from the MSDA sheet
Waste treatment
Waste Disposal Methods
Dispose of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.
Contaminated packaging
Empty containers should be taken to an approved waste handling site for recycling or disposal

http://www.qtstools.com/TechInfo/MSDS_795-H.pdf

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Probably, but there are all kinds of clear coating. They could develop one with minimal reflective properties and minimal absorptive properties, but you're right, even then it would decrease the effectiveness, but maybe not so much that it would lose it's usefulness.

I think in most applications, the nano fibers are encased in resins or other chemicals that cause them to clump together, making them much safer (note that I don't say "making them safe").
In pure powder form, yeah, they're a bit scary to have something that can float in air that can also burst cell walls. I always used a facemask and gloves when I was in his "lab", and even so I'm sure I was contaminated. Now I wish I had worn a full anti-contamination suit.

After reading some more on the subject, this has been that way for many decades, possibly longer but the history is spotty further back. The CSIRO thinks it is possibly due to the nearness of a coal seam to the rifts and/or drought.

The recent fracking has drawn attention to it, with many locals claiming it has gotten worse since the fracking. Scientists are still researching it further to see if this is true.

I don't support fracking, but some of these reports usually are about things that were pre-existing due to the natural layout of the region. However, there are some cases where it is definitely a cause of the companies fracking in the area.

For instance, a recent study proved that drinking wells in Texas and Pennsylvania were affected by the fracking company not following the correct procedures. This led to the wells being contaminated with gas. They found that there were clear cases of substandard work that led to cracked steel and concrete in the casing of the drill sites. They said in the study that if the companies had followed the correct procedures, the contamination could have been easily prevented.

More on the wells - http://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-water-texas-and-pennsylvania-study-finds-270735

They probably should use the same method to check the origin of the noble gases in that river.

The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

Somewhat related: Toxic “Reform” Law Will Gut State Rules on Dangerous Chemicals

The issue in a single quote:

The Senate bill prohibits states from acting on chemicals that the EPA deems “high priority” while the agency is evaluating them. But the agency’s investigations can go on for years and even decades before it takes action. Back in 2002, for instance, the EPA initiated a high-priority review of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon and hundreds of other products. Probable links between the chemical and six diseases have been found in the intervening years, and contamination is now known to be widespread, yet the agency has not regulated it.

The EPA has been investigating the safety of some of the flame retardants that would be banned by the Washington state bill for more than 25 years. And the agency has spent at least 30 years looking at the safety of methylene chloride, which is still widely available in hardware stores though its fumes have been killing people since at least the 1940s.

Just for once it's chemistry and not marketing!

This article on a proposed replacement explains the use of Ag nanoparticles as an antibacterial agent. Google the term and you'll also find a lot of articles worrying about the safety of silver nanoparticles in clothing. The idea is that antibacterial clothing will smell less, but some people worry about the safety of this, and detergent tends to deactivate it anyway.

In the case of this book though, I would expect most of the silver to stay in the filter but even if not it's likely to be safer than drinking contaminated water.

they are removing an old (maybe infected) total knee replacement.
that's what its supposed to look like (maybe not so wide of a swing with the hammer to risk contamination of the sterile field, but pretty close)

Solar shingles will be much harder to pay for themselves, they cost more and produce less, but they do look less obtrusive if that's an issue.
EDIT: One thing they have going for them is you can trap the water off your roof for yard usage like a metal roof, where normal tar shingles contaminate the water requiring a filter/oil separator. Here in Ca, that's a HUGE benefit, we have a terrible water shortage.
I live in N Ca, where we get tons of fog, and my panels/system have paid for themselves in under 1/2 their expected lifespan...so now I'm set for 10-12 years of free electricity, even though I live where there's less sun than most places. I can't fathom why every home in Phoenix isn't covered in them...it makes no sense whatsoever that they aren't taking advantage of their sun.

I remember the movie Erin Brockovich where they offered the lawyer a glass of contaminated water to drink and iirc the person actually drank it. I always wondered what happened to that person IRL.

Well, technically, that's not the fruit and veggies' fault. That's sort of our fault for contaminating the world with all sorts of ungodly shit.

Poor broccoli. It always gets framed.