexity. We are choking on it. I have no illusions though about the practicality of reverting to growing food for the masses without the input of fossil fuel and its derivatives. In 1950, 50% of the population was on the land growing food: That is what it required; presently fewer than 2% are on the land. It is going to take some very creative social engineering to turn that around and make it fly. This is only one of many, many symptom which would require meshing measures to be effective.

Sorry, but I think that a great deal of activism is done to give a "feel good" sense of superiority!


----------



## D Coates

Arnie said:


> This is the crux of what most of these discussions involve. The free society vs the command and control society.
> 
> Here in Boulder County there is a pretty high density of hardcore lefties. They have a vision of what society should be and how people should live and freedom gets in the way of implementing that vision.
> 
> I heard one of them say, quoting somebody I believe, that "Giving the people abundant, affordable fossil fuel is like giving an eight year old a machine gun." That's how they view us; as eight year olds.
> 
> There is an ordinance, a restriction, a regulation about pretty much every aspect of our lives here. If I get up to urinate at night there is an ordinance involved....... my toilet tank capacity is restricted here.
> 
> It's not about glyphosate..........it's about power and control; and restricting our freedom.


Nailed it. I'm not giving up freedoms I currently have to anyone. I can't imagine what would have been taken if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, but that's for a different post. Long story short folks want to restrict and remove all types of things claiming it's for the common good and that they know better, while patting our heads like a sanctimonious schoolmarm. This Glyphosate is exactly that. No real scientific findings have been made that prove it's cancerous when used correctly and yet folks are making all types of sub-lethal exposure claims to justify trying to take away our freedom from using it.

Sub lethal... there's a scary sounding buzzword for the ill informed. Everyday I wake up I survived sublethal doses of everything I did, ate, drank and breathed the prior day.


----------



## tmwilson

Wouldn't it make more sense to prove something is safe before we use it, instead of just using it and then trying to prove it is safe? I bet the answer leads back to money. In fact I know it does for at least a few, because I see it firsthand. Seems to me we have a system set up so that we use what we have to in order to pay the bills, but I also know personally those who silently wonder about topics such as this. Can't do much about it. Can't stop spraying and make money. Can't prove it's safe either. Just how it goes for today.


----------



## Nabber86

lharder said:


> The general argument is that high toxic loads are not healthy, and low ones are better. Action proceeds from there. As we learn, we take better action. We want to leave the place better than we found it, at least I do.


I agree about leaving the world in a better place. The EPA and every state environmental agency out there have doing this since 1970. I personally have made the environment better through 30 years of working in the environmental cleanup field. When I was born the concept of hazardous waste was not even invented. 15 years later sites like Love Canal and Times Beach Missouri were first discovered. Since then the EPA has cleaned up about 400 Superfund Sites. The world is a whole lot better place because of this. 


What have you done to make it better?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

tmwilson said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to prove something is safe before we use it, instead of just using it and then trying to prove it is safe?


What about _water_? 
Are you proposing that we not use _water_ until it is proved to be safe? :scratch:

Note that water is very hazardous. Lots of people die from drowning _in_ water every year! 
There are even people that die from simply drinking too much water ... _hyponatremia_

Water may seem like a trivial example, but it illustrates the difficulty of "prove something is safe before we use it". And if that concept _were_ to be followed, it would be impossible to buy gasoline for your car! After all, gasoline is way more "not safe" than water. 


k:

... anybody got any *salt* ... that stuff can _kill_ you 
... but humans can't live without salt ...
... how are we going to prove that salt is safe?


----------



## lharder

Nabber86 said:


> I agree about leaving the world in a better place. The EPA and every state environmental agency out there have doing this since 1970. I personally have made the environment better through 30 years of working in the environmental cleanup field. When I was born the concept of hazardous waste was not even invented. 15 years later sites like Love Canal and Times Beach Missouri were first discovered. Since then the EPA has cleaned up about 400 Superfund Sites. The world is a whole lot better place because of this.
> 
> 
> What have you done to make it better?


Good for you. I applaud your work. My interests are energy efficiency, reduced consumerism, alternate consumer models, growing my own food, bees, not near done but an end goal will but my end goal is eventual net zero energy, max food production from my little space. 2 steps forward, 1 back but progress is made.


----------



## lharder

Rader Sidetrack said:


> What about _water_?
> Are you proposing that we not use _water_ until it is proved to be safe? :scratch:
> 
> Note that water is very hazardous. Lots of people die from drowning _in_ water every year!
> There are even people that die from simply drinking too much water ... _hyponatremia_
> 
> Water may seem like a trivial example, but it illustrates the difficulty of "prove something is safe before we use it". And if that concept _were_ to be followed, it would be impossible to buy gasoline for your car! After all, gasoline is way more "not safe" than water.
> 
> 
> k:
> 
> ... anybody got any *salt* ... that stuff can _kill_ you
> ... but humans can't live without salt ...
> ... how are we going to prove that salt is safe?


we can't live without water, water can kill you. Can't say the same for glyphosate.


----------



## tmwilson

Yes, rader, stop consuming water and report back on how that works for you. Many more die each year from not enough water, but that is no more relevant than your initial comment.

Your intelligent and well thought out comments have encouraged me to head back over to the bee section and discontinue my attempts to bring thoughtful comments to this area of the forum.


----------



## Ian

Lol, open minds, thoughtful discussion 
...stomp away mad like a little girl


----------



## Michael Palmer

lharder said:


> we can't live without water, water can kill you. Can't say the same for glyphosate.


Once my county extension agent...he went on to be the chief of the state program...told me he would rather eat a spoonful of Roundup than a spoonful of salt.


----------



## tmwilson

I only see a few contributing what in my opinion is "thoughtful discussion". Many comments are snide and fail to actually contribute. But those are just my thoughts. Take the comment above for example. Would any reasonable person of average intelligence really rather drink roundup than salt? Has the education of this country failed that miserably? If it was not a serious comment about this issue, what was the point of writing it? Maybe I just take this issue to personally as it has a direct affect on how my family has lived for 5 generations.

Ian, if the men and women writing in this forum have open minds about this particular issue they fail to communicate it through their posts.


----------



## Ian

Like I said, stomp away like a little girl.

Roundup has been a huge advantage to the health and prosperity of our farm. Our soils have never been healthier and our land has never been so productive. We live in an age of chemical farming, and the chemical of choice we use is one of the most benign


----------



## Nabber86

lharder said:


> Good for you. I applaud your work. My interests are energy efficiency, reduced consumerism, alternate consumer models, growing my own food, bees, not near done but an end goal will but my end goal is eventual net zero energy, max food production from my little space. 2 steps forward, 1 back but progress is made.


Unfortunatley your very presence on this planet has already impacted in such a negative way that you will never be able to make it better than you found it; despite your efforts. Entropy and thermodynamics say that you cannot ever, obtain net zero energy use.


----------



## D Coates

lharder said:


> reduced consumerism


What's your definition of consumerism? "con·sum·er·ism, the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers." You really want to reduce this? Or, are you wanting to reduce consumption by consumers?




Nabber86 said:


> Unfortunatley your very presence on this planet has already impacted in such a negative way that you will never be able to make it better than you found it; despite your efforts. Entropy and thermodynamics say that you cannot ever, obtain net zero energy use.


Cleanup on isle 2... You just burst a huge naive cumbaya bubble.


----------



## Gypsi

I think I'm just going to work and going to continue to grow things without the benefit of Roundup. For weedkiller on my gravel drive I use wood stove ash, it's abundant in winter since I use a woodstove, and I think in time the drive may become concrete without having to buy concrete 

I enjoy the freedom of a free society to not buy products I think may be harmful to me. I get vaccinated, I got my flu shot this year, but corn, soy and wheat are optional in my diet, and since I'm allergic to dairy, I ready more labels than most. Ya'll want to eat Roundup, feel free. Even the county agent can eat it straight. Over population is a significant problem, and Darwin would get a kick out of it.

Now, that is my OPINION. 

It is not law. Have a great day.


----------



## jim lyon

Michael Palmer said:


> Once my county extension agent...he went on to be the chief of the state program...told me he would rather eat a spoonful of Roundup than a spoonful of salt.


Yes, I've seen videos of folks doing exactly that. In my mind this really isn't about the "safety" of a particular compound but rather about the larger issue of the manmade genetic altering of our food. If glyphosate was compound "x" the case against it wouldn't raise an eyebrow among food safety advocates because the evidence that it is harmful pales in comparison to the risks people face in their everyday lives. But it's not. It's a product invented by Monsanto who use has grown exponentially because of genetic modification and THAT is really what drives this debate.


----------



## crofter

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.


----------



## Gypsi

I may take a look at that Frank, when I get a little time. I may already be doing part of it, to the extent that I can. My mortgage means I drive. A lot. But my electricity use has been halved in the last 6 years. Good for the budget too


----------



## Barry

Let's refrain from the snarky remarks towards each other. Thanks.


----------



## lharder

Nabber86 said:


> Unfortunatley your very presence on this planet has already impacted in such a negative way that you will never be able to make it better than you found it; despite your efforts. Entropy and thermodynamics say that you cannot ever, obtain net zero energy use.


In closed systems your statement applies. We don't live in one at least for now. See that yellow thing in the sky that gives light and heat? Yes we live by consuming, so what? Its not about consuming, but the rate of consumption relative to the rate of the thing being consumed being produced.


----------



## lharder

crofter said:


> 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.


----------



## crofter

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.


----------



## lharder

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.


----------



## D Coates

lharder said:


> 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?


----------



## Nordak

crofter said:


> 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.


----------



## gww

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


----------



## lharder

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.


----------



## Tim KS

This will cover it.........


----------



## McBain

D Coates said:


> 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.




D Coates said:


> 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/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-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-...tism-cancer-or-heart-disease-coincidence.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/2016-08-...ing-in-people-vaccinated-against-the-flu.html




D Coates said:


> 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/2017/01/bumblebees-endangered-species-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.




D Coates said:


> 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/nati...01534b1e132_story.html?utm_term=.ec5dead02e55 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/cats-wild-birds-mammals-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. 



Rader Sidetrack said:


> 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-...s/oxalic-acid-content-of-selected-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.
> 
> :ws:


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


----------



## D Coates

McBain said:


> 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.



McBain said:


> 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.



McBain said:


> 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.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

McBain said:


> 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?


----------



## Richard Cryberg

McBain said:


> 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.


----------



## McBain

BadBeeKeeper said:


> 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:



McBain said:


> 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. ; )



Richard Cryberg said:


> 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.



D Coates said:


> *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.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

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.


----------



## jonsl

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.


----------



## jim lyon

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.


----------



## Nabber86

Nevermind


----------



## Gypsi

jonsl said:


> 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-philpott/2012/03/strawberries-methyl-iodide-cancer

But there are others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_pesticides


----------



## jonsl

Gypsi said:


> 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-philpott/2012/03/strawberries-methyl-iodide-cancer
> 
> But there are others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_pesticides


News always tries to sensationalize everything. The childhood cancer rate is very low. Here is a graph from the National Cancer Institute:


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

McBain said:


> 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.


----------



## tmwilson

The federal government and the industry selling a product provide all the information necessary to make informed decisions. That's not how I was raised. With that thought process I'd be broke ten times over.


----------



## D Coates

McBain said:


> 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.)


76.5 years per generation and 3 generations? Okay... let's assume the 1st generation reproduces at age 22 and the 2nd one reproduces at 22 as well. So around 110 years of testing with 3 completed generation life cycles and the following necropsy testing and you'd finally be satisfied? Can you imagine what scientific, technological and medical advances would still be shelved if we had that type of thinking? Upside, penicillin testing would be coming to a close. Downside, we'd be living with 1907 technology. 

I much better understand why many who demand more testing were reluctant to give actual timeframes that would satisfy their criteria. Even they realize their expectations are foolhardy.




McBain said:


> 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.


Okay, Slowly... read what you wrote... with DDT in mind. 

Millions died as malaria and other mosquito borne diseases came back with a vengeance as DDT was pulled of the market because of claims (that were later found to be false) all to supposedly save some birds. With the logic above you're now okay with rushing DDT back to market because of the millions of people who'd be saved. Yet you want Glyphosate and undoubtedly (GMO's Neonics and whatever other boogiemen) removed for more (110 years worth) testing? 

As for your concern


McBain said:


> "So a couple hundred thousand birds would cause the entire industry to take a serious hit."


 So now you care about industry as long as it's "green" in your eyes? It's okay to ignore known deaths caused by one industry (wind) but not another (chemical)? Interchange windpower and DDT between "entire" and "industry" in your quote above to see how convoluted your thinking is.


I'd swear you're trolling but you just seem to not only step in it you seem to like to roll around in it making your arguments look more foolish that anyone else could do.


----------

