# Love it: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Sometimes it takes time, but hopefully that sets an end to Glyphosate...and maybe breaks the neck of this genetic patent hog

other countries just ban this stuff...
https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/roundup-banned-netherlands-france-brazil-likely-soon-follow/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-use-of-agrochemical-glyphosate-idUSKBN1KR28Q

According to actual law, it should be banned until its safety its proven and not used until problem got detected...


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

the Big M is a monster they have done about everything companies shouldn't do and gotten away with it. In many countries they have tried to take over seed sales even offering to give hybrid seeds away no foreign farmers are taking them up on converting from heirloom to hybrid.


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

Meinecke said:


> Sometimes it takes time, but hopefully that sets an end to Glyphosate...and maybe breaks the neck of this genetic patent hog
> 
> other countries just ban this stuff...
> https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/roundup-banned-netherlands-france-brazil-likely-soon-follow/
> ...


I have used round up in Fl. Here in Mo. I use a used a different one in clearing some fence rows.


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

4tu said:


> the Big M is a monster they have done about everything companies shouldn't do and gotten away with it. In many countries they have tried to take over seed sales even offering to give hybrid seeds away no foreign farmers are taking them up on converting from heirloom to hybrid.


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

Just about all foreign countries use hybrid seeds. The use of hybrid seeds is growing the fastest in Africa and Asia. Ethiopian operatios are growing really fast just to name one in Africa. South America, Canada, Europe, etc. They are all using more and more hybrid. Why? Better seeds and more tons per acre.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

There's already been one thread on this that got bounced to the Twilight Zone.



Meinecke said:


> According to actual law, it should be banned until its safety its *proven* and not used until problem got detected...


This verdict doesn't prove anything other than juries can be manipulated.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

So does the bad side affects come from improper safety gear, improper application, improper application to food crops ? Or is the product just have high rates of bad side affects no matter how its used ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> So does the bad side affects come from improper safety gear, improper application, improper application to food crops ? Or is the product just have high rates of bad side affects no matter how its used ?


From what I have been able to discern glyphosate is non toxic to humans when used as directed. It's about as bad as pasteurized milk or getting a flu shot. There are those of course who beleive otherwise and will throw hissy fits at the mention of its name. I've yet to hear of any study done by anyone that shows it to be a carcinogen, or otherwise detrimental to anyone's health any more than common table salt or apple cider vinegar. What it has is a high rate of bad press by ill informed people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> So does the bad side affects come from improper safety gear, improper application, improper application to food crops ? Or is the product just have high rates of bad side affects no matter how its used ?


There's no real evidence of a "high rate of bad side effects".

There's mostly a lot of animosity directed at Monsanto based on half truths and misconceptions.

There are common things people eat every day that are more lethal than Glyphosate.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

There is a difference between hybrid seeds and GMO seeds.
Years before Monsanto started modfying seeds we used hybrid seeds and most garden seeds are yet non GMO and are hybrid.

Go ahead and keep useing that herbicide it won't KILL you. the cancer how ever will have a good chance of doing so.


 Al


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Worth repeating Alley "There is a difference between hybrid seeds and GMO seed"


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

alleyyooper said:


> There is a difference between hybrid seeds and GMO seeds.
> Years before Monsanto started modfying seeds we used hybrid seeds and most garden seeds are yet non GMO and are hybrid.
> 
> Go ahead and keep useing that herbicide it won't KILL you. the cancer how ever will have a good chance of doing so.
> ...


I am not a fan of huge corporations and would think that Bayer and Monsanto would go to great lengths to prove their product is safe. So who knows. This is not anything like tobacco industries who covered up documented science linking tobacco to cancer. Seems to be no studies showing a link between cancer and glyphosate. Some show possible links at high doses, but keep in mind California has shown the same for coffee. Which is still for sale in the state for some reason. Even in the recent Johnson case they did not prove a link from what I can read. 
Ok so how does it cause cancer. Inhaled, skin contact, oral by way of food eaten. Any links to studies? 

According to CNN, the suit was filed by Dewayne Johnson, a former groundskeeper for a school system near San Francisco. As part of his job, Johnson regularly used the popular herbicide and claimed that he suffered extensive exposure during two accidents within the past decade

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html?no-st=1533943866

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...verdict-against-maker-of-roundup-weed-killer/


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

If it wasn't for companies like Monsanto, things like genetic modification of seeds and products like roundup, we'd all be paying ten times more for our groceries and much of the world would still be starving because they couldn't afford food. A whole lot of misinformation and misinformed people arguing over stuff they know little about.

A family member recently told me .... "Roundup needs to be outlawed, people spray that stuff ll over their lawns and it's causing cancer". Had to inform him that if you sprayed roundup on your yard it would all be dead, but this is pretty typical of how informed people are about this subject.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

alleyyooper said:


> There is a difference between hybrid seeds and GMO seeds.
> Years before Monsanto started modfying seeds we used hybrid seeds and most garden seeds are yet non GMO and are hybrid.
> 
> Go ahead and keep useing that herbicide it won't KILL you. the cancer how ever will have a good chance of doing so.
> ...


Gotta link to any case or study that proves glyphosate has ever caused a single case of cancer?


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Funny how many here protect a product that is already in the food chain including these fish crackers etc.
It accumulates in every aspect of nature, creates, due to mis use (for example over spraying to dry corn crop for timed harvest) super weeds, is way overused and sprayed even from planes with no control of proper use, dosing or influencing "real nature".
This route leads to the same man made stupidity as antibiotics against everything, from a cold (virus driven and totally useless) to overdosing in livestock to prevent diseases and increase meat grows...creating super bacteria...
So everyone considering using it on his driveway or farm, should be better safe than sorry...so many chemicals were the hype and turned back on us like a plaque...especially the US is pretty in danger about it with a oil lobbyist in the EPA ceo chair who would sell the pain medicine from his hospitalized mother. 
@Fishindude: I am a chemist with biology as minor subject...i know what i am talking about. do u?


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Just as reminders...good old friends that were fought for being safe:
Asbestos, DDT, FCKW, Immunoprin, PCB


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Meinecke said:


> @Fishindude: I am a chemist with biology as minor subject...i know what i am talking about. do u?


Okay, you're a chemist, what's a better option for controlling weeds in large scale agriculture so we can feed the world and keep food cheap?

Monsanto and the other big guys know their stuff isn't perfect and they have huge research staffs on the payroll full time trying to constantly come up with better, cleaner, healthier stuff, but meanwhile Glysophate / Roundup is the best thing going and it's a huge improvement over weed control practices & chemicals used in the past. 

I don't get why people always want to condemn and demonize the big corporations when they lead the way in product innovation and employ millions of people in good jobs worldwide. It's people just like you and me that work for these companies and come up with these products and ideas.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

I know that the world is not perfect and that there is a dramatic need in improving several aspects of human outcome, but sticking to a more and more questioned product?
Decentralization of food production, common sense in grocery shopping (who "needs" Strawberries all year long), cooking from scratch and preventing food waste, would probably already compensate the losses in agriculture in the US due to going back to the other weed preventing techniques human kind knows since it get crop out of ground.
I don't try to demonize the big players in general, but at a certain size, most of them surprisingly start playing against us the consumer/people...and when they do, they have to go...and with M's practices around the world, it's time...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fishindude said:


> Okay, you're a chemist, what's a better option for controlling weeds in large scale agriculture so we can feed the world and keep food cheap?
> 
> Monsanto and the other big guys know their stuff isn't perfect and they have huge research staffs on the payroll full time trying to constantly come up with better, cleaner, healthier stuff, but meanwhile Glysophate / Roundup is the best thing going and it's a huge improvement over weed control practices & chemicals used in the past.
> 
> I don't get why people always want to condemn and demonize the big corporations when they lead the way in product innovation and employ millions of people in good jobs worldwide. It's people just like you and me that work for these companies and come up with these products and ideas.


What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so causes cancer?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

4tu said:


> the Big M is a monster they have done about everything companies shouldn't do and gotten away with it. In many countries they have tried to take over seed sales even offering to give hybrid seeds away no foreign farmers are taking them up on converting from heirloom to hybrid.


Not really. Monsanto has defended themselves in court. Many countries give away samples. There is no conspiracy just because you want to expand your market. Many farmers, worldwide, have accepted hybrids.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> So does the bad side affects come from improper safety gear, improper application, improper application to food crops ? Or is the product just have high rates of bad side affects no matter how its used ?


Pretty much none of the above.
Roundup has a very low toxicity rate. There are no peer reviewed studies that show Roundup to cause cancers, of any type. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies that show Roundup does not cause cancer. All application of herbicides require safe handling and proper gear to keep it off your skin and spread in a safe way.
Roundup breaks down on contact with dirt. Roundup cannot get inside fruits and vegetables. Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in the world, due to the fact that it is so safe and effective.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Sorry in my post I used hybrid and not GMO as been posted this was a mistake on my part I got to typing and used the wrong term. 

Here is the problem GMO do not reproduce from seeds of the plant so you have to buy new seed every year. Considering a world wide problem like a geological event or some genetically engineered plant disease wipes out a GMO plant species and we do not have enough hybrid or heir loom seeds to seed the world we have a problem.

Monsanto has sued a lot of people and put them out of business and want to eliminate hybrid and heirloom seeds the proof is in one of the court cases where a farmer complained that one of their test fields crossed with his crop and it is plain in legal documents that test fields are to be contained to not allow crossing with our food and farmers crops but they won and sued the farmer out of business, Another case is where a farmer had a seed business and would take his machine and scale seeds from your crop for your next years planting he did this on another farm that had crossed with Monsanto GMO and was promptly sued even though the seed would not have germinated and grown and lost his business and right to glean seed -- And what common farmer has the money to fight a multinational conglomerate that has lobbyists and billions of dollars to effect courts and governments.

There is a natural way to kill unwanted plants but it is not legal because of stupid laws and it kills by coating the leaves, wind drift is not near as bad because if the leaf is not coated the plant can still survive not to with a defoliant very little can kill and further away even up to another's farm depends on saturation strength and wind of course.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Meinecke said:


> I don't try to demonize the big players in general, but at a certain size, most of them surprisingly start playing against us the consumer/people...and when they do, they have to go...and with M's practices around the world, it's time...


But you don't demonize big players in general?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so causes cancer?


I've yet to hear from any reputable science that roundup or gmo products cause cancer. Perhaps you have a source?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> Here is the problem GMO do not reproduce from seeds of the plant so you have to buy new seed every year.


The plants produce viable seeds.
It's contractual agreements that keep farmers from saving seeds to replant.



> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so causes cancer?


It doesn't.
Drunks kill more people than Roundup and "assault weapons".


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

You want a soursce that round up does cause cancer. 
*Show me a study done by some other than monsanto that it doesn't.*

How many years did it take to convince people that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and second hand smoke causes cancer.

Fine by me if you want to stick your head in the sand and spray that crap all over the place, Your place. Mine stays round up free, and GMO as much as I can keep it.

 Al


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

What I can't abide is Monsanto want's to control the entire industry, can anyone think that that is good diversification in everything but our seed source, that is crazy town.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

One of the after effects of being a debate coach is seeing the flaws in arguments. 

1. If applied correctly, Round Up is not “sprayed all over the place.”

2. Research is just like statistics. (Lies, [email protected] lies, and statistics)You can find a study that will show up what you want. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...isrupt-microbiome-at-safe-levels-study-claims

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10854122/


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

And, thus, we arrive at the point that we admit that it has been argued ad nauseum. 

There is no rock solid answer yet.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

alleyyooper said:


> You want a soursce that round up does cause cancer.
> *Show me a study done by some other than monsanto that it doesn't.*
> 
> How many years did it take to convince people that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and second hand smoke causes cancer.
> ...


But the studies showed that tobacco caused cancer. The problem is the big tobacco corps knew that tobacco caused cancer and covered up that information. I have little doubt that a company such as Monsanto is above doing the same, just suspect that there is enough legal wiggle room for them to stay legal. 

So I am curious if there are studies showing glyphosate causes cancer ? I think studies could be covered up. I also think with todays technology that doing so would be much harder to do now compared to a few decades ago. I am not a chemical or genetic or pretty much any kind of certified expert but I can read and with what is available I have not found any cancer causing studies.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> One of the after effects of being a debate coach is seeing the flaws in arguments.
> 
> 1. If applied correctly, Round Up is not “sprayed all over the place.”
> 
> ...


Interesting read, thanks for the information


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

life causes cancer if your genetically disposed to having cancer. but enough testing on things like tobacco shows it doesn't help apparently talcum powder in certain areas causes cancer in women that should end the argument in sexual assignment or identity issues -- but it won't 

Anything petroleum based in enough concentration or contact can cause cancer many chemicals and metals can.
All I know is if a group of people that do not use a product do not get certain cancers at a specific number per 1,000 and a group that does use it has a significantly higher rate we have a culprit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> What I can't abide is Monsanto want's to control the entire industry


Monsanto no longer exists.
They only wanted to control the products they patented, just like all other companies do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> So I am curious if there are studies showing glyphosate causes cancer ?


There are studies that make the claim, but the data is not always presented or the methods are flawed.

One the anti-Monsanto crowd love to bring up is Seralini's rats.

What they fail to acknowledge is that breed is prone to tumors and his own study showed the control group had as many as the group fed enormous amounts of Glyphosate that would never be found under normal circumstances.

Reality is cancer rates have gone down since the introduction of GMO foods, and Glyphosate is exponentially more benign than the chemicals it replaces.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Aaaaaaand, another thought. 

What if it isn’t a single agent cause?

Ex: Round Up may not cause cancer, but contact with Round Up on the same day you drink a Big Red cola does.

Repeated exposure to Round Up and consumption of Cheetos and applying too much hair spray. 

Round Up, Vicks Vaporub, and Jello. 

Round Up, a vegan diet, and consumption of moonshine on Thursday nights. 

Which combinations should we test?


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Grown ups in an appeals court will review this and calm will prevail in the end. Monsanto will not end up being responsible for the misuse of the product. If you hate chemicals then I pray yiou can get by without eating a lot in the future.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

While I am highly biased and believe Monsanto is the devil, I use roundup. I treat it like the deadly chemical it is and suffer no more than scientists who work with deadly chemicals all the time because they treat it with the proper respect it deserves.


Now if chemicals they produce are killing off the bee population and those franken seeds are safe is another entire subject that will probably have no real answers for years to come...……..since the Genetically modified seeds have not had time to see exactly how the rest of the plants react or what 60 years of human consumption of them will yield.


Plants and animals have adapted over a long period, it will take a long period to see what these changes to the plants will cause if anything......all answers for or against are pure speculation since it takes time to see what actually happens.

I don't believe it will kill of life on earth, just like I don't believe they are perfectly safe...….we lived in a closed biosphere, a pretty big one, and no changes can be made without reactions.....some almost unmeasurable and some earth changing, only time will tell what these modifications will do.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so causes cancer?


I don't believe that any study has conclusively shown that Glysophate does cause cancer but if you're advocating for it to be eliminated, you're likely to see yields decline and grocery prices spike. 

Can our nations most poor afford a steep increase in grocery prices?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Which combinations should we test?


There's always room for Jello.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Funny! I don’t eat Jello. Nasty fake food.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Funny! I don’t eat Jello. Nasty fake food.


Jello is the best way I know of to eat hides and bones


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

If you don’t mind a boat load of sugar, artificial color, and artificial flavor.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Lard had been vindicated. Not so much cocaine.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Of course the nations poorest will be able to afford food. After all it is the working tax paying citzens who buy their food.

I also do not believe for one minute getting rid of round up will cause a decline in crop production yeilds nor a spike in food cost.

What you may see is even narrower rows of soy beans and corn.

Just the same we know that monsanto owns a huge amount of polititions in both parties.

 Al


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

alleyyooper said:


> *I also do not believe* for one minute getting rid of round up will cause a decline in crop production yeilds nor a spike in food cost.


Facts don't require total belief to be real.
Without Glyphosate and GMO crops, production costs would go up and yields would go down.
Those are the main reasons for their use.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

alleyyooper said:


> Of course the nations poorest will be able to afford food. After all it is the working tax paying citzens who buy their food.
> 
> I also do not believe for one minute getting rid of round up will cause a decline in crop production yeilds nor a spike in food cost.
> 
> ...


Can you explain why yields are higher now that they were for our grandparents?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Hybrid plant varieties. 
Petroleum based fertilizer. 
Better weed control. 
Better insect control.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

alleyyooper said:


> I also do not believe for one minute getting rid of round up will cause a decline in crop production yeilds nor a spike in food cost.
> 
> What you may see is even narrower rows of soy beans and corn.


Do you realize you answered your own statement? By using Roundup, weeds are controlled and repeated cultivations not required. It is the use of Roundup that has allowed the narrowing of rows. The row spacing was for cultivation.
Each year, millions of tons of top soil were washed or blown away, due to repeated cultivations. Use of Roundup permitted "no Till" methods, reducing erosion, reducing fuel use.
In a Capitalist society, supply and demand are truths. Every reduction of supply causes an increase in cost. How many bushels of corn with 30 inch rows vs 15 inch rows? Opening up fields to wide open cultivation paths will slash yields.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I don't believe that any study has conclusively shown that Glysophate does cause cancer but if you're advocating for it to be eliminated, you're likely to see yields decline and grocery prices spike.
> 
> Can our nations most poor afford a steep increase in grocery prices?


This is what I said:


Irish Pixie said:


> What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so causes cancer?


Apparently I didn't word my post correctly. I meant IF the glysophate causes cancer there is no point in keeping food cheap. I should have said this: What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so _could_ cause cancer? 

There has been absolutely no conclusive proof either way if Roundup causes cancer, if may or may not. The only fact is that a jury, based on information it received, did decide it caused cancer in Dewayne Johnson.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Kids safety first...
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3QlU9VKhhE

Problem these days with all the lobbies paying the politicians...
When it does bring profit, they WILL hide it from you and WILL sell it to you and even LIE to you until it is not longer possible to hide and then they do something about it.
So our mission as citizens MUST be to look on the fingers of our "Leaders"...cause they are only interested on the next election, their benefit and future outcome.
Anyone thinking more romantic towards top politicians is blindfolded in my opinion...
So i am still happy that something is getting done.
The odds that this product does harm are high, so i dont want it in my food, garden or surrounding.
Hope California stays the bright lighthouse/fortress of common sense


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Just another piece of information 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/glyphosate-oat-products-ewg-study/index.html


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only fact is that a jury, based on information it received, did decide it caused cancer in Dewayne Johnson.


 That's a whole nuther can of worms.....lets just say from first hand experience, I will never serve on a jury......the limiting of facts to the jury is sickening when you find out later some one you convicted that you would have not convicted had you known all the facts.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> That's a whole nuther can of worms.....lets just say from first hand experience, I will never serve on a jury......the limiting of facts to the jury is sickening when you find out later some one you convicted that you would have not convicted had you known all the facts.


It's still the only fact we have, correct?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still the only fact we have, correct?


They ruled to award a bunch of money to his estate based upon whatever facts and fictions were presented to them. Or perhaps they just saw an opportunity to make some wealthy company cough up some of their "Ill gotten" gain. It might surprise some that there are lots of folks that really don't like wealth.... If it's in other people's pockets.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

rural king has a pretty good price on the 15gal barrel. 
https://www.ruralking.com/drexel-glyphosate-41plus-15-gallon-barrel


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only fact is that a jury, based on information it received, did decide *it caused cancer* in Dewayne Johnson.


That's not what they decided at all.

I'm not sure why you think repeating it will make it so when it was stated and refuted earlier. (By your own source.)



> “While it's impossible to prove Roundup caused Johnson's terminal illness, it's also impossible for Monsanto to prove Roundup did not cause his cancer.”
> 
> “But that doesn't mean Johnson's team had to prove Roundup was the sole cause of his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
> *
> The question was whether Roundup was a "substantial contributing factor" to Johnson's illness.*”





Irish Pixie said:


> It's still the only fact we have, correct?


Incorrect, still.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I recommend you watch BULL, the television show. It will enlighten you about jury manipulation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Real life jury manipulation (as opposed to a fictionalized TV show) or not, the only proven fact in this matter is that the jury found in favor of Dewayne Johnson in the trial.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

M5farm said:


> rural king has a pretty good price on the 15gal barrel.
> https://www.ruralking.com/drexel-glyphosate-41plus-15-gallon-barrel


That's good to know!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Real life jury manipulation (as opposed to a fictionalized TV show) or not, the only proven fact in this matter is that the jury found in favor of Dewayne Johnson in the trial.


Exactly! And we all know that jury's are not made up of people who specialize in scientific studies. They are usually just regular folks. Many of whom rely heavily upon emotions in their decision making. Therefor we can conclude this ruling does not provide any evidence one way or the other as to the hazards, or safety, of glyphosate. So far as near as I can tell the score is something like 800 scientific studies say it's about as hazardous as table salt to 0 studies saying it will kill people on contact.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I'd have to say that juror expertise rates right up there in the rarefied air with forum know-it-alls.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! And we all know that jury's are not made up of people who specialize in scientific studies. They are usually just regular folks. Many of whom rely heavily upon emotions in their decision making. Therefor we can conclude this ruling does not provide any evidence one way or the other as to the hazards, or safety, of glyphosate. So far as near as I can tell the score is something like 800 scientific studies say it's about as hazardous as table salt to 0 studies saying it will kill people on contact.


You are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.


Also true, but at this point I am going with the several hundred peer reviewed scientific studies rather than the wailing and moaning of a handful of anti big ag, big business, individuals.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! And we all know that jury's are not made up of people who specialize in scientific studies. They are usually just regular folks. Many of whom rely heavily upon emotions in their decision making. Therefor we can conclude this ruling does not provide any evidence one way or the other as to the hazards, or safety, of glyphosate. So far as near as I can tell the score is something like 800 scientific studies say it's about as hazardous as table salt to 0 studies saying it will kill people on contact.


Juror #4 is my personal favorite...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Your google not working? Try glysophate cancer studies. I find quite a few, heres a couple links.
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/roundup-cancer-study/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
https://www.collective-evolution.co...g-study-links-monsantos-glyphosate-to-cancer/

I could keep posting links. However, by your statement about 800 studies saying it's safe, vs zero saying it will kill on contact, that's just an oversimplification to enable you to continue intentionally spreading false information. Which you, and everybody else knows. Nobody ever said it would kill on contact. Furthermore, nobody has ever said "safe as table salt"(except the highly scientific and much quoted yvonnes hubby study).

I use roundup, but not in my coffee. There's a world of difference between using common sense and being a fool.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Also true, but at this point I am going with the several hundred peer reviewed scientific studies rather than the wailing and moaning of a handful of anti big ag, big business, individuals.


You can have any opinion you wish, but you do understand that the jury (which is part of our official legal system) found in favor of Mr. Johnson in his lawsuit, correct?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Clem said:


> Furthermore, nobody has ever said "safe as table salt"(except the highly scientific and much quoted yvonnes hubby study).


Table salt is much more toxic.
Look up the LD 50 numbers


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You can have any opinion you wish, but you do understand that the jury (which is part of our official legal system) found in favor of Mr. Johnson in his lawsuit, correct?


No matter how many times you repeat the obvious, it won't amount to proof Glyphosate causes cancer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Clem said:


> I could keep posting links.


Your source says the jury got it wrong:



> Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects *only* in human hormone-dependent breast cancer.


I don't think you read them before you posted them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You can have any opinion you wish, but you do understand that the jury (which is part of our official legal system) found in favor of Mr. Johnson in his lawsuit, correct?


Yep, pretty sure I stated that already.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is exactly what I said:
> 
> The link in the original post confirms that the jury in the Dewayne Johnson trial found in favor of Mr. Johnson. So I'm confused, are you saying that Mr. Johnson didn't win his lawsuit? Do you have a link?


I'm also confused as to your position. We are all aware that the jury found in favor of Mr. Johnson, although I'm very sure that an appeal will be filed shortly but it seems a bit pointless to repeat the jury's findings if you have no opinion to offer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm also confused as to your position. IWe are all aware that the jury found in favor of Mr. Johnson, although I'm very sure that an appeal will be filed shortly but it seems a bit pointless to repeat the jury's findings if you have no opinion to offer.


My point is, and always was, that it's the only fact we have. There are no studies that conclusively prove or disprove that Roundup causes cancer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> My point is, and *always was*, that it's the only fact we have. There are no studies that conclusively prove or disprove that Roundup causes cancer.


Always was?
LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Out and out trolling now?


It was a simple question.
Your statement keeps changing.

If you think it's "trolling", put me on ignore.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was a simple question.
> Your statement keeps changing.
> .
> If you think it's "trolling", put me on ignore.


Please quote which post I said that Roundup either causes or doesn't cause cancer or admit your lying/trolling. I never did, because there is no proof one way or the other. The only fact in this case is that the jury found for Dewayne Johnson. Period.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> My point is, and always was, that it's the only fact we have. There are no studies that conclusively prove or disprove that Roundup causes cancer.


Is there any way to conclusively prove or disprove that anything is 100% safe? We can prove that something is generally safe but I don't feel there are many guarantees in life. 

Studies have shown that penicillin and dissolving stitches are fairly safe but my own studies have proven that both will kill me. Should both be discontinued because they may cause problems for some?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Is there any way to conclusively prove or disprove that anything is 100% safe? We can prove that something is generally safe but I don't feel there are many guarantees in life.
> 
> Studies have shown that penicillin and dissolving stitches are fairly safe but my own studies have proven that both will kill me. Should both be discontinued because they may cause problems for some?


It's not up to me, is it? I'm not nit picking or splitting hairs, or going off on tangents, there is no proof that Roundup either causes or doesn't cause cancer, the only proof in this case is that the jury found for Dewayne Johnson. Period. Everyone has an opinion, you are entitled to yours just as everyone else is.

I'm still entitled to an opinion, aren't I? I've explained mine thoroughly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please quote which post I said that Roundup either causes or doesn't cause cancer


I already did once. You're playing the word games again.
But *only* *because you asked* nicely I'll show them one more time.



Irish Pixie said:


> What's the point in keeping food cheap if the means to do so causes cancer?





> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> The only fact is that a jury, based on information it received, did decide it caused cancer in Dewayne Johnson.


You also said earlier you were done with me *for the day*, but that's a different topic.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already did once. You're playing the word games again.
> But *only* *because you asked* nicely I'll show them one more time.
> 
> You also said earlier you were done with me *for the day*, but that's a different topic.


Thank you for your opinion, and your creative posts.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

The jury provided a verdict. That is nothing like ''proof''. Actually it is just the ''opinion'' of that group (jury) of people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for your opinion, and your *creative posts.*


LOL
If you say so.
That's just an easy way to avoid reality.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Wanda said:


> The jury provided a verdict. That is nothing like ''proof''. Actually it is just the ''opinion'' of that group (jury) of people.


The only concrete information we have, disregard the word "proof" if you don't like it , is that the jury found for Dewayne Johnson. The verdict can be appealed, and it will be, but right now based on the information the only proof we have is that a jury (a part of our legal system) found for Dewayne Johnson. 

That's what I've saying for this entire thread.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Not proof. A trial result is NEVER proof. 

Witch trials, anyone?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Not proof. A trial result is NEVER proof.
> 
> Witch trials, anyone?


Ok. Fine. Concrete information, use whatever word that makes you happy. The jury found for Dewayne Johnson, correct? You said yourself: 


Alice In TX/MO said:


> And, thus, we arrive at the point that we admit that it has been argued ad nauseum.
> 
> There is no rock solid answer yet.


Correct?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Yes. Exactly. 

But words mean things. 

A court decision isn’t proof. You can nit pick it to freaking death if you want. But it isn’t proof. 

It isn’t what makes me happy. It is the FACTS. 

You live to and love to play word games. 

For me, words are like numbers. Use them correctly or you fail the test. 

BLESS YOUR HEART.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Yes. Exactly.
> 
> But words mean things.
> 
> ...


I never said that the court decision was proof of anything. I said the only "concrete information" was that the jury found in Dewayne Johnson's favor.

The "bless your heart" was beneath you and very disappointing.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I use “bless your heart” for humorous effect. Daily.

How about this?

Not all posts are directed at you.

(But this one is.)


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I leave this place for a few days and this is what I come back to....

Roundup is not a carcinogen. There is over a decade of research on the subject. I suppose if you drank it out of the bottle or bathed in it daily, you might come up with some deleterious effect. But, it isn't toxic when used properly. Do any of you that think it is the spawn of the devil know what was used prior to it and how persistent and toxic those herbicides were?

It isn't really even debatable by anyone even moderately informed. Is this really where you want to stake your credibility?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not up to me, is it? I'm not nit picking or splitting hairs, or going off on tangents, there is no proof that Roundup either causes or doesn't cause cancer, the only proof in this case is that the jury found for Dewayne Johnson. Period. Everyone has an opinion, you are entitled to yours just as everyone else is.
> 
> I'm still entitled to an opinion, aren't I? I've explained mine thoroughly.


Of course you are. I’m just trying to understand your opinion.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Meinecke said:


> Hope California stays the bright lighthouse/fortress of common sense


Harhar.
When we are finished with Roundup, I know where there are some witches that need burning....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Just another piece of information
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/glyphosate-oat-products-ewg-study/index.html


Who the heck are "Environmental Working Group"? Perhaps I'll form a group, Tubers United and write a report on potatoes, related to poisonous nightshade, causes cancer. Looks like CNN will buy my report. Perhaps I need to link Or-Ida hash browns to get the "big business is the root of all evil" angle?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.



A room full of confused people coming to the same conclusion does not make it correct or the facts.....it just means they all agreed....right or wrong, fact or fiction. Which ironically has no bearing on the reality or true nature of what they ruled on.


What they did was create their own reality by everyone coming to a agreement ……….which is a very common thing nowadays.


Thousands of people agreed the earth was flat at one time....does not make them right or it the truth or a reality. They simply created their own reality...……..


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Harhar.
> When we are finished with Roundup, I know where there are some witches that need burning....


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Just remember a jury is a bunch of folks that were not smart enough to get out of the duty. Punch line from a joke I read recently but perhaps a bit truthful.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Just remember a jury is a bunch of folks that were not smart enough to get out of the duty. Punch line from a joke I read recently but perhaps a bit truthful.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wanda said:


> The jury provided a verdict. That is nothing like ''proof''. Actually it is just the ''opinion'' of that group (jury) of people.


Right, based on feelings, empathy, sympathy and emotion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Sure tanked my Bayer stock. Time to buy more I guess


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Right, based on feelings, empathy, sympathy and emotion.


Yet our right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution. 

If we're down to arguing how stupid jurists are because they couldn't get out of jury duty, intelligent debate is over.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Of course you are. I’m just trying to understand your opinion.


You aren't the only one.

There are a few members that have opinions, sometimes obvious, but will go to great lengths not to put it in plain English.
I think they are just too afraid of criticism. Of course they have the right to refuse to state whether they agree with a decision, but it seems useless to me to debate an issue and not make it clear whether you agree or not.
Then again, I'm not afraid of criticism........sometimes it's a good thing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> If we're down to arguing how stupid jurists are because they couldn't get out of jury duty, intelligent debate is over.


thanks, I've served on numerous jury's over the years. Have never doubted my intelligence, glad to hear you don't either!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If we're down to arguing how stupid jurists are because they couldn't get out of jury duty, intelligent debate is over.


Geeze,it was a joke. An old one at that. But the fact remains that lots of people don't want the disruption of jury duty and try to avoid it. Another fact is that juries get it wrong sometimes. A bloody glove, stored in evidence for a few months will not fit over the owner's hand if he is wearing a latex glove. But a jury was either mislead or too stupid to figure that out. OJ walked.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet our right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution.
> 
> If we're down to arguing how stupid jurists are because they couldn't get out of jury duty, intelligent debate is over.


I ain’t arguing. You are. 

See what you did? Now I am arguing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> If we're down to arguing how stupid jurists are because they couldn't get out of jury duty, *intelligent debate is over*.


I'm pretty sure it was over for some long before then.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Geeze,it was a joke. An old one at that. But the fact remains that lots of people don't want the disruption of jury duty and try to avoid it. Another fact is that juries get it wrong sometimes. A bloody glove, stored in evidence for a few months will not fit over the owner's hand if he is wearing a latex glove. But a jury was either mislead or too stupid to figure that out. OJ walked.


Juries have made some pretty controversial decisions over the years. OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, Michael Jackson would be a few examples of jury decisions that some people feel are wrong and the recent Cosby trial would be an example of an emotionally based jury decision.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Geeze,it was a joke. An old one at that. But the fact remains that lots of people don't want the disruption of jury duty and try to avoid it. Another fact is that juries get it wrong sometimes. A bloody glove, stored in evidence for a few months will not fit over the owner's hand if he is wearing a latex glove. But a jury was either mislead or too stupid to figure that out. OJ walked.


Juries have made some pretty controversial decisions over the years. OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, Michael Jackson would be a few examples of jury decisions that some people feel are wrong. 

The recent Cosby trial would be an example of an emotionally based jury decision. I've yet to find any discussion of scientific evidence presented and believe it was based solely on witness testimony.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The "bless your heart" was beneath you and very disappointing.


Thank you for such a thoughtful and creative response.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Thank you for such a thoughtful and creative response.


Thank you so much, such a sweet post! It's been said that imitation is the most sincere type of flattery.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you so much, such a sweet post! It's been said that imitation is the most sincere type of flattery.


It wasn't "imitation".
It was an example.

You've proven the point it made, and continue to do so.
No surprises there.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wasn't "imitation".
> It was an example.
> 
> You've proven the point it made, and continue to do so.
> No surprises there.


I :heart: this post. Truly. Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DBAT is what WoolyFace would advise.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I am confused.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Woolyface?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Woolyface?


He used to be a member here.
His words of wisdom were "DBAT"


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I use Glyphosate and have no problem with it at all, but don't be surprised if it gets banned. I doubt Monsanto would even care and may even be working to ban it behind the scene. I've seen this charade played out before with chemicals. Look back at Chlordane. Millions of homes treated with it for Termites. It was a real profitable chemical for the manufacturer. That is, until the patent expired and other companies started making and selling it at a fraction of the cost. Eventually it was banned and, PRESTO, the company that invented Chlordane just happened to have a newer and safer chemical to kill Termites. Of course it was patented and 5 times more expensive. I guarantee Monsanto has a "newer and safer" weed killer already in the works but there is no reason to bring it to market as long as Glyphosate is still available cheaply. The same thing is now setting up with Fipronil, the active ingredient in Termidor, the largest selling Termite chemical by a landslide. It works great and has a proven safety record. Alas, the patent expired and other companies are now making and selling it at half the cost. Already some are saying it isn't safe after all. The cycle will repeat. Ban it eventually and a newer and safer product will be waiting in the wings, but the new product will be several times more expensive.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

From personal experience I was wearing shorts and it made my skin burn and the sun was not out (overcast) since that time I suited up and had to get it done early or be out in 100 degree heat.

It has been found in all our food grains and even in meat and no mater what anyone says that is not good, ine of the varieties of corn by Monsanto is immune to glycophosphate now that would not be a problem as long as the farmers did not use it between rows while the crop is growing, many pesticides warn against using after the bloom because it goes into the fruit or vegetable via the stem or blossom end. 

the fact is science knows that using human manure is not safe and it is not just ecoli it is the infusion of drugs that people take and many can be taken in with water the plant absorbs water and the minerals (drugs) as well. Although human waste farms hold it on fields for I think it is 2 years and turn it so that sun UV light wind water and natural decay can limit the Ecoli and other detrimental elements, but have still found an alarming amounts of drugs still in the soil.

Someone posted that Monsanto no longer exists, that is a corporate shell game one buys another company and it is split by another conglomerate or multinational, that is a legal obfuscation to limit liability a small change to the formulation and it is now NOT roundup it it X so now a whole new case and years of safety from law suits and the shell game starts over again.

Howard Hughes was the connoisseur of the corporate shell game it took a investigative journalist a long time to learn how he hid huge divisions of aircraft and space engineering companies from his name in the U.S. and Europe that's when the Glomar Explorer was found to be not a government ship but a private salvage and subsea exploration vessel owned by Howard Hughes working under government contract. The reason why was to cloud the salvaging of Soviet sub and an intact nuke as well as code books and that cost a whopping 800,000,000 mil.

Sorry I know enough have a decent memory and people can call me a troll or a Internet Einstein but I am not fooled by hide the weenie antics of the corporate world. How these companies are caught is internal memos and cross chatter documents, so they expose themselves after trying to hide evidence some of it is internal leaks of whistle blowers or people would be dying with no help and never knowing why. Consider Asbestos that was a corporate secret for decades Agent Orange a defoliant and roundup is a defoliant. how similar I do not know. I do know that concentrated chemicals are called by different names in their diluted state they are used in homes as cleaning agents and insecticides concentrated they are chemical weapons and that is fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> It has been found in all our food grains and even in meat and no mater what anyone says that is not good, *ine of the varieties of corn by Monsanto is immune to glycophosphate *now that would not be a problem as long as the farmers did not use it between rows while the crop is growing, many pesticides warn against using after the bloom because it goes into the fruit or vegetable via the stem or blossom end.


I don't think you really know what you're saying.



4tu said:


> Consider Asbestos that was a corporate secret for decades Agent Orange a defoliant and roundup is a defoliant. *how similar I do not know*.


Now I'm even more certain you don't.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

[email protected] spraying chemicals in shorts...…….


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

"Always read and follow label directions......"



> *READ THE LABEL.
> HEED THE LABEL.*
> First things first — when you use any Roundup® Weed & Grass Killer product, you should *start by reading the label*.
> 
> ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

4tu said:


> Consider Asbestos that was a corporate secret for decades Agent Orange a defoliant and roundup is a defoliant. how similar I do not know. I do know that concentrated chemicals are called by different names in their diluted state they are used in homes as cleaning agents and insecticides concentrated they are chemical weapons and that is fact.


Gosh, a little information can be dangerous. If I thought it would help, I'd spend some time straightening out your mistaken beliefs, but I know it won't.
Agent Orange was developed by the government and produced under contract by several chemical companies, Bayer, Monsanto and Dow Chemical. It is a mix of 2,4D and 2,4,5T. It is very safe and commonly used today. However, when made to government spec, a byproduct was produced, dioxin. Dioxin is deadly. Roundup works differently than either parts of Agent Orange. Often, 2,4D is added to Roundup for more complete weed control.
You and eleven other mixed up souls and we'd have a jury.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

4tu said:


> Sorry I know enough have a decent memory and people can call me a troll or a Internet Einstein but I am not fooled by hide the weenie antics of the corporate world. How these companies are caught is internal memos and cross chatter documents, so they expose themselves after trying to hide evidence some of it is internal leaks of whistle blowers or people would be dying with no help and never knowing why. *Consider Asbestos that was a corporate secret for decades Agent Orange a defoliant and roundup is a defoliant. how similar I do not know.*


They are not remotely the same. Agent Orange was a mixture of 2,4,D and 2,4,5,T. 2,4,D is still in use and readily available. 2,4,5,T is generally banned around the world for causing cancer. 2,4,5,T was contaminated with Dioxin ( a known carcinogen ) during manufacture. Glyphosate is an entirely different chemical and works differently. IIRC, 2,4,D and 2,4,5,T contain a phosphorus molecule while Glyphosate carries a chlorine molecule, for one difference.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

There are chemical phobes out there who will never be content as long as chemicals are produced. They fail to realize how their lives would be different without chemicals. Less food available for one. No or very few medicines for another.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Our lives ARE chemicals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Our lives ARE chemicals.


That sounds like something from the 70's
"Better living through chemistry"


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I am a carbon based life form. My body is primarily hydrogen and oxygen.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

hey if your doing a 20 foot run you should not have to suit up lie your leaving the capsule in a space walk. especially when using a targeted stream in a no wind situation. I do wear mask hood and gloves and these are kept for that use only once this get on your pants you cannot wash them in your washing machine if you do not use coated gloves if they get coated your in contact and as you sweat it's applied to your skin, and until you wash it with a proper cleaner is will enter your bloodstream. We know this from the almost 100 years of incidents of pesticide and herbicide use enough concentration is like encountering a nerve agent because many of the individual chemicals are used in concentrated forms as agents.

You both so a disservice to people by not mentioning that these chemicals are dangerous and you cannot be in contact with your children if you have it on your clothing cannot even be outside when spraying and never allowed to play where it is applied as it last months and dew or rain reactivates it. Consider as well animals including house pets wandering into the areas and children cuddle and touch them.

I will say it a second time "you cannot wash clothing in a family washer these chemicals do not go away". if it's in the washer it's on any other clothing washed in it. 

Your not only misinformed your both failing to accept that both companies have internal documents just like the tobacco companies, that shows their products cause illness and death with log term exposure. It is fact because their documents say it does, independent labs prove it and with skin cancers, mesophilioma, lung heart and other organ damage. 

my world like many is hectic and you try to get it all done when you can in the case where my skin burned I applied it in the expansion joint of my drive before I had to run to a appointment, had it been windy or in a spay bottle I would not have used this in that way it was in a wand sprayer more able to direct the stream.

Attacking me personally in no way lessens the danger of these products to the user or the families just like second had smoke is bad those that wash, clean iron fold clothing are at risk for long term contact, or the fact that there are other safer products that could have been or could be used. I think your both fools for making this an attack on me and ignoring the empirical data that dangers exist beyond the users at application point having a monochromatic view endangers people who are newly coming into rural living where many of these chemicals are in use and advised for use by home improvement stores and readily available that was allowed because these chemicals were excluded by name due to lobbyists but insecticides where on restricted lists where only licensed individuals could buy and apply them.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

haypoint said:


> Gosh, a little information can be dangerous. If I thought it would help, I'd spend some time straightening out your mistaken beliefs, but I know it won't.
> Agent Orange was developed by the government and produced under contract by several chemical companies, Bayer, Monsanto and Dow Chemical. It is a mix of 2,4D and 2,4,5T. It is very safe and commonly used today. However, when made to government spec, a byproduct was produced, dioxin. Dioxin is deadly. Roundup works differently than either parts of Agent Orange. Often, 2,4D is added to Roundup for more complete weed control.
> You and eleven other mixed up souls and we'd have a jury.


24D is safe then let your child apply it use it around your porch and stairs. it says its safe after it dries, allow your children's clothing to be washed in the same machine your work clothes are washed in you probably are remember this conversation when the doctor hand you a form that asks all the things you and your family have been in contact with use or have in the home, I have I know the form even the U.N. have a similar form-- why.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

And right on schedule "if you have been exposed to roundup and have been diagnosed with nonhodgkins lymphoma, call the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe". Just watched the first TV ad a minute ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> my world like many is hectic and you try to get it all done when you can in the case where my skin burned I applied it in the expansion joint of my drive before I had to run to a appointment, had it been windy or in a spay bottle I would not have used this in that way it was in a wand sprayer more able to direct the stream.


So it was operator error and not following the instructions.



4tu said:


> *Attacking me personally* in no way lessens the danger of these products to the user


No one has "attacked you personally".
We can only go by what you say, and it appears the only problems came from your own mistakes.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

4tu said:


> the fact that there are other safer products that could have been or could be used.


What might that be? Don't say vinegar and salt. Because they are more toxic.


4tu said:


> We know this from the almost 100 years of incidents of pesticide and herbicide use enough concentration is like encountering a nerve agent because many of the individual chemicals are used in concentrated forms as agents.


 Nerve agents? Where do you get this information? Just what are these individual chemicals you think are in a jug of Roundup?


4tu said:


> Your not only misinformed your both failing to accept that both companies have internal documents


 Can you produce some of these incriminating internal memos and notes?
Be careful not to confuse standard procedures to limit exposure and actual hazards.


4tu said:


> It is fact because their documents say it does, independent labs prove it and with skin cancers, mesophilioma, lung heart and other organ damage.


 There are no legitimate independent lab studies that prove a cancer risk. Zero. Why ignore 600 studies that say it does not cause cancer?
Feel free to hate Monsanto, but don't make stuff up or believe internet nonsense.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

4tu said:


> 24D is safe then let your child apply it use it around your porch and stairs. it says its safe after it dries, allow your children's clothing to be washed in the same machine your work clothes are washed in you probably are remember this conversation when the doctor hand you a form that asks all the things you and your family have been in contact with use or have in the home, I have I know the form even the U.N. have a similar form-- why.


Now you are being silly. But you let your children sit on furniture and carpet treated with Scotch Guard, google PFAS. Nothing in this world is 100% safe. Limit your exposure. That form is used to compile data and sometimes connect dots. Like 60 years ago with thalidomide. But with millions of gallons of concentrate sold, no dots connect.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

It's too bad most people choose to remain ignorant of the internal documents that prove they knew the product caused medical problems proved they were covering it up and until whistle blowers leaked the documents the public had no idea. 

those are the facts, that is why a jury in Europe and in the U.S. in numerous juries found these companies liable. Because they lied and more reports show they had more than once had to lie and then cover those up. 

Seems that none of you believe in our jury system even though the prosecution and the defense choose half of the jury each, evidence is allowed from both sides yet the juries on both continents had the same outcome then the U.N. chimed in and only accepted multiple court findings and issued a warning. It's simple.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

" Truth isn't truth"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> Seems that none of you believe in our jury system


Juries don't prove anything.
They just make decisions based on what they know.
Often what they know is false, much like a lot of the claims you've made here.



4tu said:


> It's too bad most people choose to remain ignorant of the internal documents that prove they knew the product caused medical problems proved they were covering it up and until whistle blowers leaked the documents the public had no idea.


Show us these documents.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> " Truth isn't truth"


Someone in the news just said something very similar to this, didn't he?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Yeah, it's the main theme of the "1984" rewrite, I think. The "Big Four Truths"...
* “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And now...Truth isn't truth”*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> Yeah, it's the main theme of the "1984" rewrite, I think. The "Big Four Truths"...
> * “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And now...Truth isn't truth”*


FAKE NEWS!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm not sure why everyone keeps asking to see the internal memos, when Clem posted a link to them pages ago.
You don't even have to use that link to find them if you don't want to, but there's hundreds of pages if someone wants to read thru them.
Some aren't very incriminating but a few of the emails and meetings certainly show that at least one prominent researcher (who is now deceased, Perry or Parry was the last name I think) that Monsanto hired to refute the carcinogenic claims, wouldn't play ball with them, so they tried to suppress his findings.

It amounts to which "expert" you believe, but if you dig thru a few pages you can read for yourselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *I'm not sure why* everyone keeps asking to see the internal memos, when Clem posted a link to them pages ago.
> 
> You don't even have to use that link to find them if you don't want to, but *there's hundreds of pages *if someone wants to read thru them.


You answered your own question.

No one wants to sift through *hundreds of pages* to find something someone claims is there when it's probably really not there at all.

If they are there, then the specific documents can be copied and pasted instead of doing a "document dump", knowing no one will bother to read through all the BS.

The first link I saw was to a lawyer's website, and it was full of the same misleading hype that some here love to repeat.

The second was an anti-GMO site with a 5 year old article that was the usual vague allegations with no real data shown.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You answered your own question.
> 
> No one wants to sift through *hundreds of pages* to find something someone claims is there when it's probably really not there at all.
> 
> ...


No I actually didn't.
I answered YOUR question/answer which is usually, "I'm not going to look at something I don't want to see. I'ts just too hard. I want it spoon fed to me so I can waste YOUR time and STILL not read it. "
You see I already looked thru the documents. Yes, it was that mean ole lawyer's site.
Funny thing is it could be Daffy Duck atty at law and it wouldn't matter.
The emails and documents are part of the court documents and they say what has been stated at trial, and in this thread.
Namely that that Monsanto is aware of studies that show it is a carcinogen. That was the very reason they hired that leading scientist who conducted one of the studies, hoping they could pay him enough to change his mind. When he wouldn't, they didn't like that too much.
The fact is, you can find it and read it for yourself or not.
Either way, the documents still exist on this earth no matter how many times you claim they don't.
Sound familiar?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Either way,* the documents still exist* on this earth no matter how many times you claim they don't.


I never said they didn't exist. 

I said when people are asking to see them they *aren't *asking to see 99 documents that are unrelated. 

They are asking to see what was claimed and not a page full of links that leads to a page full of links.

Nevada posted the same link in the first thread on this topic so there's nothing new here.



farmrbrown said:


> they say what has been stated at trial, and in this thread.
> Namely that that Monsanto is aware of studies that show it is a carcinogen.


There are no conclusive, credible studies that show that.
The EPA and EU both say it's not a proven carcinogen.
I'm not going through pages and pages of trivia to find something that makes no difference at all.

I already know some will say things that aren't true.
I've seen the documentation to prove that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said they didn't exist.
> 
> I said when people are asking to see them they *aren't *asking to see 99 documents that are unrelated.
> 
> ...


Here is a link with about 10 of the relevant internal emails from Monsanto supporting the claim that was made earlier - that they knew of studies indicating a link to cancers (some of them, their own) and didn't want that info getting out.
You don't have to read them all, just look at 1 or 2 at random.

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxi...-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents-page-five/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> that they knew of studies indicating a link to cancers


The second document doesn't say that at all, which is why no one wants to do the wild goose chases. It just says "studies not acceptable"

31. EPA Document Determining N-nitrosoglyphosate (“NNG”) *Studies Not Acceptable*
No: MONGLY01298420
Date: 6/1986
Documents Released: 3/15/2017



> Description
> This document contains an EPA paper entitled, ‘Guidance for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products Containing Glyphosate as the Active Ingredient’. The EPA initially required that Monsanto test for the carcinogencity of NNG in the 1970s and early 1980s. The testing for NNG by Monsanto was mainly conducted by IBT laboratories which was shut down in the 1970s due to fraud. The EPA determined that these NNG studies were not acceptable to show that NNG was not mutagenic.


The third talks about "plausibility"


> *plau·si·bil·i·ty*
> */ˌplôzəˈbilədē/*
> 1.the quality of seeming reasonable or *probable*:


That's a definite "maybe".

The 4th says they don't want to do the studies.
It's self explanatory how that doesn't support the claim Monsanto knew it causes cancer.

The rest are all similar in that there are lots of "probably's" and "might's" and "not enough data" comments to make most of them worthless as far as proving anything other than some like to play word games.

It's more of the same old cherry picked trivia from the anti-Monsanto lawyers.
Posting the *same links* again won't magically make them true this time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The second document doesn't say that at all, which is why no one wants to do the wild goose chases. It just says "studies not acceptable"
> 
> 31. EPA Document Determining N-nitrosoglyphosate (“NNG”) *Studies Not Acceptable*
> No: MONGLY01298420
> ...


My only question is, did you read the contents of the links or just the descriptive title?
I didn't think much of them either until I read what was in them.

BTW, if you read the next 1 or 2 pages of (7,8) it gets even better.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Truth isn't the important thing with this type of issue. Getting enough people to "believe" is the important thing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Truth isn't the important thing with this type of issue. Getting enough people to "believe" is the important thing.


I agree.
Although I haven't paid much attention to most of the recent hoopla, I read a lot of those reports simply to find out the results.
It doesn't seem like they had any real big problems and that they could be overcome fairly easily.
The disturbing part (and this is nothing new) is that when given the choice of adjusting the formula to bring down the toxicity or finding someone to bribe or harass instead, Monsanto execs opted for the latter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> My only question is, did you read the contents of the links or just the descriptive title?
> I didn't think much of them either until I read what was in them.


It's the same links Nevada posted more than a week ago.
I read enough to know they don't support all the hype about them.

If you think they do, copy and paste those specific portions.

We've had this same conversation at least three times now.



farmrbrown said:


> The disturbing part (and this is nothing new) is that when given the choice of adjusting the formula *to bring down the toxicity* or finding someone to bribe or harass instead, Monsanto execs opted for the latter.


Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.
You're still just parroting the media spin while still showing nothing of substance.

Lots choose the option of not telling all the facts.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the same links Nevada posted more than a week ago.
> I read enough to know they don't support all the hype about them.
> 
> If you think they do, copy and paste those specific portions.
> ...


Yes, they are the same links, that's why I asked if you read the contents, especially since you keep asking for a copy/paste from them.
Am I right, that you haven't read the text of the emails?
It's ok to say so, I thought maybe it was due to your dial up.
If so, I can do that for a few of them.
However if admissions of unethical behavior won't have the effect of seeing what the jury saw, I see no reason to do so.
That makes sense, doesn't it?



> Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.
> You're still just parroting the media spin while still showing nothing of substance.
> 
> Lots choose the option of not telling all the facts.


That's one of the details I was gleaning from those links.
It wasn't necessarily the glyphosate that was toxic, not by itself. It was the other ingredients and in combination that resulted in harmful effects.

But every time they found an issue, it was "solved" by other tactics.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, they are the same links, that's why I asked if you read the contents, especially since you keep asking for a copy/paste from them.
> Am I right, that you haven't read the text of the emails?


The one's I've read don't support all the hype.
Some of them don't even mention "cancer" or "proof of medical effects". Some even said there were no studies done. 

The end result remains there are far more studies saying it's safe than there are claiming it "causes cancer" under normal conditions.



farmrbrown said:


> However if *admissions of unethical behavior* won't have the effect of seeing what the jury saw, I see no reason to do so.


That's lawyerspeak, not reality. I'm not interested in their spin

You just keep repeating yourself, thinking it will turn out different this time.



farmrbrown said:


> But every time they found an issue, it was "solved" by other tactics.


That's pretty common. 
Some will go to great lengths to keep all the facts from coming out.
It's not just corporations who run cons.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The one's I've read don't support all the hype.
> Some of them don't even mention "cancer" or "proof of medical effects". Some even said there were no studies done.
> 
> The end result remains there are far more studies saying it's safe than there are claiming it "causes cancer" under normal conditions.



That's true. Some of the many documents relate to other things, like EPA officials. I think there's even one about Facebook, lol.
But most of the ones on the pages I cited do, which is what you asked for - relevant links.
And yes, more studies say it's safe than do not. I don't think that was ever claimed. It was asked if there were any at all, which is also true.



> That's lawyerspeak, not reality. I'm not interested in their spin
> 
> You just keep repeating yourself, thinking it will turn out different this time.


No, actually I inquired more than once, "Why" do you want to see copy and pasted texts.
I wasn't sure if you really hadn't seen the evidence from the trial, or if it was a waste of time to post it for you.
But if internal documents are what you consider "spin" and aren't interested, then I have my answer.
Thank you.



> That's pretty common.
> Some will go to great lengths to keep all the facts from coming out.
> It's not just corporations who run cons.


Yep.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Three grains of sand are easy enough to find in a quarter teaspoon of salt. Trying to find them in a ten ton truck load. Not quite as easy. If you expect anyone to find them, isolate them as much as possible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But most of the ones on the pages I cited do


No, they really don't. You simply posted the same source Nevada posted nearly 2 weeks ago. This makes about 5 times we've had this same conversation now.

If they said what was claimed they would matter, but none I've read have supported *the original claims* about them:



Nevada said:


> The reason this case was such a slam-dunk is that *internal memos showed that* *Monsanto's own researchers believed that it caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma*.


After he posted a link to the same site you are using I said:



Bearfootfarm said:


> *Rather than showing a link *to pages and pages of documents you *claim* say something, please just show the *one* that *really* says it and cut and paste the actual quotes.


Here it is 10 days later and no one has shown any specific document that uses those words.

All there has been is repeated claims and lots of links to hundreds of pages of documents that still *don't* say it.



farmrbrown said:


> which is what you asked for - relevant links.


Actually I specifically said I *didn't* want just links.
You know that:



> farmrbrown said: ↑
> Yes, they are the same links, that's why I asked if you read the contents, especially since *you keep asking for a copy/paste from them*.





farmrbrown said:


> No, actually I inquired more than once, *"Why" do you want to see copy and pasted texts*.


I answered that long ago too, the first time it was asked.
It's pointless to answer if you don't listen.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they really don't. You simply posted the same source Nevada posted nearly 2 weeks ago. This makes about 5 times we've had this same conversation now.
> 
> If they said what was claimed they would matter, but none I've read have supported *the original claims* about them:
> 
> ...


OHHHHHH.......I see.
You wanna go back to what you held *Nevada* to.
I only found one so far that where the company knew their researcher had found causation between Roundup and *non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
*
I'm sure you realize that's from another thread.
(But let me guess, you still want to see that one too, right?)
http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsa...f-Glyphosate-Link-to-non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma.pdf
(One more guess, see if I'm 2 for 2)
(You'll want to see the proof that some of the authors of the studies in that link went to work for Monsanto and are in the court documents you didn't feel like reading?)

On THIS thread you asked to see the documents for the claim........



4th said:


> It's too bad most people choose to remain ignorant of the internal documents that prove* they knew the product caused medical problems proved they were covering it up *and until whistle blowers leaked the documents the public had no idea.
> 
> those are the facts, that is why a jury in Europe and in the U.S. in numerous juries found these companies liable. Because they lied and more reports show they had more than once had to lie and then cover those up.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Juries don't prove anything.
> They just make decisions based on what they know.
> Often what they know is false, much like a lot of the claims you've made here.
> 
> ...


But you're right, it's pointless if you won't listen and aren't paying attention to what you're asking for and even more pointless if you won't believe the company documents from the company you believe in.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Well all this being said I'm having 35 acres of cutover spayed with a helicopter next week. Wish me luck...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Take an umbrella.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sure you realize that's from another thread.
> (But let me guess, you still want to see that one too, right?)
> http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsa...f-Glyphosate-Link-to-non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma.pdf


You are pulling my leg, right?
800 studies that find Roundup safe and some folks at Monsanto get wind of a anti-chemical group that published a non-peer reviewed "study" that has Roundup doubling the chances for non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. These folks at Monsanto pass around the information and ponder how to respond to the nonsense.
The study throws insecticides, fungicides and Roundup into the same bin of evil.
As an old guy, there have been stories that I shared and at the end of the story the listener asks, " Is that it? What was the point?" These "incriminating internal memos" are like those stories. Really? You think that is some sort of admission of anything?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Love is an emotion that often is not rational nor reasonable. It is a surrendering of yourself to this person or thing without regard to reality.

That anyone would use this emotional term for a single court decision against Monsanto, a dream come true, a powerful wish fulfilled, points to a bias.
Like reviewing the 800 comments of feedback on ebay, finding a single unsubstantiated negative comment and concluding the seller is a thief. That you "love" that they are a thief, shows an incredible amount of bias.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TripleD said:


> Well all this being said I'm having 35 acres of cutover spayed with a helicopter next week. Wish me luck...


Sprayed with what?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> You are pulling my leg, right?
> 800 studies that find Roundup safe and some folks at Monsanto get wind of a anti-chemical group that published a non-peer reviewed "study" that has Roundup doubling the chances for non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. These folks at Monsanto pass around the information and ponder how to respond to the nonsense.
> The study throws insecticides, fungicides and Roundup into the same bin of evil.
> As an old guy, there have been stories that I shared and at the end of the story the listener asks, " Is that it? What was the point?" These "incriminating internal memos" are like those stories. Really? You think that is some sort of admission of anything?


No I'm not pulling your leg.
Apparently you don't know who these anti chemical groups are, maybe reading some info other than pro monsanto literature might help.
Some of them are actually countries and one of the bigger groups goes by the name of the EU. 
(That's European Union in case you think I'm pulling your leg)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But you're right, it's pointless if you won't listen and aren't paying attention to what you're asking for and even more pointless if you won't believe the company documents from the company you believe in.


You're *still* repeating the same tired lines.

The link came from the first thread and the claims never changed substantially.
Still, no one has shown a specific document that supports all the BS.

Stop trying to run your con games.
They aren't working and they are a waste of effort.

You're not as good at fooling people as you think you are.
Patterns never change, and that makes secrets come to light eventually.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No I'm not pulling your leg.
> Apparently you don't know who these anti chemical groups are, maybe reading some info other than pro monsanto literature might help.
> Some of them are actually countries and one of the bigger groups goes by the name of the EU.
> (That's European Union in case you think I'm pulling your leg)


I don't know where to start. Various countries within the EU have been placing roadblocks to US crops, livestock and various products for decades. Just because Romania says watching Bachelorette causes cancer doesn't make it so. I think it was a French guy that took a few rats, from a strain prone to grow tumors and concluded Roundup was cancerous. Of course it failed a peer review because the data collection was too small and overall flawed, but it is still making the rounds on the internet. Just because Dr. Mercola graduated Medical School doesn't make him an expert on Roundup.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

haypoint said:


> I don't know where to start. Various countries within the EU have been placing roadblocks to US crops, livestock and various products for decades. Just because Romania says watching Bachelorette causes cancer doesn't make it so. I think it was a French guy that took a few rats, from a strain prone to grow tumors and concluded Roundup was cancerous. Of course it failed a peer review because the data collection was too small and overall flawed, but it is still making the rounds on the internet. Just because Dr. Mercola graduated Medical School doesn't make him an expert on Roundup.


Rats are not good scientific specimens as your right they are more prone to certain diseases and problems.

I think the better proof is the number of people that use it and their live in families numbers of cancer to the general population that do not use Glycophosphate.
Those are hard numbers especially when it is the same caner again and again if it were all differing cancers I would say it was not the culprit.

the problem with posting all the data is that it would fill a room but as direct contact numbers are greatly different and the same cancer we have a winner. BUT those numbers cannot be small it has to be double digits or again it could be a combination of products.

I'm not saying not to use it or it's evil it is just best to suit up with lest say a Tyvek coveralls and don't allow it to get on your work clothes that go into your families washer.

Gas is a carcinogen I use it all the time but I don't huff it and don't wallow in it if I get it on me I wash it in a barrel outside with dawn rinse it off throw it over the fence and then wash it in the machine.

I use a number of products that are non toxic now of days because they are better for my environment. Why use chemical metal strippers when you can use lye water I use a product it prevents rust for up to a year or more and you can drink it you can leave an engine block outside in the rain and it won't rust.

The killer I use is indiscriminate It wont kill trees but if it has leaves and you spray it good it dies but it is biodegradable. eventually all greenery comes back even if you use roundup or 24D. but did all of you forget why we quit putting Phosphates in our laundry soaps, but that is not the problem with either chemical that is an organic phosphate it is the other chemicals here is a PDF that explains it https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...A088988A23770810B50A2E3E9387A8299218286DD4176


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I don't know where to start. Various countries within the EU have been placing roadblocks to US crops, livestock and various products for decades. Just because Romania says watching Bachelorette causes cancer doesn't make it so. I think it was a French guy that took a few rats, from a strain prone to grow tumors and concluded Roundup was cancerous. Of course it failed a peer review because the data collection was too small and overall flawed, but it is still making the rounds on the internet. Just because Dr. Mercola graduated Medical School doesn't make him an expert on Roundup.


That's true.
Unfortunately the expert researchers that monsanto hired or tried to hire were among those involved in the "troubling reports".
It even went as far as one of their executives, Martens, getting in hot water with the company because he was working closely with their science dept. and letting them get their results without interfering.
Then there is the whole bit of the relationships with EPA officials, lab testing facilities, etc.
The point is, and the one that tipped the scales for the jury is simple.
If the stuff is as safe as they say, why not just stick to the facts?
Do juries typically believe in their innocence if it's discovered they've been conspiring to hide things?
All you have to do is read some of the depositions to get the picture.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're *still* repeating the same tired lines.
> 
> The link came from the first thread and the claims never changed substantially.


Substantially?
I guess not, but then I wasn't the one who asked for a specific set of parameters in bold text.......



> Still, no one has shown a specific document that supports all the BS.
> I guess you missed it even after pulling it out of "all those pages".





> Stop trying to run your con games.
> They aren't working and they are a waste of effort.
> 
> You're not as good at fooling people as you think you are.
> Patterns never change, and that makes secrets come to light eventually.


LOL.
It's not necessary in this case.
Like most that I encountered in the past, the one thing a con falls for every time........is the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Do juries typically believe in their innocence if it's discovered they've been conspiring to hide things?


I don't believe anyone once *I can prove* they are hiding things.
Most of the time I knew long before I could show absolute proof.



farmrbrown said:


> the one thing a con falls for every time........is *the truth*.


It's the thing the con man always want to deny also.
But patterns never change so they eventually give themselves away.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't believe anyone once *I can prove* they are hiding things.
> Most of the time I knew long before I could show absolute proof.
> 
> 
> ...


Well, then you would have been a perfect juror.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

If you beleive something may be detrimental to your health... Don't use it. Please allow others the same right.... To decide for ourselves. Live, let live and like that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If you beleive something may be detrimental to your health... Don't use it. Please allow others the same right.... To decide for ourselves. Live, let live and like that.


Absolutely.
If it IS harmful, the users will probably find out first.
The next step is to distance yourself from them ASAP.
And above all know enough that you can't be fooled.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> And above all *know enough that you can't be fooled*.


I do, because the patterns never change.
They merely repeat when given time.

Eventually the incriminating evidence comes along, delivered by the one trying to hide reality.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Sprayed with what?


It's a combination of three things. I do know it's 48 oz of ''Round up ''per acre. The gum and oak trees got ahead of me. I can plant grass next fall if I get it sprayed now....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> Why use *chemical *metal strippers when you can use lye water


You realize Lye *is* a chemical don't you?
It's far more dangerous than Roundup.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Many of the metallic metal strippers are far worse than lye


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Lye = NaOH

Caustic paint removers, typically sodium hydroxide (also known as lye or caustic soda), work by breaking down the chemical bonds of the paint, usually by hydrolysis of the chain bonds of the polymers forming the paint. Caustic removers must be neutralized or the new finish will fail prematurely. In addition, several side effects and health risks must be taken into account in using caustic paint removers. Such caustic aqueous solutions are typically used by antique dealers who aim to restore old furniture by stripping off worn varnishes, for example.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*Most common solvent paint stripper. 

Methylene dichloride* (*DCM*, or *methylene chloride*, or *dichloromethane*) is a geminalorganic compound with the formula CH2Cl2.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You realize Lye *is* a chemical don't you?
> It's far more dangerous than Roundup.


you mean bar soap is dangerous, because it has lye in it ? I use lye to clean metal it is a simple thing to dilute it with water and lye is natural.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

4tu said:


> you mean bar soap is dangerous, because it has lye in it ? I use lye to clean metal it is a simple thing to dilute it with water and lye is natural.


Nope, the lye in soap has been pretty well rendered harmless by the other ingredients in the soap. But by itself? It's pretty nasty stuff. I wouldn't drink any. Gasoline and glyphosate are all natural ingredients too. Nothing magical nor supernatural about them.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Is it bad I am watching for sales on 5 gallon buckets of round up ?...…..

That's about the sum of what all this means to me.

Treat every thing like a deadly chemical...bug sprays anything of that nature and you will as safe as it can get using chemicals.....probably safer than off gassing new carpet and drywall in a new house where people do not open the windows often, or that hidden black mold you have not discovered yet...….


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4tu said:


> *you mean bar soap is dangerous*, because it has lye in it ? I use lye to clean metal it is a simple thing to dilute it with water and *lye is natural*.


Did I say anything about soap?

Lots of dangerous things are "natural" and everything is composed of chemicals and elements. You wouldn't be here without chemicals.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Lots of natural safe things can be mixed or accidentally mixed together to form very bad things...…..


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

shawnlee said:


> Lots of natural safe things can be mixed or accidentally mixed together to form very bad things...…..


I know plenty of them and I do not post on them.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, the lye in soap has been pretty well rendered harmless by the other ingredients in the soap. But by itself? It's pretty nasty stuff. I wouldn't drink any. Gasoline and glyphosate are all natural ingredients too. Nothing magical nor supernatural about them.


Exactly my point.


----------

