Jay: Thanks for the chemistry details. The point remains, that massive quantities of herbicides are being used on our food, made possible by recombinant genetics, making food crops extremely resistant to those chemicals. As little as 20 years ago, our food was grown with a fraction of the chemicals used today. Agribusiness is poisoning our food. They don't actually want to kill us, of course, but they strive for maximum profit, and they see profit in obscene quantities of chemicals, and in genetically-altered crops capable of tolerating those quantities of chemicals.
Jayman, nice write up on dioxin. It's one of my pet peeves that Agent Orange is confused with dioxin. One of the batch chemical processes that I worked on, the one using the Honeywell TDC-2000, was highly susceptible to mutagens. The temperature control had to be dead nuts on or everything went bad in a hurry. The reaction was highly exothermic, and if it got much above -80°C it would run away and the building would explode. A few degrees colder and a nasty mutagen would form. We walked a tightrope on that one. Never mind the gaseous chlorine and butylated lithium. Edit: You chem Es are a crazy group! Tom
You tried something *that* tricky with a Funeywell TDC 2000? Running Enhanced Operator Stations? All running on Data Hiway? Oy! I felt comfortable with similar process control using TDC 3000, a dedicated Application Module, a dedicated High Level Process Interface Unit, and a DPS-6. I'm not fond of Kaboom Anyhoo, you've seen my Control Language examples. I'll try to dig up some Application Module or Computer Module samples, if I still have them around. Ah, the good ole days ... Hence, my general and vaguely sinister weirdness, especially my obsession with certain quadrupedal ruminant ungulates.
Sorry for making that confusion. I will write an email to the nutritionist at Rancho la Puerta who gave me the misinformation.
Not just resistant - impotent. Farmers can't grow seed crops anymore; they're forced to buy new seeds each year from...surprise!...Monsanto. This goes way beyond maximising shareholder value, and amounts to corporatisation of the global food supply. Is this the same wonderful, benevolent corporation that demonised hemp, because it was a threat to cotton and the massive amounts of pesticides it requires to grow?
I have mixed feelings on this issue On the one hand, one can make the arguement that petrochemical derived fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides have allowed enormous crop yields from given tracts of land. We have close to 7 billion mouths to feed now ... On the other hand, we have a history of poorly understanding long-term implications and proper useage of chemicals. I'm thinking of haloginated solvents, cholorinated solvents, etc As an example, synthetic industrial-scale pesticides came on the scene following WW II. Due to research into chemwarfare endocrine disrupters, there was widespread use of pesticides following the late 1940's to early 1950's. One of the big success stories was dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, or DDT. At least initially, it greatly reduced malaria in developing countries. Of course, many insects developed resistance to DDT, and there are probably bad effects on birds Before WW II, it was common for farmers to apply arsenic and pyrethrum, two very "natural" ingredients. Currently, alachlor, atrazine, and parathion are widely used pesticides One thing that appears to have caught everybody by surprise - when it shouldn't have as it is entirely predictible and natural - is the the ability of insects and fungi to adapt to pesticides. Herbicides have also helped dramatically increase crop yield and - in other areas - reduce unwanted nuicance vegitation. Current herbicides like glyphosate, 2,4 D (A synthetic auxin), ALS inhibitors, etc, are applied routinely to crops The problem I see with fertilizers,pesticides, and herbicides, is the generally poor understanding of them by end users. They are used indiscriminately, too often, and under the wrong conditions Just like antibiotics in humans There is also little discussion on what consumers and end users really *want* from the product. Do they just want to control certain species, or do they want to only mildly keep under control certain species?
Why? Not your fault. Like everything in our life, there is a surprising amount of misinformation and disinformation floating around out there I'm not suggesting that glyphosate should be ingested or added to your bath, but it certainly isn't "agent orange"
Well, that's an entirely different topic. A good reason why the Norman Rockwell style "family farm" has all but ceased to exist is due to sterile hybrid crops There's plenty of money to be made for Monsanto, ADM, and Cargill. Of course, since Cargill is privately held, it's very mysterious in its dealings One would think the general public would be in an uproar over this. Apparently, they are not ... As far as safety of our food crops, everything is relative. I would never "guarantee" anything. To maintain our current crop output, the use of synthetic auxins, petrochemical fertilizers, and atrazine derivatives (Themselves derived from barbaric 1930-1945 chemwarfare experiments) is required One thing I *still* find lacking is a clear debate from end users (Eg the farm employees who apply the stuff) and consumers on what they really want. Nobody seems to give one s*** about proper product application or product safety It's like how spoiled brats in our society - with their cell phones, iPods, trendy clothes purchased monthly, fairly newer model cars to drive themselves to high school, and trinkety trendy s*** - claim they are "green" and believe themselves to be "environmentalists"
You'll get my Roundup when you pry if from my cold, dead, hands in my weed free yard.* Okay, NOTHING grows where I used it.
That is correct. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum postemergence herbicide. Never use it near anything like desirable shrubs, ornamentals, lawn, etc
As an aside: when playing with herbicides or pesticides, I wear disposable PVC gloves. Most of these products can be absorbed ...
I happen to need a couple of Gallons of Roundup to KILL whats left of my front yard, or "Alamogordo West" as I refer to it. its time to up yer property values, and put back my front yard that was destroyed when my 70 ft. Pine tree decided to fall over! The stump removal destroyed 2/3rds of it. SAD!!! Anyway as far as the drinking thing goes, just ask any Irishman, well like my self, Its why all the men in my family line were long lived!! I just happen to prefer Gold Tequila over a Whiskey!! Other than that I'm 110% Green, and if you count the Solar system and Prius, it's 173.5% Green!! Go Irish!!
Isn't that the truth. When I worked for a chemical company, the same stuff we would suit up for while wearing a stack of filter cartridges, the neighbor would spray on his yard while wearing shorts and eating a sandwich. Tom
It gets worse: When Farmer John is growing an open-pollinated seed crop, and the neighbor's Monsanto patented seed crop contaminates Farmer John's crop with its genetically-modified pollen, Monsanto sues Farmer John for patent infringement, and bankrupts him with legal fees. The lawsuits cost Monsanto nothing because they have lawyers on staff and on salary. It's like when a burgler breaks into your house, shoots you, and then sues you for "stealing" his bullet. Then there was the guy who went down to a remote area of Mexico and found that the campesinos were growing yellow beans. So he came home, filed a patent for "yellow beans," and then sued the campesinos for patent infringement.
Just a sight difference in concentration is all that separates the shorts/sandwich guy from a terrible and prolonged death
