You wonder why there is so much cancer now?
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3P3As5KiNF
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3P3As5KiNF
How much food has Glyphosate
- Thread starter thedigger
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Glyphosate is a bit uncertain as a carcinogen. Only some scientists link it as such, and it has the OK for general use. However there are a few scientists who have suggested the link. The fact that a court decided against it in the USA is meaningless - they often award things on the grounds of total scientific nonsense. I have forgotten the name but there was a similar award made for something quite absurd years ago, and a popular movie was made about it (I can't remember the name). It was total scientific nonsense and is regularly quoted by the media as fact because of the court win (a function of a good lawyer, not science). However nothing changed otherwise, and the chemical continues to be used with no evidence of ill effects (I was working in hydrogeochemistry and very familiar with it).
These things are tricky for non-scientists, as media hype becomes fact when it is often urban myth. However I would play it safe and not put glyphosate on my own vegie patch.....
These things are tricky for non-scientists, as media hype becomes fact when it is often urban myth. However I would play it safe and not put glyphosate on my own vegie patch.....
"Erin Brokovitch" was the movie.
One thing that non-scientists have trouble with is that carcinogens depend a lot on concentration. Beans, capsicums and sunlight are also carcinogens but few people avoid them. House basements in some areas build up quite carcinogenic radon gas concentrations, radioactive radium is present in spring water in many regions (eg Hepburn Springs) - eg Radio Springs (a place near Lyonville in Victoria) used to be called "Radioactive Springs" but a name change was advisable so as not to deter tourists (there is absolutely no danger). The spring waters give off dangerous radon gas (eg at Hepburn Springs near Daylesford) yet people bathe there in a spring water spa for its "healing properties" (there is actually no danger because the radium is precipitated out first and the radon gas driven off). The spring water is used in soft drink manufacture (natural mineral water). None of these things would deter me in the slightest.
Alternatively, some substances are incredibly carcinogenic at miniscule concentrations. One capsicum was removed from sale in Australia because it was too carcinogenic.
One thing that non-scientists have trouble with is that carcinogens depend a lot on concentration. Beans, capsicums and sunlight are also carcinogens but few people avoid them. House basements in some areas build up quite carcinogenic radon gas concentrations, radioactive radium is present in spring water in many regions (eg Hepburn Springs) - eg Radio Springs (a place near Lyonville in Victoria) used to be called "Radioactive Springs" but a name change was advisable so as not to deter tourists (there is absolutely no danger). The spring waters give off dangerous radon gas (eg at Hepburn Springs near Daylesford) yet people bathe there in a spring water spa for its "healing properties" (there is actually no danger because the radium is precipitated out first and the radon gas driven off). The spring water is used in soft drink manufacture (natural mineral water). None of these things would deter me in the slightest.
Alternatively, some substances are incredibly carcinogenic at miniscule concentrations. One capsicum was removed from sale in Australia because it was too carcinogenic.
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 2,530
I used glyphosate for many years, working on farms and in groundskeeping. I remember it was presented as the safest herbicide in existence at the time. Always took standard precautions with it's use of course. But no, I would not put it on my vege patch either. Not that plenty of your food probably hasn't already been exposed to some traces of it. I recall that at one stage, several food crops had supposedly been developed that had some considerable resistance to glyphosate, allowing them to tollerate any overspray that accidentally hit them when weeds were being controlled.
Farms have used some fairly nasty chemicals. I recall using a herbicide called "Paraquat" which I think is now restricted (not banned last I heard). No idea what the long term effects on human tissue might be (if you swallow a mouthfull, your chances of survival are fairly slim apparently) but I recall the effect on plant tissue was dramatic - it took approximately 30 minutes to empty out a knapsack sprayer full of the stuff and when you refilled and walked back past where you had started, large clumps of Guinea grass were turning fried onion-translucent and collapsing before your eyes in the space of 30 minutes! Unlike glyphosate which usually took about a week or so to move right through the plants system and kill, this stuff was like dropping napalm.
It was with that stuff that I had my only significant chemical incident - the hose of the knapsack detached and about 10 litres poured down my lower back and backs of my legs before I could get it off. Haven't suffered any ill effects - so far at least.
Farms have used some fairly nasty chemicals. I recall using a herbicide called "Paraquat" which I think is now restricted (not banned last I heard). No idea what the long term effects on human tissue might be (if you swallow a mouthfull, your chances of survival are fairly slim apparently) but I recall the effect on plant tissue was dramatic - it took approximately 30 minutes to empty out a knapsack sprayer full of the stuff and when you refilled and walked back past where you had started, large clumps of Guinea grass were turning fried onion-translucent and collapsing before your eyes in the space of 30 minutes! Unlike glyphosate which usually took about a week or so to move right through the plants system and kill, this stuff was like dropping napalm.
It was with that stuff that I had my only significant chemical incident - the hose of the knapsack detached and about 10 litres poured down my lower back and backs of my legs before I could get it off. Haven't suffered any ill effects - so far at least.
The link did state that yhe concern was in California. Nearly everything that place is banned. They have very strict laws about nearly everthing. :N:
Cheers
Doug
Cheers
Doug
Glyphosate is a salt based chemical and my opinion is amongst the safest weed controllers we have, it also has almost zero residual life once it contacts soil which makes it very safe as it doesnt leach into streams ect.
Without glyphosate i would estimate yeilds would halve and cropping would become unsustainable.
The chemicals we have these days compared to 20 or 40 years ago are a great advance in saftey , some of the old stuff was basically nerv poisons or highly residual. Thankfully they are albut gone.
The way scientists are these days they can test any object and find some proof it causes cancer.
Without glyphosate i would estimate yeilds would halve and cropping would become unsustainable.
The chemicals we have these days compared to 20 or 40 years ago are a great advance in saftey , some of the old stuff was basically nerv poisons or highly residual. Thankfully they are albut gone.
The way scientists are these days they can test any object and find some proof it causes cancer.
I agree aussiefarmers, they can test for anything, toothbrushes with faecal matter if in an ensuite but we still clean our teeth, kitchen bench tops riddled with bacteria, light switches and door handles etc etc, the human body in most instances is equipped to cope with all this, the immune system is a great responder to the nasties. 
Manpa said:
Just can't picture how the toothbrush could possibly get in that condition that somebody felt a test was necessary
Manpa said:I agree aussiefarmers, they can test for anything, toothbrushes with faecal matter if in an ensuite but we still clean our teeth, kitchen bench tops riddled with bacteria, light switches and door handles etc etc, the human body in most instances is equipped to cope with all this, the immune system is a great responder to the nasties.
99% of what we read out there now days is BS that the green conspiracy nutters spread like manure
On our rice and corn farm we have been using glyphosate based chemicals as a weed-aside with out a problem.
We use Glyphosate for weed control on our block (with full length clothing and face masks on a windy day), just not near vegies.
PS: the author of Gold and Ghosts (de Havilland) evidently pulled his books from publication due to the non-banning of Glyphosate.
PS: the author of Gold and Ghosts (de Havilland) evidently pulled his books from publication due to the non-banning of Glyphosate.
shakergt
Moderating Team
Good old round up
I put it on my toast in the morning. No not really. But a guy on the radio was saying it kills the plant by blocking an enzyme plants have that makes protien for them. Non plants dont have this enzime and therefor are unaffected. I hope its safe anyway mainly because I just brought a big drum of the stuff to get rid of many scotch thistles. Good to stop the English invading but otherwise not a nice weed.
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 2,530
moeee said:Manpa said:
Just can't picture how the toothbrush could possibly get in that condition that somebody felt a test was necessary
Probably less of an issue with Aussie designs since traditionally, the bathroom with the toothbrushes and the toilet cubicle are separate rooms - the idea was that when the toilet in the same room is flushed, tiny particles fly through the air and land on your toothbrush. Of course, it it hasn't killed anyone by now then it probably isn't going to - just try not to think about it when you brush your teeth :lol:
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 2,530
Yeah, could be a bit difficult to do without some kind of herbicide at least. I worked on an organic smallcrops farm (not the one where I used paraquat obviously) and it was there that I refined the technique of chipping weeds with a hoe - I got a lot of practice since it was a never-ending job! Very labour intensive.
I also learned other fun things, such as that pawpaw sap peels the skin from your hands if you leave it too long and that the growth rate of zucchinis can be so rapid that if you miss one for a week under a bunch of leaves, you end up being confronted by this massive, three foot long green baseball bat
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,044
- Reaction score
- 939
When Glyphosate first came out the sales reps were stating it was just a salt with a few additives and was harmless. I even heard reliable stories of one rep drinking the stuff to prove how safe it was. The truth is that it is a very complicated process to make it and its long term health risks are basically unknown.
The court case in the States was a legal challenge, not a scientific study. In any court case it is simple for both parties to find "experts" to support their cases and in this case they had a jury decision, not a judge. It was also a jury decision that awarded a US woman millions of dollars because she spilled hot coffee on herself.
I use glyphosate and just like any other chemical I treat it with respect, I use common sense when deciding where and when to spray it.
This is a cut and paste showing the chemical make up of the product, a bit more than just salt.
Chemistry
Ionic states of glyphosate
Glyphosate is an aminophosphonic analogue of the natural amino acid glycine, and like all amino acids, exists in different ionic states depending on pH. Both the phosphonic acid and carboxylic acid moieties can be ionised and the amine group can be protonated and the substance exists as a series of zwitterions. Glyphosate is soluble in water to 12 g/l at room temperature. The original synthetic approach to glyphosate involved the reaction of phosphorus trichloride with formaldehyde followed by hydrolysis to yield a phosphonate. Glycine is then reacted with this phosphonate to yield glyphosate, and its name is taken as a contraction of the compounds used in this synthesis - viz. glycine and a phosphonate.[33]
PCl3 + H2CO Cl2P(=O)-CH2Cl
Cl2P(=O)-CH2Cl + 2 H2O (HO)2P(=O)-CH2Cl + 2 HCl
(HO)2P(=O)-CH2Cl + H2N-CH2-COOH (HO)2P(=O)-CH2-NH-CH2-COOH + HCl
The main deactivation path for glyphosate is hydrolysis to aminomethylphosphonic acid.[34]
Industrial synthesis
Two main approaches are used to synthesize glyphosate industrially. The first is to react iminodiacetic acid with phosphorous acid and hydrochloric acid (sometimes formed in situ by addition of phosphorus trichloride) via a modified Mannich reaction. Oxidation then leads to the desired glyphosate product. Iminodiacetic acid is usually prepared on-site, such as by reaction of chloroacetic acid with ammonia and calcium hydroxide to produce the calcium iminodiacetate salt and then acidification of the product.[18]
Iminodiacetic acid approach to glyphosate synthesis
The chloroacetic acid approach is less efficient than other iminodiacetic acid approaches, owing to the production of calcium chloride waste and decreased yield. When hydrogen cyanide is readily available as a by-product (say), an alternative approach is to use iminodiacetonitrile, HN(CH2CN)2, and diethanolamine is also a suitable starting material.[18]
The second involves the use of dimethyl phosphite in a one-pot synthesis. Glycine and paraformaldehyde are reacted in a suitable organic solvent (typically triethylamine and methanol) to produce bishydroxymethylglycine, (HOCH2)2NCH2COOH. Dimethyl phosphite is then introduced and work-up with hydrochloric acid cleaves the hydroxymethyl group from the nitrogen atom whilst heating speeds the hydrolysis of both phosphate ester linkages.[18]
Glyphosate synthesis from dimethyl phosphite
This synthetic approach is responsible for a substantial portion of the production of glyphosate in China, with considerable work having gone into recycling the triethylamine and methanol.[18] Progress has also been made in attempting to eliminate the need for triethylamine altogether.[35]
Mode of action
Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan in the shikimate pathway. It does this by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which catalyzes the reaction of shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) and phosphoenolpyruvate to form 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP).[36] Glyphosate is absorbed through foliage and minimally through roots, meaning that it is only effective on actively growing plants and cannot prevent seeds from germinating.[7][8] After application, glyphosate is readily transported around the plant to growing roots and leaves and this systemic activity is important for its effectiveness.[26][18] Inhibiting the enzyme causes shikimate to accumulate in plant tissues and diverts energy and resources away from other processes. While growth stops within hours of application, it takes several days for the leaves to begin turning yellow.[37]
EPSPreactionII.tif
EPSP is subsequently dephosphorylated to chorismate, an essential precursor for the amino acids mentioned above.[38] These amino acids are used in protein synthesis and to produce secondary metabolites such as folates, ubiquinones, and naphthoquinone.
X-ray crystallographic studies of glyphosate and EPSPS show that glyphosate functions by occupying the binding site of the phosphoenolpyruvate, mimicking an intermediate state of the ternary enzymesubstrate complex.[39][40] Glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzymes of different species of plants and microbes at different rates.[41][42]
EPSPS is produced only by plants and microbes; the gene coding for it is not in the mammalian genome.[43][44]
The court case in the States was a legal challenge, not a scientific study. In any court case it is simple for both parties to find "experts" to support their cases and in this case they had a jury decision, not a judge. It was also a jury decision that awarded a US woman millions of dollars because she spilled hot coffee on herself.
I use glyphosate and just like any other chemical I treat it with respect, I use common sense when deciding where and when to spray it.
This is a cut and paste showing the chemical make up of the product, a bit more than just salt.
Chemistry
Ionic states of glyphosate
Glyphosate is an aminophosphonic analogue of the natural amino acid glycine, and like all amino acids, exists in different ionic states depending on pH. Both the phosphonic acid and carboxylic acid moieties can be ionised and the amine group can be protonated and the substance exists as a series of zwitterions. Glyphosate is soluble in water to 12 g/l at room temperature. The original synthetic approach to glyphosate involved the reaction of phosphorus trichloride with formaldehyde followed by hydrolysis to yield a phosphonate. Glycine is then reacted with this phosphonate to yield glyphosate, and its name is taken as a contraction of the compounds used in this synthesis - viz. glycine and a phosphonate.[33]
PCl3 + H2CO Cl2P(=O)-CH2Cl
Cl2P(=O)-CH2Cl + 2 H2O (HO)2P(=O)-CH2Cl + 2 HCl
(HO)2P(=O)-CH2Cl + H2N-CH2-COOH (HO)2P(=O)-CH2-NH-CH2-COOH + HCl
The main deactivation path for glyphosate is hydrolysis to aminomethylphosphonic acid.[34]
Industrial synthesis
Two main approaches are used to synthesize glyphosate industrially. The first is to react iminodiacetic acid with phosphorous acid and hydrochloric acid (sometimes formed in situ by addition of phosphorus trichloride) via a modified Mannich reaction. Oxidation then leads to the desired glyphosate product. Iminodiacetic acid is usually prepared on-site, such as by reaction of chloroacetic acid with ammonia and calcium hydroxide to produce the calcium iminodiacetate salt and then acidification of the product.[18]
Iminodiacetic acid approach to glyphosate synthesis
The chloroacetic acid approach is less efficient than other iminodiacetic acid approaches, owing to the production of calcium chloride waste and decreased yield. When hydrogen cyanide is readily available as a by-product (say), an alternative approach is to use iminodiacetonitrile, HN(CH2CN)2, and diethanolamine is also a suitable starting material.[18]
The second involves the use of dimethyl phosphite in a one-pot synthesis. Glycine and paraformaldehyde are reacted in a suitable organic solvent (typically triethylamine and methanol) to produce bishydroxymethylglycine, (HOCH2)2NCH2COOH. Dimethyl phosphite is then introduced and work-up with hydrochloric acid cleaves the hydroxymethyl group from the nitrogen atom whilst heating speeds the hydrolysis of both phosphate ester linkages.[18]
Glyphosate synthesis from dimethyl phosphite
This synthetic approach is responsible for a substantial portion of the production of glyphosate in China, with considerable work having gone into recycling the triethylamine and methanol.[18] Progress has also been made in attempting to eliminate the need for triethylamine altogether.[35]
Mode of action
Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan in the shikimate pathway. It does this by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which catalyzes the reaction of shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) and phosphoenolpyruvate to form 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP).[36] Glyphosate is absorbed through foliage and minimally through roots, meaning that it is only effective on actively growing plants and cannot prevent seeds from germinating.[7][8] After application, glyphosate is readily transported around the plant to growing roots and leaves and this systemic activity is important for its effectiveness.[26][18] Inhibiting the enzyme causes shikimate to accumulate in plant tissues and diverts energy and resources away from other processes. While growth stops within hours of application, it takes several days for the leaves to begin turning yellow.[37]
EPSPreactionII.tif
EPSP is subsequently dephosphorylated to chorismate, an essential precursor for the amino acids mentioned above.[38] These amino acids are used in protein synthesis and to produce secondary metabolites such as folates, ubiquinones, and naphthoquinone.
X-ray crystallographic studies of glyphosate and EPSPS show that glyphosate functions by occupying the binding site of the phosphoenolpyruvate, mimicking an intermediate state of the ternary enzymesubstrate complex.[39][40] Glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzymes of different species of plants and microbes at different rates.[41][42]
EPSPS is produced only by plants and microbes; the gene coding for it is not in the mammalian genome.[43][44]
I have been unable to find any serious studies about whether cancer IS more abundant now in any particular age group (again, the media assumes it but without referring to the evidence). Reading old references to indigenous Australians from early days of European settlement, it was frequently recorded among them then, and there are plenty of similar references overseas. Cancer results from mutations in cells, and the chance of mutations increases the longer you live. Hunter-gatherer people lived about 37 years average life-span, and the life-span in agricultural and industrial Britain 200 years ago was only in the early forties, yet the incidence of cancer really takes off for those today in their sixties and older. While the numerous organic chemicals that we have produced in the last 150 years might also be expected to damage DNA (and there is good evidence that this occurs), and while there is increased use of some other substances that can definitely can cause cancers (e.g. asbestos, smoking, spirits with some oesophageal cancers), I wonder about the magnitude of the increase in any particular age group, and whether its apparent prevalence does not to a large degree represent an ageing population, and the absence of other diseases killing people (so that it appears more obvious). As to the latter, diphtheria deaths sometimes exceeded cancer deaths when my dad was a kid, but now that disease is not a significant issue.thedigger said:
i.e. the good news - we live much longer and have fewer diseases, the bad news - you will be more likely to die of cancer.
1 litre plastic bottle.
put 3 cups salt, two cups white vinegar.
fill to nearly top of bottlewith warm water.
shake the daylights out of it to dissolve the salt.
put 1 table spoon of liquid soap in and again shake
the day lights out of it.
Let it cool then use.
Warning. It will kill anything it gets on.
I sprayed some African love grass with it.
Dead in two days.
put 3 cups salt, two cups white vinegar.
fill to nearly top of bottlewith warm water.
shake the daylights out of it to dissolve the salt.
put 1 table spoon of liquid soap in and again shake
the day lights out of it.
Let it cool then use.
Warning. It will kill anything it gets on.
I sprayed some African love grass with it.
Dead in two days.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 7,948
- Reaction score
- 16,029
Tathradj said:
I'll give it a go :Y:
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 2,530
Tathradj said:
Also an effective "pickle" to remove the firescale on silver after casting/ soldering. No joke, a near- identical mixture to that was the most effective stuff I tried while mucking around withsilversmithing ang cost bugger all as well.
Good old glyphosate has been in use for nearly 50 years, wouldn't be surprised if usage for this year tops 1 million tons and we still have no scientific evidence it is a carcinogen. I think the numbers speak for themselves, I wouldn't drink it but then I wouldn't drink 99% of the cleaning products under my kitchen sink either.
I'm sure we could farm without it but unless people are prepared to pay $20 for a loaf of bread and have similar price increases on most agricultural produce it wont happen.
I'm sure we could farm without it but unless people are prepared to pay $20 for a loaf of bread and have similar price increases on most agricultural produce it wont happen.
