Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "Killer" Roundup?

I was in the Belly of the Beast (Monsanto in St. Louis) when rr first stated. We were shown the Frankenstein process used. Actually they had a unit about a foot high or so and they showed us how it worked. After removing a gene from a plant that was resistant to round they used a blank 22 cartridge to imbed it in seed. Didn’t scare me at all. No the natural plant they use to get the gene won’t kill you either. Ed k

There are entire investment funds (like stocks) that feed money for speculative litigation. This money is used to fund Infomercials, studies and sway public opinion in certain areas to help "soften" the jury pools and court districts. The lawyers then shop for a court in that area to take their case. Just like we're seeing after the California court case, it opens the floodgate for additional suits. The lawyers then simply refer to the previous winning verdict. It's a winning formula for the lawyers and the investments funds help fuel it.

Calisto 24d and atrazine all hang around some....cllisto and lautis are similar products...round up is glysophate. The product is pretty much worthless these days....the weeds have genetically modifyed to it on there own...we just use it for grass now...
Of all the chemicals mentioned only Atrazne requires an applicators license to buy or apply...what does that tell you...

👍👍👍 [bleep] you aces
You've said odd things here before but move north. You reject at Canadian liberal

Now that glyphosate has been over used and misused.....the boys are buying Paraquat by the shuttle!


None of that schit for me thanks!


My spraying equipment is so old that I cant safely apply it anyhow.



Spraying is lame.

Round up was the stuff to use the last 30 years.....

Raise your hand if you haven’t used it. Lol

So we sprayed a lot of agent orange on the farm years ago. Obviously we were not spraying ourselves with it like in Vietnam, but we used cautions, gloves to mix it with etc.... Watched the wind, overspray and so on.

Most of these lawsuits come from mis use IMHO and a healthy dose of stupidity mixed in with that mis use.

Remember too much water can kill you. Not sure who we sue over that though unless I drink bottled, I could sue or relatives could sue Ozarka I guess.....

Well, let's call this a "who do you trust" line of discussion just for giggles.

The head of EPA is an appointee, not an elected official. As such it is reasonable to anticipate bias one way or the other in the development of Federal code, that being the vehicle for enforcement of Federal law. You feeling warm and fuzzy yet?

So Congress passes a law and the appropriate agency writes the code and that's how it all moves forward. Is it the scientists or lawyers that write the code? I know, silly question,but there you have it.

So along comes company X who wishes to market a product covered by the code. They submit the application, it gets reviewed and questions are asked. The applicant provides the answers. And so it goes, lawyers on both sides putting the fine touch in the dialog, back and forth, over and over again, until a decision is made by the regulators.

Page 1 of my thoughts, additional tidbits around the corner. Will leave one thing for your consideration.

If the label of herbicide X stipulates it may not be applied to estuarine environments for aquatic plant management is the contractor violating that restriction by application 6 miles upstream in a coastal river?

What does the “herbicide x” label say regarding application to a coastal river?

Rather hard to make a judgement on that without a label or even the name of the product Dan.

In regards to lawyers vs scientists, who writes the label an SDS?

Who wrote FIFRA for that matter?

"Do not apply in tidewater/brackish water."

Black and white. The brand is Sonar, manufactured by SeaPro.

Well, the poison ivy I sprayed week before last is as dead as Julius Caesar this week!

Another happy success story!

And remember you can’t spell success without "suc"!

I just h ad a conversation with an organic farmer. They are thinking of seeding everything to grass. She said crops have been very poor. No doubt. She said something is wrong with the soil. Ya! Used up all the nutrients and nothing left for crops. What that doesn’t get the weeds from not spraying do. They are organic farming and selling a little pot on the side. Like the sprays and fertilizer or not th at is how we all get enough to eat. Ed k

She's not much of a 'farmer' if she didn't know she needs to fertilize her ground.
Two words, cow sh t.


Try again.

They have organic beef also. All the cow sh t goes on the fields. If you study that it requires about 10 cows per acre of field to fertilize properly.Takes a big herd for a couple thousand acres. Not very realistic. Ed k

You dont need cow schit
..but it helps.

Living roots in the soil are enough...just takes time.

The organic farmers here all use a lot of either hog manure, or turkey liter. Both are loaded with antibiotics.

LMFAO.....Solid work champ!

Did you and wageslave graduate from the same preschool or did you two Einsteins just get too much roundup in your sippy cups?

If you buy any food products you are problably on the Monsanto tit. Any cooking oil or wheat products or beer or pasta products or breads(multi grain or whatever you are there with everybody else. In case you didn’t know it the University ag departments also charge for the use of the seeds they developed. Nothing free in this world. Somebody h as to invest in development of grains and somebody has to pay them to do it. Ed k

Well, I'm back with a few other tidbits to gnaw on.

A short synopsis of my last post sounds like this: I would not trust EPA as far as I could throw them in regards to this conversation, nor the state agencies that in theory administer the regulations they come up with. This implies of course that my distrust has little to do with the science, but rather the administration. There are so many stones they do not turn over in their decision making process it is perfectly laughable.

To the point referenced above about application of Sonar in what may or may not be construed as a label violation. I asked a simple question. Was it a label violation or not? A yes or no will suffice. In 1989 the state designated the system pictured below as Outstanding Florida Waters. It is, or was a vital component of the local economy for aquatic recreation to include swimming and fishing, both fresh and salt water.

1995


2008 when the Sonar was applied upstream.


A complaint was filed with EPA who in turn forwarded it to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the primary point being that it was applied to estuarine waters. FDACS said, no, it was applied to a system reservoir immediately upstream. Case closed. The river pictured above is DEAD and has been since this event.

My point is fairly simple, the system that so many think is functional, is not. I will reiterate a previous suggestion. Read the friggin' registration decisions. FYI, EPA considers herbicides and pesticides as one in this discussion.
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration
http://npic.orst.edu/reg/register.html

Are these things carcinogenic? Yes, no, perhaps, who knows?

Does "L/Dxx" mean that all life forms will respond the same to a given dose? Not a chance in hell. That includes you. They examine a variety of life forms, to include micro/macro invertebrates, plant life, wild life etc. They do not examine all. The concept of lethal dose (L/D) means that the designated life form population percentage designated (L/D 50 = 50%) will expire in a relatively short time, such as 24 hours as example. It has nothing to do with carcinogenic properties. Do they examine carcinogenic compound presence? Yes, but only to a limited degree, ie, first tier. That means if a compound is not carcinogenic it gets a green light, even if it degrades into something that is.

Herbicide/pesticide chemicals leach into the aquifer, and in many cases their degradation process halts while entombed in sand/clays/sediments/limerock etc. The Sonar mentioned above has a "half life" of approximately 7 days. It has not been applied within the river system since 2008, yet it is still present in water quality investigations. Oh, it is a low concentration to be sure, even lower than the application concentration target of 12 parts/billion.

You interested in some more info? Take a look at the link below, specifically at page 21. Approximately 75% of the flows in this river originate from springs and baseflow. That is a fancy way of saying "the aquifer". One and the same source as our drinking water. You wont see glyphosate there because the samples were not tested for it..
https://www.warinconline.com/content/files/LWR_Phase%202_Interim%20Report%20070318.pdf

Did ya know that inhalation of a single molecule of plutonium can lead to lung cancer?
Are you tougher than me? How about your kids?

The point I'm trying to make is simple. These chemicals have a place to be sure, but there is seriously good reason to be skeptical about those who regulate their manufacture and use. The same mindset that gave us Agent Orange is still busy at work and highly influenced by political winds. Dreamed up by our buddy LBJ and put to use yet it was counterproductive in the battle field and dunned the taxpayers an awful lot of money when all was said and done. The chemists said they could make if faster with the use of heat though that would increase the concentration of dioxin significantly. Probably over $100 billion later we're still paying for it.

For those of you thinking about a visit to Floriduh be advised there are two rivers in the state that are discharging dioxin as a by product of pulp mill operations. The state has declined to set limits on this stream of pollution despite the certain consequences. Thank you Governor Senator Scott.

Politics and science are a seriously bad mix.

An hour has passed since I opened this and started to read, then ate dinner, put the chickens up, cleaned out the dog's pool and refilled it, and had dessert.

No comments to your latest post DD. Must be because in a very real way you're implying "ecosystem" effects, unknown ones at that. Bad juju around here with some folks methinks.

RE: your Sonar/river issue. Has the State/Feds defined "estuarine"? Or even "apply". By putting it in the reservoir upstream did they "apply" the chemical to "estuarine" waters? Mmmmmmn? Lawyers would likely have a field day with that one.

I'm like you, don't trust them agencies much, especially regarding "big business" tie ins. Not sure what we would do without them though. Go back to the late 1800 and have modern day "chemical barons"?

While reading your latest post with the pics, I began to wonder if some here might think you've been playing with and exposing yourself to too much lead. Perhaps some mercury too, added to make them bullets shinier or something.

Take care, I enjoyed reading your perspective on this topic.

Geno