Started By
Message

re: EPA- today Glyphosate (Roundup), Reaffirms No Risk to Public Health

Posted on 5/1/19 at 8:42 am to
Posted by lsu1919
Member since May 2017
3244 posts
Posted on 5/1/19 at 8:42 am to
I just operate under the philosophy that any chemical, especially those used to kill living things, is probably not good for me to have on my skin, breathe in, etc for prolonged periods of time.

Pretty simple.

Posted by Thib-a-doe Tiger
Member since Nov 2012
35857 posts
Posted on 5/1/19 at 9:20 am to
quote:

I just operate under the philosophy that any chemical, especially those used to kill living things, is probably not good for me to have on my skin, breathe in, etc for prolonged periods of time.

Pretty simple.



Not a fan of penicillin?


ETA: every single thing is made up of chemicals. Water, air, grass, meat, etc
This post was edited on 5/1/19 at 9:30 am
Posted by Bigbee Hills
Member since Feb 2019
1531 posts
Posted on 5/1/19 at 9:30 am to
You're on the right track, but with insecticides, for the most part.

The reason insecticides are almost always a more serious matter is because they destroy the physiology of an animal, albeit an insect, but an animal nonetheless. A plant's physiology is much different than an animals, obviously, and so the concept is not the same, but it kind of is. I smell what you're stepping in.

I will say this: Any time I don't have to handle pesticides of any kind, whether glyphosate or roach killer, is a good time. Even when I'm using roundup I wear PPE's because just like dog chit, I don't like getting the stuff on me or in me. I'm not ever going to say flat-out that it doesn't cause harm at the genetic level, but the science shows that it doesn't, for now.

I know literally hundreds of guys who've all but been wallowing in the stuff for 20 years who are as healthy as can be. Is that anecdotal evidence? Sure it is, but it's a different kind of anecdotal evidence, and it's from one hell of a sample pool too.

Is it enough to make me disregard getting the stuff on me and in me? You bet your sweet arse it ain't.

The stuff we'd better be concerned with is often the restricted use chemicals (and non-restricted) that they use on yall's beloved courses, and in the massive quantities that they do. It's chump change to get a pesticide technician/applicators permit to work up under a licensed guy, and there's no way it's all being put out perfectly to label specs. The stuff sprayed on right of ways is a necessity to keep your power on or get it going when crews gotta access lines to fix them, but there's alot of chit being put out there too. We won't even discuss bare ground 3 year "burn down" areas and the chit that's applied there. The stuff that any homeowner can go to lowes and buy themselves for their lawns, or at local county farm supply for their termite problems, that's the stuff that's incredibly misused and applied incorrectly- by far. That's the stuff that runs off into the water system, and the stuff that is far less studied than glyphosate.

All I'm saying is this: There might be a silver bullet, but glyphosate ain't it boys. It ain't.
Posted by I B Freeman
Member since Oct 2009
27843 posts
Posted on 5/1/19 at 12:05 pm to
You use a LOT of chemicals that will kill things.

Very few of them are marketed as herbicides and are therefore tested for safety.

There is no way for example if you decided that you want to market diesel or gasoline as a herbicide that they would pass EPA scrutiny but they will definitely kill plants.

You are much better off using things regulated and marketed as herbicides than you are using unregulated chemicals for any purpose.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram