Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
General Subjects => General Forum => Topic started by: Maggi Young on August 14, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
-
We often hear moans that the news is always full of "bad" things and it is true that an awful lot of it seems depressing. :-\
Following this report (http://www.foeeurope.org/weed-killer-glyphosate-found-human-urine-across-Europe-130613)from June on weedkiller reside found in humans, comes another with worries that the plants folk are buying to be "pollinator friendly" in their gardens may already be contaminated by pesticides (http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/bee-friendly-plants-may-not-130814.htm).
:P Hard to be cheery sometimes, isn't it? :'( I'm going to stop reading the Horticulture Week digests.
-
They measured 0.2 microgram per liter. If a liter weighs 1 kilogram, the concentration of Glyphosate is 0.2x10^-6/1000 = 2x10^-10 = 1 part in 5 billion. I would not worry. This is NOTHING.
The scientific report: http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf (http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf)
The Friends of the Earth report takes a routine scientific report which finds trace amounts of Glyphosate, and turns it into their typical hysterical "the sky is falling" anti-everything propaganda. I think it would be wise to be suspicious of their motives. At least as suspicious as you should be of Monsanto. I don't want either of them getting dictatorial control over my life.
-
I'm sure you are right Gene - though I'd prefer not to have ANY weedkiller in me :o
-
Is it time to bring up that problem given to students "work out how likely it is that you've just breathed in some of the oxygen molecules in Mussolini's last breath" - it is quite likely.
Big numbers, small amounts.
We all rely on the anti-homeopathy principle, small enough amounts have no effect.
-
The solution to pollution is dilution.
-
The solution to pollution is dilution.
Hmm, I wonder who said that first?
-
Gene does not seem to take into account 'cause and effect'. What is the ratio of the weight of 1000 lungfuls of cigarette smoke to the weight of a human body? The effect can be very devastating. Like Maggi, I prefer NO pesticides in my body.
-
As long as the human race refuses to control its population growth, we will have to live with agricultural chemicals. It is simply impossible to feed 7 billion people otherwise. Given the amounts of Glyphosate that are used globally, it is a miracle that the amount measured in the human body is so low.
Remember that modern scientific instruments can detect the presence of a few molecules of a substance. So Friends of the Earth will never run out of things to scream about. Reading their rants will probably do more damage to you than the nearly undetectable amount of Glyphosate in your body.
-
There are enough things to worry about without getting hung up on this. Sure, we would all like to keep our bodies free of contamination (shades of Dr Strangelove and the mad USAF Base Commander?). But these is an old north-of-England saying: "You've got to eat a peck of dirt before you die".
-
I suppose it is not all bad, the "weedkiller reside found in humans" was in their urine, so they were getting rid of it.
Yes finding pesticides in "bee friendly plants" is a bit of a joke - but hardly surprising...
I've seen a lot of bees this year. Friday night's Gardeners' World said Dahlias were not the thing, but they're going mad for them outside. Bees seem to like whatever I plant - whether there is a dark side to this; like the Dahlia is the bee equivalent of the stick of celery - eat too much and you'll starve to death because the energy taken to eat it is greater than you can get out of it.
-
..........and if we didn't had groups like Friends of the Earth we would be considerably worse off.
-
..........and if we didn't had groups like Friends of the Earth we would be considerably worse off.
That's debatable.
-
Being the worlds largest environmental organisation must produce some benefits, or should we just pollute and be damned?
-
Sadly, like most pressure groups founded on reasonable principles it has become populated by zealots, power hungry egos and legions of the ill informed.
-
Being an FoE supporter, and I am sure that I am not the only one on the Forum,I must say that I am disapointed by some of the negativity on here.
Let us take just one example, pollinating insects and insecticides. The decline in the bee population is already well documented by responsible institutions, but would multinational companies reduce the production and use of insecticides if it was not for pressure put on Governments by FoE, Soil Association etc to restrict the use of them? I very much doubt it.
-
Sadly, like most pressure groups founded on reasonable principles it has become populated by zealots, power hungry egos and legions of the ill informed.
It would be good to see evidence for this claim.
-
I am also an environmentalist. I believe overpopulation is at the heart of all our environmental issues. The so-called environmental groups won't touch this issue, because they are afraid it will offend their "progressive" constituency. Instead, they have morphed into marketers, spin masters, and control freaks. In the US, we have groups that want gardeners to grow only those plants that grow native to their local area. These people are crazy for control over other people's lives. Talk to them; listen to them. They are not rational. They are like cult fanatics.
Any group that takes a report like this one and turns it into a doomsday tirade is not our friend. They are using public ignorance about science to feather their own nest. Like any bureaucracy, their first interest is job security.
-
Is this evidence? I think not for anyone with any kind of scientific qualification. It reads like a stream of ad hominem abuse.
-
I think it is evident that almost every journalist is prone to exaggeration for effect and it is doubtless true that some pressure groups do have extreme views and we can see the hi-jacking of almost every organisation by those seeking to protect their jobs.
I would think that none of that negates the fact that environmental issues of all sorts do need to be brought to public attention somehow .
For instance, re the findings of weedkiller in humans - how many people are happy to use or have used around them such chemicals, thinking that if they are on sale they must be safe? Is it not better to show people that humans are far from immune from the harmful effects of such chemicals? It may be that the realisation of the possibility of a personal impact that may be needed to show how insidious the "creep" of these chemicals can be. There are an awful lot of people who think that none of the issues we see raised by the likes of FOE have anything to do with them and cannot harm them - I'm of the opinion that that is just not so and I think I'm not alone in thinking that.
-
It reads like a stream of ad hominem abuse.
Which is never acceptable in the forum...........