# Is Roundup as safe as we have been told?



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

Repeated scare stories about Roundup. Which is the trade name of the original glyphospate formulation but now the patent has expired and the compound is sold under a number of labels. I have used it since the mid seventies when it came into use with no ill effects. It has replaced hundreds of thousands of gallons of truly nasty herbicides in that time with a compound that starts to deteriorate within seconds of contact with the soil. The plants touched however are finished. Some plants are not affected by the chemical and some have had a gene spiced to make them immune to Roundup and allow that crop to be cheaply weeded and be grown more economically. So if you fear a gene out of say a juniper which tolerates roundup, then I am sorry for you. But if you want to live in terror of this or any other invention of the control freaks, please feel free to build you a glass bubble and stay in it until you starve to death.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

What is the other forum?


----------



## ForrestB (May 26, 2013)

Vance G said:


> feel free to build you a glass bubble and stay in it until you starve to death.


Well alrighty then.


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

So long as your trust the creators of round up, sure it is. I know people who have smoked cigarettes for 35 years and never got cancer. Guess, there is no correlation to smoking and cancer. Fungicides used to be reported as safe for bees. Now we are finding out that isn't the case as well.

Using anecdotal evidence is not proof/disproof of causation.


----------



## Satch (Aug 15, 2012)

I know, we should have complete faith in Monsanto and any other chemical producer because they say so.

The other forum is Missouriwhitetails.com


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Glyphosate (Roundup) is not "good" for bees as it is an herbicide, and the normal use of this herbicide is to kill 'weeds', many of which are bee food. The bees might be better off if herbicides were never invented, but that might be a tad difficult. Ordinary salt has been used as an herbicide for over a thousand years.

The real issue is using glyphosate for weed control better than the practical alternatives? I challenge those who think glyphosate is 'bad' to point out a better alternative.


Most formulations of glyphosate do have a surfactant as a small part of the mix. Surfactants are similar to soap/detergent and can kill bees if sprayed directly on them by blocking their ability to breathe through their spiracles. But spraying soapy water on bees will have the same effect.


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I challenge those who think glyphosate is 'bad' to point out a better alternative.


Weedwacker? 

My point is that we tend to believe better living through chemistry is a necessity. Then we find out later, after we have been using these great new chemicals, there are hazards we didn't anticipate. Often our review was only two inches in from of our nose.

I know round up is convenient. But what exactly is the necessity to use this chemical, outside of not wanting to use a weed whacker, or other non chemical based approach. 

I am a realist, not a bleeding heart idealist. But I when I learn about something like this, which I didn't fully understand, I try to vote with my pocketbook (when I do understand it better). I also try to pass the info on so people can assess, and make their own call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5aw


We are seeing this same kind of realization with neonics right now. It is like the same thing in a new package.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> I know round up is convenient. But what exactly is the necessity to use this chemical, outside of not wanting to use a weed whacker, or other non chemical based approach. 


OK, here is one example.

I have a gravel driveway, approximately 1200 ft long, with parts on a moderately steep hill (total elevation rise approx 160 vertical feet). The driveway does not get enough vehicle traffic to eliminate weeds, yet if I allow weeds to grow, tires slip on the wet weeds after/during rain and I cannot get up the hill.

Mowing the weeds does nothing to address the problem, short mowed wet grass is still slippery. Glyphosate is the most practical solution.

While this may seem a trivial example to you, it certainly is not to me - at least when the grass is wet. 


There are thousands of other individual situations where a weed wacker or other mechanical weed control is not practical.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

Here is another example. We have Canadian thistle, Morning Glory, and several different perennial grass species. Uncontrolled all of these will render crop land worthless in a short time. Weed whackers, hoes, shovels, or any other cultivation are useless in controlling these weeds. 
Dave


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Seriously, a weedeater? It astounds me how people counter science with utter nonsense sometimes. Of course glyphosate has inherent risks, just like any other chemical, but to downright form baseless opinions on it from unfounded theories/opinions is just lacking common sense and is how all these false truths get started.


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

In rader's case how about vinegar. Check this out:
http://www.gcbl.org/live/home/landscaping/is-there-a-safe-alternative-to-roundup

As for Dave's comments, I am not a farmer. But I know we have been growing crops for lifetimes and round up was not around.

And you astound me JRG, contributing absolutely nothing with your comments. My opinions are anything but baseless, or from lacking common sense. Take a look at the couple video links I posted. Spend 15 minutes googling on the topic. If anything your comments are the ones lacking any base.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> In rader's case how about vinegar.

1200 ft of driveway, average 9 ft wide is close to 11,000 sq ft. How many gallons of vinegar per year do you think it will require to keep weeds off that driveway? And how much $$$? :scratch: And what will all that vinegar runoff do to my local stream water quality? 

Since I apply glyphosate with a hand pump sprayer that I walk around with, I would be walking and carrying *many *gallons of vinegar up (or down) the hill. That 160 vertical feet is equivalent to a 16 story building, walking the staircase all the way to the top. I get enough exercise as it is, thank you.


I currently use about 2 quarts of glyphosate per year on my driveway. That costs about $10 per year, plus my time. Vinegar simply is not practical.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

All my life I've been hearing that this chemical or that is harmless and all my life a few years later it is banned because it causes cancer in humans or has some other serious side effects. Do you folks actually believe what we have now is safe? I've heard that line all my life and it's never turned out to have been true yet... you can't know the long term effects of exposure to something until you've been exposed to it long term... and you trust the research on how safe these chemicals are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Scientific_fraud
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

2-4-D of course was accidently developed by people working on chemical warfare to kill humans...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid#History


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> And what will all that vinegar runoff do to my local stream water quality?


That isn't the question to ask. The question to ask is what will that glyphosate do to your local stream water. 

from that article "However, when glyphosate reaches rivers and streams, it is very toxic to aquatic life. "

Additionally, you could always use a propane torch to kill those weeds long term. Unless you have a fire hazard type of situation in TN. In NY, that is what I do for my driveway with regard to weeds growing up.

(this is the one I have: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Lincoln-...00341111?cm_sp=BazVoice-_-RLP-_-100341111-_-x)

I only offer those suggestions because you asked - I am not telling you what to do. You have some information, you get to choose what to do with it.


----------



## justin (Jun 16, 2007)

bees only consume 2 things, nectar and pollen. what does herbicide in lethal or nonlethal doses do to the nectar and pollen of plants?


----------



## Snookie (Dec 13, 2013)

Not sure about how safe Round Up is...I simply use the seasoned water left after a crawfish boil to kill grass around my hives:}

Cyan Pepper, Salt, Lemon Juice, Onion Juice and other Crawfish seasoning sure keeps the Bee Yard looking good.

Ps works great on Fire Ant hills here in South Louisiana too:}


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Beelosopher, I was just generalizing the topic's notion of how absurd theories breed internet truths, I hadn't even looked at the links you posted, but now that I have I stand by my original post more than ever. You forgot the trifecta, no link to chemtrails, shame on you.


----------



## Bee Herder (Jan 26, 2014)

Snookie said:


> Not sure about how safe Round Up is...I simply use the seasoned water left after a crawfish boil to kill grass around my hives:}
> 
> Cyan Pepper, Salt, Lemon Juice, Onion Juice and other Crawfish seasoning sure keeps the Bee Yard looking good.
> 
> Ps works great on Fire Ant hills here in South Louisiana too:}


Now were talkin Snookie. I'm checking flights as we speak. When and what time did you say the next crawfish boil is? I love me some mudbugs!


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

In an effort to make this thread have some relevance to beekeeping, I offer up these photos taken last summer of my 100 acre CRP field. This was previously an alfalfa field that had become increasingly worthless for forage as it was getting overrun with wild oats, pennycress, musk thistle and a variety of other weeds that had become a source of concern for my neighbors who were concerned about the spread of these noxious weeds. 
The solution? A one time burn down application of roundup followed by a no till seeding of a native grass mix of big blue stem, little blue stem, needle grass and indiangrass with a nice sprinkling of alfalfa and sweet clover that the bees love. I chose the mixture because it closely resembles the tall grass pastures of the Dakotas hundreds of years ago. A year later it had turned into my own private nature preserve. A really fun place to walk through imagining you are in a time long ago with bird nests liberally sprinkled throughout and all done without any tillage and the resulting erosion. Thanks to glyphosate this was so easy a beekeeper could do it. 
http://s470.photobucket.com/user/ji...RP/1400274792_zps6be82bc0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Jim,

Let me know if you have a problem with too many pheasants.

Tom


----------



## Snookie (Dec 13, 2013)

Bee Herder said:


> Now were talkin Snookie. I'm checking flights as we speak. When and what time did you say the next crawfish boil is? I love me some mudbugs!


Father's Day of course:}

We start off with a Smoked Boudin Omelette for breakfast while we purging the Mud Bugs just to get in the Cajun Throw Down mood, then as I mentioned once all the boiling is done and the food is gone I simply pour the seasoned water remains into a watering can and sprinkle it around my hives and the ant piles in the yard.

Works like a charm:}


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Very nice, Jim! :thumbsup::thumbsup:



> Thanks to glyphosate this was so easy a beekeeper could do it. 

 Are there _caves _in South Dakota?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

TWall said:


> Jim,
> 
> Let me know if you have a problem with too many pheasants.
> 
> Tom


Will do. . Lots of Sharptail Grouse the very first year but took a few more years until I started seeing pheasants. The coolest thing I have seen is a nest of Ferruginous Hawks. Took us a while to figure out what they were as very few hawks (including ferruginous) will nest on the ground particularly when there are trees nearby. It was only about 100 yards from my house and it was fun watching them learn to fly.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Kudos Jim for the CRP prairie grass.

You conservationist softie you.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WLC said:


> Kudos Jim for the CRP prairie grass.
> 
> You conservationist softie you.


Shhhh. Don't let word get out. 
BTW I put in a picture of the young hawks in their nest. It's pretty cool.


----------



## Backyarder (Mar 25, 2014)

The problem I see is herbicides that stick around longer than we need them. They are introduce into the food chain and go around in a spin cycle. 
My garden was lacking in nitrogen. My neighbor has horses, he was kind enough to offer free composted manure. Soil tests about like it should now but everything was stunted, potatoes, squash, cucumbers, been, peas, okra, and cabbage just started yellowing and died off.
Potatoes are still there but will probably be gone soon. 
I had never heard of aminopyralid contamination before, guess what my neighbors feed supplier treats his hay meadows with?
If you go to Dow's agri website there's even a nice warning about not using composted manure on gardens. They created a broad leaf control chemical that passes right through animals. The manure and urine will kill anything broad leaf for 1-5 years (depending on whose half life numbers you use)
Onion and garlic are holding on still, but I don't think I want to eat what killed everything else.
These potatoes have been in the ground since St. Patrick's day. 









I would like to thank Dow chemical for reminding me that its not all OK.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Backyarder said:


> I had never heard of aminopyralid contamination before


thanks, I've been trying to figure out why my Tomatoes that I start from seeds the last three years died. I tried all kinds of different seeds etc figuring it was a disease, looking at the pictures of how to diagnose if you have it, boy have I got it. The last two years the only thing that I have harvested is Garlic, nothing kills that.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Interesting, it should be pointed out though, for the sake of clarity in this thread, that this is NOT from roundup but an entirely different class of herbicide in that it's action much more closely resembles 2-4-D. 
http://www.dowagro.com/range/resource/milestone_faq.htm


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

what ever happened to the plow and cultivator? lets see it's a cycle farmers use chemicals to get an edge and create more profit= more crop produced = bumper crop = price drop = need a new edge.


----------



## John R C (Mar 15, 2011)

j.kuder said:


> what ever happened to the plow and cultivator? lets see it's a cycle farmers use chemicals to get an edge and create more profit= more crop produced = bumper crop = price drop = need a new edge.


Soil conservation practices used by farmers to prevent erosion and runoff have necessitated the use of herbicides for weed suppression.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

j.kuder said:


> what ever happened to the plow and cultivator? lets see it's a cycle farmers use chemicals to get an edge and create more profit= more crop produced = bumper crop = price drop = need a new edge.


Odd how this has come full circle. I remember as a boy when it was the plow that was spoken of with disdain. Lots of resulting erosion. Field ruts could get deep deep enough to tip over a combine or break an axle weren't unusual with massive amounts of silt washing into waterways. The bottom line is with chemicals far fewer trips through the field are required with much less fuel being used. Yes, it is much more profitable to use chemicals. Farming is competitive, it's tough to pay for farm ground, seed and machinery at current prices, is that something that farmers need to apologize for?


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

my family was a victim of a corporate farming operation over spraying and over dosing of an herbicide called clomazone. it drifted over my farm after the corporate farm boss told the untrained seasonal help to spray the 200 acre field across from my property. it was a windy day about 20mph. after i suspected we got hit i went looking for evidence and we found the box of jugs they threw in the bushes on the edge of the field. the warning sheets were still on the bottles. which said if overspraying occures it will cause a whitening of surrounding vegetation. well i found whitening of vegetation up to a 1/2 of a mile from that field. it turned new growth especially on wild cherry trees white which was how i realized my property and beyond got sprayed. signs of the whitening was still showing up along the field 6 months later. this happened in south jersey.
think about it. poison is poison it don't care what it kills


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Today's farmers have to be very efficient and cost effective. I recently went on our counties' agricultural tour. We toured a dairy, and I was so impressed with how knowledgeable the farmer was. He was up to date on environmental issues, feeding and milking, nutrition, animal husbandry and foliage. I am a life long engineer, and I have never met a man with more broad based knowledge of his field of endeavor. His dairy milks 1,000 cows per day. Still, his margins are razor thin and he has to keep volume at it's highest to stay profitable. I think the day of the cultivator and plow left us when over the past decades as the world's population doubled. Everyone has to be fed.


----------



## bbbthingmaker (Sep 26, 2010)

Is Roundup as safe as we have been told?
NO


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

yea thats what the health dept. lady said "we all must have our sweet potatoes for thanks giving dinner". at what cost. well she got her sweet potatoes for thanks giving dinner they showed up in our local supermarket that year.
Enjoy Your Poison!


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

lazy shooter said:


> I think the day of the cultivator and plow left us when over the past decades as the world's population doubled. Everyone has to be fed.


Yes it did and yes they do. I am no Monsanto fan so don't get me wrong in what I am going to say. I don't think Roundup is as safe as we've been told, but is it more safe than it's alternatives? Probably. The alternatives can be used without genetically modifying the crops which is great. This comes as one of the pick your poison things. 

One problem is that 99% of America has no way to feed itself. If YOU think that you can go out and grow your own food and feed your family without buying produce then go for it. Where are most of you going to grow it? In your .10 acre yard? Do you know how to preserve food? Do you know how to preserve seed? What are you going to eat until your vegetables mature? 

If we ever have a widespread catastrophic agriculture failure then this country will be in civil war. It will be the haves against the have nots. It won't be about money, it will be about food.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Satch said:


> Is roundup really 125% more toxic than what they have claimed?


Just to be clear, the referenced article claims :



> Roundup herbicide, for instance, was found to be 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation.


Those are two significantly different numbers.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Roundup is a _brand _name. When originally developed and marketed, the only active ingredient in _Roundup _was glyphosate. Manufacture of glyphosate was protected by US and international patents, and only _Roundup _had glyphosate. A couple of decades later, those patents expired, and manufacture of glyphosate was open to anyone without paying patent licensing fees.

Many competing brands of glyphosate are now available. Monsanto, the original patent holder of glyphosate has responded by mixing other herbicides with glyphosate in an attempt to continue to offer a 'unique' product, still using the _Roundup _brand name.

Note this section (and in particular the [HIGHLIGHT]highlighted[/HIGHLIGHT] part) from the actual study linked in post #1:



> It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides. This idea is spread by manufacturers, mostly in the reviews they promote [39, 40], which are often cited in toxicological evaluations of glyphosate-based herbicides.[HIGHLIGHT] However, Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. [/HIGHLIGHT]Moreover, despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions [41].
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/#!po=15.6250


The point of this is that while at one time Roundup = glyphosate, now they are not the same thing.

Looking at it another way, according to this study, plain old 'generic' glyphosate is 125 times LESS TOXIC than Roundup (the current Roundup formulation).


I use plain old generic glyphosate on my property. Given the price difference between glyphosate and Roundup, I suspect many other users have also switched to generic glyphosate.

Roundup is no longer strictly glyphosate. Do yourself a favor and switch from branded Roundup to a generic glyphosate product. I use a Cornerstone product available from my local Farm Coop store.

.


----------



## Earthboy (May 16, 2007)

Have you not heard about miticide-resistant mites yet? (Here, list all the "treatments" we beekeepers have done and, yes, the I-Pee-Em methods) 

Please don't tell me you have not heard about roundup-resistant weeds.

When are we going to think out of the box while helping these companies become mega-rich, choking the planet?

Are we not sick of these treadmill solutions? I am.


----------



## tank (Jun 20, 2013)

We yes i said we are not willing to pay (for food) what we are willing to get paid (to plow and hoe crops). If you don't like it make your own. And come on nobody can come up withal reason that a weedwacker in front of a bee hive is a bad idea? Ha ha just had to put my 2 cents in.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Most people don't understand labor costs of running a large farm and busting out the 'weedwhackers' whatever form they may take. We ran a crew through our trial plots, probably spent $15,000 on 23 acres when all was said and done.... If the field had been managed better with chemistry, I'm betting it would've cost less than $1000 with 1000 times less effort as well. People want abundant cheap food, so better living through chemistry.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > In rader's case how about vinegar.
> 
> 1200 ft of driveway, average 9 ft wide is close to 11,000 sq ft. How many gallons of vinegar per year do you think it will require to keep weeds off that driveway? And how much $$$? :scratch: And what will all that vinegar runoff do to my local stream water quality?
> 
> ...


And the reason you need pesticides for your _*driveway*_ is...?



j.kuder said:


> what ever happened to the plow and cultivator? lets see it's a cycle farmers use chemicals to get an edge and create more profit= more crop produced = bumper crop = price drop = need a new edge.


Indeed, there are still many tools available other than herbicides, such as rotary hoes, harrows, cultivators. I'm not saying that Roundup doesn't have uses that these tools would have a hard time achieving, but when it comes to keeping a field clean, there's more than just herbicides at one's disposal.



John R C said:


> Soil conservation practices used by farmers to prevent erosion and runoff have necessitated the use of herbicides for weed suppression.


I don't buy this. While Roundup can be quite a boon in a no-till approach, as far as I know, most farmers who use RR crops do not use the no-till approach. Roundup clears the spaces between the rows, leaving it exposed and susceptible to erosion, especially runoff. And where can Roundup be really nasty? Oh, in the streams and ponds...

You could use mechanical means to deal with your weeds while your crop grows, and then sow in a cover crop like ray-grass between the rows once your plant is mature (no decrease in crop yield if sowed once corn has reached the 6 leaf stage, for example), which would then truly help against both wind and water erosion, as well as reduce compaction and nutrient runoff, improving soil structure. Roundup isn't the solution to soil conservation issues.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Dominic, in my area glyphosate IS used in no till farming. There is not enough moisture in the ground to see a cover crop. That would be a total disaster.


----------



## tomkat (Apr 27, 2014)

My personal lesson on Round Up, Last year the field across from my house was sprayed with R U. Two hives went into decline. The drift blew right into the hives. Also into my greenhouse killing hundreds of plants.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Dominic said:


> And the reason you need pesticides for your _*driveway*_ is...?


You obviously did not *READ *post #9. Try that, then come back with questions, if you still have some.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Look, this whole thread here in the bee forum was at least a couple degrees removed from beekeeping to start with. Lots of ummm interesting posts including one from a guy talking about the eagles nest in his back yard. 
We may all have missed the most curious part of all. The following is from the resume of the author of the link posted in the OP. 



"In 1995 Sayer received a BA degree in Philosophy from Rutgers University, where he studied under the American philosopher Dr. Bruce W. Wilshire, with a focus on the philosophy of science. In 1996, following residency at the Zen Mountain Monastery in upstate New York, he embarked on a 5 year journey of service as a counsellor-teacher and wilderness therapy specialist for various organizations that serve underprivileged and/or adjudicated populations. Since 2003, Sayer has served as a patient advocate and an educator and consultant for the natural health and wellness field."



I'm not about to knock anyone's life choices, probably a really interesting guy but clearly a "scientist" with a unique perspective. Maybe we could tone this down a bit, respect others views and actually talk about something a bit more closely related to beekeeping (gasp)?


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

Backyarder, what those plants are showing signs of is not limited to aminopyralid. The same thing will happen when using a 2 4D based herbicide. I've seen that in my own garden and have never used a aminopyralid herbicide. We raise cattle and sell a lot of hay. I don't like the chemicals but I can't grow good quality hay without them.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

If one wants to worry about agriculture, worry about water. This country is on a huge water usage deficit.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Mystery solved. I just chatted with the Roundup folks...





Here's the link to Monsanto's Roundup page. The live chat button is in the upper right corner. 
http://www.roundup.com/smg/template...asNyPtL4CFQmSfgodh1kAFw&kid=690775958&sissr=1


----------



## Backyarder (Mar 25, 2014)

Brad Bee, I think aminopyralid contamination is the most likely cause. My neighbor (the one I got compost from) has a 1/2 acre garden. He used the same compost to mound his potatoes with. They popped up nicely but since he has mound ed them with compost they started doing the same thing. The rest of his garden is doing comparable to last year. Something in that pile of composted horse manure is the likely culprit. Last year he started getting hay from a different person. He called them and asked if they treat their hay fields, they said basically what you did.
Higher quality hay from treated fields. The downside of that is we didn't know that before we zapped our gardens. 
I live in south central Kansas, there's a half section of wheat bordering my backyard. Lots of farmers in the family.
I realize these chemicals are part of our agricultural reality. 
But on the other hand, it took a dust bowl before we learned to plant wind breaks after the plows broke the prairie. Theyre tearing out a lot of those trees now and going no till.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Barry Digman said:


> Mystery solved. I just chatted with the Roundup folks...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha ha! Well that settles it for sure. Maybe I will get on there and ask "Is Roundup as safe as we've been told". If I don't like what I hear there, perhaps I will see if the Zen Mountain Monastery has a similar chat line.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I didn't see anything about _Live Chat_, but you can signup for various Zen Mountain Monastery _email _newsletters. 

http://zmm.mro.org/about/newsletter-signup/


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

I wonder what he'd have said had you asked about one of the generic competitors.


----------



## Beekeeper23 (Mar 5, 2014)

Beautiful fields, now if I could kick husband and the farmer off the 6 measly acres the farmer desperately has influenced husband into believing the hype of "if the label says it's harmful to honeybees I can not use it", and "it's just an herbicide".......money talks..... And my questions and facts get ignored. Living in a farming community I'm certain my "Apiary" letters will go ignored as legally I have no recourse and the farmer is not held liable and they know it. So much for the Ohio revised code that only contradicts itself and provides Apairists with no leverage at all.


----------



## Scott J. (Feb 6, 2007)

So if a plant is in bloom and then sprayed with Roundup or Imazapyr, what little honey the bees do collect, would it be cantaminated? I would think so but don't know so.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

We waited until close to dark and sprayed the area around our hives that we have in the timber. No ill effects, both hives are doing just fine and the weeds are dead. We may haul some mulch in.


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

I know of one of my hives that I had at a farm in strawberries 2 years ago where they sprayed roundup inbetween the rows to kill the weeds there and I could smell it the next day. The bees wern't happy for weeks and they crashed that summer with stores in the hive. I couldn't move the bees before he sprayed because they were rearing a new queen and I didn't want to hurt her. (The new queen had just started to lay the week of the spraying) Lesson learned for me. Perhaps a small area could disipate fast enough, but a larger area (say an acre or so) is too much product.


----------



## BeeGora (Oct 22, 2013)

jim lyon said:


> "In 1995 Sayer received a BA degree in Philosophy from Rutgers University, where he studied under the American philosopher Dr. Bruce W. Wilshire, with a focus on the *philosophy of science*."(gasp)?


Isn't "*the philosopy of science*" an oxymoron?


----------



## spreerider (Jun 23, 2013)

look at the source of the article, wake up world, probaly not the best scientific reporting website out there. They also have articles on vaccines and many other conspiracy theories.


----------



## spammy_h (Jul 2, 2014)

I'm not saying that roundup is good for bees, because I don't think it's good for anyone - human, cattle, insect, etc. to ingest it, but my perspective is this:

We have seen an increase in CCD that, to me, historically seems to track with the proliferation of GMO crops. We have also seen a huge increase in gluten intolerance that appears to also track with the increased use of GMO wheat and corn.

I can't control where my bees go, and there is a GMO corn/soybean field .5 miles from my house. I'm more concerned with that field than I am with the Roundup that I spray at night.

I'm not saying that spraying acres of Roundup is a good thing for bees, because it probably is not, but I think that the prevalence of GMO crops has more to do with bee population decline than any pesticide in use today.

Here is an article about GMO usage and bee decline. Please look at the picture of the dissected bees: http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-...ecline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

Also, I have observed that several people I know who have severe wheat gluten intolerance issues remarkably are able to eat wheat products that do not contain GMO wheat without problems.

I think the same goes for bees. Just my $.02 from a new beek


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

spreerider said:


> look at the source of the article, wake up world, probaly not the best scientific reporting website out there. They also have articles on vaccines and many other conspiracy theories.


the same can also very easily be said by the source of the information as to the safety of roundup, i.e. the manufacturer, or any other pesticide (herbicide or insectide). it depends on which camp, believer or non-believer, you fall in as to who you probably believe, but i tend to hold large agri-business corporations guilty until proven innocent when it pertains to the safety of a particular chemical.

i choose not to use roundup and other chemicals on my place, mostly because i want to ensure that my kids don't grow up eating that stuff on the veggies and fruit that i grow for us. can i control what they eat from other sources? sure i can by shopping locally and buying produce from a local farmer that practices the same techniques as me, i.e. no chemicals. i can't control everything that goes into them, but i can do my best at it. 

mostly i don't understand why beeks see forage disappearing and bee numbers declining, but still continue to use some of the same chemicals that are suspect in the decline of both bees and forage. to each their own, but those don't add up to me.


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

All wishing to starve to death in the dark in a cave or not use the chemicals that make it possible for farmers to feed so many people please continue. I will continue to judiciously use what the genius of man has provided that allows us to live at much larger than hunter gatherer populations.


----------



## Tim KS (May 9, 2014)

Is it the hand of man that you're against? Plants have been adapting to survive ever since they came into being. They have genetically modified themselves to resist pests that prey on them.....just like the weeds that are now modifying themselves to resist Round Up. If nature does it, it's okay, if man does it, it's poisoning us? I agree with Vance. :thumbsup:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Vance G said:


> All wishing to starve to death in the dark in a cave or not use the chemicals that make it possible for farmers to feed so many people please continue. I will continue to judiciously use what the genius of man has provided that allows us to live at much larger than hunter gatherer populations.


Is it too early to make nominations for post of the year? 
Just so we are clear, to say that we are eating GMO wheat is factually incorrect. Yes, breeders have been working for years to develop more productive and drought tolerant strains but you aren't going to see anyone out spraying their wheat with roundup.....at least not more than once.


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

GMO isn't just "roundup ready". They're modifying things for all sorts of reasons. Roundup ready is only one. (Corn has pesticide for that worm that eats them, I've also read of them putting scorpion venim in something to kill another pest for that plant. I think it was a mellon) I've read that the wheat in the US is all GMO and there's really nothing that can be done. There is a country that has "old" wheat I can't remember where it is now, but even if we bought the seed and brought it here it would only last a year as I understand it because it would cross pollinate and be done.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Delber I am not sure that I agree that all wheat in the US is GMO wheat.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

delber said:


> GMO isn't just "roundup ready". They're modifying things for all sorts of reasons. Roundup ready is only one. (Corn has pesticide for that worm that eats them, I've also read of them putting scorpion venim in something to kill another pest for that plant. I think it was a mellon) I've read that the wheat in the US is all GMO and there's really nothing that can be done. There is a country that has "old" wheat I can't remember where it is now, but even if we bought the seed and brought it here it would only last a year as I understand it because it would cross pollinate and be done.


In a thread titled "Is Roundup as safe as we have been told" it's simply inaccurate to casually throw out the statement that "wheat in the US is all GMO". 

I think on the Bee Forum that we should just leave it at that and not get into all the subtleties of breeding and selection of pretty much ALL the food found in your local grocery store.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Not as safe as I was told. 

Years ago, our local Extension expert told me he would rather eat a spoonful of Roundup, than a spoonful of salt. He went on to be the head of the Extension Service. Must be he ate the salt.


----------



## Chemguy (Nov 26, 2012)

If I recall correctly, fungicides have negative effects on colonies; they don't directly harm the bees, but instead affect the ripening of pollen into bee bread by affecting the yeast (fungi) that cause the fermentation to take place. Likewise, I don't suspect that glyphosphate is _directly _harmful to bees, but do suspect that it could affect the microbial life upon which honeybee health depends.


----------



## woodedareas (Sep 10, 2010)

Michael is correct. If this is a safe substance we should be able to drink it without any adverse impacts, but i can assure you no one want it in there water or food. In many areas the surface drainage takes the chemicals such as RoundUp into wetlands and streams and that is where it does most of its damage.The Forest Preserve District in my area has a war on a few plants that they feel are invasive. They spray selectively but use hundreds of gallons. I have been unable to stop them as they are convinced the chemical is better than invasive plants. As for myself I prefer invasive plants and weeds, and when Iam concerned I cut the plants that are unsightly which is very rare.


Michael Bush said:


> All my life I've been hearing that this chemical or that is harmless and all my life a few years later it is banned because it causes cancer in humans or has some other serious side effects. Do you folks actually believe what we have now is safe? I've heard that line all my life and it's never turned out to have been true yet... you can't know the long term effects of exposure to something until you've been exposed to it long term... and you trust the research on how safe these chemicals are?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Scientific_fraud
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/
> ...


----------



## BeeGora (Oct 22, 2013)

We had a professor from the Department of Horticultural Science at NCSU give a talk on horticulture in our area. When asked about the safety of RoundUp, he said that it wasn't as toxic as asprin. Now he was referring to human toxicidity and not bees. I have no problem spraying all around my garden to kill weeds. Beats the heck out of pulling them up every week.


----------



## SoylentYellow (Dec 10, 2013)

Michael Palmer said:


> Not as safe as I was told.
> 
> Years ago, our local Extension expert told me he would rather eat a spoonful of Roundup, than a spoonful of salt. He went on to be the head of the Extension Service. Must be he ate the salt.



This is likely why he said that. I also included Vinegar for reference. Glyphosate looks like it is applied at 1-2 Quarts/acre. I wonder what the Vinegar rate is. :scratch: 

Rat LD50's (Smaller numbers are more toxic):

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 200 mg/kg
Caffeine 192 mg/kg
Table Salt	3,000 mg/kg	
Acetic Acid - Vinegar	3310 mg/kg
Glyphosate - Roundup >5000 mg/kg


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

I'm sorry I used the wrong term. Not GMO, but according to this article Genetically manipulated. Sorry for the mis statement. Check out this article. I have no idea who the author is, but it's interesting. . . http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/02/wheat-is-not-genetically-modified/

As related to bees. . . The farm where I have hives they use roundup a lot. My hives have never done well over about a year there. There are months where it seems that they're doing well, but then they crash fast and hard. One week they look fabulous with a deep of brood and the next they're dead.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

imthedude said:


> the same can also very easily be said by the source of the information as to the safety of roundup, i.e. the manufacturer, or any other pesticide (herbicide or insectide). it depends on which camp, believer or non-believer, you fall in as to who you probably believe, but i tend to hold large agri-business corporations guilty until proven innocent when it pertains to the safety of a particular chemical.



The website for the article is a complete joke. Here are a few tidbits that I copied. 

In celebration of the Jupiter entering the Leo cycle, I would like to share with you a personal message on how to orientate your consciousness to this frequency. One of the biggest lessons this cycle was showing us was the need for total inner security. Saturn’s lessons are tough but the rewards are profound. We are given great power to do great things but unless we act with responsibility and respect our limitations will lead us directly to our own downfall. Luckily we have already spent the last 7 months connecting to ourselves with Venus transiting through Cancer.


*Evidence Shows Historical Application of Vaccines Had No Impact on Prevention of Infectious Disease*
A summary review of data on neurological adverse events and the historical role of vaccination in the natural course of infectious disease in Switzerland and Germany, supports data from other regions with evidence that vaccines had no positive impact on disease prevention efforts from the early-mid to late 20th century. The data contradicts widespread misinformation campaigns by the mainstream medical establishment which claim that vaccination led to immunization and a subsequent decline in infectious disease.

*Global Warming Blamed for Future UFO Attacks*
Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilization growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.” Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilizations, say scientists.


----------



## bugmeister (Feb 26, 2013)

propane flame thrower with hose/water supply to contain fire spread or dilution of vinegar sprayed on leaves will work.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

woodedareas said:


> If this is a safe substance we should be able to drink it without any adverse impacts,


That is ridicules statement. Do you use liquid hand soap, shampoo, deodorant, hand cream, mouthwash, or sunscreen? I am pretty sure that you would have adverse impacts if you drank any of these.




woodedareas said:


> In many areas the surface drainage takes the chemicals such as RoundUp into wetlands and streams and that is where it does most of its damage.


Really? Where did you read that? Do you have a reference?


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

I use roundup around my hives at least twice a year and I use it all over my farm... My bees do very well. Roundup isn't a problem, pesticides are a different story...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Rat LD50's (Smaller numbers are more toxic):
Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 200 mg/kg
Caffeine 192 mg/kg
Table Salt 3,000 mg/kg 
Acetic Acid - Vinegar 3310 mg/kg
Glyphosate - Roundup >5000 mg/kg 

LD50 for Lead (Pb) for Rats is 560 mg so obviously it's much safer than Caffeine... you could put it in you coffee everyday with no ill effects right?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

From an above post:
"i tend to hold large agribusiness corporations guilty until proven innocent when it pertains to the safety of a particular chemical." *Is this a telling statement.*

From another post: "I have observed that several people I know who have severe wheat gluten intolerance issues remarkably are able to eat wheat products that do not contain GMO wheat without problems." *I can understand this happening, as I also have many friends and when we visit the conversations always drift to, "well how are your gluten issues since you started eating wheat products that did not originate from GMOs?" NOT*

When I read such as the above, I just close my mind to this biased person's reply.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >Rat LD50's (Smaller numbers are more toxic):
> Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 200 mg/kg
> Caffeine 192 mg/kg
> Table Salt 3,000 mg/kg
> ...


But nobody is putting these substances in their coffee (hopefully), so that really isn't a good way to look at it.


----------



## Scott J. (Feb 6, 2007)

The plant that the county sprayed was knotweed which I saw my bees working last night. Does the herbiside get into the nectar? If so, what does that effect if anything when its fed to the larva? Anyone know of reserch on that?


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

lazy shooter said:


> From an above post:
> "i tend to hold large agribusiness corporations guilty until proven innocent when it pertains to the safety of a particular chemical." *Is this a telling statement.*
> 
> From another post: "I have observed that several people I know who have severe wheat gluten intolerance issues remarkably are able to eat wheat products that do not contain GMO wheat without problems." *I can understand this happening, as I also have many friends and when we visit the conversations always drift to, "well how are your gluten issues since you started eating wheat products that did not originate from GMOs?" NOT*
> ...


and you obviously have no bias in your line of thinking either, right?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>But nobody is putting these substances in their coffee (hopefully), so that really isn't a good way to look at it. 

But you are getting exposed to all of those, including lead, on a daily basis. Even if you don't TAKE aspirin it's in the water because of people who DO take aspirin, and salt, caffeine, and acetic acid are on your food and Glyphosate is also in the water. I think it's the only realistic way to look at it... what matters isn't how much it takes for a single dose to kill you, what matters is what it does in small doses over the long run.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >But nobody is putting these substances in their coffee (hopefully), so that really isn't a good way to look at it.
> 
> But you are getting exposed to all of those, including lead, on a daily basis. Even if you don't TAKE aspirin it's in the water because of people who DO take aspirin, and salt, caffeine, and acetic acid are on your food and Glyphosate is also in the water. I think it's the only realistic way to look at it... what matters isn't how much it takes for a single dose to kill you, what matters is what it does in small doses over the long run.


I guess what I was saying is that the hypothetical "what would you rather put in your coffee" question isn't a good way to assess toxicity.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I guess what I was saying is that the hypothetical "what would you rather put in your coffee" question isn't a good way to assess toxicity. 

Of course. It's not a question of what sounds appetizing, but what the long term effects of exposure are. But the long term effects of caffeine and lead are pretty well know. People have been exposed to them for centuries now... The long term effects of Glyphosate are not known.


----------



## Tim KS (May 9, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> >I guess what I was saying is that the hypothetical "what would you rather put in your coffee" question isn't a good way to assess toxicity.
> 
> Of course. It's not a question of what sounds appetizing, but what *the long term effects of exposure* are. But the long term effects of caffeine and lead are pretty well know. People have been exposed to them for centuries now... The long term effects of Glyphosate are not known.


We don't know the long term effects of lots of things. We may well find out in the future that drinking bottled water is bad for us......who knows? It's a well known fact that none of us are getting out of life alive. No one I have ever known has ever died of good health. Anything & everything that we put into our bodies can kill us if it's done to excess. The solution is to do what you think is best for you & yours, and don't force opinions & lifestyle onto anyone else. Everyone will die by of their own decision. 

All these new & recent lineup of pesticides are advances from what was used in the past. Perhaps the next generation of chemicals or whatever will be better yet. Choose your path through life as best you can.


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

lazy shooter said:


> When I read such as the above, I just close my mind to this biased person's reply.


This is sad in my mind. (I'm not trying to fight, but I'm being serious) Everyone of us has a bias of some sort. What we need to do is look at facts and seek to discifer them for ourself. Consider that one person has a bias for a reason. I wonder why or what caused them to be that way? If we can see these kind of things I think it would help us all.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> People have been exposed to them for centuries now... The long term effects of Glyphosate are not known.


+/-40 years of real world use isn't long term? A company is going to have to test a new product for decades or even centuries before people are going to be comfortable enough to accept a new product? The long gestation period of products would absolutely stifle new product investment, economic growth or improvement of the human condition. Who gets (or gives up) this type of stranglehold power? 

Ironically that's the type of thinking that people used initially to reject electricity at the turn of the 19th century. Imagine when the Polio vaccine might have been released if that type of testing was required. Ebola? We're willing to give it a 30-50 year head start as we continue testing all possibilities? Cell phones? Uh, we'd still be using dial up... It would absolutely destroy our economy as others would rocket past.

Is new always good? Nope. But once a product has passed the tests it's been required to and undergone the required regulatory oversight the barn doors are open for business.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Exactly. Glyphosate has been in use for 40 years. From Wiki: In 2007 glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the United States agricultural sector, with 180 to 185 million pounds applied, and the second most used in home and garden market where users applied 5 to 8 million pounds; additionally industry, commerce and government applied 13 to 15 million pounds.

That’s about 100,000 tons per year in ’07 alone. With a little extrapolation I can estimate that total use in the US exceeds TWO MILLION TONS since the ‘70’s. And what has been the results of all this data? Opinionated links to CCD? 

Real world data beats anything that a lab could provide. How could additional laboratory testing possibly add anything to this?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>We may well find out in the future that drinking bottled water is bad for us......who knows?

I'm pretty sure it is bad for us and I'm pretty sure we already know that from the things that crystal clear plastics add to our diet... biphenols...


>People have been exposed to them for centuries now... The long term effects of Glyphosate are not known.
+/-40 years of real world use isn't long term?

It may have been around since 1970, but it has only been used in large enough amounts to start exposing all of us at some level since 1994 when roundup ready soybeans were invented. And not at near the current levels until about 2010 when roundup ready corn was in full production. Until then roundup was just something used to clear a field now and then, not routinely sprayed on every field multiple times a year. We have never been exposed to this extent. In 2001 production of Roundup had climbed to 85 million pounds. By 2007 it had climbed to 185 million pounds. It's hard to find a substantiated number since 2007 (that 2007 number is well documented by the EPA) but Wikipedia has this: "A 2012 study found that over the 16 year period since genetically modified crops were introduced, "herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011"--Charles M Benbrook Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. - the first sixteen years Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:24 http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

Yes. That is recent.


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't know whether Round-Up is good, bad, or indifferent... 

What I do know is that I smoked cigarettes for about 35 years. I thank God for helping me quit about eight years ago...as of this moment I've not been diagnosed with cancer. Over the last couple of decades smoking has gotten some needed bad publicity and for the last several years the number of people smoking in the US has continued to decline as has lung cancer...think there's a connection there?  Liver (and pancreatic) cancer, though, are on the rise. Being as the liver is one of our body's filters it makes me wonder if the cause of increased liver cancer cases is due to something it is filtering....

:kn::kn:
Ed


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

spammy_h said:


> I'm not saying that roundup is good for bees, because I don't think it's good for anyone - human, cattle, insect, etc. to ingest it, but my perspective is this:
> 
> We have seen an increase in CCD that, to me, historically seems to track with the proliferation of GMO crops. We have also seen a huge increase in gluten intolerance that appears to also track with the increased use of GMO wheat and corn.
> 
> ...


GMO wheat is something that I have never seen. Who has this wheat? Who owns it? What is it called? What are it's GMO traits?


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

There are not any GMO wheat, barley, or oats in production, so that can not be the cause of the increased incidence of Celiacs disease. They are in the research phase and are not in the food chain at all. All of the cereal varieties have been developed by conventional plant breeding. So look back through this thread and look at the all of the mis-information given by the sky is falling group. Maybe what we should be more concerned with are the natural toxins that are present in our food chain. The same natural toxins that have been reduced by conventional plant breeding. I am retired now, but spent 28 years in cereal plant breeding.
Dave


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Dave it appears then that spammy got caught in a lie about GMO wheat?


----------



## franktrujillo (Jan 22, 2009)

i have no problem with weeds i just keep running them over with my lawn mower and eventually they don't show up anymore.especially when it snows


----------



## Tim KS (May 9, 2014)

franktrujillo said:


> i have no problem with weeds i just keep running them over with my lawn mower and eventually they don't show up anymore.especially when it snows


...but, Frank, 'weed' is legal now in CO.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

franktrujillo said:


> i have no problem with weeds i just keep running them over with my lawn mower and eventually they don't show up anymore.especially when it snows


I have read, and I paraphrase that the organic landscapers tell you 'to keep mowing weeds and not letting them seed and they will eventually go away,' or something to that account. I moved into a home on three acres five years ago. The previous owner mowed and watered about one acre. I followed his method because the sprinkler system was in place. The yard was composed of one of the short hybrid bermuda grasses with lots of weeds in the mix. I have kept it mowed for five years without letting the weeds go to seed, except for dandelions that flower so close to the ground that they can't be mowed. I will admit that there are less grass burrs in my yard, but the thistles and other noxious weeds just keep on coming up. I fertilize once a year with some organic fertilizer. At 75 years of age, I don't think I am going to see the end of my weeds. It is a SLOW process.


----------



## bolter (Jun 27, 2013)

Back on topic - couple of articles people can read and use to form their own opinions.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/real...dup-herbicide-zw0z1402zkin.aspx#axzz3AKqBvdbY
Essence - Roundup is now being used to help dry crops which increases residue in food. Linked to celiac/gluten intolerance, but likely early days of the research.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/orga...uten-panic-part-2-zbcz1402.aspx#axzz3AKqBvdbY
Related in a way - modern wheat strains don't cause any more issues than "ancient" strains, despite numerous popular (but unscientific claims) to the contrary (part 1 can be found at the link)


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>There are not any GMO wheat, barley, or oats in production

There is not SUPPOSED to be:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/17/202684064/in-oregon-the-gmo-wheat-mystery-deepens
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...wheat-found-in-oregon-field-howd-it-get-there
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/29/genetically-modified-wheat/2370533/


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

bolter said:


> Back on topic - couple of articles people can read and use to form their own opinions.
> http://www.motherearthnews.com/real...dup-herbicide-zw0z1402zkin.aspx#axzz3AKqBvdbY
> Essence - Roundup is now being used to help dry crops which increases residue in food. Linked to celiac/gluten intolerance, but likely early days of the research.


You might want to check on the author of that "paper" before you form your opinion. 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#more-11062


http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/04/30/is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone.php

http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-paper-on-roundup-saturates-the-internet


----------



## SoylentYellow (Dec 10, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> >Rat LD50's (Smaller numbers are more toxic):
> Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 200 mg/kg
> Caffeine 192 mg/kg
> Table Salt 3,000 mg/kg
> ...


Caffeine IS in my coffee, Table Salt IS in my food (and it better be in my cells or I wouldn't be here).

EVERYTHING is toxic at a certain dosage, yes even water. This is the what the father of modern toxicology Paracelsus learned 400+ years ago. 

Salt is a good example here:
Necessary for life but toxic above certain levels.

I think the anxiety caused blanket fear of 'Chemicals' is more harmful than the 'Chemicals' themselves.

I myself am currently testing long term low dose exposure to both caffeine and salt on myself, I suspect long term it will be fatal. opcorn:


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Insert obligatory reference to Dihydrogen Monoxide:


http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


----------



## SoylentYellow (Dec 10, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Insert obligatory reference to Dihydrogen Monoxide:
> 
> 
> http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


Love that one. Here is another. Chemophobes respond to placebo just as much as a chemical.
The AMA no longer recognizes this as a valid syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_chemical_sensitivity


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

According to WHO (The World Health Organization) there are an estimated 359,000 deaths worldwide each year that are associated with Dihydrogen Monoxide...and nobody is protesting or seeking a ban on it...Monsanto, Dow, or some of the other big chemical companies must be protecting it. I have read reports that if ISIS/IS gets ahold of a large supply of it that they may weaponize it in Iraq.

Ed


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

That Swiss conglomerate _Nestle _ is a _huge _dealer of that stuff! :no: They sell millions of bottles every day, in places where our kids congregate. _Outrageous_!


Boycott Nestle before they kill us all!


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Can anyone else think of a chemical company that is a good corporate citizen?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Asbestos is the building material of the future. It won't burn or rot. It has been in use by humans since prehistoric times. It must be perfectly safe. I've been exposed to a lot of it and I'm still alive...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> Asbestos is the building material of the future. It won't burn or rot. It has been in use by humans since prehistoric times. It must be perfectly safe. I've been exposed to a lot of it and I'm still alive...



I have been exposed to the sun a lot but I don't have skin cancer so it must be safe.

I drink beer but my liver still works, so it must be safe.

What the point with that statements like this? :scratch:

Asbestos, sun exposure, and alcohol have all be proven to cause harm; glyphosate has not.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Maybe we are approaching this subject from the wrong position. Maybe it's the greedy farmers that use round-up instead of hiring American workers to bend their backs and dig weeds from their fields. Maybe it's consumers that only care about the price of food. The less you pay for food the more fun money one has. Maybe it's cheap beekeepers that are willing to spray toxic chemicals into their hive in order to keep bees alive, and by so doing, are leaving chemical residue in their products. Of course all of this is tongue in cheek, my main point being that why does the chemical and only the chemical companies have to take the hit in our war against prosperity.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

lazy shooter said:


> Can anyone else think of a chemical company that is a good corporate citizen?


Loaded question. Define good corporate citizen. These days a lot of people think all corporations are evil.

According to Forbes, Dow Chemical is one of the 15 best places to work. They are right up there with Trader Joe's and Apple. They must be doing something right. 

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45fihi/15-dow-chemical/


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

These days a lot of people think all corporations are evil. This was my point, my post was tongue in cheek. And, yes, I have worked for Dow and Monsanto and many other chemical companies. All of them had good safety programs and paid like a slot machine. That's the extent of my knowledge of chemical companies. DuPont, Dow and Monsanto had the best safety programs.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Nabber86 said:


> Loaded question. Define good corporate citizen. These days a lot of people think all corporations are evil.http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45fihi/15-dow-chemical/


Sooo true. It's simple to label all corporations as evil for the ignorant. However, all corporations are owned by individuals. No corporation operates without people working at all levels. The people who own corporations have loved ones and bills to pay too. They eat the same food we do, breath the same air and drink the same water. 

I own 50% of a corporation that employs +/-100 people. I also own much smaller amounts of hundreds if not thousands of corporations. To those who believe all corporations are evil I must be the devil.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

D Coates said:


> I own 50% of a corporation that employs +/-100 people. I also own much smaller amounts of hundreds if not thousands of corporations. To those who believe all corporations are evil I must be the devil.



B...b...b...but corporations do not create jobs. :lookout:


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm in agreement with everything Dcoates said, except I only own 20 percent of a corporation that employs 20 people, but we provide supervision for oil and gas wells and Class I wells and turn some serious bucks for such a small company. Getting back to the bees, I see no ill effects of roundup on my bees are anyone else that I know that keeps bees and uses roundup. Quite a few beekeepers spray around their hives to keep weeds and grass from smothering their bee hives. I don't see ill effects from using roundup long term, but this type of study is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Asbestos, sun exposure, and alcohol have all be proven to cause harm; glyphosate has not.


Nabber, I think the point Michael was making is that things like those mentioned above were once *not* known to cause health problems but given time were indeed found to cause them. As time goes by, doctors and scientists find more things that are harmful (or safe). In ten or twenty years from now I believe, though, that we will find a lot of things harmful that we currently consider "safe".

Ed


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> I have been exposed to the sun a lot but I don't have skin cancer so it must be safe.
> 
> I drink beer but my liver still works, so it must be safe.
> 
> ...


The point is that, at one time, asbestos was thought to be very safe. Now you know that it's not and is a known carcinogen that requires very special care when handling/removing from buildings. DDT is another good example. The same may very well be said for Roundup, 2-4-D, or other herbicides/insecticides 20, 30, or 40 years from now.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

imthedude said:


> The point is that, at one time, asbestos was thought to be very safe. Now you know that it's not and is a known carcinogen that requires very special care when handling/removing from buildings. DDT is another good example. The same may very well be said for Roundup, 2-4-D, or other herbicides/insecticides 20, 30, or 40 years from now.


I know, but there is a huge fallacy in that line of thinking. Asbestos, sunshine, alcohol and to a large part DDT were _*completely untested*_ until after problems started to arise. 

This is not the case with glyphosate; it was tested during development, prior to release to the public, and continually tested for some 40-odd years. Additionally, the application of over 100,000 tons per year since 2007 is the proof in the pudding. Nobody has ever provided any evidence that it is dangerous to human health or honeybees, unless of course you drink it on a daily basis. And it is not because people have not been trying to find something bad. It is probably one of the most studied herbicides that has ever been developed. Where is the data? 

Saying that we just have to keep testing something until we find a problem is absurd. How would we make any advances in science and technology following that line of reasoning? 

It’s kind of like the Global Warming consensus. Guess what, there is a glyphosate consensus as well. Should we demand more testing to make sure we are right before we limit CO2 emissions? They are both just as valid and you can call someone a nut-job if they are a global warming denier just as easily as you can call someone a nut-job if they are a glyphosate safety denier. Science is science. It's out here for everyone to see.


----------



## dudelt (Mar 18, 2013)

Nabber86, I love your article link regarding the dihydrogen monoxide. I have used it as a performance enhancing drug and also give it to my bees as a supplement. I believe I am addicted to it because it is great stuff and I just cant live without it. However, to get back on topic, yes Roundup may not be as safe a s claimed but every chemical you can use has unexpected consequences when used. Some are much worse than others. This stuff has been around a long time and nothing too bad has yet been linked to it. Use it if you need to, just don't use it in an irresponsible manner.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

dudelt said:


> Nabber86, I love your article link regarding the dihydrogen monoxide. I have used it as a performance enhancing drug and also give it to my bees as a supplement. I believe I am addicted to it because it is great stuff and I just cant live without it. However, to get back on topic, yes Roundup may not be as safe a s claimed but every chemical you can use has unexpected consequences when used. Some are much worse than others. This stuff has been around a long time and nothing too bad has yet been linked to it. Use it if you need to, just don't use it in an irresponsible manner.


I use a 5 percent solution of CH3CH2OH and dihydrogen monoxide to enhance my performance.


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> I know, but there is a huge fallacy in that line of thinking. Asbestos, sunshine, alcohol and to a large part DDT were _*completely untested*_ until after problems started to arise.


Really good point, Nabber.

Ed


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

The comparison of asbestos to glyphosate is a poor one on a lot of levels but for starters, Asbestos is a naturally occurring substance that has been used by mankind commercially since the mid 1800's. I doubt there was ever an actual approval process just a gradual realization in the 1900's that lots of people with exposure seemed to be getting sick and dying.


----------



## spammy_h (Jul 2, 2014)

Dude - unfortunately, DHMO is not as safe as you may think. DHMO overdoses are responsible for deaths that, if it were not for Charles Darwin, would not occur somewhat regularly.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The point is that low level exposures over a long period of time often prove quite different than heavy exposures of rats in a cage and sometimes those low level exposures over a long period of time are MORE dangerous. The lead water supply pipes the Romans used were probably causing them problems for a very long time and no one EVER noticed... We make a lot of assumptions about safety and they often prove wrong.

How may of you are going to put Roundup on your eggs for breakfast this morning? Yet you are probably eating some as we speak and some of you are comparing it to water?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> How may of you are going to put Roundup on your eggs for breakfast this morning? Yet you are probably eating some as we speak and some of you are comparing it to water?


Come on now, can you prove there is Round Up in our eggs? You're grasping at straws. Common sense says not to put it on your food, that and the label says not to as well. That's improper use and it's not been tested for that. Does product have to be tested for 100 years for any/every eventuality before you would be accepted it?


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

If you put peppers in your eggs then you are probably eating not only round up, but many other chemicals. Unless you are using organic peppers. According to Nurishing Traditions it's one of the "dirty dozen". Is it in your water? If you have public water I'd venture to say yes. Have you looked at your water report / statement lately? My bees that are on that farm (they won't be next year) drink from the lake no doubt that is the run off of the fields. There's a scum on the top of the water. The only fish that are in the pond are very small minnows. I wonder why they can't grow bigger? I would love to have that water tested. Oh and it's not stagnant water either. There is a small run off there at least when the water level is high enough. There were several dead fish there last winter / spring. I didn't even think about it then. Same as my hives that are there. Many are dead. It may not be just round-up, but he uses other herbocides. He told me the other day that "every field has herbocides". I don't remember and I'm not going to go back and reread through everything here, but what's the 1/2 life of round-up? If it's sprayed ears on end and then you have onions planted it's going to be in the onions. If your chickens eat the grain from those fields then your eggs have it in them. Do you only buy eggs that are produced from organically fed chickens? Then there's your answer. How many tons of it has been sprayed in the US last year again? Perhaps Michael Bush isn't "grasping at straws" as one may think.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> The point is that low level exposures over a long period of time often prove quite different than heavy exposures of rats in a cage and sometimes those low level exposures over a long period of time are MORE dangerous. The lead water supply pipes the Romans used were probably causing them problems for a very long time and no one EVER noticed... We make a lot of assumptions about safety and they often prove wrong.
> How may of you are going to put Roundup on your eggs for breakfast this morning? Yet you are probably eating some as we speak and some of you are comparing it to water?


But we already have 40 years of data for exposure to glyphosate. That is long term by definition. Not only is it lab data, but it is a proven with real people in real world exposure scenarios. You cannot get any better data than that. The people doing the testing and reviewing the data are not making a lot of assumptions. They follow rigorous methods that were developed when it was found that DDT and other currently banned pesticides are toxic. The methods have been refined over the years to assess both acute and chronic exposure. 

You keep going back to the statements about lead, asbestos, etc. being used for hundreds or thousands of years before we knew they were bad. As I have already said, these substances were never tested in the first place (as if they even had a way to test for lead toxicity 100 years ago). Statements like these are meaningless and are not the way to evaluate modern pesticides. There were no assumptions that these substances were safe prior to being used, because you cannot have an assumption if nobody even thought about it (e.g. the Romans did not have a meeting to assess toxicity to decide whether lead or bronze pipes would be safer).


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

It is not just 40 years of our exposure. How many animals have been fed and raised on GMO, roundup sprayed, corn and soybean? Comparing the testing or lack there of PCB, asbestos, and DDT is nuts. I really wish we could live in a chemical free environment, but reality does not support it.
Dave


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

delber said:


> If you put peppers in your eggs then you are probably eating not only round up, but many other chemicals. Unless you are using organic peppers. According to Nurishing Traditions it's one of the "dirty dozen". Is it in your water? If you have public water I'd venture to say yes. Have you looked at your water report / statement lately? My bees that are on that farm (they won't be next year) drink from the lake no doubt that is the run off of the fields. There's a scum on the top of the water. The only fish that are in the pond are very small minnows. I wonder why they can't grow bigger? I would love to have that water tested. Oh and it's not stagnant water either. There is a small run off there at least when the water level is high enough. There were several dead fish there last winter / spring. I didn't even think about it then. Same as my hives that are there. Many are dead. It may not be just round-up, but he uses other herbocides. He told me the other day that "every field has herbocides". I don't remember and I'm not going to go back and reread through everything here, but what's the 1/2 life of round-up? If it's sprayed ears on end and then you have onions planted it's going to be in the onions. If your chickens eat the grain from those fields then your eggs have it in them. Do you only buy eggs that are produced from organically fed chickens? Then there's your answer. How many tons of it has been sprayed in the US last year again? Perhaps Michael Bush isn't "grasping at straws" as one may think.


 
You are just plain wrong on much of that: 

There can be no glyphosate on peppers, because as anyone who has sprayed a little too close and up-wind of their garden knows, that slightest amount of drifting glyphosate that hits a pepper plant will kill the plant overnight. Other pesticides yes. 

They are called the _dirty dozen_ because you are supposed to wash the veggies before you eat them.

The _clean 15_ should also be washed.

Organic veggies have traces of pesticides as well and they should be washed too.

I look at my water report at least 2 times per year, do you? From Water One (my local supply company: _Each year more than 18,000 samples are collected and nearly 120,000 tests are conducted to ensure our water is clean and safe_. I check the water report every year and here is one for 2014: http://www.waterone.org/home/showdocument?id=392 Do you see any pesticides? Can you post a copy of your water report? Do you know anything about water quality? Can you even read the results of a water report correctly? 

The scum on the pond water is from nutrient loading, not pesticides. Dead fish = nutrient loading again. The algae depletes the oxygen levels that fish need to survive. And yes you should test the water, because without so, you have absolutely no basis for you argument. You say the water is covered with scum yet it is not stagnant. Those conditions are mutually exclusive. 

Maybe you minnows are well, minnows. What makes you think they are the fry of a larger species such as largemouth bass. Have the owner of the pond call the local extension office and they will tell him how to take care of the pond and establish a healthy fish population (that is if he wants to, he may not care to raise healthy fish). 

Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in birds or mammals. This is very easy to prove. Chicken eggs cannot be contaminated with glyphosate.


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> You are just plain wrong on much of that:
> 
> There can be no glyphosate on peppers, because as anyone who has sprayed a little too close and up-wind of their garden knows, that slightest amount of drifting glyphosate that hits a pepper plant will kill the plant overnight. Other pesticides yes.
> 
> ...


look at the water quality report you just linked. go to page 3 that's titled "what's in your water?" about halfway down is a detection for atrazine. even thought it's below their MCL and not at a level that requires them to take action, it's still in the water. you're kidding yourself if you think chemicals, along with drugs like antibiotics, birth control, etc., aren't in your drinking water at trace amounts. it's something the water industry has struggled with for a while now.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You're grasping at straws.

It's already found in your food:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

Your water supply:
Cox, C. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." Journal of Pesticide Reform Winter 1995 Vol. 15, No 4. 

Your urine:
http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-an...er-found-in-human-urine-across-europe/5338868
(a study I can't get to because of internet blocking says US urine samples were 10 times the ones in Europe, which considering the use of GMO's here makes sense)

And even human breast milk at much higher levels than urine.
http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/04...covered-u-s-mothers-breast-milk/#.U-4lfNlOndc

You think that the chickens who eat the contaminated roundup ready grain don't have it in their system and their eggs? I would consider that EXTREMELY unlikely...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in birds or mammals.

Yet it showed up in human breast milk... at higher levels than the urine of the same person... kind of a contradiction don't you think?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Let's assume it's in there. You're still grasping at straws. There's still no scientifically acceptable/repeatable proof it does anything at all in those numbers. If it did, the environmental organizations/lawyers would be all over this. Folks can worry themselves all they want about every niggling issue they can find. We're still all going to die. There's still no proof Round up speeds up the process for anything but the grass it's sprayed on. I'm not going to waste my precious time worrying about Round Up. It's been on the market for 40 years and I firmly believe others shouldn't waste their precious time worrying about it either.


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

D Coates said:


> Let's assume it's in there. You're still grasping at straws. There's still no scientifically acceptable/repeatable proof it does anything at all in those numbers. If it did, the environmental organizations/lawyers would be all over this. Folks can worry themselves all they want about every niggling issue they can find. We're still all going to die. There's still no proof Round up speeds up the process for anything but the grass it's sprayed on. I'm not going to waste my precious time worrying about Round Up. It's been on the market for 40 years and I firmly believe others shouldn't waste their precious time worrying about it either.


that's why we have this wonderful thing called personal choice. i can choose what i feed myself and family, how i grow my veggies and fruit for them, and how i take care of our place. you can do the same for you and yours.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

imthedude said:


> look at the water quality report you just linked. go to page 3 that's titled "what's in your water?" about halfway down is a detection for atrazine. even thought it's below their MCL and not at a level that requires them to take action, it's still in the water. you're kidding yourself if you think chemicals, along with drugs like antibiotics, birth control, etc., aren't in your drinking water at trace amounts. it's something the water industry has struggled with for a while now.


Aaaaand you are completely misreading the lab results. Atrazine was not detected ([SUP]that's wh[/SUP][SUP]at "ND" means [/SUP]:shhhh:​). You have to know what you are reading in order to understand it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in birds or mammals.
> 
> Yet it showed up in human breast milk... at higher levels than the urine of the same person... kind of a contradiction don't you think?


The breast milk study is bogus. The so-called report list all kinds of data and states claims that are unsupported. There is absolutely no study that backs the claims up. If you click on a few of the links that *look like* _*references*_ you get caught in a goose chase of several eco-warrior websites that re-references themselves in a giant CJ. I don't get my science info from internet blogs with an obvious agenda. I did enjoy the Moms Across American Blog complete with a picture of a lovely young mother nursing an angelic child. How precious. I dont know why I am doing this , but if you want to fight blog against blog, here are a few for you. Actually, just read the first one for a well written critique of the "study": 

http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/...-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-gullible-moms-across-america-post.html

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/03/mercolawatchsupposed-report-comparing-gmo-and-non-gmo-corn/

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...to-replicate-the-anti-ge-stunning-corn-study/

If you want to discuss science, please find the studies that the provided the data. I am not finding one credible science website that is supporting this study.

It is the same exact thing with the European urine thing*. It is posted on literally every eco-website in existence, buy there is not one reference to the actual study. The only thing that I could find is reference to an article in a German newspaper. Of course it is written in German, so that is no help. It is not supported by any science-based organization. 

Glyphosate in our drinking water?? The report that you references a farm pond that was contaminated with Ag. runoff and another pond where a glyphosate spill had occurred. They took surface water samples and found glyphosate. Contaminated farm ponds are not part of my water supply. 

Groundwater? They said that they found glyphosate i well in Texas and 6 in Virginia. There is no mention if these wells are irrigation wells, monitoring wells that were installed at a glyphosate spill site, stock wells, or heat pump wells. The wells could have supply wells on farms. Farm well are particularly notorious for being contaminated by the owner. These wells are typically not maintained and located downgradient of spills and septic field lines. 

Our food?? The report that you referenced indicates that they found glyphosate in Roundup Ready soybeans that were sprayed with Roundup. No surprises there. It's is really easy to test for glyphosate. Where is the contaminated egg report? 

Anyway if we want to talk science, let's start with articles that have a little more credibility. 


*EDIT: *


Michael Bush said:


> >Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in birds or mammals.
> Yet it showed up in human breast milk... at higher levels than the urine of the same person... kind of a contradiction don't you think?


Actually glysophate passed in urine or expressed in breast milk means that it is water soluble and *does not* bioaccumulate. It's a pretty basic concept that is often not understood.





*Reminds me of a joke. If you are American when you go into the bathroom and American when you come out of the bathroom, what are you when you are in the bathroom? 

.

.

.

.

European


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I can't even remember all of the chemicals that were commonly used in my lifetime that I was assured were "perfectly safe" and then turned out to be so dangerous that they were totally banned. I could list a half a dozen off the top of my head, but there is probably no point. The number of studies on the contamination level of glyphosate in groundwater and streams is large in itself and done by such disreputable groups as the US Geological Survey and the EPA. There are also plenty of studies showing contamination of our food. USGS ranked glyphosate as the #2 contaminate in groundwater in Wyoming (Pesticides in Wyoming groundwater, 2008 ?10 by Cheryl A. Eddy-Miller, Timothy T. Bartos) (and I'm sure it's used more in corn country like Nebraska than WY). The number of studies show glyphosate is dangerous is even longer. If anyone cares to see that point of view you could find them on scholar.google.com by the hundreds. I see no point in quoting them all here for people who have already made up their minds.


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Aaaaand you are completely misreading the lab results. Atrazine was not detected ([SUP]that's wh[/SUP][SUP]at "ND" means [/SUP]:shhhh:​). You have to know what you are reading in order to understand it.


the ND part means that they detected it at the lowest level of the MCL. go read the one for last year, and it's labeled the same. still if you think there's safety in herbicides in your drinking water supply, or other great things like birth control, cocaine, etc., then you have a much different set of values than i do for what's considered safe to consume.

now i'm sure you'll cite some studies that say it's perfectly fine to have all of those constituents in your DW supply in trace amounts and probably provide some sort of study funded by industry to back up that claim. that's cool. i can also find some studies that counter your point that weren't funded by industry. point is that i don't think it's safe and good practice to be applying roundup or any toxic substance at the quantities that are seen these days because i am concerned about my family's health (and the rest of the world's health too).


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

imthedude said:


> the ND part means that they detected it at the lowest level of the MCL. go read the one for last year, and it's labeled the same. still if you think there's safety in herbicides in your drinking water supply, or other great things like birth control, cocaine, etc., then .


Good grief, ND means not detected and has *nothing* to do with the MCL. Neither report shows that atrazine was detected. See this is the problem, people keep citing stuff and have no idea how to read even basic lab data. Do you even known what an MCL is, other than the fact at it is an acronym that stands for Maximum Contaminant Level? As in, where did they come from, what do they mean, and how are they applied? Even at what point they are applied in the water supply system? 



imthedude said:


> now i'm sure you'll cite some studies that say it's perfectly fine to have all of those constituents in your DW supply in trace amounts and probably provide some sort of study funded by industry to back up that claim. that's cool. i can also find some studies that counter your point that weren't funded by industry. point is that i don't think it's safe and good practice to be applying roundup or any toxic substance at the quantities that are seen these days because i am concerned about my family's health (and the rest of the world's health too).



Again the problem is that you, like many others have shown, have no idea about basic chemistry, toxicology, sampling procedures, sample analysis, lab QA/QC, and reporting, so you are much more likely to link the first thing that pops up on google when you search for "chemical toxins". There is nothing wrong with ignorance, but just don't try to tell me that you know what you are talking about and try to prove it by posting a link to a site that is utter BS. 



Cocaine in my drinking water, eh? Interesting.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

From another forum where the topic of glyphosate safety was being "discussed" a link to the same study was posted:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/30/glyphosate-toxicity.aspx

The following is not my response, but it sums up my thoughts better than I have been able to do so far.

It's good that you're doing research on this, but these certainly aren't authoritative sources. Keep in mind that, with any controversial issue, you'll get credible sounding sources that confirm whatever viewpoint you like. It's very important to be critical of said sources.
Scientific American is not a publisher of primary research. It's science journalism, not a research publication.


Ecotoxicology is a low-impact journal (meaning the research it publishes it not frequently cited, and therefore generally not high-quality). If you want to contradict a large body of evidence as there exists in the glyphosate literature, you'd expect a higher-tier journal with stronger peer review. A quick look at the methods does not give me any confidence that these results will be replicated.


Toxicology is better journal, but the article in question isn't about glyphosate at all. It's about the other ingredients in herbicide formulations and how that can interact various chemicals and the environment. This is a legitimate concern, but is in no way unique to glyphosate. Their inclusion of that last paragraph about affecting pregnancy is extremely suspect, as their study is limited to tissue culture studies. It's very easy to get effects in tissue culture, and lots of perfectly safe chemicals will show similar effects in such experiments. Based on that alone, I suspect that the authors are biased and have an agenda, though I'd need to read the paper more thoroughly to decide.


The main site you link to, Mercola, is in no way reputable. It invokes chemicals as evil all over and advocates 'natural' medicine that is essentially snake-oil.


This is blatant cherry-picking of the data; it really isn't hard to see that.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Good grief, ND means not detected and has *nothing* to do with the MCL. Neither report shows that atrazine was detected. See this is the problem, people keep citing stuff and have no idea how to read even basic lab data. Do you even known what an MCL is, other than the fact at it is an acronym that stands for Maximum Contaminant Level? As in, where did they come from, what do they mean, and how are they applied? Even at what point they are applied in the water supply system?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nabber - Thought ND meant not detected at the levels of detection the test has capacity to detect chemicals at. Not necessary that it is not there. However, I do agree that if most labs are not detecting it that the levels of the sensitivity most instruments work at, I am not too worried.

"Actually glysophate passed in urine or expressed in breast milk means that it is water soluble and does not bioaccumulate. It's a pretty basic concept that is often not understood."

There are quite a few chemicals that are detected in milk do bioaccumulate within either the fat reserves or in some cases within the bone. I will not go into process that the body goes through to create milk, you likely remember it better than I. But as the body processes the fat and pulls calcium from the bone matrix, these chemicals are extracted. Those bio-chem and organic chemistry classes was too long ago to recall the exact process easily, but I know you remember enough to acknowledge that your original statement was slightly incorrect. Just because it is in the milk does not make something water soluble. And being water soluble does not keep it from bioaccumulation. Greatly reduces that chance. 

I for one am not worried about glysophate, but time may prove me wrong. There is a whole lot more ugly herbicides still being used out there in the US that scare me.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Seems like the state of Michigan isn't worried about a little runoff. They are bold enough to apply directly into the water.


http://www.onekama.info/watershed/2013PLLMP.pdf


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

There are several formulations with labels for aquatic use of the active ingredient in Roundup: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua028.html

Tom


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Good grief, ND means not detected and has *nothing* to do with the MCL. Neither report shows that atrazine was detected. See this is the problem, people keep citing stuff and have no idea how to read even basic lab data. Do you even known what an MCL is, other than the fact at it is an acronym that stands for Maximum Contaminant Level? As in, where did they come from, what do they mean, and how are they applied? Even at what point they are applied in the water supply system
> 
> 
> Again the problem is that you, like many others have shown, have no idea about basic chemistry, toxicology, sampling procedures, sample analysis, lab QA/QC, and reporting, so you are much more likely to link the first thing that pops up on google when you search for "chemical toxins". There is nothing wrong with ignorance, but just don't try to tell me that you know what you are talking about and try to prove it by posting a link to a site that is utter BS.
> ...


18+ years in the water and wastewater industry, numerous WTP and WWTP designs as well as countless water and wastewater main designs, working with our water qual lab and distribution system managers to troubleshoot and analyze why we get technical water quality complaints in some parts of the distribution system and not others. you still think that makes me ignorant about a water quality report? i don't pretend to know everything about lab practices, sampling, testing, etc. that's why we employ chemists at our lab to do that work and be the SME in that area. 

with regard to the original topic, again i'm sure you'll trot out some industry-funded studies to show how glyphosate, and probably other chemicals too, is not harmful because of all the testing. you make the choice as to what you want to consider safe, and i'll make my choice as to what i consider safe.

do some literature research about WWTP influent in the city of london's plants. with cocaine use on the rise in that town, they are now seeing trace amounts of the drug in the influent at the treatment plants. scary stuff. same thing happens in this country with birth control, prescription drugs, tylenol, etc. but since you seem to know so much about water quality and what's safe/not safe for me and mine, i'm sure you have an opinion on that too and know all there is to know on that subject.

cheers!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Well the following 2 quotes prove that you are misreading the report, have many typos in your post, or are indeed ignorant. *ND* means *N*ot *D*etected, as in there is no detection. Nobody with a basic understanding in analytical chemistry would say that is a detection. At the top of this page Marshmaster did make a very good point that. ND (0.2) ppb means that it was not detected above the detection limit of 0.2 ppb. ND is a “flag” that they assign to the table entry to signify this. There are a boat load of others flags that are assigned to the data while it goes through the QC process, but I wont get into that now. I also will not get dragged into the philosophical “it could still be there, but under the detection limit” argument either. 

The second quote is wrong. The *ND* part means that it was *N*ot *D*etected. I am not sure why you said that twice and got it wrong both times. What is the “lowest level of the MCL”? That phrase makes absolutely no sense. Can you explain what you mean by that? MCLs and detection limits are completely unrelated. In fact MCLs have only been established for a handful of chemicals. So we get detections all the time for all kinds of other chemicals that do not have MCLs

Sorry for being a D. 

Cheers



imthedude said:


> look at the water quality report you just linked. go to page 3 that's titled "what's in your water?" *about halfway down is a detection for atrazine*. even thought it's below their MCL and not at a level that requires them to take action, it's still in the water. you're kidding yourself if you think chemicals, along with drugs like antibiotics, birth control, etc., aren't in your drinking water at trace amounts. it's something the water industry has struggled with for a while now.





imthedude said:


> the *ND part means that they detected* it at the lowest level of the MCL.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

imthedude said:


> that's why we have this wonderful thing called personal choice. i can choose what i feed myself and family, how i grow my veggies and fruit for them, and how i take care of our place. you can do the same for you and yours.


Exactly. That's why I kept saying I'm not going to waste my precious time worrying about the niggling issues and I firmly believe others shouldn't waste their precious time worrying about it either. But they can if they want to.

Those who wish to may do so quite freely. But, when half truths, innuendos, and things masquerading as science are pushed to further their position it does everyone a huge disservice (especially if they don't question or understand the actual science they quote). When a real issue actually does show up we'll all be so numb from all the boys who cry wolf for their pet issues no one will react. Keep your proverbial powder dry for the real issues. The trick to that is figuring out where the real issues are through all chatter from the nattering nabobs of negativism.


----------



## imthedude (Jan 28, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Well the following 2 quotes prove that you are misreading the report, have many typos in your post, or are indeed ignorant.
> Sorry for being a D.
> 
> Cheers


sorry. you lost me at "typos." you're grasping now....i'm out. you win. you are the all knowing chem and water quality god. have fun.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

imthedude said:


> sorry. you lost me at "typos." you're grasping now....i'm out. you win. you are the all knowing chem and water quality god. have fun.


So you are not going to tell me what the “_lowest level of the MCL_” is? I would love to hear your explanation.


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

Am I missing something here? ND = “Not detected” however they have a number after it. If this isn’t the number of what they detected then what is it? It’s under the 
“Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water.”
but it’s still read. If this isn’t the amount “in your water” then what is it? What he was saying that it “didn’t need any action” seems to be a viable and correct thought. 

Looking at Altrazine 3 ppb is allowed while they detected .2 ppb. To me that seems like it’s in the water. Although small what other explanation is there?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

delber said:


> Am I missing something here? ND = “Not detected” however they have a number after it. If this isn’t the number of what they detected then what is it? It’s under the “Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water.”
> but it’s still read. If this isn’t the amount “in your water” then what is it? What he was saying that it “didn’t need any action” seems to be a viable and correct thought.
> 
> Looking at Altrazine 3 ppb is allowed while they detected .2 ppb. To me that seems like it’s in the water. Although small what other explanation is there?


ND means that it was not detected down to a level of 0.2 ppb, not that is *was* detected at 0.2 ppb (if it was detected at 0.2 ppb, the ND flag would not appear next to the value in the table). It’s as simple as that. The only question that remains is if there is atrazine present at some level below 0.2 ppb, what is that level? But I am not going to get into the "If a tree falls in the woods with nobody there..." discussion because it is patently absurd to go there. 

The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for atrazine is the federally mandated (Safe Drinking Water Act) maximum amount of atrazine that the EPA has decided is safe for your drinking water. For atrazine the MCL is 3 ppb. Now that is where the problems begin. A lot of people do not trust the EPA and do not accept that 3 ppb atrazine in your drinking water as being safe. Please realize that I do not want to drink water with 3 ppb of atrazine and I am not promoting the MCL concept, I am just trying to tell people how the system works. When I see a ND of 0.2 ppb and an MCL that is 15 times higher than the detection level (3 ppb), it is the end of the story for me and I am drinking my tap water. If atrazine was detected at any level (below or above the MCL) I would be worried, but I have never seen any positive hits, and the detection limit have been low, so as far as I am concerned,; it is not there. However, If they detect atrazine above the MCL (say 4 ppb), somebody is going to pay for the cleanup. Luckily for me, I am the one that gets paid to do the cleanup. 

A couple of other points: 

You can have high detection limits due to shoddy lab work or, most likely, due to multiple dilutions of the water sample. This can be a real problem. Detections levels are not static and can change with every test. Say you get a ND (4 ppb) and the MCL is 3 ppb. That means that it was not detected at 4 ppb, but the MCL is lower than that. Again, you avoid the "tree in the woods argument" and simply re-test the water until you get actual detects, or non-detects under 3 ppb. 

Just because atrazine is on the MCL list, it doesn’t mean that there has ever been a problem with atrazine in the drinking water in your area. The MCL list is what every public water supply system has to test for. 

The MCL list is really short. There are hundreds of thousands of other chemicals out there that are not on the list and are not tested for (how does that make you feel?). 

A _public water supply_ has a strict definition. If you live in a small community with a limited tie-ins, or rely on a private supply well, nobody is testing the water.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

There seem to be a lot of very trusting people posting here. I kind of wish I were one of them, but I can't quite bring myself to trust in the accuracy of a company's self-testing of its product, when a bad result would cost them a lot of money. There are so many examples of this sort of trust being misplaced.

One issue that I haven't noticed getting much discussion is the fact that increasingly, noxious weeds are developing resistance to Roundup, so that the manufacturer is recommending additional other herbicides, some of which may not be as well-tested as Roundup. 

And again, most of the testing of glyphosate has been done using money from the industry. 

How much you want to trust a company that makes billions from a product is up to you, I guess.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Some people like to think of the glass as half empty, other half full. If a new product was known to consistently cause health problems and scientifically consistent manner when tested why in God's green earth would they introduce it? The truth will come out eventually and they'll pay out in spades. The very profit they made on it will be returned many fold and the advertising black eye will last for years assuming the company survives it. This doesn't even bring into play the very scientists, corporate officers, and employees, who designed it, tested it, made it and sold it. They would knowingly unleashing something that they and their own kids and possibly future generations could be negatively affected by? 

It's simply not logical and isn't a good business practice.

As for testing shouldn't the company that produced it also test it? We've modified or even killed products and projects that were found unsafe in testing. Did we lose money? Yep, but it was one heck of a lot less than we would have lost had we continued with the project. Business involves risk, but you have learn it to understand it to minimize it if you can. If you can't, the project is dead. Introducing a product that is known to cause trouble is like sowing landmines that activate at an unknown time in the future under the very ground you trod daily. Does this scenario fit with conspiracy theorists who believe corporations are inherently evil and would push a nun down a flight of stairs for money? Nope, but it's what happens in 99% of the real corporate world.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

I was involved with the final testing of a selective grass killer for use in agricultural crops. It was very effective without having any damaging effects on broad leaf plants. Not even at 10X the maximum recommended dose. I do not remember now which chemical company was developing it. They had spent a lot of money in the development of the herbicide, but it was dropped cold turkey because there was a very low indication of carcinogenicity in mice. If I remember right, and this happened more than 30 years ago, they had 1 mouse in the test group that develop a cancer.

rhaldridge if the farmers had been rotating chemicals from the start, they would not now be dealing with roundup resistance. There are few pesticides that if used continuously like roundup has been that would not have resistance development.
Dave


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Dave Burrup said:


> I was involved with the final testing of a selective grass killer for use in agricultural crops. It was very effective without having any damaging effects on broad leaf plants. Not even at 10X the maximum recommended dose. I do not remember now which chemical company was developing it. They had spent a lot of money in the development of the herbicide, but it was dropped cold turkey because there was a very low indication of carcinogenicity in mice. If I remember right, and this happened more than 30 years ago, they had 1 mouse in the test group that develop a cancer.
> 
> rhaldridge if the farmers had been rotating chemicals from the start, they would not now be dealing with roundup resistance. There are few pesticides that if used continuously like roundup has been that would not have resistance development.
> Dave


In addition to Round Up. I sure would like have an herbicide that kills grasses and leaves everything else alone.


----------



## tabby (Jul 11, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> In addition to Round Up. I sure would like have an herbicide that kills grasses and leaves everything else alone.


I've been using a grass killer for years. It'll hurt some things but leaves most dicots alone.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

D Coates said:


> Some people like to think of the glass as half empty, other half full. If a new product was known to consistently cause health problems and scientifically consistent manner when tested why in God's green earth would they introduce it?
> 
> .


Because human beings are imperfect, and sometimes make mistakes?

Initial testing is necessarily short term. As you imply, it is impractical to test every conceivable possibility for many years before putting a product on the market.

I'm not trying to attack the Job Creators (Peace be upon Them). I'm just saying that I'm a little less convinced of their saintliness than some folks are. 

When I was a kid, I think that manufacturers might have been a little more concerned with the quality of their product. Now they seem to be more concerned about short term bottom line issues. The GM ignition switch debacle is an example of a situation where a well-respected American corporation concealed a flaw in their product that resulted in a number of fatalities.

It happens. And subtle effects on human health are such a nebulous and almost subjective field, compared to engines that suddenly stop running.

I'm a believer in the precautionary principle. Do we really need Roundup? 

No. Or at the very least, we don't need it as much as the manufacturer needs to keep selling it.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I just follow the money and read the results with a large grain of salt. I don't need roundup. ya'll have fun


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

rhaldridge said:


> Do we really need Roundup?
> 
> No. Or at the very least, we don't need it as much as the manufacturer needs to keep selling it.


No, we don't need Roundup®.

The original patent on glyphosate (and sold under the Roundup® brand name) expired some years ago. There are now multiple manufacturers producing glyphosate under a variety of brand names (or generic names). 


There is no reason to buy Roundup® glyphosate, unless you are required to do so by a licensing agreement you might have signed in order to plant certain licensed seeds.

I use _Cornerstone _glyphosate, and find that it works quite well - at a _fraction _of the price of the Roundup® brand. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## SoylentYellow (Dec 10, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> In addition to Round Up. I sure would like have an herbicide that kills grasses and leaves everything else alone.


Fusilade is one:
http://www.syngenta.com/global/corp...tection/herbicides/Pages/fusilade-fusion.aspx


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Na we dont really need it but I think the social unrest globally that would result from the increased grain production cost would be far less acceptable. Spiking costs of basic food was a common denominator in the Arab Spring uprisings. How far are we from social unrest re living standards in the US? A lot of us get wrapped around the emotional axle over some pet cause but give no thought to the big picture cause of our predicament. My opinion is that a lot of this "feel good" environmental posturing. Drinking from the trough of indignation!


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

rhaldridge said:


> When I was a kid, I think that manufacturers might have been a little more concerned with the quality of their product. Now they seem to be more concerned about short term bottom line issues. The GM ignition switch debacle is an example of a situation where a well-respected American corporation concealed a flaw in their product that resulted in a number of fatalities.


You're looking at the past through rose colored glasses. Have you forgotten all of the packing house issues, people who died in hazardous jobs, military contracts filled with shoddy product, the pinto... etc? There are shysters all through history and there always be. They get found out.




rhaldridge said:


> I'm a believer in the precautionary principle. Do we really need Roundup?
> 
> No. Or at the very least, we don't need it as much as the manufacturer needs to keep selling it.


Possibly, but it's a legal product that hasn't been proven to be dangerous to anything but plants. Who gets to dictate how much they advertise or sell? Imagine your the CEO, are you going to slow down selling something that customers want, just because a few folks are making completely unsubstantiated claims? If so, what about the Vegans who say beekeeping is bad because we exploit honeybees? Are you going to stop selling your honey?




crofter said:


> Na we dont really need it but I think the social unrest globally that would result from the increased grain production cost would be far less acceptable. Spiking costs of basic food was a common denominator in the Arab Spring uprisings. How far are we from social unrest re living standards in the US? A lot of us get wrapped around the emotional axle over some pet cause but give no thought to the big picture cause of our predicament. My opinion is that a lot of this "feel good" environmental posturing. Drinking from the trough of indignation!


Spot on. The social rest domestically would invariably be trouble. A loaf of bread doubles, milk would do the same, meat would skyrocket, etc. Imagine the political groups that would claim there's a "War on the Poor" by food producers and demand investigations. All because some people make unsubstantiated claims to push their agendas with no idea of the ramifications. What's the road to "heck" paved with?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

D Coates said:


> You're looking at the past through rose colored glasses. Have you forgotten all of the packing house issues, people who died in hazardous jobs, military contracts filled with shoddy product, the pinto... etc? There are shysters all through history and there always be. They get found out.
> 
> Possibly, but it's a legal product that hasn't been proven to be dangerous to anything but plants. Who gets to dictate how much they advertise or sell? Imagine your the CEO, are you going to slow down selling something that customers want, just because a few folks are making completely unsubstantiated claims? If so, what about the Vegans who say beekeeping is bad because we exploit honeybees? Are you going to stop selling your honey?
> 
> Spot on. The social rest domestically would invariably be trouble. A loaf of bread doubles, milk would do the same, meat would skyrocket, etc. Imagine the political groups that would claim there's a "War on the Poor" by food producers and demand investigations. All because some people make unsubstantiated claims to push their agendas with no idea of the ramifications. What's the road to "heck" paved with?



Also

Chevy Covair - The car Ralph Nader dubbed "unsafe at any speed"

Audi - Sudden acceleration in the '80s

The Johnston Flood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

Boston molasses tank failure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster

Exon Valdez

Three Mile island

Union Carbide release in Bhopal 

Times Beach

Love Canal

The valley of the Drums - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Drums


----------



## SoylentYellow (Dec 10, 2013)

This thread makes you wonder what type and duration of testing a "precautionist" would accept before introducing an exotic species like _Apis mellifera_ to the U.S.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Really good discussion in /r/science regarding GMOs, pesticides, super weeds, feeding the world, Monsanto, etc. There are several PhDs and grad students involved and they are pretty much talking in plain English. There is a lot of really good info being exchanged, and surprisingly, very little name calling and animosity. 

I suggest everyone that is participating in this thread spend a few hours reading this: 

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2dz07o/science_ama_series_ask_me_anything_about/


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

Is there no end to this endless non bee related nattering about God knows what? If you don't like it don't use it!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This thread makes you wonder what type and duration of testing a "precautionist" would accept before introducing an exotic species like Apis mellifera to the U.S. 

How about allowing European **** sapiens into the country... they could carry deadly diseases... I'm with the "precautionists..."


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >This thread makes you wonder what type and duration of testing a "precautionist" would accept before introducing an exotic species like Apis mellifera to the U.S.
> 
> How about allowing European **** sapiens into the country... they could carry deadly diseases... I'm with the "precautionists..."



Wut, wait, are you saying that we should not let Europeans into the US?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Wut, wait, are you saying that we should not let Europeans into the US?


TONGUE IN CHEEK


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

And my Pictish ancestors did not hold their country from the Angles and Saxons. It is an old and often repeated story.


Nabber86 said:


> Wut, wait, are you saying that we should not let Europeans into the US?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Wut, wait, are you saying that we should not let Europeans into the US? 

I'm saying we already did. And it was a disaster. Smallpox. Flu. Typhoid. Measles. Cholera. Bubonic plague. Tuberculosis. Mumps. Yellow fever. Pertussis. And then there were the soldiers... Tens of millions died.


----------



## oldforte (Jul 17, 2009)

well MB I really don't think it was a disaster ...if it wasn't for the greatest generation on the face of the earth that gave those lives ...we may not be free to keep our bees...and live as free people...and overcome some of the maladies that that you mention ...for the rest of the world. Guess most of us would be a part of that disaster...wouldn't we?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> I'm saying we already did. And it was a disaster. Smallpox. Flu. Typhoid. Measles. Cholera. Bubonic plague. Tuberculosis. Mumps. Yellow fever. Pertussis. And then there were the soldiers... Tens of millions died.


Uh, with that thinking... let's get rid of the human race? Without the human race none of those things would have occurred... How long have we been around again? Are you saying we should have been tested before releasing? Who's doing that testing? It appears we're a failure from what's listed above. Who's in charge of cancelling this failed "project?"

What about fire? Can we use fire? It's been around since creation but it's been involved in killing trillions of creatures and is now supposedly causing "Global Cooling" (oops), "Warming" (never mind), "Climate Change" (for now). By the type of thinking in the quote above, fire could be claimed to be a disaster as well.

This whole thread is about whether Round Up is as safe as we've been told. You indicated it's not been tested long enough, though it's been on the market for +40 years and there's no substantial evidence that it's dangerous to humans or bees. Straws were being grasped at then, now air is being grasping at. Being precautionist is one thing but now it appears there's no amount of testing that will satisfy.

Wait..., are you pulling a trolling page from WLC or Acebird's playbooks or is this actually what you believe?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I think MB's post had more to do with asking a real Native American their take on the white man coming over... Kind of reminds me if the story where a guy in walmart confronts a lady talking on her phone in another language and he tells her she should speak English in America and not Spanish and she tells him quite politely, she was speaking Navajo and he should go back to England if he wants to speak English....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>or is this actually what you believe? 

I am Lakota. It is what happened.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >or is this actually what you believe?
> 
> I am Lakota. It is what happened.


oops!


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Small world. I've got Sioux blood. That being said, it doesn't change any of the facts that Round up has not been proven to be detrimental to humankind or bees in any way.


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >or is this actually what you believe?
> 
> I am Lakota. It is what happened.


I have no doubt that it happened. The human race has been, at the least, a semi-nomadic creature since we have existed...populations increase and so the boundaries of their domains expand. Beyond the city walls the surrounding land is decimated. Small groups of people venture further outward to more remote areas, but eventually the rest of humanity arrives at their doorsteps. I live in a fairly rural area, but in my lifetime there has been three new neighbors arrive within the mile stretch of the road that I live on. I look around the countryside in my county and see new homes scattered around...where did these people come from?....from the ever increasing population...from children of locals...from city dwellers wanting to escape the high-population centers, etc.,. 

Sadly, the population density increases and just as with cattle, or chickens, or deer, or any other living creature...the higher the population density the higher the rate of disease and health problems there will be. Until the human population starts to die-off, the incidence of disease will only increase. The American Indians had no natural immunity to the host of diseases that were brought in by the Europeans and others. The Europeans had suffered through the "immunization process" caused by their high population centers and ease of disease spread, many died during that process. The American Indians had not experienced this and were completely defenseless against these "new" diseases.

In regards to the American Indians of the early years of the United States, they have extracted a pound of flesh, if you will, from the Europeans and others. The white man and all the other races happily accepted a gift from the American Indians...canli. Some European entrepreneurs capitalized on the product. It currently causes around 500,000 deaths in the United States annually and worldwide close to 6,000,000 deaths annually. Between the years 2009 and 2012 canli cost the United States $289,000,000,000 ($289 billion) in direct health care costs and loss productivity costs. 

Did the American Indians or the Europeans, et al. know that canli was as deadly as it is?...no, both parties thought it was "good". Companies went on to make billions (trillions?) of dollars from selling canli. Health companies have made profits beyond the imagination because of it. We know the deadly facts about it now...but it is still sold worldwide. 

I can very well understand Michael Bush's "I'm with the "precautionists..."" sentiment in regards to things that haven't had long-term "testing". Living in the world we do, we all make decisions...some decisions are good, some bad, some irrelevant...but, often times a decision *has* to be made. In my view when a person makes a choice then they should take ownership of the results from that choice...whether the result is a curse or a blessing. I know that from my own choices that I own both blessings...and curses.

The biggest victim of the human race's bad choices *is* the human race. No matter what color a person is, they have "blood" on their hands...whether they take ownership of it, or not. The "blood" can be actual blood, the purchase of a "blood diamond", simply a heavy footprint on the earth, or a host of other things that hurts our fellow men and women. There are many ways in which humanity bleeds.

Someone, several millennia ago answered a question with a question... "Am I my brother's keeper?". I believe that answer is still being given by mankind today.

Ed


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Intheswamp said:


> The white man and all the other races happily accepted a gift from the American Indians...canli.


Very creative, Ed. 


It took some doing, but I found a reference for canli icahiye, in a _Lakota _dictionary.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fo...ye&pg=PA514#v=onepage&q=canli icahiye&f=false

Essentially, Ed is referring to _tobacco_.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >or is this actually what you believe?
> 
> I am Lakota. It is what happened.


He was questioning your stance on Roundup, not Native American genocide.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The point is that being a precautionist often pays. Jumping into things half ****ed often leads to disasters. The subject brought up was if we should have introduced Apis mellifera to North America. That was one experiment that turned out well, in my opinion. Kudzu, not so much... and thousands of other invasives from microbes to plants to animals to humans... You can find many successful transplants and many disasters. But the point is that it's not always a bad idea to purposefully err on the side of being careful. I would love to see more small scale experiments on a lot of the controversial issues today so we have some time to see how big of a problem we are creating or how well it works out. We are lucky to have our raptors bounce back after someone finally figured out DDT was killing them all. Of course everyone insisted it could not be DDT. DDT only kills insects...


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Seems the raptors are doing better. Here's a shot from the hayfield across the road a couple of days ago....I counted eleven of what I believe are Mississippi Kites hunting the area. The shot was after they had decided to gain some altitude...several of them had been flying at treetop altitude. Nice to just kick back and watch. 










An extreme enlargement...









Ed


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> But the point is that it's not always a bad idea to purposefully err on the side of being careful. I would love to see more small scale experiments on a lot of the controversial issues today so we have some time to see how big of a problem we are creating or how well it works out.


There will always be the questions of how careful should we be and how many experiments need to be carried out. It is really easy to say that, but at what point are you satisfied that enough experiments have been carried out? What is your criteria for showing that something is safe and can be used? The only thing that I am hearing is "just keep testing until I decide it is safe".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It's the scale that worries me the most. A lot of the recent experiments are on a global scale. That and my observations over the decades is that very few (if any) of these poisons turn out well in the long run. And most of them were not on the current scale of round-up and neonics. While there seems to be a lot of concern by people about neonics and bees, I'm concerned about the effects of neonics and round-up permeating OUR food supply. I have heard all the lines about how safe pesticides and herbicides were all my life and every one of those that have been around very long turned out not to be. I see it as a matter of time and the scale of the experiment will determine the scale of the disaster that follows.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> Of course everyone insisted it could not be DDT.


They really did?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>They really did? 

When the raptors were disappearing here they blamed it on hunters for many years. It took decades to point the finger at DDT. The argument is always (even today) that this is a xxxacide so it can't be killing yyy. e.g. Round-up is an herbicide, so it can't be killing animals... or DDT is an insecticide so it can't be killing Eagles... Agent Orange is an herbicide so it can't be killing people...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Didn't see negative debate at the time in relation to raptors. Hunting may have been postulated as a cause for decline, and indeed it was a cause. The initial discovery re egg shell thinning was made with albatrosses. No internet then, not much conspiracy theorists, not much deniers.

In my country, humans successfully exterminated 50% of our bird species, before DDT even reached our shores. A real shame, included some very unique birds, including the biggest eagle in the world, and the outright biggest bird in the world, twice as tall as a man. Called a moa.

Would make sense DDT would affect raptors also though, like albatrosses, top of their food chain and DDT being concentrated through many species by the time it gets to the top.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> It's the scale that worries me the most. A lot of the recent experiments are on a global scale. That and my observations over the decades is that very few (if any) of these poisons turn out well in the long run. And most of them were not on the current scale of round-up and neonics. While there seems to be a lot of concern by people about neonics and bees, I'm concerned about the effects of neonics and round-up permeating OUR food supply. I have heard all the lines about how safe pesticides and herbicides were all my life and every one of those that have been around very long turned out not to be. I see it as a matter of time and the scale of the experiment will determine the scale of the disaster that follows.



So you are not answering the question. How much much time and experimentation is needed for you to feel safe? Or are you saying that no pesticides/herbicides should ever be released for use?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> It's the scale that worries me the most. A lot of the recent experiments are on a global scale. That and my observations over the decades is that very few (if any) of these poisons turn out well in the long run. And most of them were not on the current scale of round-up and neonics. While there seems to be a lot of concern by people about neonics and bees, I'm concerned about the effects of neonics and round-up permeating OUR food supply. I have heard all the lines about how safe pesticides and herbicides were all my life and every one of those that have been around very long turned out not to be. I see it as a matter of time and the scale of the experiment will determine the scale of the disaster that follows.


You can't test in just one tiny spot. Experiments must be on a global scale if the product is going to be sold globally. Imagine a product only tested in "Blah Blahburg" and found to be safe and then sold to "Blah Blahstan". In "Blah Blahstan" it kills off the rare short tailed 4-toed underwater blue eye bubble blowing aqua-gibbon (say that 4 times fast  ). You've got to test a product to a certain point and then release it. That point is a target (testing criteria). The product is designed to create value to the buyer, hit the respective target, and earn profits to the producer. If the testing target is perpetually moving though how can you design a product to it? You can't. "Profits" are not a dirty word as many like to think. They are the rewards earned for taking a risk that succeeded. Without the rewards no risks would be taken and we'd stagnate as a species. 

Will there be products in 200, 500, 1000 years from now be found to be "What were we thinking?" dangerous. Yep, just like there are now. Yet, we're still around plugging along. Is the human condition better now than it was 200, 500, 1000 years ago? Undoubtedly. Will it be better in 200, 500, 1000 from now? I'd bet good money on it, but I'll be dead either way. As a species we're scrappy, resilient, and always trying to improve our condition. 

Not sure about the aqua-gibbon though, but we'll keep testing.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Didn't see negative debate at the time in relation to raptors. Hunting may have been postulated as a cause for decline, and indeed it was a cause.


I thought the lead shot used to hunt waterfowl was considered the culprit in the eagle decline here?

You mean we have been shooting the high priced steel loads for decades now when it was DDT all along?

Don


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't eat alfalfa. :lookout:

Tomatoes, yes.


----------



## Eddie Honey (May 30, 2011)

Ah..a vegetarian...that's cool.


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Sure, I'm a vegetarian....send me all your ribeyes, NY strips, etc., and I will keep them safe.  I'll take care of your snapper and grouper filets, too. Got any quail or turkey? I don't eat horsemeat, either...at least not knowingly. 

Ed


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Did people starve 40 years ago before glyphosate NO this whole thing is about killing weeds and the world food supply going belly up. This IS a conspiracy theory perpetrated by big ag. Talk about fear mongering the sky is falling Arab spring caused because of food shortages??? Most corn is for animal feed and fuels same with soybeans. Where is the scientific data where are the tests produced that indicate the world food supply would not be able ta feed the world with out glyphosate. This is all speculation. The world will starve without chemical agriculture. No scientific proof


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

Mac. . . :applause: Some good thoughts "out of the box". I do have a problem with them using the GMO stuff for animals, but at least I'm not eating them as best I can tell. I buy directly from the farm.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mac said:


> Did people starve 40 years ago before glyphosate


yes


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

For example, a famine in India during 1966-67 ....


> The Bihar famine of 1966–7 was a minor famine with relatively very few deaths from starvation as compared to the famines of the British era. The famine demonstrated the ability of the Indian government to deal with the worst of famine related circumstances. [HIGHLIGHT]The official death toll from starvation in the Bihar famine was 2353, [/HIGHLIGHT]roughly half of which occurred in the state of Bihar. No significant increase in the number of infant deaths from famine was found in the Bihar famine.
> 
> The annual production of food grains had dropped in Bihar from 7.5 million tonnes in 1965–66 to 7.2 million tonnes in 1966–1967 during the Bihar drought. There was an even sharper drop in 1966–67 to 4.3 million tonnes. The national grain production dropped from 89.4 million tonnes in 1964–65 to 72.3 in 1965–66 — a 19% drop. Rise in prices of food grains caused migration and starvation, but the public distribution system, relief measures by the government, and voluntary organisations limited the impact. On a number of occasions, the Indian-government sought food and grain from the United States to provide replacement for damaged crops.
> 
> ...


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

A lot of countries have doubled population in the last 50 years. That trend is not sustainable and we are grasping at straws. Some choices made will be less than ideal but I don;t see a lot effectively being done to address the root of the problem, so what are the choices but to try to squeeze more production out of the land.


----------



## bolter (Jun 27, 2013)

People are still starving, most of it caused by their government's policies &/or civil unrest/war (again government policies). Unfortunately, feeding those people won't end the war &/or create peace and good governance.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

There are hungry people in the world. Like Bolter stated, much of this hunger is caused by politics and poor governing. Most of this starvation is in third world countries, but not all of it. Millions of people have starved to death in North Korea in the last few decades. They too, are a third world country, but they have NUCLEAR weapons and will use them before their country is lost to starvation. There's something for us to think about.

I'm not a bio science person so I don't know squat about GMO's and roundup, but I know quite a bit about radiation, and when some country pops a few nuclear bombs in the atmosphere your worries of roundup will become trivial.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

1) DDT can and is found in food for human consumption, even nowadays. The German government publishes the results of laboratory testing of food and you can find DDT in all sorts of food. See table here: http://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/D...elrueckstaende.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 

In this publication DDT was found in: grains, potatoes, red radish, asparagus, spinach, green squash and even in baby food(!) on page 55/56 labelled 'Kleinkindernahrung' (=baby food)

2) 1,000,000,000 people are starving every day and every four seconds a child dies from the consequences of hunger. On the other hand there is a grain production of 1 kg (2.2 pounds) per person per day. So the todays production capacities can easily provide enough food for all people in the World. (Figures from the UN.)

3) In Germany half of the food gets thrown away. The half of the food. It is not allowed to use it as fodder for safety reasons.

Basicly it is a distribution problem not a production problem. As long as more calories are going out of countries with a lot of starvation, rather than going in, the situation will not ease. As long as food is produced in distant countries and consumed here (half of it thrown away), there will be no longterm solution. As the World Agriculture report states, it is necessary to produce and consume food locally.

Glyphosat was found in bread and rolls and it clearly is overused here in this country. Every gardener pours it onto their driveway, it is used by cities to remove "foreign plant species" (racism against plants...), used to harvest potatoes and grains. (It is sprayed onto crops, so the crop plants die and dry at the same time which simplifies harvesting wheat or potatoes. Problem is: glyphosat withstands heat of the baking and still is found in all sorts of grain products. Bread, cereals...)

In France and Germany the parkinson disease was officially acknowledged as a occupational disease for farmers. That tells it all...


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Does this answer help distributing and sharing food? Does it stop wasting food? Can't see it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mac said:


> Did people starve 40 years ago before glyphosate NO this whole thing is about killing weeds and the world food supply going belly up......No scientific proof


Right, and just like the anti-chemical folks, we are going to scream about world food shortages until science catches up and proves our outrageous claim. How long will that take? I cant tell you now, but I will know it when I see it. Until our foregone conclusion is proved, you are going to keep on hearing it.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Does this answer help distributing and sharing food? Does it stop wasting food? Can't see it.


 As of right now there is enough food ta feed the world the argument revolves around the forgone conclusion that in the next so many years as the population doubles or what ever we will have to increase food production no matter what the cost to our health or the planet. The answer is to stop having children.There is not a lack of food in the world just 2 many people. STOP HAVING CHILDREN


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Interesting concept, but who shall bell the cat? 

We wring our hands about unproven health threats but the base of our predicament is that we are entirely too fertile, healthy and long lived. What a quandary!


----------



## John R C (Mar 15, 2011)

How about three herbicides. Clethodim, Sethydoxin, and Fusillade all kill grass without harmingeverything else alone.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

crofter said:


> Interesting concept, but who shall bell the cat?
> 
> We wring our hands about unproven health threats but the base of our predicament is that we are entirely too fertile, healthy and long lived. What a quandary!


An oxymoron indeed, nailed in just a few well chosen words.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mac said:


> STOP HAVING CHILDREN


That is the bottom line to every environmental argument, but only few people will take it that far. What is the next logical step beyond that? Start killing people off?


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

mac said:


> STOP HAVING CHILDREN


The "problem". . . "be fruitful and multiply". Our bees do it very well as long as they're healthy. So does every other living thing. One corn seed becomes how many? If it only had one or two ears of corn could it be a thousand? Maby two or more from one? That's pretty incredible multiplication!!! This in my mind (distribution problems) is all the more reason to look into local farming. You can pick it up right at the farm or farmers market or something like that. It is interesting that the local farmers that I've been seeing recently aren't using the chemicals as the larger farms are. That seems to be (at least in my area) the recent push. Local / natural, organic, biodinamic farming. We'll see how things go in the next 10-20 years. In my mind hands down wether you think roundup is Ok or not, you have to agree that things would be better for our bees if there are NO chemicals around (in whatever form) that our bees are working and bringing back into the hive. (This includes people putting them on their yards 3 or more times per year) Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone think it's better if our bees bring chemicals into their hive?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

A few thoughts:

1. If the population continues to grow at some point in time there will be a person on every square yard of land. Who knows, maybe we will learn to like cozy.

2. I assume we are still evolving since nature isn't static. That being the case, will our bodies adapt to the chemicals we are worried about.

3. I think we all want a pesticide, herbicide free world where there is food and flowers for all. Where every day is a holiday and every meal is a banquet.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Delber,

I don't disagree with it, I am doing it to the extent that I can on 1/3 of an acre inside city limits, and trading eggs for some things I can't grow, drought and all. This year I put the garden on the pond. Saved $400 on my water bill, didn't get a lot of tomatoes but got as many as I got last year. Grasshoppers got a lot of things so I put my old hens and a rooster in the garden and they saved the day. A dog got my roo a week ago, I miss him... But not many people could do what I do and the droughts are going to un-diversify our diets if they continue. I had some lambquarters and wild purslane in my egg stirfry a couple of days ago, as the grasshoppers and drought have kept getting my swiss chard. Learning how to eat what will grow locally is going to challenge some. I am considering fried grasshoppers I'll tell you, but so far I only catch one or 2 at a time and feed them to the backyard hens

And for those fans of pigweed - the seeds are not bad, extremely nutritious but difficult to soften enough to get the nutrition out, and the leaves can also be cooked or served in salads, although I think they are a little tough. I grow Hopi Red Dye Amaranth but I try to get the seeds picked prompt or it gets out of hand.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Wide distribution of food was doable when oil was cheap (and of infinite supply) The average morsel of food consumed was transported 1500 miles. Actual energy expenditure far more than the food energy produced. This will come to an end! What is unsupportable does not stay up. Then you will see local production and consumption on a much more labor intensive structure but I can guarantee the people wont like the new norm. Most of our ideological fantasies are best enjoyed on full stomachs. The veneer of civilization is very thin.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

The biggest problem the "local grown" food is that unless you live in California, your choices are going to be very limited. 

Unless I am going to sustain myself on corn, soybeans. and wheat local produce it wont work where I live.


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

justin said:


> bees only consume 2 things, nectar and pollen. what does herbicide in lethal or nonlethal doses do to the nectar and pollen of plants?



Justin,.....
Bees in your part of the country do not collect water or propolis ??? I know for a fact bees collect water and propolis in New England 

BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

Nabber86 said:


> The biggest problem the "local grown" food is that unless you live in California, your choices are going to be very limited.
> 
> Unless I am going to sustain myself on corn, soybeans. and wheat local produce it wont work where I live.


This is in my opinion where "supply and demand" comes into play. Why are all those farms raising those crops? There's a great demand for them. If the demand comes to be other things then farmers will either adjust or be out of business. If we (as consumers) make a stink for just about any product there will be people that will rise to the occasion. Everyone? No, but there will be some. In my area there are several farms that are "organic" not all are "certified" but their practices are organic which in my mind is great. (Lower prices, but same good product, and they don't have to go through the red tape) Just like it's important for your customers to know you as the beekeeper it's equally important for you to know the farmer. 

Perhaps another question would be preservation (freezing, canning etc) so that eating "only what's in season" wouldn't be as much of an issue? 

I wish I would have been able to see the answers to the thought. . . Is it beter for chemicals to be brought into the hive in any dose? Perhaps that has already been answered by Gypsi.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

delber said:


> This is in my opinion where "supply and demand" comes into play. Why are all those farms raising those crops? There's a great demand for them. If the demand comes to be other things then farmers will either adjust or be out of business. If we (as consumers) make a stink for just about any product there will be people that will rise to the occasion. .


Ironically, you just provided a pretty good description of capitalism. Time will tell when the stink causes farmers to grow organic produce in Kansas. Time will tell.


----------



## spreerider (Jun 23, 2013)

crofter said:


> Wide distribution of food was doable when oil was cheap (and of infinite supply) The average morsel of food consumed was transported 1500 miles. Actual energy expenditure far more than the food energy produced. This will come to an end! What is unsupportable does not stay up. Then you will see local production and consumption on a much more labor intensive structure but I can guarantee the people wont like the new norm. Most of our ideological fantasies are best enjoyed on full stomachs. The veneer of civilization is very thin.


one of the main reasons food is transported so far is fad diets, eat berries from the other side of the world they will make you healthy they may in one test have been slightly better than your local berries, meanwhile we will send your local berries around the world touting the health benefits of them to those who live there.


----------

