Are you getting at the distinction between herbicide and pesticide? I was going to agree but apparently herbicide is considered a specific type of pesticide, and weeds are a specific type of pest. You learn a lot through nitpicking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_%28organism%29

Actually, I'd have to say that from a bioengineering perspective, it's incredibly stupid. What they're really doing is breeding Roundup resistant weeds, and far faster than anyone claimed they would. In consequence, agri-business is dumping many times as much herbicide into their fields...the facts make it damned clear that the only winner in this race is Monsanto. Farmers pay more for the seed and more for more herbicide to apply.

In another 20 years, Roundup will be useless, but Monsanto will happily move on to the next longterm fuckup that is profitable in the short run.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What about specifically creating seeds that are "RoundUp Ready®" which then lets farmers use huge quantities of said herbicide RoundUp™ on their crops with only the RoundUp Ready® seeds surviving. What about those said RoundUp Ready® seeds blowing in the wind and pollinating adjacent farmers' plots. What about Monsanto then suing those adjacent farmers for "patent infringement" and putting them out of business.

GMO may not be bad in itself, but its propagators are fucking evi.

If people don't want to plant vegetable gardens, then what about habitat for something to live in? Lawns are a wasteland for native plant, animal, fungal, and bacteria species.
Also, I don't buy the carbon sink thing. Powered lawnmowers put out a lot of CO2. Also, a lot of cut grass decays... and that releases greenhouse gasses as well.
Oh.. and 'pesticides' were mentioned, but what about herbicide and fertilizer run off?
OhX2... and lawns are reeeaaaally ugly!

They needed a some mower blades attached to that thing, screw the herbicide.

A few years ago, when I was working in Northern Ontario, planting trees, we came to work on a clear-cut that had been left for several years without being re-planted. (In Canada, it is required by law that companies plant two saplings for every tree harvested.)

This clear-cut had been sprayed with a herbicide (which I am confident was Round-Up) that killed all broadleaf plants in the area to make it easier for re-planting, and give the conifers and advantage amongst the broad-leaf "weeds." Small stands of full grown oak and maple trees among the harvested stumps stood without a single green leaf. It was beautiful--like the middle of winter in June. But what I remember is the burning itch that started shortly we began work that day.

It is a lot like radioactive fallout, or the fallout from air dispersed biochemical weapons. The wind blows, then the chemical will disperse, some of that will land in strange places. Much like crop dusting, the wind can still blow that stuff over to a neighboring farm. In fact there's a term for crop dusting damage to other farms; Drift Damage. The consensus that I got from reading articles is that solid particles will drift farther than liquid; dust drifts more than liquid.

I'm supposing that has something to do with the density of water and dust. These are things you should think about before you go outside and use that weed killer on your lawn. I guess a good experiment would be to take a bucket full of sand and a wind source and let the sand fall with the wind blowing it. Then do the same for something of a liquid type. I think that the results would be clear.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf60023a614

Notable court case.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com/reprints/grg.htm

A search for Herbicide dift laws. Illinois has a law specifically for dealing with civil cases of herbicidal drift.
http://www.google.com/search?q=herbicide+drift+laws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Below, herbicide drift damage.
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/wc751w.htm

Pesticide drift.
http://www.midrivers.net/~fergusco/weed/Pesticide%20Drift.htm

He's not talking about the Haber process only, he's also talking about herbicide usage of products like Monsanto's RoundUp and others. This also ties into soil fertility and top soil depletion, it's not just a case of some arbitrary soil input method, there are many many many other contributing factors.

The Haber process may feed one third of the worlds population today, but it's not a sustainable practice, not the way agribusiness has wastefully adopted it and 'augmented' it with imazapyr and glyphosphate based herbicide products. It's not a common sense choice at all.

You have to look at how fossil fuel dependent modern industrial agricultural production is overall. 7-10 calories of energy input for 1 calorie of output? Retarded.

Small, inefficient 3rd world style farming? I was thinking something more along the lines of small to medium scale, efficient and sustainable farming practices where your energy input is smaller than your energy output.

Also, it's ironic to imply that 'third world' farming techniques are inefficient when many competent farmers throughout India and Africa, and I'm sure elsewhere, have taken huge yield hits after adopting 'modern, first world, farming techniques'.

^Its true they do , just not the seeing kind

Also it seems like a lot of the accusations you level against meat production can also be applied to veggie and fruit production.

Like with cows, large tracts of land are cleared (deforested) to make room for production. Many veggies and fruits are genetically modified or breed so they produce larger edible parts, have a longer growing period, and are more resistant to certain diseases. In order to ensure a healthy crop they're sprayed with pesticides, fertilizer, and in some cases herbicides (to de-weed framing plots), all of which have extremely aversive effects on the environment. Further more like various livestock fruits and veggies are breed and cultivated with production, shipment, and profit in mind, not the nutritional value or taste.

I have had the advantage of having grown up with parents who planted their own garden annually, so i am both privileged and cursed to know the difference between home grown tomatoes, broccoli, potatoes, cantaloupe, oranges etc etc over the crap I find in the grocery store. Like meat products fruits and veggies sold commercially are lacking in both flavor and nutritional value of the fresh 'home' variety.

As far as getting sick, over the years there have been a large number of recalls and warnings about various fruits and veggies being contaminated by salmonella, or some other horrible bacterial agent. There's one going on right now over jalapenos, it was tomatoes until those were cleared.

Its how the industry is run, meat or veggie. I don't mind if people are vegans or not, the choices you make are yours to make, but before you go claiming moral high ground you better start checking the back side of your own britches for a few 'stains'.

I'd like to see both industries undergo some major reform, even if it does end up making the cost of food go up. As it is there are many food items meat and veggie, I don't buy because the quality is crap at best. Unfortunately I'm stuck having to compromise my sense of taste for quality, because there isn't much of a fresh foods market where I live, and I don't have the capacity to grow/raise my own.

I never took a side on that thread I was stating what I'd learned about Fluoride. I never said it was slowly killing millions. I was making a point that ANYTHING in excess is harmful. I was in no way on an all out campaign against the use of it.

And the fertilizer thing. Did you even read my comments? And I have talked to my father about fertilizer. (Mind you he's been in the agricultural research business for over 20 years, and holds a Ph D.) When fertilizer is used properly. I want you to note that I use the word PROPERLY, not irresponsibly, or that everyone who uses it is irresponsible. But when used properly it provides nourishment for the plants we grow and eat.

By the way organic farms tend to use more fertilizer then those who spray herbicides and pesticides. (Which also will breakdown completely when used as directed.)

So let me reiterate. I have not moved to any 'dark side'. My stance has not changed. If you had read my comments you would see that my points are not "it's evil and killing our kids" or "It's wonderful and life is amazing". My stance is that ANYTHING IN EXCESS IS HARMFUL. The question is who's using too much?

(EDIT): See Qruel, that's what I want from you, your opinion in your words. Not the copy + paste that you seem very fond of. Research, it's great, but use it to support you point not to be your words.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wow - these guys really do sound like they are shilling for Monsanto.

Monsanto's big product is "Round Up Ready™" seeds. These have been genetically modified to be resistant to the Monsanto pantented chemical herbicide RoundUp™. If you buy these seeds off of Monsanto, you can spray the shit out of your soybean crop- and it will kill everything except your RoundUp Ready™ soybeans.

Oh, and if as a farmer, you would like to save seeds from your crop to replant. Be prepared to be sued for theft. You see, they own the patent on the seed- and keeping your seeds is a no-no. They want you to buy the seeds from them every year. You can imagine how well this works in 3rd world countries.

If you are on an adjoining non-Monsanto farm, and some of that Roundup Ready™ seed blows into your farm ... prepare to be sued.

This is the reality of GM. It's big agribusiness and monoculture farming that displaces family and traditional farms. They dress it up as saving the planet - but I'm calling bullshit.

Mexicans that were self-sufficient and able to grow hundreds of varieties of native corn, now import from the US because they were encouraged to move towards a single monoculture corn strain that was hit by blight. Monsanto to the rescue - now they are paying twice as much for GM corn from the US - and going hungry.

I'm also calling bullshit on the claim that organic farming can only feed 2/3 of the world. Although it's true that organic farms have a lower yield than massive mono-culture farms- the cost to produce is significantly cheaper when you're not shelling for herbicides, insecticides and other chemicals - and that 2/3 becomes 3/3.

In closing, Penn and Teller are full of shit - and can go piss up a rope.

At the request of Qruel and Constitutional_Patriot; I'm posting my response to information sent to me about flouride in the use of herbicides, pesticides, and Fertilizers:

Actually my father is a agricultural scientist. One who has been in the industry for over 20 years now. He has a PhD in Phytopathology. Every one of his jobs has required him to test the effects of herbicides and pesticides on plats, animals, ground soil, and water systems.

In his years of research he has found that the only reason ecosystems become contaminated is because of improper use on the part of the farmer. Some have a philosophy of "if a little is good then a lot must be better". However when chemicals are properly used they are 100% biodegradable with no harmful effects on ecosystems.

I don't know about fertilizer that much. But having worked on farms for most all of my adolescent years I can see how they can be harmful. Coinciding all the protective gear I had to wear before fertilizing a field.

I appreciate your research and open mind about all of this. I need to do some more myself.

Hey Gorgonheap

at the request of Constitutional Patriot could you post your response back intot he thread for people

thanks

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Actually my father is a agricultural scientist. One who has been in the industry for over 20 years now. He has a PhD in Phytopathology. Every one of his jobs has required him to test the effects of herbicides and pesticides on plats, animals, ground soil, and water systems.

In his years of research he has found that the only reason ecosystems become contaminated is because of improper use on the part of the farmer. Some have a philosophy of "if a little is good then a lot must be better". However when chemicals are properly used they are 100% biodegradable with no harmful effects on ecosystems.

I don't know about fertilizer that much. But having worked on farms for most all of my adolescent years I can see how they can be harmful. Coinciding all the protective gear I had to wear before fertilizing a field.

I appreciate your research and open mind about all of this. I need to do some more myself.

In reply to this comment by qruel:
Hey gorgonheap.

Thank you for posting about the use of hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). Do you realize that these are byproducts of the fertilizer industry and are classified as toxic and can contain lead ?

read this... it it insightful and disturbing

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

______________________________________

I think your views represent what "most" people think about fluoride. But I would urge you to take a little deeper look as the claim that it "helps" the body are decieving.

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

____________________________________________


you also talk about dosage, which is a very important aspect. id you mean to say that "It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one." you wrote the opposite in your post.

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf
_____________________________________________


you mentioned "Some studies suggest that fluoridation is associated with a median decline in the number of children with cavities of 12.5%, and a median decline of 2.25 teeth with cavities."

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).

For your consideration ladies and gentleman please meet Quantum mushroom, spokesman in favor of corporate genocide.

The US Veterans Administration has listed prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, type II diabetes, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spina bifida in children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange as side effects of the herbicide.

Clearly our veterans are obviously lying to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Criticism

In 1990's Monsanto conducted genetically modified (a.k.a. Terminator genes) Cotton trials in India through its subsidiary Cargill Seeds. It generated stiff opposition from the Indian Farmers and one of its Plants in Karnataka State was pulled down by protestors within hours and finally the Indian Government banned the company from continuing further. While in Brazil later in 2003 followed India in a similar protest in Goias.

Frontline's "Seeds of Suicide: India's Desperate Farmers" [10] has detailed some of the struggles facing the Indian farmer. The transition to using the latest pest-resistant seeds and the necessary herbicides has been difficult. Farmers have been lured to genetically modified seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto because of their promise of greater yields, but instead, research has shown that these seeds require more water and more pesticides (sometimes by design). For some of the farmers, these hidden factors have cost them their entire harvest because they may not have more water or they may not be able to afford the pesticides. Their resulting debts from their gamble with genetically modified seeds have lead them into what amounts to indentured servitude and an alarming rate of suicide. The problem is exacerbated by the current corporate influence in the government: previously, a government expert would give knowledgeable advice to farmers about their crops, but now the positions are filled by corporate representatives who receive incentives for promoting their company's products. Admittedly, it is not a system which keeps the farmers' best interest in mind.

Criticism can also be found in the documentary The Future of Food which sheds light on the relationship between agriculture, big business and government. It examines the effects of biotechnology on the nation's smallest farmers and discusses the downsides of genetically modified foods.