GoSlugs said:

Yup.  People should take the environmental costs of all of those things into account when using them.  It may well be that you can't get by without using your car, our society is structured that way, but, if you are going to tell me that you can't live without spraying round up in your yard, I am going to call you a liar.  

Everything in this life comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

GoSlugs said:

Northeastern suburbanites have the same attitude about their garden poisons that Southerners have about their guns .

mem said:

Science has determined that these toxins harm us and the environment, so it's either not believing in science, or selfishness.

Science! Because I said so

The "science" is much stronger for the following statements. Take note!

Science has determined that driving cars releases toxins that harm us and the environment, so its either not believing in science, or selfishness.

Science has determined that plastics manufacturing releases toxins that harm us and the environment, so its either not believing in science, or selfishness.


Science has determined that electronics manufacturing releases toxins that harm us and the environment, so its either not believing in science, or selfishness.


And so on. 


So. Not using, ignoring science, or selfish? 


Some poses have lower costs than others.

Well, that's awfully personal but pants on fire I guess! Amazing you can judge what I need or don't need to use without knowing anything about my life and circumstances.

Nothing like the categorical to uncover dogmatic zealotry. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Perhaps my imagination is just too small when it comes to your life and death needs.  No disrespect was intended.

Jackson_Fusion said:

GoSlugs said:

Yup.  People should take the environmental costs of all of those things into account when using them.  It may well be that you can't get by without using your car, our society is structured that way, but, if you are going to tell me that you can't live without spraying round up in your yard, I am going to call you a liar.  

Everything in this life comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

GoSlugs said:

Northeastern suburbanites have the same attitude about their garden poisons that Southerners have about their guns .

mem said:

Science has determined that these toxins harm us and the environment, so it's either not believing in science, or selfishness.

Science! Because I said so

The "science" is much stronger for the following statements. Take note!

Science has determined that driving cars releases toxins that harm us and the environment, so its either not believing in science, or selfishness.

Science has determined that plastics manufacturing releases toxins that harm us and the environment, so its either not believing in science, or selfishness.


Science has determined that electronics manufacturing releases toxins that harm us and the environment, so its either not believing in science, or selfishness.


And so on. 


So. Not using, ignoring science, or selfish? 


Some poses have lower costs than others.

Well, that's awfully personal but pants on fire I guess! Amazing you can judge what I need or don't need to use without knowing anything about my life and circumstances.

Nothing like the categorical to uncover dogmatic zealotry. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

I do wonder though, what could precipitate an existential need for round up. Perhaps you could share?

GoSlugs said:

I do wonder though, what could precipitate an existential need for round up. Perhaps you could share?

Imidacloprid poisons waterways

"In its recently released 2017 Preliminary Aquatic Risk Assessment for Imidacloprid, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found this pesticide is not only toxic to bees but is destroying life in the nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes. This assessment finds that aquatic invertebrates, especially aquatic insects basic to aquatic food chains, are sensitive to imidacloprid, and that current imidacloprid levels detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints. Impacts occur at low concentrations, and can result in decreased species abundance, altered predator-prey relationships, and reduced nutrient cycling. Impacts to other wildlife that depend on these species raise serious cause for concern."

Imidacloprid is a common lawn chemical used for grubs, etc.

West Milford officials want to know if weed killer used by county is safe "township will examine the potential to adopt an ordinance prohibiting anyone, including the county, from using certain herbicides on roadsides throughout the township."

http://www.northjersey.com/sto...

ROUNDUP CAUSES CANCER IN CALIFORNIA! See https://oehha.ca.gov/propositi...

tourn said:

ROUNDUP CAUSES CANCER IN CALIFORNIA! See https://oehha.ca.gov/propositi...

Good thing we're not in California.

To get past the Silent Spring style hysteria and political posturing....

https://www.reuters.com/invest...

Jackson_Fusion said:

To get past the Silent Spring style hysteria and political posturing....







https://www.reuters.com/invest...

Published equals peer reviewed.  It makes perfect sense that this should be the gold standard for scientific evidence.  

To be honest, if your pesticides remained confined to your property, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it.  When you insist that you have the right to disperse toxic chemicals that will find their way onto my property, that is where I get unhappy.

Let's see. Unpublished data versus peer reviewed published data. Also, there is sufficient data on experimental animals to label Roundup a carcinogen, let alone a probable carcinogen. So, it clearly causes cancer in experimental animals. But you would rather risk human health than err on the side of caution considering lymphoma is such a debilitating disease with high mortality. And what about the other negative effects of over using Roundup, like erosion, and the proliferation of super weeds, and the destruction of soil left bare in fields every year, which promotes the use of chemical fertilizers and other pesticides, etc.? You pesticide addicts have drunk the coolaid.

A better discussion. https://www.scientificamerican...

tourn said:

A better discussion. https://www.scientificamerican...

"Older" is not better, especially when the "older" is trumpeting the data that is, to be charitable, now under deep suspicion.

People can read for themselves. Clearly most who are haven't been crack-potted into hysteria. 

I'm waiting for this thread to start carrying ads for gold, dehydrated food and screeds against the fed.

Hey, I have some uh.... "unpublished data" that shows that Roundup causes genital warts, uncontrolled flatulence and male pattern balding.  I guess that settles that debate.

To harp on conspiracy theories AND demand that policy be determined by "unpublished data" is the height of hypocrisy

Klinker said:

Hey, I have some uh.... "unpublished data" that shows that Roundup causes genital warts, uncontrolled flatulence and male pattern balding.  I guess that settles that debate.

To harp on conspiracy theories AND demand that policy be determined by "unpublished data" is the height of hypocrisy

“We decided to remove it because … you couldn’t put it all in one paper.”

Aaron Blair, former epidemiologist at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, explaining why new data on glyphosate and cancer was not published

Yet if the IARC panel experts had been in a position to take into account Blair’s fresh data, IARC’s analysis of the evidence on glyphosate would have been different, Blair acknowledged in the court documents reviewed by Reuters.

The unpublished research came from the Agricultural Health Study, a large and significant study, led by scientists at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, of agricultural workers and their families in the United States. Asked by Monsanto lawyers in March whether the unpublished data showed "no evidence of an association” between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Blair replied: "Correct."

But....but... not published!

You should read the article closely.

They couldn't publish this enormously important research because they ran out of room?  Sure.....

Monsanto Spin Doctors Target Cancer Scientist In Flawed Reuters Story

It turns out there was substantially more to the story but this is what you get when a company like Monsanto is willing to spend practically infinite amounts of money on public relations to defend a product they know is dangerous.  We've seen this before with tobacco.

Klinker said:

Monsanto Spin Doctors Target Cancer Scientist In Flawed Reuters Story

Ah. So according to huffpo, the Reuters reporter is bought and paid for.

Well that settles that!

But you're ok because you know that Big Tobacco would N-E-V-E-R lie to you.

Ooops.  My bad.  Make that Monsanto.

Monsanto would kill to protect their golden egg. And apparently that is just what they are doing by marketing Roundup as if it was safe as water.   Every day I see gullible homeowners using the chemical as if it was a lawn mower. One would think the ugly dead mess left over after treatment would be enough to discourage its use?

I use vinegar (and it DOES kill a lot of the weeds) and I also pull weeds.  But they always come back, and I think that's true with Round-Up also.  Contemplating whether there is some way to keep dirt from collecting and nurturing weeds on my patio ... cement?

See http://www.corp-research.org/m...and see what Monsanto has been up to over the years. 

I would definitely like to see a reduction in chemicals use, but this seems like something that needs to be done at least on a regional scale.  I don't see Maplewood citizenry and the TC supporting it locally if surrounding towns don't have similar initiatives.  Yes, it would be good not to contribute to downstream pollution but the reality is that most people won't support something that does not benefit them personally also (for better or worse.)

Smoking bans started locally and spread.  The same can happen here.  Local bans raise consciousness and lead to wider action.

Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell. 

tourn said:

Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell. 

Been in use for 45 years. Time told. 

But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.

Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.

Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!

Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.

Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...