Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

shava

(5 posts)
29. for more discussion on this on my G+
Sun May 5, 2013, 08:16 PM
May 2013
https://plus.google.com/101371184407256956306/posts/hHB4qJnYF3S

Not to draw people away to there necessarily, we can discuss it here.

I am a little concerned, though -- if there is a chance that these kids are right at all, it should be investigated. As I say there, when a friend said that he made sure to wash up after using and before eating when handling RoundUp:

===
Use in your driveway and on your sidewalk is the very least of your worries.

Roundup is mostly likely to come at you as a systemic in food that is resistant to it, where it's been broadcast in a field to kill weeds around the resistant crop.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

It's in the grains we eat, particularly, and there's no label requirement to divide GMO and non GMO cereals as they go into the food supply, although some suppliers at "health food" outlets voluntarily label that they don't accept GMO grains that are more likely to be "RoundUp Ready" GMO crops.

(This said, this is not an area I worry about, largely because I can't afford to at this point. Not only are these non-GMO grains expensive, but I'd have to give up every meat product and non-organic dairy product in my diet, as well as every non-organic sweetener, pretty much, too).

Can you say endemic, if this is a risk? DDT was the same. And DDT was created by people who were trying to solve world hunger. (And make money...) They weren't trying to kill all the birds and poison the water supply. They weren't trying to destroy the steppes in Asia and kill the Aral Sea forever. But that's what the Green Revolution did (that took nitrogen fertilizer and DDT and over-irrigation together).

They were just trying to save the world and make some pocket change...

RoundUp is just another artifact of the "green revolution" monoculture agriculture that keeps the current density of human life going on the planet. We are more talented than ants at keeping our hives/nests going.

Could it be a disaster? If it is, we might be afraid to find out. Because without it, we might be a billion or so over population cap. Wouldn't that be a drag?

It's freaking amazing how specialized we've gotten, and how we project that specialization into nature as we touch it as engineers and scientists.

If Heinlein said "Specialization is for insects," he really underestimated human technology, I think. We are so specialized that very very few modern people could survive a reasonable electrical downtime with a good camping kit, far less a Zombie (or any other) apocalypse of a season or more.

"Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Whatever. bunnies Apr 2013 #1
that study was also bogus.... mike_c Apr 2013 #2
Its a "personal bias" to say that poison is poison? bunnies Apr 2013 #5
it is when the actual evidence doesn't support that bias.... mike_c Apr 2013 #8
Its only called that by monsanto representatives socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #9
What about Monsanto's own studies, Mike? appal_jack Apr 2013 #20
oh no, it's well understood that self study is about as objective... mike_c Apr 2013 #22
I agree that most scientists are good, ethical people. appal_jack Apr 2013 #23
Xenoestrogens are known to be toxic BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #3
and yet folks doing bad science rely upon confirmation bias rather than... mike_c Apr 2013 #4
I'm not a chemist BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #6
The body produces the estrogens we need socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #10
You don't have to try to convince me xenoestrogens are horribly toxic BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #11
Just giving you more ammo for your arsenal to use against monsanto reps socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #12
More ammo is always good BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #13
The wealthy can afford organic, free range food. socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #19
No. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #15
K&R Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7
You have completely ignored the important part of that study. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #14
with all due respect... mike_c Apr 2013 #17
The academy protects its own shava May 2013 #24
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #25
long time listener first time caller shava May 2013 #27
We are glad you came aboard! hrmjustin May 2013 #28
for more discussion on this on my G+ shava May 2013 #29
this paper describes areas KT2000 Apr 2013 #16
Thanks, Mike. (And, TBH, I wish Mrs. Haspel could do a similar article on the AGW issue as well.) AverageJoe90 Apr 2013 #18
I don't like Monsanto's practices either, uriel1972 Apr 2013 #21
That is a reasonable Newest Reality May 2013 #26
I assume you have a plan to fund this then? shava May 2013 #30
I appreciate your Newest Reality May 2013 #31
When people respond to a news story, it's as though it weren't to a real situation shava May 2013 #32
Ok, then. Newest Reality May 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»condemning Monsanto with ...»Reply #29