Roundup (1 Viewer)

[zeetes]

That will burn the tops down and salt the earth.

Great if you don't want anything to grow.

Continue to salt your ground and it will always be bare until the salts leach out.

Just for reference anything that is sold that passes thru an animal as fert has to be composted to cut the salts down. That is why it is composted horse manure.

When your dog kills your turf with urine has more to do with the salt than anything else.

I have no problems with glyphosate. If used by a non idiot correctly it is fine. Most humans use entirely too much have horrible sprayers and don't use tips in the sprayers that cut it to droplets they hose sheet down.

That is the problem with it idiots. Nothing is idiot proof.

Also with sound gardening you don't need much weed killer. Don't use enough mulch or do cruddy prep and you will pay the price. Don't analyze your soil and yes your plants will grow weakly and weeds will grow like mad.

but it has electrolytes

 

[Absolutely Free]

but it has electrolytes

Exactly!

 

[zeetes]

sis you know that bananas don’t reproduce in typical genetic fashion. Each one is actually a clone.
I read that in “The Fish that are the Whale”. It’s about Sam the Banana man aka Samuel Zamuri. His company was swallowed up by United Fruit but he ended up its CEO. He was from NOLA and his methods of taking out Governments in South America were adopted by the CIA. He was also Tulane’s biggest early supporter and his old home on St Charles was donated for the University President to live in.

all that from a poor Russian Jew who came here with nothing. Maybe the most fascinating BIO I have ever read.

have you ever tried to kill one? they are more than resilient than roaches.

 

[Absolutely Free]

The thing that is scary is that glyphosate is one of the safer registered pesticides out there. I don’t mean it’s safe, but is wildly considered “safer” than many other pesticides.

What this means is that the door is being flung wide open. All chemical manufacturers (even Bayer competitors) do not like what is happening. Because they know that if one of the “safer” molecules gets torn apart, than many other compounds are even more vulnerable.

Yeah it is exceptionally safe in the hands of professional applicators or heck even someone that will read the instructions and follow them or just has common sense.

From what I remember reading about the first California court win the man actually used a backpack sprayer that leaked all over him numerous times was not licensed to spray anything. Faulty equipment and no training employer should be who got sued not the product. Oh that is right he worked for a school district in California allowing him faulty equipment and no training what so ever.

The one case that was a couple with NHL that got a 2 billion dollar settlement was just plain stupid. NHL shows up after 60 normally they were both in the 70s when they got it. The odds of someone using glyphosate at their property once a month during the growing season would give you eight applications a year. Unless they had a farm or real acreage I don't buy it.

To put it into perspective I use less than a gallon at my property every four months. I mix a gallon at a time and use less than two gallons for the whole year.

Many other life factors contribute to non-Hodgkin lymphoma like the health of the people.


Now the next case against them is not in California. It should not be as easy of a win. The whole genetically modified food thing Monsanto did P'Oed all of the hippy dippy people off in California. I admit the whole thing was bad but they were already the devil before any cases started.

have you ever tried to kill one? they are more than resilient than roaches.

Ok here is how you do it.

Chop it down. As soon as you do take something and scoop a bit out of the center
and pour bleach in. Will die. Have about a 80 percent success rate doing it that way.

Or get pigs.

 

[zeetes]

Yeah it is exceptionally safe in the hands of professional applicators or heck even someone that will read the instructions and follow them or just has common sense.

From what I remember reading about the first California court win the man actually used a backpack sprayer that leaked all over him numerous times was not licensed to spray anything. Faulty equipment and no training employer should be who got sued not the product. Oh that is right he worked for a school district in California allowing him faulty equipment and no training what so ever.

The one case that was a couple with NHL that got a 2 billion dollar settlement was just plain stupid. NHL shows up after 60 normally they were both in the 70s when they got it. The odds of someone using glyphosate at their property once a month during the growing season would give you eight applications a year. Unless they had a farm or real acreage I don't buy it.

To put it into perspective I use less than a gallon at my property every four months. I mix a gallon at a time and use less than two gallons for the whole year.

Many other life factors contribute to non-Hodgkin lymphoma like the health of the people.


Now the next case against them is not in California. It should not be as easy of a win. The whole genetically modified food thing Monsanto did P'Oed all of the hippy dippy people off in California. I admit the whole thing was bad but they were already the devil before any cases started.



Ok here is how you do it.

Chop it down. As soon as you do take something and scoop a bit out of the center
and pour bleach in. Will die. Have about a 80 percent success rate doing it that way.

Or get pigs.

ooh will try this. have two more growing on the other side of the yard. thanks neighbour! butt crevasse refuses to do anything about them.

 

[St. Widge]

but it has electrolytes

It's what plants crave.

 

[zeetes]

It's what plants crave.

you can't replace though. if you do, most people will lose their jobs.

 

[Absolutely Free]

ooh will try this. have two more growing on the other side of the yard. thanks neighbour! butt crevasse refuses to do anything about them.

Works I swear.

I normally just put a paddle bit in the drill hog out a few inches and pour.

Just thank God you don't have my arse of a neighbor that planted bamboo where he did not have banana trees.

 

[zeetes]

Works I swear.

I normally just put a paddle bit in the drill hog out a few inches and pour.

Just thank God you don't have my arse of a neighbor that planted bamboo where he did not have banana trees.

double whammy. sorry bud.

 

[Turfie]

Yeah it is exceptionally safe in the hands of professional applicators or heck even someone that will read the instructions and follow them or just has common sense.

From what I remember reading about the first California court win the man actually used a backpack sprayer that leaked all over him numerous times was not licensed to spray anything. Faulty equipment and no training employer should be who got sued not the product. Oh that is right he worked for a school district in California allowing him faulty equipment and no training what so ever.

Another aspect to this was the guy rarely used Roundup. He admitted he used a generic brand on most occasions.

The generic companies have zero liability in all of this. Generics have such an easy path to registration. Minimal efficacy data requirements. They spend a fraction (and I mean a 0.001 fraction) on carrying out exotox trials. Do not spend millions on innovation. And they usually can get a generic on the shelf in less than 12 years as the original....as patents are filed years before they are brought to market.

And, they assume no liability when something like this happens.

There are benefits to society of having generics. Without a doubt. But me personally, I support Brand names that do the innovation when possible.

 

[Turfie]

Redirect Notice

www.google.ca

This is quite awkward all the way around. Bayer loses lawsuits because juries believe Bayer is responsible for the cancer.

Roundup cannot have a cancer warning because the Judge says there is no evidence to support that claim.

So how does a public Jury lend a guilty verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”? Or how does a Judge look at all evidence and say there is no scientific evidence?

It absolutely cannot be both.

 

[Absolutely Free]

Redirect Notice

www.google.ca

This is quite awkward all the way around. Bayer loses lawsuits because juries believe Bayer is responsible for the cancer.

Roundup cannot have a cancer warning because the Judge says there is no evidence to support that claim.

So how does a public Jury lend a guilty verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”? Or how does a Judge look at all evidence and say there is no scientific evidence?

It absolutely cannot be both.

The whole problem that they have is the GMO stuff made them the devil. A ton of it was just garbage that vilified them. The crap about shutting down farmers was blown way out of proportion. That tainted people in California.

Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted

We're putting a stop to some of the myths about genetically modified seeds and when farmers can be sued over them.

www.npr.org

The I will be the first to admit that glyphosate should not be sold the way it is or should require at least an online course to buy. But that should have been done long before now when everyone is making it.

Yes I am more than sure Monsanto did plenty to get it sold so freely. I am sure people were bought and paid for. They did themselves no favor by selling it with leaking crap Windex type of sprayer attached to the jug.

The key her still is if they actually loose a case out of California. I don't think they will. I am sure Bayer has real lawyers.

 

[Bayouboy]

At this time, glyphosate is not a known carcinogen (only suspected). How that jury awarded that huge settlement to one man that really did not use it for a long period of time is astounding to me. I'm sure at some point there will be enough data to say if it truly causes cancer or not......but my uneducated, somewhat biased opinion is it does not seem to be acutely toxic. I worked at Monsanto in the past and I worked side by side may guys that worked with concentrated product for 25 years with very little PPE. No dice. I realize this is a super small sample size, but if it were toxic enough, front line works at these type facilities would have a higher occurrence of that specific cancer. Again, this is not hard data.....only an observation at one facility. So don't shoot the messenger.

 

[St. Widge]

Redirect Notice

www.google.ca

This is quite awkward all the way around. Bayer loses lawsuits because juries believe Bayer is responsible for the cancer.

Roundup cannot have a cancer warning because the Judge says there is no evidence to support that claim.

So how does a public Jury lend a guilty verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”? Or how does a Judge look at all evidence and say there is no scientific evidence?

It absolutely cannot be both.

The civil jury standard is usually more likely than not (basically anything over 50%) in most jurisdictions. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal trials.

But juries are going to jury. Sometimes they just feel sympathy. Sometimes they just feel like someone has to pay and it might as well be some big faceless corporation who won't really be affected by losing that money anyway. And, sometimes they just go with their gut and ignore science. Science isn't exactly something that people seem to care much about these days.

That being said, if a Judge really found that there was no reliable scientific evidence linking Roundup to cancer then they likely would have granted a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and dismissed the case. But, I assume the Judge in the cases where Bayer was found liable thought that a reasonable juror could conclude that Roundup caused the cancer. The thing is, even if that's the case, that does not mean that another Judge won't look at the same evidence and find that it does not support the claim that Roundup causes cancer.

 

[St. Widge]

The whole problem that they have is the GMO stuff made them the devil. A ton of it was just garbage that vilified them. The crap about shutting down farmers was blown way out of proportion. That tainted people in California.

That's part of it. But, it's mostly that juries/people hate all corporations no matter who they are or how big they are in reality. The only thing they might hate more are insurance companies, which are generally corporations too. And, they figure the corporations can afford to pay for someone's damages even if they really aren't liable in that case because they are sure that they got away with not paying for other stuff that they actually did do. Despite what you see on TV, it is very difficult for a large corporation to win a products liability suit or any other suit for that matter.