JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near their
mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in which
children came into contact with yard chemical residues and then put
their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.
I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--


So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat it
and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human
tests at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use
of any product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

I'll leave it up to the idiots here to figure out what a surfactant is.

What do we win if we already know?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I can't tell you what's safe to use around which plants. What I can
tell you
is that no such product is safe if humans come into contact with it
or
ingest it. There is no valid research on the issue, and probably
never will
be.


Criminently. Everyone dies from something. And if you're lucky enough
to live for a long time, you'll probably be run over by a beer truck,
anyway.

Remember when they sprayed malthion from helicopters over LA county at
night and told NO ONE? I bet there are people still keeling over today
from that one.

Live your life like you're not afraid of dying. Unless, of course, you
are.

Steve


What about people who aren't in a position to make that decision, like
children?

We can't take care of the children today who are beaten, neglected and
abused by their parents. Are you saying we need to take care of them?
Maybe by starting a new governmental agency staffed with people making
$120k a year plus bennies and a golden parachute retirement package?

Steve


What about your own children and grandchildren? Can you look out for them,
or are you too busy watching football and American Idol learn something
new every day?


I'm sorry. I'm having a tough time following this conversation.

My children and grandchildren are fine. Both my children are professional
people now, one a linguist, and one a psychologist. My grandchildren are
provided for by multiple trusts.

I don't watch football or American Idol. I watch a total of about twelve
hours of TV a week.

And you?

Steve

"dpb" wrote

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human tests
at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use of any
product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.

You must understand JoeSpareBedroom's mentality. If he says it is so, then
it must be true.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"dpb" wrote

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?
No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human tests
at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use of any
product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.

You must understand JoeSpareBedroom's mentality. If he says it is so, then
it must be true.

Oh, I know and I really should just ignore him -- for some reason the
"be scared of your shadow" mentality got me on this one...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
SteveB wrote:
"dpb" wrote

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?
No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human
tests at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use
of any product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.

You must understand JoeSpareBedroom's mentality. If he says it is so,
then it must be true.

Oh, I know and I really should just ignore him -- for some reason the "be
scared of your shadow" mentality got me on this one...

Isn't it amazing? Talking about our children. We want to protect them from
the big bad world so badly that we allow them to stay at home into their
thirties (or beyond), demand little of them in comparison to what our
parents and society demanded of us, then want to talk about others "harming"
them either by real or imaginary means.

Steve

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near their
mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in which
children came into contact with yard chemical residues and then put
their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.
I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--


So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human tests
at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use of any
product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.


I never said "indefinite". But, never mind that.

You said "No, obviously". It's not so obvious. You also said nothing can
meet those criteria, which isn't exactly true. How many of the things we eat
were specifically designed to kill?

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I can't tell you what's safe to use around which plants. What I
can tell you
is that no such product is safe if humans come into contact with
it or
ingest it. There is no valid research on the issue, and probably
never will
be.


Criminently. Everyone dies from something. And if you're lucky
enough to live for a long time, you'll probably be run over by a beer
truck, anyway.

Remember when they sprayed malthion from helicopters over LA county at
night and told NO ONE? I bet there are people still keeling over
today from that one.

Live your life like you're not afraid of dying. Unless, of course,
you are.

Steve


What about people who aren't in a position to make that decision, like
children?

We can't take care of the children today who are beaten, neglected and
abused by their parents. Are you saying we need to take care of them?
Maybe by starting a new governmental agency staffed with people making
$120k a year plus bennies and a golden parachute retirement package?

Steve


What about your own children and grandchildren? Can you look out for
them, or are you too busy watching football and American Idol learn
something new every day?


I'm sorry. I'm having a tough time following this conversation.

My children and grandchildren are fine. Both my children are professional
people now, one a linguist, and one a psychologist. My grandchildren are
provided for by multiple trusts.

Trusts do not apply to health issues, other than paying for treatment.



I don't watch football or American Idol. I watch a total of about twelve
hours of TV a week.

And you?

Steve

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics of
chemical companies?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
news
You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

Funny when they did studies on the "organic" and "natural" products, tests
showed very little difference between them and regular products. In fact,
they found poisons in them, and a lot were grown with the aid of plain old
human turds.

But, I guess human waste costs more than fertilizer, hence the spike in
cost.

I just wonder if the taste is different ................

Steve



Many years ago, the chemical industry purchased certain legislators so they
could arrange for so-called "inert" ingredients to be exempt from safety
testing. These ingredients are often found in "organic" garden chemicals.
Matter of fact, one of them is the reason Roundup is funny stuff:

What makes you think inerts are exempt from testing...EPA has the lists
of all the inerts used in approved products, they just don't have to
tell you what a particular one is in the guise of company secrets, but
they still have to go threw the EPA. You would think the way the word
inert is used in these boards it is only hidden poisons when most inerts
used by bulk are probably clays..talcums..wood shavings and other fillers.



"Animal however, do not utilize such an enzyme and it is now thought that
Roundup's toxicity is attributable to the surfactant component
polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) in the formulation. The toxicity profile is
similar to that of other surfactant substances and is limited to cases of
exposure by ingestion."

I'll leave it up to the idiots here to figure out what a surfactant is.


I'll be idiotic and think of it as detergent like.

Lar

On Jul 12, 2:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near their
mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in which
children came into contact with yard chemical residues and then put
their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.

I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat it
and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

You may say "We have no intention of eating it", but that may or may not
matter. Can you tell me some details about groundwater and the drinking
water supply in the OP's town?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To take your posts at face value, _nothing_ would be safe. How abouit
arsenic? Is it safe? Is it "acceptably safe"? Many, if not most
places, have arsenic as a normal part of the ground water. Very low
level true but it is there.

There is a matter of practicability. If you demand a total "no
effect" test result on everything, then nothing will be used and you
will starve to death.

Harry K

dpb wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
...

Roundup will kill any plant it contacts given sufficient quantity.


So will water...

...

I wish then the water would hurry up and kill the algae in my pond...

Lar

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics of
chemical companies?

Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how DDT
went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough to see
thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of thalidomides come
and go. Long enough to understand that money powers the world and people
lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my Pollyanna attitude from
childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near
their mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in
which children came into contact with yard chemical residues and
then put their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.
I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--


So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human tests
at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use of any
product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.


I never said "indefinite". But, never mind that.

You said "No, obviously". It's not so obvious. You also said nothing can
meet those criteria, which isn't exactly true. How many of the things we
eat were specifically designed to kill?

I guess they were not "designed" unless you believe in intelligent design or
god but there is cyanide in Almonds, Cassava, Bamboo Shoots and other
plants. Garlic and other herbs are being used in "natural" insecticides. If
celery is attacked by insects it will produce an insecticide in its leaves
that will kill the insects. Tomato and Potato plants also contain a poison.I
am sure there are a number of other poisons produced in the plants and
animals that we eat.

The lethal dose of most chemicals is compared to the salt NaCl because it is
so deadly. You probably have given some to a child but you could have used
it to kill plants.

Pat wrote:
I don't have grass in back or front yard. Just a huge flower garden in
both So I don't know how this would work on your lawn. But I don't use
any chemicals in my yard.

Take a 1 gallon sprayer add 1 cup of table salt, 2 cups of white vinegar
and fill the rest with hot water. Shake real well to melt salt. Spray on
your weeds on a dry day. Soak the weeds very well.

It works for me , cheap and non toxic.

Ahhhh....hate to have reality, chemistry and botany
intrude upon your fantasies, but....

A. Iffen it ain't "toxic", t'ain't gonna kill the weeds....


B. Salt sure as hell is toxic.....



It won't last forever . you might have to do it again in a couple of
months.

pat

"hollenback" wrote in message
et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near
their mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in
which children came into contact with yard chemical residues and
then put their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made
(including so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.
I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--


So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

No, obviously, but you're claim is to have had to have actual human
tests at some low level for some indefinite length of time prior to use
of any product. My point is it ain't possible to prove a negative.


I never said "indefinite". But, never mind that.

You said "No, obviously". It's not so obvious. You also said nothing can
meet those criteria, which isn't exactly true. How many of the things we
eat were specifically designed to kill?

I guess they were not "designed" unless you believe in intelligent design
or god but there is cyanide in Almonds, Cassava, Bamboo Shoots and other
plants. Garlic and other herbs are being used in "natural" insecticides.
If celery is attacked by insects it will produce an insecticide in its
leaves that will kill the insects. Tomato and Potato plants also contain a
poison.I am sure there are a number of other poisons produced in the
plants and animals that we eat.

The lethal dose of most chemicals is compared to the salt NaCl because it
is so deadly. You probably have given some to a child but you could have
used it to kill plants.


I guess the research is complete, then.

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 12, 2:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near
their
mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in which
children came into contact with yard chemical residues and then put
their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.

I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it
and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

You may say "We have no intention of eating it", but that may or may not
matter. Can you tell me some details about groundwater and the drinking
water supply in the OP's town?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To take your posts at face value, _nothing_ would be safe. How abouit
arsenic? Is it safe? Is it "acceptably safe"? Many, if not most
places, have arsenic as a normal part of the ground water. Very low
level true but it is there.

There is a matter of practicability. If you demand a total "no
effect" test result on everything, then nothing will be used and you
will starve to death.

Harry K


You're right. All chemicals are the same, so no research is needed. The fact
that some are designed to kill is of no relevance, and it's fine to feed
them to children.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics
of chemical companies?

Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how
DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough
to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of
thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers the
world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my Pollyanna
attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve


About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are too
lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for drug
trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort of thing.

On Jul 13, 5:21 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 12, 2:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near
their
mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in which
children came into contact with yard chemical residues and then put
their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made (including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.

I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at face
value, so is mine.

--

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to eat
it
and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

You may say "We have no intention of eating it", but that may or may not
matter. Can you tell me some details about groundwater and the drinking
water supply in the OP's town?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To take your posts at face value, _nothing_ would be safe. How abouit
arsenic? Is it safe? Is it "acceptably safe"? Many, if not most
places, have arsenic as a normal part of the ground water. Very low
level true but it is there.

There is a matter of practicability. If you demand a total "no
effect" test result on everything, then nothing will be used and you
will starve to death.

Harry K

You're right. All chemicals are the same, so no research is needed. The fact
that some are designed to kill is of no relevance, and it's fine to feed
them to children.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular
chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn
near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink
too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you
live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the
question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all
foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need
to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant
about AR.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 13, 5:21 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 12, 2:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or
herbicides in their drinking water for many years, in a
controlled
study.

Also: Children constantly put their hands or fingers in or near
their
mouths when they're playing. Show me controlled studies in which
children came into contact with yard chemical residues and then
put
their fingers in or near their mouths.
OTOH, show epidemiological evidence indicating a problem.

You could say the same thing on any and every product made
(including
so-called "organics" and/or "natural").

NOTHING can be shown to meet those criteria.

--

Get serious. Please.

I'm as serious as you want...if your statement is to be taken at
face
value, so is mine.

--

So, you're saying that if it has not been proven UNsafe, it's OK to
eat
it
and have kids come into contact with it. Is that your final answer?

You may say "We have no intention of eating it", but that may or may
not
matter. Can you tell me some details about groundwater and the
drinking
water supply in the OP's town?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To take your posts at face value, _nothing_ would be safe. How abouit
arsenic? Is it safe? Is it "acceptably safe"? Many, if not most
places, have arsenic as a normal part of the ground water. Very low
level true but it is there.

There is a matter of practicability. If you demand a total "no
effect" test result on everything, then nothing will be used and you
will starve to death.

Harry K

You're right. All chemicals are the same, so no research is needed. The
fact
that some are designed to kill is of no relevance, and it's fine to feed
them to children.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular
chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn
near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink
too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you
live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the
question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all
foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need
to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant
about AR.

Harry K



I don't care about AR in this context, so let's not add any further clutter
about it, OK?

Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing spokespersons
to say two things to the press, and I believe it was Greenpeace that snagged
both articles and stuck them in one of its newsletters. The company first
said that animal tests indicated some farm chemical was safe. Two months
later, they responded to independent research which indicated that the
chemical was NOT safe. Their response: Tests on animals are not an accurate
prediction of how a substance effects humans.

Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to ransley :
On Jul 12, 1:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Robert11" wrote in message

I can't tell you what's safe to use around which plants. What I can
tell you
is that no such product is safe if humans come into contact with it or
ingest it. There is no valid research on the issue, and probably never
will
be.- Hide quoted text -

There's plenty of "valid research", the question is whether they
went far enough/covered every aspect.

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or herbicides in
their drinking water for many years, in a controlled study.

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

This is a pretty good summary of the existing studies (including
long term) done with glysophate/roundup:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs...e/index_e.html
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to ransley :
On Jul 12, 1:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Robert11" wrote in message

I can't tell you what's safe to use around which plants. What I can
tell you
is that no such product is safe if humans come into contact with it
or
ingest it. There is no valid research on the issue, and probably
never
will
be.- Hide quoted text -

There's plenty of "valid research", the question is whether they
went far enough/covered every aspect.

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or herbicides
in
their drinking water for many years, in a controlled study.

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.


Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because
watermelon could kill you?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing
spokespersons to say two things to the press, and I believe it was
Greenpeace that snagged both articles and stuck them in one of its
newsletters. The company first said that animal tests indicated some
farm chemical was safe. Two months later, they responded to
independent research which indicated that the chemical was NOT safe.
Their response: Tests on animals are not an accurate prediction of
how a substance effects humans.
Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.

Even before that, Rachel Carson said DDT was evil.

Literally millions (of people) have died as a result of the DDT ban.
Fortunately, DDT is making a comeback.

On Jul 13, 10:44?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message

...





According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to ransley :
On Jul 12, 1:18 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Robert11" wrote in message

I can't tell you what's safe to use around which plants. What I can
tell you
is that no such product is safe if humans come into contact with it
or
ingest it. There is no valid research on the issue, and probably
never
will
be.- Hide quoted text -

There's plenty of "valid research", the question is whether they
went far enough/covered every aspect.

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of pesticides or herbicides
in
their drinking water for many years, in a controlled study.

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because
watermelon could kill you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

apple seeds contain cyanide, eat enough seeds you die........

but the apple itself counteracts the seeds.

myself i would let the weeds grow in the gravel. weeds mean theres
dirt in the gravel

another approach if you demand a gravel driveway have it dug out a
foot, lay a couple inches of asphalt base roll and cover with gravel
and roll again.

a foot of gravel over a asphalt base will mean no dirt in the gravel,
and thus no weeds.

my neighbor did this 20 years ago, he moved his gravel driveway still
looks pristine

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing
spokespersons to say two things to the press, and I believe it was
Greenpeace that snagged both articles and stuck them in one of its
newsletters. The company first said that animal tests indicated some
farm chemical was safe. Two months later, they responded to
independent research which indicated that the chemical was NOT safe.
Their response: Tests on animals are not an accurate prediction of
how a substance effects humans.
Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.

Even before that, Rachel Carson said DDT was evil.

Literally millions (of people) have died as a result of the DDT ban.
Fortunately, DDT is making a comeback.


There's a big difference between spreading it around like M&Ms at a kid's
birthday party, and being a little more careful with the stuff now.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because
watermelon could kill you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

apple seeds contain cyanide, eat enough seeds you die........

but the apple itself counteracts the seeds.

myself i would let the weeds grow in the gravel. weeds mean theres
dirt in the gravel

another approach if you demand a gravel driveway have it dug out a
foot, lay a couple inches of asphalt base roll and cover with gravel
and roll again.

a foot of gravel over a asphalt base will mean no dirt in the gravel,
and thus no weeds.

my neighbor did this 20 years ago, he moved his gravel driveway still
looks pristine



I guess you're right. There should be no research on neurotoxins designed to
kill things. Thanks for teaching me this.

ive use rock salt in sensative areas

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

"JoeSpareBedroom" writes:

I guess you're right. There should be no research on neurotoxins designed to
kill things. Thanks for teaching me this.

"neurotoxin", Round-Up?

Makes no sense, plants don't have nerves.

According to this:

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...lyphosate.html

2. Safety. Monsanto Company has submitted numerous toxicology
studies in support of glyphosate. According to Monsanto Company, the
acute toxicity and irritation potential of glyphosate is low. There
are large margins of safety for subchronic and chronic
effects. Glyphosate does not produce reproductive effects and is not
a teratogen, mutagen, carcinogen or a neurotoxin. Risk assessment
calculations indicate the margin of safety for agricultural workers
and the population in general far exceed the EPA required level of
100.

Lot's more information there.

Makes me want to go out and bathe in it.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" writes:

I guess you're right. There should be no research on neurotoxins designed
to
kill things. Thanks for teaching me this.

"neurotoxin", Round-Up?

Makes no sense, plants don't have nerves.


I know. I was referring at that point to pesticides. Think "general".

"Harry K" wrote
in reply to JoeSpareBedroom's comments:

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular
chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn
near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink
too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you
live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the
question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all
foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need
to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant
about AR.

Harry K


I think it is clear that JoeSpareBedroom has been eating chemically tainted
foods. There has to be some logical explanation for his behavior.

Steve

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


I don't care about AR in this context, so let's not add any further
clutter about it, OK?

Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing
spokespersons to say two things to the press, and I believe it was
Greenpeace that snagged both articles and stuck them in one of its
newsletters. The company first said that animal tests indicated some farm
chemical was safe. Two months later, they responded to independent
research which indicated that the chemical was NOT safe. Their response:
Tests on animals are not an accurate prediction of how a substance effects
humans.

Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.


I remember that. Wasn't it about coffee? One day, it's good for you, the
next day, it will kill you. And then the next day, it's off to some other
substance. French fries, apples, lawnmower exhaust in California
................ you name it.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Harry K" wrote
in reply to JoeSpareBedroom's comments:

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular
chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn
near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink
too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you
live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the
question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all
foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need
to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant
about AR.

Harry K


I think it is clear that JoeSpareBedroom has been eating chemically
tainted foods. There has to be some logical explanation for his behavior.

Steve


Yeah. It's called a reading disorder. You should try and become infected
before you get old and die.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics
of chemical companies?

Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how
DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough
to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of
thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers
the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my
Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve


About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are too
lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for drug
trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort of
thing.

And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test ILLEGAL
drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because PETA and PAWS
won't let them use animals any more.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics
of chemical companies?

Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how
DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough
to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of
thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers
the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my
Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve


About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are
too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for drug
trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort of
thing.

And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test ILLEGAL
drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because PETA and PAWS
won't let them use animals any more.

Steve


Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical companies
pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using animals?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


I know. I was referring at that point to pesticides. Think "general".

Do I understand you correctly then, that for the purposes of discussing this
issue, that we are supposed to think in "general" terms, yet you may delve
into minutiae on any issue?

I thought I had it right.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


I know. I was referring at that point to pesticides. Think "general".

Do I understand you correctly then, that for the purposes of discussing
this issue, that we are supposed to think in "general" terms, yet you may
delve into minutiae on any issue?

I thought I had it right.

Steve


Actually, what you just said is unrelated to anything you've seen in this
discussion.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing spokespersons
to say two things to the press, and I believe it was Greenpeace that snagged
both articles and stuck them in one of its newsletters. The company first
said that animal tests indicated some farm chemical was safe. Two months
later, they responded to independent research which indicated that the
chemical was NOT safe. Their response: Tests on animals are not an accurate
prediction of how a substance effects humans.

Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.

No, neither...it's how science and in particular, testing works...

You do the best you can w/ what you have at the time. If later work
turns up something else, you incorporate that as well.

That people (and companies _are_ people at the bottom) make either
ill-advised statements or that others may take statements out of context
or simply try to find any weakness in one is also a fact of life.

That the second study may subsequently be shown to be either invalid or
superseded by later data and tests/studies is also quite possible and a
very frequent event, too.

In short, any one test/study/claim is only one piece of any evaluation
of any product.

As purely a point of reference, I'm guessing you don't have any
involvement w/ agricultural production nor in the production of a major
portion of your own? (I'm not planning a bash here, just trying to
actually establish some context for discussion.)

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the antics
of chemical companies?
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how
DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough
to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of
thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers
the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my
Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are
too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for drug
trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort of
thing.
And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test ILLEGAL
drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because PETA and PAWS
won't let them use animals any more.

Steve


Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical companies
pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using animals?

Could be we may come to it, it seems...

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't
been prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Back in the early 1980s, Monsanto made the mistake of allowing
spokespersons to say two things to the press, and I believe it was
Greenpeace that snagged both articles and stuck them in one of its
newsletters. The company first said that animal tests indicated some farm
chemical was safe. Two months later, they responded to independent
research which indicated that the chemical was NOT safe. Their response:
Tests on animals are not an accurate prediction of how a substance
effects humans.

Funny, huh? Whatever's convenient.

No, neither...it's how science and in particular, testing works...

You do the best you can w/ what you have at the time. If later work turns
up something else, you incorporate that as well.

That people (and companies _are_ people at the bottom) make either
ill-advised statements or that others may take statements out of context
or simply try to find any weakness in one is also a fact of life.

That the second study may subsequently be shown to be either invalid or
superseded by later data and tests/studies is also quite possible and a
very frequent event, too.

In short, any one test/study/claim is only one piece of any evaluation of
any product.

As purely a point of reference, I'm guessing you don't have any
involvement w/ agricultural production nor in the production of a major
portion of your own? (I'm not planning a bash here, just trying to
actually establish some context for discussion.)


"Major" production depends on the whims of the weather and the friggin'
deer, but I've been a fanatical vegetable gardener for 30+ years. I'm not
involved with any sort of commercial production, other than giving away a
lot of herbs to a friend who runs a small restaurant.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the
antics of chemical companies?
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see
how DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long
enough to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of
thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers
the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my
Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are
too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for
drug trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort
of thing.
And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test
ILLEGAL drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because
PETA and PAWS won't let them use animals any more.

Steve


Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?

Could be we may come to it, it seems...

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't been
prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--


You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to establish
that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are clueless people,
so I had to ask first).

Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans
than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After all,
we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently than
humans.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
....

As purely a point of reference, I'm guessing you don't have any
involvement w/ agricultural production nor in the production of a major
portion of your own? (I'm not planning a bash here, just trying to
actually establish some context for discussion.)


"Major" production depends on the whims of the weather and the friggin'
deer, but I've been a fanatical vegetable gardener for 30+ years. I'm not
involved with any sort of commercial production, other than giving away a
lot of herbs to a friend who runs a small restaurant.

OK, that's what I had figured, maybe.

Turn that into _having_ to produce enough to feed you and your family
reliably every day of the year or in producing enough product to sell to
be able to pay the daily bills and provide a comfortable standard of living.

Our family has made our living farming for right at 100 years now in
middle of US. Changes are phenomenal in practice and scope in the time
since my grandfather homesteaded here. W/o any commercial herbicides
production costs would skyrocket and yield would be dramatically reduced.

It's kinda' like solar or wind power generation -- a good thing but the
energy density is so low as to make it a very hard economic replacement
for all higher-density generation techniques. While you're growing some
veggies and all, we're providing the wheat, etc., that you need for the
bread to put that tomato into a sandwich...

--