"Philip" wrote in message
m...
Gary Davis wrote in message
...
On 10/2/04 11:16 PM, in article
, "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"oknwht?" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Will you actually give these vegetables to your kids? Your
friends? Your
parents? And you, yourself, will actually eat them?

Glyphosate is used commercially as a weedkiller on
millions of acres of agricuktural land all over the world

[snip]

Franz
Franz,
Would it be ok if I was to quote what you just said?
"It (Glyphosate) is used on millions of acres of agricultural
land all
over the world"...
That must mean then, that lots of weed killer is being put
into streams
all over the world....into lakes and ultimately the oceans...
What proof do you have that it is not? What proof do you have
that it
will do no harm to anyone who eats the vegetables grown after it's
use? You
defend it's use like you are a shareholder (of the manufacturer).
Twiggy made some good points, why did you snip them?
Someone suggested digging it in...a good organic idea-nothing
wrong with
exercise, especially when it means one less pint of chemical put
into the
environment.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

Gary

I have read Franz' position on Glyphosate before and he is totally
consistent. I think his postion can be summarized as -

There is no scientific proof that Glyphosate harms the environment,
no
proof that it enters to food chain and harms animals or people.
Therefore its OK.

Your analysis is correct as far as it goes, except that the last
sentence should be
"Therefore it is OK until some contra-indication is established beyond
doubt."

Franz

On a separate but related point, last nights TV contained a
documentary on Vietnam. Part of it contained a visit to a hospital
(I
think in Hanoi). One ward was full of disfigured children. The
disfigurations were blamed on Agent Orange, a defoliant used by the
US
when they realised they could not win a jungle war.

Some of these children were 3rd generation, ie their grandparents
were
exposed to Agent Orange.

Maybe this explains why I am NOT waiting for scientific proof.

Incidentally, the US have never admitted that the problems are as a
result of Agent Orange and no compensation has ever been paid to
victims, or assistance given to the Vietnamese authorities to help
with the care of the unfortunate victims.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:56:01 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from Gary Davis contains these words:

Would it be ok if I was to quote what you just said?
"It (Glyphosate) is used on millions of acres of agricultural
land all
over the world"...
That must mean then, that lots of weed killer is being put
into streams
all over the world....into lakes and ultimately the oceans...

Not so. It forms strong triangular bonds with soil particles and is
locked in that location.

Anyone would think you were an employee you daft tit. Stop
bullshitting.

How about arrempting a reasoned reply? Or are you so intellectually
handicapped that you would find that impossible?

[snip]

Well, I recognise an enemy of Monsanto when I see one, and, I see
one. I
have no love of their methods, but I do have the utmost confidence
in
Roundup®. And yes, I have used it a lot when I had a smallholding.

It figures. No doubt you're a pro hunt kook too?

I see further evidence of your inability to conduct a reasoned
argument containing logically connected statements..

What evidence do *YOU* have that glyphosate harms not only the
target
vegetation, but the wider environment?

www.google.com

So you do not actually have the evidence.

[snip the infantile mouthings]

Franz

On 10/6/04 4:03 AM, in article
, "Philip"
wrote:

Gary Davis wrote in message
...
On 10/2/04 11:16 PM, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"oknwht?" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Will you actually give these vegetables to your kids? Your
friends? Your
parents? And you, yourself, will actually eat them?

Glyphosate is used commercially as a weedkiller on
millions of acres of agricuktural land all over the world

[snip]

Franz
Franz,
Would it be ok if I was to quote what you just said?
"It (Glyphosate) is used on millions of acres of agricultural land all
over the world"...
That must mean then, that lots of weed killer is being put into streams
all over the world....into lakes and ultimately the oceans...
What proof do you have that it is not? What proof do you have that it
will do no harm to anyone who eats the vegetables grown after it's use? You
defend it's use like you are a shareholder (of the manufacturer).
Twiggy made some good points, why did you snip them?
Someone suggested digging it in...a good organic idea-nothing wrong with
exercise, especially when it means one less pint of chemical put into the
environment.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

Gary

I have read Franz' position on Glyphosate before and he is totally
consistent. I think his postion can be summarized as -

There is no scientific proof that Glyphosate harms the environment, no
proof that it enters to food chain and harms animals or people.
Therefore its OK.

On a separate but related point, last nights TV contained a
documentary on Vietnam. Part of it contained a visit to a hospital (I
think in Hanoi). One ward was full of disfigured children. The
disfigurations were blamed on Agent Orange, a defoliant used by the US
when they realised they could not win a jungle war.

Some of these children were 3rd generation, ie their grandparents were
exposed to Agent Orange.

Maybe this explains why I am NOT waiting for scientific proof.

Incidentally, the US have never admitted that the problems are as a
result of Agent Orange and no compensation has ever been paid to
victims, or assistance given to the Vietnamese authorities to help
with the care of the unfortunate victims.
Philip
Thanks for posting the above info.
There will be some people who will continue to use 'chemicals' no matter
what. I believe it is important to make as many people as possible aware of
the dangers of continued use. At the same time there are many who, once
learning of the dangers, will make the change to a more organic approach.
We must keep beating the drum...
Thank you for your support in this important endeavour.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in
message k...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these words:

How about a reasoned reply. That is, assuming that you do possess
some element of intellect.
And cut the unwelcome amount of sig in your post. It runs counter
to
netiquette. Or are you devoid of both mannera and intellect?

This isn't Jim Webster, but one of the usual trolls.

Yes. The juvenile nature of his contribution made that obvious.

Franz

"Gary Davis" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/04 4:03 AM, in article
, "Philip"
wrote:

Gary Davis wrote in message
...
On 10/2/04 11:16 PM, in article
, "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"oknwht?" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Will you actually give these vegetables to your kids? Your
friends? Your
parents? And you, yourself, will actually eat them?

Glyphosate is used commercially as a weedkiller on
millions of acres of agricuktural land all over the world

[snip]

Franz
Franz,
Would it be ok if I was to quote what you just said?
"It (Glyphosate) is used on millions of acres of agricultural
land all
over the world"...
That must mean then, that lots of weed killer is being put
into streams
all over the world....into lakes and ultimately the oceans...
What proof do you have that it is not? What proof do you have
that it
will do no harm to anyone who eats the vegetables grown after
it's use? You
defend it's use like you are a shareholder (of the manufacturer).
Twiggy made some good points, why did you snip them?
Someone suggested digging it in...a good organic idea-nothing
wrong with
exercise, especially when it means one less pint of chemical put
into the
environment.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

Gary

I have read Franz' position on Glyphosate before and he is totally
consistent. I think his postion can be summarized as -

There is no scientific proof that Glyphosate harms the
environment, no
proof that it enters to food chain and harms animals or people.
Therefore its OK.

On a separate but related point, last nights TV contained a
documentary on Vietnam. Part of it contained a visit to a
hospital (I
think in Hanoi). One ward was full of disfigured children. The
disfigurations were blamed on Agent Orange, a defoliant used by
the US
when they realised they could not win a jungle war.

Some of these children were 3rd generation, ie their grandparents
were
exposed to Agent Orange.

Maybe this explains why I am NOT waiting for scientific proof.

Incidentally, the US have never admitted that the problems are as
a
result of Agent Orange and no compensation has ever been paid to
victims, or assistance given to the Vietnamese authorities to help
with the care of the unfortunate victims.
Philip
Thanks for posting the above info.
There will be some people who will continue to use 'chemicals'
no matter
what. I believe it is important to make as many people as possible
aware of
the dangers of continued use. At the same time there are many who,
once
learning of the dangers, will make the change to a more organic
approach.
We must keep beating the drum...

That is the trouble with organofaddists. They keep beating the drum
instead of facing up to the fact that their method of food production,
whilst being fun, is incapable of feeding the world.

Thank you for your support in this important endeavour.

Franz

"Derek Moody" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:10:19 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Gary Davis" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/04 4:03 AM, in article
, "Philip"
wrote:

Gary Davis wrote in message
...
On 10/2/04 11:16 PM, in article
, "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"oknwht?" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Will you actually give these vegetables to your kids?
Your
friends? Your
parents? And you, yourself, will actually eat them?

Glyphosate is used commercially as a weedkiller on
millions of acres of agricuktural land all over the world

[snip]

Franz
Franz,
Would it be ok if I was to quote what you just said?
"It (Glyphosate) is used on millions of acres of
agricultural
land all
over the world"...
That must mean then, that lots of weed killer is being put
into streams
all over the world....into lakes and ultimately the oceans...
What proof do you have that it is not? What proof do you
have
that it
will do no harm to anyone who eats the vegetables grown after
it's use? You
defend it's use like you are a shareholder (of the
manufacturer).
Twiggy made some good points, why did you snip them?
Someone suggested digging it in...a good organic
idea-nothing
wrong with
exercise, especially when it means one less pint of chemical
put
into the
environment.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

Gary

I have read Franz' position on Glyphosate before and he is
totally
consistent. I think his postion can be summarized as -

There is no scientific proof that Glyphosate harms the
environment, no
proof that it enters to food chain and harms animals or people.
Therefore its OK.

On a separate but related point, last nights TV contained a
documentary on Vietnam. Part of it contained a visit to a
hospital (I
think in Hanoi). One ward was full of disfigured children.
The
disfigurations were blamed on Agent Orange, a defoliant used by
the US
when they realised they could not win a jungle war.

Some of these children were 3rd generation, ie their
grandparents
were
exposed to Agent Orange.

Maybe this explains why I am NOT waiting for scientific proof.

Incidentally, the US have never admitted that the problems are
as
a
result of Agent Orange and no compensation has ever been paid
to
victims, or assistance given to the Vietnamese authorities to
help
with the care of the unfortunate victims.
Philip
Thanks for posting the above info.
There will be some people who will continue to use
'chemicals'
no matter
what. I believe it is important to make as many people as
possible
aware of
the dangers of continued use. At the same time there are many
who,
once
learning of the dangers, will make the change to a more organic
approach.
We must keep beating the drum...

That is the trouble with organofaddists. They keep beating the
drum
instead of facing up to the fact that their method of food
production,
whilst being fun, is incapable of feeding the world.

Thank you for your support in this important endeavour.

Since when has anything but feeding your own fat face been of
concern
to you or your sock puppets?

Since before you were born.
And as a matter of interest, my face is quite scraggy.

Franz

Big snip of many messages that were snipped

I also have no objection to eating it.
By the way, do you have any data on the temperature at which it breaks down?
Franz
According to info on the below site cooking does not destroy it...and the
below site gives information about it's toxicity when ingested. I have not
included reference to breakdown temperature nor toxicity in the below
'quote'.


Franz et all

The below info came from this website:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm

There is much more information at that site than is below. But the info
below covers some of the things discussed on this thread-some not all. To
get more information read the info on the site. I have other sites as well
but let us start with this one.
Gary

"Persistence and Movement in Soil (of Glyphosate):

Glyphosate's persistence in soil varies widely, so giving a simple answer to
the question "How long does glyphosate persist in soil?" is not possible.
Half-lives (the time required for half of the amount of glyphosate applied
to break down or move away) as low as 3 days (in Texas) and as long as 141
days (in Iowa) have been measured by glyphosate's manufacturer.119 (See
Figure 6.) Initial degradation (breakdown) is faster than the subsequent
degradation of what remains.120 Long persistence has been measured in the
following studies: 55 days on an Oregon Coast Range forestry site121: 249
days on Finnish agricultural soils122; between 259 and 296 days on eight
Finnish forestry sites120; 335 days on an Ontario (Canada) forestry site123;
360 days on 3 British Columbia forestry sites124; and, from 1 to 3 years on
eleven Swedish forestry sites.125 EPA's Ecological Effect's Branch wrote,
"In summary, this herbicide is extremely persistent under typical
application conditions. "126*

Glyphosate is thought to be "tightly complexed [bound] by most soils"127 and
therefore "in most soils, glyphosate is essentially immobile."127 This means
that the glyphosate will be unlikely to contaminate water or soil away from
the application site. However, this binding to soil is "reversible." For
example, one study found that glyphosate bound readily to four different
soils. However, desorption, when glyphosate unbinds from soil particles,
also occurred readily. In one soil, 80 percent of the added glyphosate
desorbed in a two hour period. The study concluded that "this herbicide can
be extensively mobile in the soil ...." 123

Water Contamination
When glyphosate binds readily to soil particles, it does not have the
chemical characteristics of a pesticide that is likely to leach into water.2
(When it readily desorbs, as described above, this changes. However,
glyphosate can move into surface water when the soil particles to which it
is bound are washed into streams or rivers.4 How often this happens is not
known, because routine monitoring for glyphosate in water is infrequent.2*

Glyphosate has been found in both ground and surface water. Examples include
farm ponds in Ontario, Canada, contaminated by runoff from an agricultural
treatment and a spill129; the runoff from a watersheds treated with Roundup
during production of no-till corn and fescue130; contaminated surface water
in the Netherlands'; seven U.S. wells (one in Texas, six in Virginia
contaminated with glyphosate 131; contaminated forest streams in Oregon and
Washington132, 133; contaminated streams near Puget Sound, Washington 134;
and contaminated wells under electrical substations treated with
glyphosate.135"
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

"Gary Davis" wrote in message
...
Big snip of many messages that were snipped

I also have no objection to eating it.
By the way, do you have any data on the temperature at which it
breaks down?
Franz
According to info on the below site cooking does not destroy
it...and the
below site gives information about it's toxicity when ingested. I
have not
included reference to breakdown temperature nor toxicity in the
below
'quote'.


Franz et all

The below info came from this website:


http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm

There is much more information at that site than is below. But
the info
below covers some of the things discussed on this thread-some not
all. To
get more information read the info on the site. I have other sites
as well
but let us start with this one.
Gary

"Persistence and Movement in Soil (of Glyphosate):

Glyphosate's persistence in soil varies widely, so giving a simple
answer to
the question "How long does glyphosate persist in soil?" is not
possible.
Half-lives (the time required for half of the amount of glyphosate
applied
to break down or move away) as low as 3 days (in Texas) and as long
as 141
days (in Iowa) have been measured by glyphosate's manufacturer.119
(See
Figure 6.) Initial degradation (breakdown) is faster than the
subsequent
degradation of what remains.120 Long persistence has been measured
in the
following studies: 55 days on an Oregon Coast Range forestry
site121: 249
days on Finnish agricultural soils122; between 259 and 296 days on
eight
Finnish forestry sites120; 335 days on an Ontario (Canada) forestry
site123;
360 days on 3 British Columbia forestry sites124; and, from 1 to 3
years on
eleven Swedish forestry sites.125 EPA's Ecological Effect's Branch
wrote,
"In summary, this herbicide is extremely persistent under typical
application conditions. "126

Glyphosate is thought to be "tightly complexed [bound] by most
soils"127 and
therefore "in most soils, glyphosate is essentially immobile."127
This means
that the glyphosate will be unlikely to contaminate water or soil
away from
the application site. However, this binding to soil is "reversible."
For
example, one study found that glyphosate bound readily to four
different
soils. However, desorption, when glyphosate unbinds from soil
particles,
also occurred readily. In one soil, 80 percent of the added
glyphosate
desorbed in a two hour period. The study concluded that "this
herbicide can
be extensively mobile in the soil ...." 123

Water Contamination
When glyphosate binds readily to soil particles, it does not have
the
chemical characteristics of a pesticide that is likely to leach into
water.2
(When it readily desorbs, as described above, this changes. However,
glyphosate can move into surface water when the soil particles to
which it
is bound are washed into streams or rivers.4 How often this happens
is not
known, because routine monitoring for glyphosate in water is
infrequent.2

Glyphosate has been found in both ground and surface water. Examples
include
farm ponds in Ontario, Canada, contaminated by runoff from an
agricultural
treatment and a spill129; the runoff from a watersheds treated with
Roundup
during production of no-till corn and fescue130; contaminated
surface water
in the Netherlands'; seven U.S. wells (one in Texas, six in Virginia
contaminated with glyphosate 131; contaminated forest streams in
Oregon and
Washington132, 133; contaminated streams near Puget Sound,
Washington 134;
and contaminated wells under electrical substations treated with
glyphosate.135"

I notice that it was published in a journal called "Pesticide Reform".
The titlle sounds as if it has an axe to grind. If you could persuade
the authors to republish in a scientific journal of repute I would
consider reading it.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:36:15 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


I notice that it was published in a journal called "Pesticide
Reform".
The titlle sounds as if it has an axe to grind. If you could
persuade
the authors to republish in a scientific journal of repute I would
consider reading it.

This is a report from a Dutch govt. institute make of it what you
will
www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/716601006.pdf

That is a massive piece of work. From a cursory look at it, it looks
as if glyphosate is on the side of the angels, but it needs a really
serious (and lengthy) read.

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan Gould wrote:
In article , IntarsiaCo
writes
Vinegar is not a poison.

It is if you are a weed. The active ingredient is definately a poison.
Is it an acceptable herbicide for the "organic" producer?

Vinegar is not mentioned in the guidelines for organic weed control.
If it is a poisonous herbicide as you say, then it is not acceptable,
along with all spray type chemical weed-killers.

Such as extract of macerated walnut leaves?

Are you saying I can use wanmut leaves as a weedkiller?

How do you use ir for that purpose?

I have about 5 CWT of leaves every year!

Alan
--
Reply to alan(dot)holmes27(at)virgin(dot)net

"IntarsiaCo" wrote in message
...
Organic regulations begin at EU

That's quite a bureaucracy. How much does all this regulation cost the
poor
consumer?

Their health!

--
Reply to alan(dot)holmes27(at)virgin(dot)net

In message , alan holmes
writes

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan Gould wrote:
In article , IntarsiaCo
writes
Vinegar is not a poison.

It is if you are a weed. The active ingredient is definately a poison.
Is it an acceptable herbicide for the "organic" producer?

Vinegar is not mentioned in the guidelines for organic weed control.
If it is a poisonous herbicide as you say, then it is not acceptable,
along with all spray type chemical weed-killers.

Such as extract of macerated walnut leaves?

Are you saying I can use wanmut leaves as a weedkiller?

Pretty much. Active ingredient "juglone" (sp?) severely restricts the
range of plants that will grow within the root run of walnut trees. Some
trees are more effective at chemical weaponry than others.

How do you use ir for that purpose?

I have about 5 CWT of leaves every year!

Be careful where you use it as a mulch! Eventually it rots down to
harmless leaf mould but it does have some herbicidal properties in the
meantime. It would be a very good idea to check the MSDS for the active
ingredient before trying to make a concentrated extract.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown