A safer alternative to Roundup

[newbury]

<snip>


Um, yeah ... them Birchers come up with some interesting stuff ...

John Birch Society

Not sure if I'd rely on 'em as an unbiased source for scientific info tho' ...

Believe the Birchers!
I remember about 1974 in New York City they were handing out pamphlets that proved pot killed if you ate only 14kg of it!

Of course that was when almost no New Yorker knew how big a kilogram was.

I immediately made it my policy that to be safe I would never eat more than 7 kilograms.

And I've stuck to that policy.

 

[Creamer]

I have long thought we were better off with BT corn that repelled rootworm rather than applying pesticides to kill the rootworms. The modification just causes the corn to increase the level of naturally occurring BT that has been in the corn plant forever. Aren't we much better off just repelling the specific pest than applying general pesticides that have an unknown life and effect?

 

[KiotiKowboy]

Did you mean "cite" (as in citation) ?

No. I meant exactly what I typed. The point being ... One can find any number of supporting "sites" for their particular view on this issue.

 

[rswyan]

Believe the Birchers!
I remember about 1974 in New York City they were handing out pamphlets that proved pot killed if you ate only 14kg of it!

Of course that was when almost no New Yorker knew how big a kilogram was.

I immediately made it my policy that to be safe I would never eat more than 7 kilograms.

And I've stuck to that policy.

:thumbsup:

:laughing:

 

[Sodo]

I intend to be an active old codger, wanna be out in the woods in my '90s. Not cut down at a young 72 like my F-i-L (cancer). I prefer not to have chemicals in my food. I prefer that my government HELP me with this plan, that is one of the duties of government, to protect citizens from the profiteering thats dangerous while assisting profiteering thats sensible and sustainable. DDT is an explicit example but its difficult to KNOW whose side to be on in these commercial/industrial face-offs.

I do understand that chemicals (and diesel) increased the food supply to feed the world, but why protest scrutiny? Just because the greenies support scrutiny? Don't be fools, its GOT to be scrutinized! We need to keep a healthy skepticism with regards to any chemical thats spread all over the countryside. A farmer should be a steward of the land.

Roundup has been around for little more than one generation, thats not enough time to proclaim it as "safe" to be spread all over the world. Its still "in testing" and it is still a "risk". Its probably better than "others" for sure.

I don't give one ounce of credibility to anyone who doesn't care what the grandchildren end up with, those folks are selfish and thats all there is to it. IMHO. Thats my soapbox (or manure box).

 

[dave1949]

I intend to be an active old codger, wanna be out in the woods in my '90s. Not cut down at a young 72 like my F-i-L (cancer). I prefer not to have chemicals in my food. I prefer that my government HELP me with this plan, that is one of the duties of government, to protect citizens from the profiteering thats dangerous while assisting profiteering thats sensible and sustainable. DDT is an explicit example but its difficult to KNOW whose side to be on in these commercial/industrial face-offs.

I do understand that chemicals (and diesel) increased the food supply to feed the world, but why protest scrutiny? Just because the greenies support scrutiny? Don't be fools, its GOT to be scrutinized! We need to keep a healthy skepticism with regards to any chemical thats spread all over the countryside. A farmer should be a steward of the land.

Roundup has been around for little more than one generation, thats not enough time to proclaim it as "safe" to be spread all over the world. Its still "in testing" and it is still a "risk". Its probably better than "others" for sure.

I don't give one ounce of credibility to anyone who doesn't care what the grandchildren end up with, those folks are selfish and thats all there is to it. IMHO. Thats my soapbox (or manure box).

Well said. It's surprising how emotionally engaged people can become over a chemical--of all things.

The Precautionary Principle, "the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous" applies. We tend to take the viewpoint that people should have to prove the danger or uncertainty of a given action rather than those who want to do or use something proving that it is safe, or what the limitations of its safe use may be.

Where broadly applied chemicals are involved, it is not "science" to say it is safe and without unwanted side effects because it works just fine on 10 or 10,000 acres. Perhaps it does for its intended purpose but at the same time, using Roundup as an example, it is greatly reducing the population of a class of plants. That does not happen in a vacuum.

An ecosystem is a system indeed with many moving parts that are largely inter-related--that being the nature of co-evolved life. There is no "science" that describes or predicts the outcome of that plant population reduction on a systemic scale. You cannot do piecemeal environmental science.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

You cannot do piecemeal environmental science.

Well, actually, you can. It's called man-made global warming.

 

[dave1949]

Well, actually, you can. It's called man-made global warming.

That makes no sense to me.

 

[Sodo]

Well said. It's surprising how emotionally engaged people can become over a chemical--of all things.

Thank you. But they are not emotionally engaged over the chemical, they're emotionally engaged over an easier dollar (perhaps much easier). And the political scuffle clouds every discussion and keeps them confused.

They're emotionally dis-engaged over the land, often land that's been in their family for generations. Thats the case with our family farm, the guys running it are pretty careful to avoid any appearance that they might care for the land or water because that would be too "green". Family farms are our last hope, and when the stewards of the family farm care less about the land than a chinese agribusiness "we're done". For that matter we may already be "done". A lot of farmers seem to have this notion that "the agri-businesses are gonna get their land anyway so what the heck - get all the money you can from it now."

 

[KiotiKowboy]

That makes no sense to me.

Makes no sense to me either ... but, lots of people push it as a fact.

What I was saying (pointing out) is science is used in flagrantly dishonest ways to push an agenda. Man-made global warming is an excellent example of such shameless abuse. Some would say banning certain chemicals, or even defending those chemicals, could be another.