Posted on 01/05/2018 5:45:37 AM PST by BraveMan
So there's a chemical you know nothing about, any more than food coloring, preservatives, pasteurization, or anything else that is done to our food... that billions of people have been consuming for decades... but you choose, based on nothing, to make a stand against THIS chemical... with zero evidence of actual harm done to any actual humans. Sounds reasonable. *eye roll*
Portland Maine city council ban the use of Roundup and other synthetic pesticides on Monday night.
This was between their 3 hour discussion of whether the mayor should chair or even be on the finance committee. (The correct answer is no).
It is far better than 2-4-d or any of its derivatives.
Furthermore, Roundup is a burn down that reacts very quickly.
>>“inevitably” .. another weasel word and an assumption not proven any where in the literature.<<
Oh, it’s literature you want.
: https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/library/glyphosate-resistance-in-weeds/
“If you follow the direction and apply it at the recommended temperature or above, the plant begins dying within a day or two. That is not enough time for there to be a resistance passed onto any seed.”
If a plant has a resistance, though, why would it die?
As I have stated, I have seen it used for over 35 years, since it was introduced. I worked that long in the fruit industry.
Roundup is a burn-down type of product. It kill the leaves and partially the roots. The affected plant doesn't come back. It dies.
It may have produce seeds before being treated that can and do germinate sometime in the future and produce plants.
Those plants, when treated with Roundup die as well.
Roundup efficacy only deals with the live plant and not its seeds. So, I have never seen any resistance.
“Roundup efficacy only deals with the live plant and not its seeds. So, I have never seen any resistance.”
Right, but I think that means there hasn’t been a mutation yet that develops any effective resistance to it. If there was, hypothetically, then the plants that have it would survive, and most of the next generation would then inherit the mutation.
Conversely, when dealing with insects, such as codling moth, because of the nature of their development resistance does happen. That is why it is necessary to change products regularly.
But by the same token, there has been much development with mating disruption using pheromones. That has taken the pressure off concerning pesticide resistance.
Simply, if the males can't find the females there is fertilization of the eggs, therefore no succeeding generations.
Plants don't operate that way.
Don’t think it’s emotion My mother got lymphoma and I AML leukemia. Not just round up used heavily, but other pesticides, herbicides, etc
I won’t use those products for what is the rest of my life.
And yea, getting cancer does create some emotion.
And salt
Agree. Don’t know the motive, but no doubt this is harmful with regular exposure.
About 20 years ago I tried Roundup on some weeds growing in the cracks where the driveway meets the garage, and the weeds loved it! Tried for a couple of weeks, and they grew about 10 times faster than before.
I’m really sorry to hear that, but did they prove scientific causation that Round Up was the empirical cause?
I think you know the answer to that. But, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I actually don’t know the answer to that.
Well yes, there are many studies including cancer institute, NIH studies that point to cancer for pesticides especially. Proving cancer clusters is a difficult ordeal. So, I would recommend staying away from them. Not rn around barefoot, wash hands, vegis’s etc It was a different time when I was a kid. Just as they said cigarettes weren’t dangerous. Now we know better.
That’s enough for me to stay away from carcinogenic chemicals.
So check this out. The article references the made for the product.
Msds’s often reference LD50. The lethal dose for 50% of the population. Ld 50 for that stuff is 165mg per day. Because of low residue levels, one would need to eat 65 lbs of fruit per day.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/the_biggest_myth_about_glyphosate.html
Okidoke. Like I said - once upon a time, cigarettes were protected as well. I suppose agent orange isn’t responsible for cancer either?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.