tcreeley
Elite Member
How much are you all payed for trolling by Monsanto!
2,4-D herbicide 'possibly' causes cancer in humans
- Thread starter /pine
- Start date
- Views: 16726
How much are you all payed for trolling by Monsanto!
tcreeley
Elite Member
World’s Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk **
301 Moved Permanently 2014/ 04/ 06/ w...Proxy Highlight
In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 ...
Glyphosate – The Herbicide Found In Monsanto’s RoundUp ... **
The Inquisitr News 1206996/ glyphosate-the...Proxy Highlight
A bold new study has shown that the herbicide glyphosate passes through breast milk. Glyphosate is used in agriculture on genetically modified crops and is best known as the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp.
Monsanto's Roundup in Breastmilk | Snippet | Kelly Brogan MD **
www.kellybroganmd.com/uncategorized/monsantos-roun...Proxy Highlight
Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have demonstrated the first ever quantification of Roundup in breastmilk.
Monsanto’s Roundup Found in the Breast Milk of U.S. Mothers **
Inhabitots | Your guide to green parenting, eco baby & green kids monsantos-roundup...Proxy Highlight
Further testing and possible higher standards of regulations on chemicals in breast milk are needed now.
GLYPHOSATE TEST RESULTS - Moms Across America **
Moms Across America Highlight
Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water. Conducted by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse
Yes, There’s Roundup in your Breast milk! | Eco Child's Play **
www.ecochildsplay.com/ 2014/ 04/ 09/ yes-theres-...Proxy Highlight
Yes, There’s Roundup in your Breast milk! April 9, 2014 by Jennifer Lance Leave a Comment. There is currently no regulatory limit for the amount of glyphosate in breast milk anywhere in the world.
Article: ...Glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup) Found in Breast Milk **
www.opednews.com/ articles/ Toxic-Weed-Killer-Foun...Proxy Highlight
Article: Toxic Weed Killer Glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup) Found in Breast Milk, Infant Formula - The widely-used herbicide glyphosate, now classified as a probably ...
Got Breast Milk? *
www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/got-b...Proxy Highlight
Learn all about Chuck Norris in this week's mug shot roundup. ... Got Breast Milk?. * Got Breast Milk?. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/got- ... Got Breast Milk?. Iowa mom runs classified ad to sell spare output, two
Monsanto's RoundUp in Breast Milk? Moms Say ‘No More!’ *
www.naturalsociety.com/roundup-breast-milk-moms-say/Proxy Highlight
Moms Across America is a group of mothers going after GMOs and biotech giant Monsanto for their flagship product RoundUp. The active ingredient in this powerful herbicide is glyphosate, which has previously been detected in drinking water, blood, and breast milk across the country.
Glyphosate Herbicides Now in Pregnant Women's Breast Milk *
articles.mercola.com/ sites/ articles/ archive...Proxy Highlight
A recent study showed the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in the breast milk of a significant percentage of American women, even those actively trying
301 Moved Permanently 2014/ 04/ 06/ w...Proxy Highlight
In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 ...
Glyphosate – The Herbicide Found In Monsanto’s RoundUp ... **
The Inquisitr News 1206996/ glyphosate-the...Proxy Highlight
A bold new study has shown that the herbicide glyphosate passes through breast milk. Glyphosate is used in agriculture on genetically modified crops and is best known as the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp.
Monsanto's Roundup in Breastmilk | Snippet | Kelly Brogan MD **
www.kellybroganmd.com/uncategorized/monsantos-roun...Proxy Highlight
Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have demonstrated the first ever quantification of Roundup in breastmilk.
Monsanto’s Roundup Found in the Breast Milk of U.S. Mothers **
Inhabitots | Your guide to green parenting, eco baby & green kids monsantos-roundup...Proxy Highlight
Further testing and possible higher standards of regulations on chemicals in breast milk are needed now.
GLYPHOSATE TEST RESULTS - Moms Across America **
Moms Across America Highlight
Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water. Conducted by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse
Yes, There’s Roundup in your Breast milk! | Eco Child's Play **
www.ecochildsplay.com/ 2014/ 04/ 09/ yes-theres-...Proxy Highlight
Yes, There’s Roundup in your Breast milk! April 9, 2014 by Jennifer Lance Leave a Comment. There is currently no regulatory limit for the amount of glyphosate in breast milk anywhere in the world.
Article: ...Glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup) Found in Breast Milk **
www.opednews.com/ articles/ Toxic-Weed-Killer-Foun...Proxy Highlight
Article: Toxic Weed Killer Glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup) Found in Breast Milk, Infant Formula - The widely-used herbicide glyphosate, now classified as a probably ...
Got Breast Milk? *
www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/got-b...Proxy Highlight
Learn all about Chuck Norris in this week's mug shot roundup. ... Got Breast Milk?. * Got Breast Milk?. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/got- ... Got Breast Milk?. Iowa mom runs classified ad to sell spare output, two
Monsanto's RoundUp in Breast Milk? Moms Say ‘No More!’ *
www.naturalsociety.com/roundup-breast-milk-moms-say/Proxy Highlight
Moms Across America is a group of mothers going after GMOs and biotech giant Monsanto for their flagship product RoundUp. The active ingredient in this powerful herbicide is glyphosate, which has previously been detected in drinking water, blood, and breast milk across the country.
Glyphosate Herbicides Now in Pregnant Women's Breast Milk *
articles.mercola.com/ sites/ articles/ archive...Proxy Highlight
A recent study showed the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in the breast milk of a significant percentage of American women, even those actively trying
MikePA
Super Moderator
When all else fails, insult people simply because they disagree with you and use facts, not emotion, to form their opinions.
Cya.
Sodo
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,302
- Location
- Cascade Mtns of WA state
- Tractor
- Kubota B-series & Mini Excavator
Speaking of "doses", when it comes to chemicals in the food supply, a healthy dose of skepticism is 100% necessary. It takes GENERATIONS to prove chemicals as "safe". Chemical producers want to sell their product NOW, so they have HUGE budgets for political action, and public relations, so they can start to distribute the chemical across the country (or world) and get the profits ASAP. They are NOT going to wait 'generations'.
As mentioned above, another method is to get your un-tested chemical listed as "organic". It's the same game. Perhaps competing companies (or perhaps the same companies).
Glyphosate is barely more than one generation old. It's certainly possible that Glyphosate is safe, but it's a few generations to soon to claim proof. It's currently in testing on the general public and will be, for generations. The shoutdown method of quelling dissent is something that a paid forum handler has to do. A normal member does not need to do that, and I think that's why TC might have asked if you are paid to post. That and the Glyphosate expertise that you posted. Members are within their rights to question sources, because the "sources" will always hide their motivations.
This "Dose" thing keeps my suspicions up, its sounding like a "public service announcement". Each dose is safe. And ignore that you are ingesting hundreds of other 'safe' doses of other chemicals at the same time. But remember that this dose is SAFE! We're not discussing other doses at the moment, nor any combinations.
Doses of some heavy metals (as an example) aren't toxic right away, but many small doses can build up in your body and become toxic once you've had too much. My dad has had lots of doses of everything imaginable and he's still going. Of course YMMV. And your Dad and your kids.
And as one fella wrote earlier, there are probably worse chemicals to focus on, and we are not likely to go back to a pre-chemical world.
As mentioned above, another method is to get your un-tested chemical listed as "organic". It's the same game. Perhaps competing companies (or perhaps the same companies).
Glyphosate is barely more than one generation old. It's certainly possible that Glyphosate is safe, but it's a few generations to soon to claim proof. It's currently in testing on the general public and will be, for generations. The shoutdown method of quelling dissent is something that a paid forum handler has to do. A normal member does not need to do that, and I think that's why TC might have asked if you are paid to post. That and the Glyphosate expertise that you posted. Members are within their rights to question sources, because the "sources" will always hide their motivations.
This "Dose" thing keeps my suspicions up, its sounding like a "public service announcement". Each dose is safe. And ignore that you are ingesting hundreds of other 'safe' doses of other chemicals at the same time. But remember that this dose is SAFE! We're not discussing other doses at the moment, nor any combinations.
Doses of some heavy metals (as an example) aren't toxic right away, but many small doses can build up in your body and become toxic once you've had too much. My dad has had lots of doses of everything imaginable and he's still going. Of course YMMV. And your Dad and your kids.
And as one fella wrote earlier, there are probably worse chemicals to focus on, and we are not likely to go back to a pre-chemical world.
dave1949
Super Star Member
I won't accuse anyone of trolling for pay, but I do wonder what prompts the desire of some to defend the enormous use of chemicals in the food system and other areas. It's like it is psychologically important to rise to the defense of chemicals. That I do not comprehend.
Glysophate, DDT or whatever in human bodies is like a trespassing stranger wandering through your home; you object and they claim they aren't doing any harm so why should you care? Bottom line, those chemicals do not belong in human bodies nor in the environment and most people seem he11 bent on gratuitously adding them to places they do not belong.
That can be seen everyday on TBN posts: applying a dose of poison to every problem is seen as the thing to do. Some sort of voodoo magic is needed to think that applying poisons on an enormous scale has no impacts beyond the intended target. Think about it logically and you will realize that of course there are impacts beyond the intended target and we aren't very knowledgeable about the scale, value or importance of those impacts.
Instead of challenging people who object to these trespassers to prove the harm, the chemical cheerleaders should make a case for why they are necessary, have no better alternatives, what trade-offs make them the lesser of evils, and what are the extent and consequences of the unintended impacts. I don't think that case has been or can be made.
The existential threat to humanity is not starvation, it is the destruction of habitat that is rich enough in biodiversity and plentiful enough to support the web of life. The prolific use of chemicals is intentionally punching holes in that web.
Glysophate, DDT or whatever in human bodies is like a trespassing stranger wandering through your home; you object and they claim they aren't doing any harm so why should you care? Bottom line, those chemicals do not belong in human bodies nor in the environment and most people seem he11 bent on gratuitously adding them to places they do not belong.
That can be seen everyday on TBN posts: applying a dose of poison to every problem is seen as the thing to do. Some sort of voodoo magic is needed to think that applying poisons on an enormous scale has no impacts beyond the intended target. Think about it logically and you will realize that of course there are impacts beyond the intended target and we aren't very knowledgeable about the scale, value or importance of those impacts.
Instead of challenging people who object to these trespassers to prove the harm, the chemical cheerleaders should make a case for why they are necessary, have no better alternatives, what trade-offs make them the lesser of evils, and what are the extent and consequences of the unintended impacts. I don't think that case has been or can be made.
The existential threat to humanity is not starvation, it is the destruction of habitat that is rich enough in biodiversity and plentiful enough to support the web of life. The prolific use of chemicals is intentionally punching holes in that web.
Sodo
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,302
- Location
- Cascade Mtns of WA state
- Tractor
- Kubota B-series & Mini Excavator
That is a great perspective Dave.
But human starvation is not a threat to the earth, it is only sorrowful for humanity. Destruction of habitat moves the starvation point nearer. Increasing food output with chemicals moves the starvation point farther. When old people die sooner (of cancer) that frees up a spot on the earth for more young people, it's just the way of the world. But people aren't dying sooner, they're living longer. But there's just a lot more of them.
Increasing the food supply with chemicals is already allowing the population to increase rapidly, "increasing humanity" and happiness. As long as the problems (cancers etc) only affect people --after-- child-bearing age this will continue. Humankind is hopelessly addicted to chemicals already. Reduction will cause starvation unless some of these chemicals prove deadly after a few generations.
With regards to the 'debate' though, I guess what I dislike most is the wool being pulled over my eyes, and those who feel it's OK to do so. And certainly those who want my gov't to allow it because their profit depends on it.
What's strange is that young people worry about it and old people don't. I think it has to do with your outlook. If you're looking ahead with optimism, you want a long life. Those who are somewhat depressed, have had enough already, can't really care about other people's happy life. They don't like being told they have been duped either, nobody does.
It's a little bit humorous that folks will follow a rumor to the end of the earth based on crazy "husband's tales" about tractor longevity, while dumping poisons on their family farm or watersheds with reckless abandon. Actually that parts not so funny.
But human starvation is not a threat to the earth, it is only sorrowful for humanity. Destruction of habitat moves the starvation point nearer. Increasing food output with chemicals moves the starvation point farther. When old people die sooner (of cancer) that frees up a spot on the earth for more young people, it's just the way of the world. But people aren't dying sooner, they're living longer. But there's just a lot more of them.
Increasing the food supply with chemicals is already allowing the population to increase rapidly, "increasing humanity" and happiness. As long as the problems (cancers etc) only affect people --after-- child-bearing age this will continue. Humankind is hopelessly addicted to chemicals already. Reduction will cause starvation unless some of these chemicals prove deadly after a few generations.
With regards to the 'debate' though, I guess what I dislike most is the wool being pulled over my eyes, and those who feel it's OK to do so. And certainly those who want my gov't to allow it because their profit depends on it.
What's strange is that young people worry about it and old people don't. I think it has to do with your outlook. If you're looking ahead with optimism, you want a long life. Those who are somewhat depressed, have had enough already, can't really care about other people's happy life. They don't like being told they have been duped either, nobody does.
It's a little bit humorous that folks will follow a rumor to the end of the earth based on crazy "husband's tales" about tractor longevity, while dumping poisons on their family farm or watersheds with reckless abandon. Actually that parts not so funny.
tjkadar
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 712
- Location
- Sumter, SC
- Tractor
- Massey Ferguson 5609, Kubota GS1800, eXmark LazerZ XP
The studies I've been linking have been peer reviewed and, in most cases, verified by repeatable, scientific studies and/or experimentation. The only side I'm on is the side of science. Plainly, the US Mothers study was extremely biased, poorly designed, and executed. I won't go so far as to say the data was massaged to fit the results desired, but it certainly seems to be the case. In other words, exactly what people keep accusing Monsanto of doing. Another poorly designed study was the Bee Apocalypse which has also been debunked: Bee Experts Dismantle Touted 'Harvard' Neonics-Colony Collapse Disorder Study As 'Activist Science'
The United States has increasingly become more and more anti-science. The hacks, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, charlatans, pseudo-science practitioners are running rampant screaming the sky is falling while selling you cleansing tonics, organic grown (Organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides), gluten free products at substantially inflated prices. In other words, they are creating their own market through their scare tactics. It is business. Big business. Compared to them, Monsanto is tiny.
Show me the science. That is all I ask.
Again, the dose makes the toxicity. Drink enough water and you will die.
The United States has increasingly become more and more anti-science. The hacks, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, charlatans, pseudo-science practitioners are running rampant screaming the sky is falling while selling you cleansing tonics, organic grown (Organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides), gluten free products at substantially inflated prices. In other words, they are creating their own market through their scare tactics. It is business. Big business. Compared to them, Monsanto is tiny.
Show me the science. That is all I ask.
Again, the dose makes the toxicity. Drink enough water and you will die.
Sodo
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,302
- Location
- Cascade Mtns of WA state
- Tractor
- Kubota B-series & Mini Excavator
TJ, kinda think you went so far as to say "data was massaged". You could be right though.
A big company with highly paid, smart people, can obtain the validation of peer review by carefully massaging the "results desired" to fit the public action desired with the data obtained. Which can be done in good science. And is the full intent of their science ( if not conscience ). It's not much different than "Activist Science".
Show me the money and you can find the science. Monsanto is not tiny, it is a mega corporation, with more power than most of the governments of the world. It is one entity, and Big Organic is many many much smaller companies, all scratching for a piece of the pie (and in competition with each other too). Any perhaps subjecting the consumer to confusion in the same reprehensible way. The conclusion a person might get from this is buy local, and distrust "Big Organic" with a similar distrust you might have for "Big Chemical".
To distrust "Big Organic" and then offer that trust to "Big Chemical" is just foolish. All that does is tell Big Chemical its time to get into the Big Organic business.
I don't think your comparison of Monsanto as "small compared to Big Organic" is reasonable.
tcreeley
Elite Member
I threw that one in because that was implied a few posts back against me -- ah well, just words now isn't it!
But here is a link I like. I am sure that people as yourself will not give it any credence, but I still want to get the info out there for all.
Access Forbidden - sustainablepulse.com
"WHO Cancer Expert: Glyphosate is Definitely Genotoxic
Posted on Jul 15 2015 - 3:09pm by Sustainable Pulse
"Professor Christopher Portier, one of the co-authors of the World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recent report which determined Glyphosate's status as a probable carcinogen, reiterated the IARC's conclusions, and said: glyphosate is definitely genotoxic. There is no doubt in my mind. ..............."
-------
When I posted Radium Girls, it was too show how easily as a society we trust. In hindsight- radium is deadly. The connection was made back then by a dentist pulling a tooth - but in actuality he removed part of the jaw bone that had disintegrated along with the tooth. He treated other patients who worked painting radium at the same factory. He shared his information. Even when the company recognized its dangers and passed out info to doctors, doctors prescribed radium use for its health benefits. Society had adopted radium as a wonder cure. It took a while to reverse that. ......... In today's world roundup/glyphosate/herbicides are the new cure all. Glyphosate was even patented as an antibiotic.
I see connections in many things. When I used to dismantle radios as a kid, I learned quickly that once apart things did not fix themselves so quickly. Cutting a wire, snipping a piece from the circuit board had impacts. Chemicals like herbicides are dumped freely- but for some reason, some touting science say there is no causal impact. The town up the road, on the Penobscot river has only had a sewage treatment plant for 25 years or so. Before that the river was the sewage treatment plant- the town pumped all of their sewage into the river. I imagine living downriver today is more pleasant than it used to be. There are still advisories against fish consumption - mercury, etc.. (The midwest likes their dirty coal fired powerplants.)
If we could limit toxic chemicals to the backyards of those folks who want to use them- that would be great - a live and let live world. But pollution spreads, pollutes, and poisons, and kills. Your chemical use impacts my life. That's my bottom line.
Last edited:
smstonypoint
Super Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
- Location
- SC (Upstate) & NC (Piedmont)
- Tractor
- NH TN 55, Kubota B2320 & RTV 900, Bad Boy Outlaw ZTR
And here is more on Professor Christopher Portier for those who wish to assess his credibility: IARC captured by NGO activists on glyphosate as carcinogen.
And from the same link:
Steve
:
