I've been digging up bindweed plants before the Spring really gets going. What an incredible mess those roots are!
I'd certainly not put them in my own puny compost bins, but I intended taking them to the Council composting site, where (I thought) the scale of things (absolutely massive, with enormous heat generated by the repeatedly turned mountains of compost), would see them off.
However the "all-knowing" Monty said - only last Friday - "you must put them on the bonfire" (a _very_ risquo word for him to use on the BBC, I thought). I don't have bonfires (if I had a couple of acres I jolly well would!).
Would this stuff, as I had originally planned, satisfactorily break down and disappear in the Council site?
I've been digging up bindweed plants before the Spring really gets going. What an incredible mess those roots are!
I'd certainly not put them in my own puny compost bins, but I intended taking them to the Council composting site, where (I thought) the scale of things (absolutely massive, with enormous heat generated by the repeatedly turned mountains of compost), would see them off.
However the "all-knowing" Monty said - only last Friday - "you must put them on the bonfire" (a _very_ risqu|- word for him to use on the BBC, I thought). I don't have bonfires (if I had a couple of acres I jolly well would!).
Would this stuff, as I had originally planned, satisfactorily break down and disappear in the Council site?
In my ungreen opinion the *only* sensible way to deal with bindweed is unlimited use of glyphosate, repeated as, and when, necessary.yup!
I've been digging up bindweed plants before the Spring really gets going. What an incredible mess those roots are!
I'd certainly not put them in my own puny compost bins, but I intended taking them to the Council composting site, where (I thought) the scale of things (absolutely massive, with enormous heat generated by the repeatedly turned mountains of compost), would see them off.
However the "all-knowing" Monty said - only last Friday - "you must put them on the bonfire" (a _very_ risqu?? word for him to use on the BBC, I thought).
I don't have bonfires (if I had a couple of acres I jolly well would!).
Would this stuff, as I had originally planned, satisfactorily break down and disappear in the Council site?
On 2025-04-01, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been digging up bindweed plants before the Spring really gets going. >> What an incredible mess those roots are!
I'd certainly not put them in my own puny compost bins, but I intended taking
them to the Council composting site, where (I thought) the scale of things >> (absolutely massive, with enormous heat generated by the repeatedly turned >> mountains of compost), would see them off.
However the "all-knowing" Monty said - only last Friday - "you must put them >> on the bonfire" (a _very_ risqu?? word for him to use on the BBC, I thought).
I don't have bonfires (if I had a couple of acres I jolly well would!).
Would this stuff, as I had originally planned, satisfactorily break down and >> disappear in the Council site?
I'm sure it will be fine.
I compost bindweed roots and don't have a problem with it spreading via
the compost. We have a "wild" part at the bottom of the garden where >bindweed grows, cutting the green back every couple of weeks keep it
under control and we have even eradicated it from part of the wild area
over a few years.
In article <slrnvuo23k.rf5.jj@iridium.wf32df>,
Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
On 2025-04-01, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure it will be fine.
I compost bindweed roots and don't have a problem with it spreading via
the compost. We have a "wild" part at the bottom of the garden where
bindweed grows, cutting the green back every couple of weeks keep it
under control and we have even eradicated it from part of the wild area
over a few years.
So do I, and it rots down perfectly well in a cool heap.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
You did get /all/ the roots didn't you? ;-)
I've been digging up bindweed plants before the Spring really gets going. What an incredible mess those roots are!
I'd certainly not put them in my own puny compost bins, but I intended taking them to the Council composting site, where (I thought) the scale of things (absolutely massive, with enormous heat generated by the repeatedly turned mountains of compost), would see them off.
However the "all-knowing" Monty said - only last Friday - "you must put them on the bonfire" (a _very_ risqu|- word for him to use on the BBC, I thought). I don't have bonfires (if I had a couple of acres I jolly well would!).
Would this stuff, as I had originally planned, satisfactorily break down and disappear in the Council site?
Cheers
John
Jo Wrote:
Hi all,
I can't get rid of it...it's going crazy in my garden....the dreaded
bindweed. and it's driving me crazy!!
Jo
Convolvulus arvensis...probably would be highly valued if it was
difficult to grow...related to Morning Glory.... anyway heres what they >recommend...
isolate the thing by giving bamboo cane support then wait until it has
begun to produce flowers then give the herbicide...the idea is that its
inner resourses will be at their lowest at the onset of flower >production...late evening application is worth a try...effects of
herbicide can be better .
if its under the fence and that side aint gettin treated....hmm...dunno
I have only had a small infestation, but I got rid of it by bundling the >foliage up into a ball, treating with glyphosphate and putting it into--
a polythene bag ( with the root end still in the ground). I added a bit more >liquid glyphosphate to the bag then sellotaped it up. The result was that >the bindweed was in contact with the glyphosphate for a long time >irrespective of how much it rained. I have not seen it since.
For the record, I am in the Layman / TNP camp: I don't hesitate to use glyphosate when weeds are invading too overwhelmingly: life is too short (especially now!). However bindweed is a bastard to treat, especially if it's winding through a hedge at the back of the border. This February gave me a chance to have a real go digging it up.
On Tue, 3 May 2005 23:48:18 +0000, Eyebright <Eyebright.1ohiw8@gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote:
Jo Wrote:
Hi all,
I can't get rid of it...it's going crazy in my garden....the dreaded
bindweed. and it's driving me crazy!!
Jo
Convolvulus arvensis...probably would be highly valued if it was
difficult to grow...related to Morning Glory.... anyway heres what they
recommend...
isolate the thing by giving bamboo cane support then wait until it has
begun to produce flowers then give the herbicide...the idea is that its
inner resourses will be at their lowest at the onset of flower
production...late evening application is worth a try...effects of
herbicide can be better .
if its under the fence and that side aint gettin treated....hmm...dunno
Here's a post from a Peter Sutton from 2005:
I have only had a small infestation, but I got rid of it by bundling the
foliage up into a ball, treating with glyphosphate and putting it into
a polythene bag ( with the root end still in the ground). I added a bit more
liquid glyphosphate to the bag then sellotaped it up. The result was that >> the bindweed was in contact with the glyphosphate for a long time
irrespective of how much it rained. I have not seen it since.
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
For the record, I am in the Layman / TNP camp: I don't hesitate to use
glyphosate when weeds are invading too overwhelmingly: life is too short
(especially now!). However bindweed is a bastard to treat, especially if it's
winding through a hedge at the back of the border. This February gave me a >> chance to have a real go digging it up.
I make up my own glyphosate from stump killer, by using a turkey baster to put a suitable amount into a re-purposed trigger pack, topping up with
water, adding a drop or two of detergent, replacing the trigger mechanism, and repeatedly inverting the pack until the contents are mixed.
The advantage with this is that I can make up any strength glyphosate I
need; usually double strength for things like ivy and bramble. IrCOve never had to deal with bindweed so canrCOt say what dilution might be needed; bramble mix could do it.
Warning! DonrCOt make up your own glyphosate if you are unfamiliar with the calculations involved, the need for suitable precautions when preparing the diluted mixture, and the cleaning and storage of the items used in the process.
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
On 18/04/2025 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
The Greens would want that, but it's interesting that although they are
more influential in the EU glyphosate got an extension there from 2023
to 2033. From <https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en>:
"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by
Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there
is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to
the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."
Of course, The Greens studiously avoid believing anything scientific if
it doesn't agreed with what they /know/ to be a fact.
Anyway, if it looks like it will be banned, just buy a stock and use it
as and when you want. As far as I know it seems to be stable in solution (<https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/373.htm>: "Chemically
stable under standard ambient conditions"). I bought a litre of 360g/l solution via Amazon three years ago, and it seems fine.
PS the far worse weedkiller is that one that kills weeds and leaves the grass. It stays in the grass and makes it unfit for compost.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:02:51 BST, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
PS the far worse weedkiller is that one that kills weeds and leaves the
grass. It stays in the grass and makes it unfit for compost.
The one I've used recently (Evergreen 4-in-1, (by MiracleGro, nowadays)) seems
to not even kill the weeds (no way of telling if it's stayed in the grass).
I studiously applied 35g psm of this, as instructed on the pack, a few weeks ago. The grass grew very well; I cut it a few days later and binned the cuttings, as per instructions. Yesterday I cut it again, it having grown very
well again, and this cuting operation simply exposed the fact that *all* the "large leafed weeds" have been growing very well too, in the shelter of the growing grass.[1]
I'm going to try "Resolva" again -- when I can devote some of my rapidly diminishing time on this earth to such a futile activity.
On 18/04/2025 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
The Greens would want that, but it's interesting that although they are
more influential in the EU glyphosate got an extension there from 2023
to 2033. From ><https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en>:
"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by
Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority >(EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there
is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to
the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."
Of course, The Greens studiously avoid believing anything scientific if
it doesn't agreed with what they /know/ to be a fact.
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnrCOt gone away, so if it was banned, what would be used in its place?Salt and vinegar ...
In article <vtvkdp$sol9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
The Greens would want that, but it's interesting that although they are
more influential in the EU glyphosate got an extension there from 2023
to 2033. From
<https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en>:
"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by
Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there
is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to
the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."
Of course, The Greens studiously avoid believing anything scientific if
it doesn't agreed with what they /know/ to be a fact.
That is bollocks.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to
humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> wrote:
[rCa]
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnrCOt gone away, so if it was banned, what would be used in its place?
Nick Maclaren <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> wrote:
[a]
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnAt gone away, so if it was >banned, what would be used in its place?
Nick Maclaren <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> wrote:
[rCa]
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnrCOt gone away, so if it was banned, what would be used in its place?
Spike wrote:
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnrCOt gone away, so if it was >> banned, what would be used in its place?
Salt and vinegar ...
In article <vtvkdp$sol9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
The Greens would want that, but it's interesting that although they are
more influential in the EU glyphosate got an extension there from 2023
to 2033. From
<https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en>:
"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by
Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there
is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to
the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."
Of course, The Greens studiously avoid believing anything scientific if
it doesn't agreed with what they /know/ to be a fact.
That is bollocks.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to
humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
On 22 Apr 2025 18:44:17 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Nick Maclaren <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> wrote:
[rCa]
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnrCOt gone away, so if it was >> banned, what would be used in its place?
Remind me, someone, why were paraquat and diquat banned? It can't just
be because kiddies were drinking the stuff, surely.
There seems to be a possible direct action of glyphosate on honeybees,Honey bees crashed when glyphosate was made a villain. Whatever they
but not bumblebees (and no data on other pollinators), but exactly what
its significance is I am not sure.
On 23/04/2025 10:49, Jeff Layman wrote:
There seems to be a possible direct action of glyphosate on honeybees,Honey bees crashed when glyphosate was made a villain. Whatever they
but not bumblebees (and no data on other pollinators), but exactly what
its significance is I am not sure.
are using now is worse.
On 22/04/2025 16:13, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article <vtvkdp$sol9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
The Greens would want that, but it's interesting that although they are
more influential in the EU glyphosate got an extension there from 2023
to 2033. From
<https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en>:
"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by
Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there
is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to >>> the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."
Of course, The Greens studiously avoid believing anything scientific if
it doesn't agreed with what they /know/ to be a fact.
That is bollocks.
I'll come back to your pollinator comment below.
So you believe that glyphosate is carcinogenic? The Greens continue to
push that despite all the scientific evidence and Regulatory Agency
reviews to the contrary.
And now that has been debunked, there seems to be a search for something else to link it to. How about the "b|-te noire" of dementia? You think that's far fetched? See this recent paper <https://jneuroinflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12974-024-03290-6>
"Glyphosate exposure exacerbates neuroinflammation and AlzheimerrCOs disease-like pathology despite a 6-month recovery period in mice":
What did they do? They tested brain function in transgenic and non-transgenic AD mice, by dosing them with glyphosate at 50 and
500mg/kg a day for 13 weeks (according to <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804402/>, that would be the equivalent of a human taking about 1 or 10ml glyphosate concentrate (360mg/ml) daily for 13 weeks!) The authors justify the dose based on
the EPA Registration Eligibility Decision for glyphosate in 1993.
"The EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario" that is assuming that 100% of all possible commodities/acreages were treated and assuming that tolerance-level
residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded
that chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.
A reference dose (RfD) or estimate of daily exposure that would not
cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime of 2mg/kg/day has been
proposed for glyphosate."
Assuming that's correct, would you take 140 mg glyphosate (about 0.4ml
of concentrate) daily? The EU sets the limit at 0.5mg/kg/day, and even
that is rarely exceeded according to the wiki section at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Residues_in_food_products>. Interestingly, "Glyphosate residues below the European MRLs were most frequently found in dry lentils, linseeds, soya beans, dry peas, tea, buckwheat, barley, wheat and rye". In other words, the basic staples for most of us. Perhaps most amusing of all: "Of the products that exceeded MRLs, one third were organic products."
There seem to be numerous other recent papers investigating this
"possible link" between glyphosate and dementia. I wonder if all this research will prove fruitful, or will eventually be found wanting like
that concerning cancer.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
According to the wiki, there is a vast range in the half-life of
glyphosate or its metabolite in soil. See the final paragraph at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate>, but if it spreads in the soil or water run-off to areas where its activity is
unwanted then I agree there is an issue if it kills plants which
pollinators obtain their food source from. Despite searching I couldn't
find a decent review of this subject. Do you have any good references?
There seems to be a possible direct action of glyphosate on honeybees,
but not bumblebees (and no data on other pollinators), but exactly what
its significance is I am not sure.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to
humans.
See above comments on dementia studies!
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
I don't think that are they scientific ones. Zealousness tends to cloud judgement as much as commercial rewards. It's always fun to read the
news in the Pesticide Action Network webpages...
Remind me, someone, why were paraquat and diquat banned? It can't just
be because kiddies were drinking the stuff, surely.
On 23/04/2025 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/04/2025 10:49, Jeff Layman wrote:
There seems to be a possible direct action of glyphosate on honeybees,Honey bees crashed when glyphosate was made-a a villain. Whatever they
but not bumblebees (and no data on other pollinators), but exactly what
its significance is I am not sure.
are using now is worse.
Are you sure that wasn't to do with neonicotinoid insecticides rather
than glyphosate?
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 16:13, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article <vtvkdp$sol9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 02/04/2025 10:37, Spike wrote:
Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
But will the UK ban glyphosate altogether when the current licence
expires in Dec 2025?
The Greens would want that, but it's interesting that although they are >>>> more influential in the EU glyphosate got an extension there from 2023 >>>> to 2033. From
<https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en>:
"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by
Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority >>>> (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there >>>> is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to >>>> the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."
Of course, The Greens studiously avoid believing anything scientific if >>>> it doesn't agreed with what they /know/ to be a fact.
That is bollocks.
I'll come back to your pollinator comment below.
So you believe that glyphosate is carcinogenic? The Greens continue to
push that despite all the scientific evidence and Regulatory Agency
reviews to the contrary.
And now that has been debunked, there seems to be a search for something
else to link it to. How about the "b|-te noire" of dementia? You think
that's far fetched? See this recent paper
<https://jneuroinflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12974-024-03290-6>
"Glyphosate exposure exacerbates neuroinflammation and AlzheimerrCOs
disease-like pathology despite a 6-month recovery period in mice":
What did they do? They tested brain function in transgenic and
non-transgenic AD mice, by dosing them with glyphosate at 50 and
500mg/kg a day for 13 weeks (according to
<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804402/>, that would be the
equivalent of a human taking about 1 or 10ml glyphosate concentrate
(360mg/ml) daily for 13 weeks!) The authors justify the dose based on
the EPA Registration Eligibility Decision for glyphosate in 1993.
"The EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a
worst-case risk scenario" that is assuming that 100% of all possible
commodities/acreages were treated and assuming that tolerance-level
residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded
that chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.
A reference dose (RfD) or estimate of daily exposure that would not
cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime of 2mg/kg/day has been
proposed for glyphosate."
Assuming that's correct, would you take 140 mg glyphosate (about 0.4ml
of concentrate) daily? The EU sets the limit at 0.5mg/kg/day, and even
that is rarely exceeded according to the wiki section at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Residues_in_food_products>.
Interestingly, "Glyphosate residues below the European MRLs were most
frequently found in dry lentils, linseeds, soya beans, dry peas, tea,
buckwheat, barley, wheat and rye". In other words, the basic staples for
most of us. Perhaps most amusing of all: "Of the products that exceeded
MRLs, one third were organic products."
There seem to be numerous other recent papers investigating this
"possible link" between glyphosate and dementia. I wonder if all this
research will prove fruitful, or will eventually be found wanting like
that concerning cancer.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
According to the wiki, there is a vast range in the half-life of
glyphosate or its metabolite in soil. See the final paragraph at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate>, but if it
spreads in the soil or water run-off to areas where its activity is
unwanted then I agree there is an issue if it kills plants which
pollinators obtain their food source from. Despite searching I couldn't
find a decent review of this subject. Do you have any good references?
There seems to be a possible direct action of glyphosate on honeybees,
but not bumblebees (and no data on other pollinators), but exactly what
its significance is I am not sure.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to
humans.
See above comments on dementia studies!
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
I don't think that are they scientific ones. Zealousness tends to cloud
judgement as much as commercial rewards. It's always fun to read the
news in the Pesticide Action Network webpages...
My understanding of the situation is that the environmentalists wanted to break Monsanto by getting their GMO seeds banned. When the field-burning
and other stunts failed to attain this objective, they turned to the companyrCOs main earner to try instead to get that banned, first using the rCycancerrCO scare and, when that also failed, the spectre of dementia.
Who knows whatrCOs next?
I'll come back to your pollinator comment below.
So you believe that glyphosate is carcinogenic? The Greens continue to
push that despite all the scientific evidence and Regulatory Agency
reviews to the contrary.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
According to the wiki, there is a vast range in the half-life of
glyphosate or its metabolite in soil. See the final paragraph at ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate>, but if it >spreads in the soil or water run-off to areas where its activity is
unwanted then I agree there is an issue if it kills plants which
pollinators obtain their food source from. Despite searching I couldn't
find a decent review of this subject. Do you have any good references?
In article <vuad3h$2ekb1$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I'll come back to your pollinator comment below.
So you believe that glyphosate is carcinogenic? The Greens continue to
push that despite all the scientific evidence and Regulatory Agency
reviews to the contrary.
Actually, the scientific evidene is that it is, though less so than
many other household chemicals. Many chemicals are seriously harmful
at the regulatory amounts, just with low probability; it's one of
the more likely explanations for the rise in type I diabetes and
other autoimmune diseases. No, glyphosate isn't a prime candidate,
but is a possible one.
However, that is NOT why I said it was harmful.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
According to the wiki, there is a vast range in the half-life of
glyphosate or its metabolite in soil. See the final paragraph at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate>, but if it
spreads in the soil or water run-off to areas where its activity is
unwanted then I agree there is an issue if it kills plants which
pollinators obtain their food source from. Despite searching I couldn't
find a decent review of this subject. Do you have any good references?
I looked at the actual scientific papers. No, I didn't see a good
review, but there were a good many that showed that it is getting
into places it shouldn't, in quantities large enough to do significant ecological harm. There is no doubt it is causing serious ecological
harm.
In terms of what could be used instead, ammonium sulphamate, acetic
acid (strong vinegar) and (most of all) simply not using it all
work for different purposes.
Ammonium sulphamate is not approved as a herbicide in the EU, but that
was through lack of information to support it. That, of course, simply
begs the question as to what would have happened to it (and any other possible herbicides) if all the studies done on glyphosate were repeated
on those alternatives?
Carrots can kill you.
On 25/04/2025 08:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
Ammonium sulphamate is not approved as a herbicide in the EU, but thatEverything can kill you. Water can kill you. Ban water.
was through lack of information to support it. That, of course, simply
begs the question as to what would have happened to it (and any other
possible herbicides) if all the studies done on glyphosate were repeated
on those alternatives?
Carrots can kill you. Ban carrots.
Aspirin can kill you. Ban aspirin.
This is the typical ArtStudentrao Boolean mentality of the qualitative
Left wing/Green thinker.
The real solution is to balance the risk of harm from anything with the
risk of harm from banning it.
In the case of lead in petrol, it wasn't too hard to replace it, and likewise asbestos although its true to say that asbestos - unless you
are constantly exposed to it - is not a risk in practice.
But the case for using either was not great. They were more convenient
than necessary.
But in the case of things like DDT, which was well on the way to
eradicating malaria and various other insect borne illnesses, the ban
was disastrous. The lives of raptors were valued moire highly than the
lives of human beings.
But that seems to be the Left/Liberal/Green credo. Animals good. Humans bad.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Carrots can kill you.
I suppose that depends on what you do with them.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/04/2025 08:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
Ammonium sulphamate is not approved as a herbicide in the EU, but thatEverything can kill you. Water can kill you. Ban water.
was through lack of information to support it. That, of course, simply
begs the question as to what would have happened to it (and any other
possible herbicides) if all the studies done on glyphosate were repeated >>> on those alternatives?
Carrots can kill you. Ban carrots.
Aspirin can kill you. Ban aspirin.
This is the typical ArtStudentrao Boolean mentality of the qualitative
Left wing/Green thinker.
The real solution is to balance the risk of harm from anything with the
risk of harm from banning it.
In the case of lead in petrol, it wasn't too hard to replace it, and
likewise asbestos although its true to say that asbestos - unless you
are constantly exposed to it - is not a risk in practice.
But the case for using either was not great. They were more convenient
than necessary.
But in the case of things like DDT, which was well on the way to
eradicating malaria and various other insect borne illnesses, the ban
was disastrous. The lives of raptors were valued moire highly than the
lives of human beings.
But that seems to be the Left/Liberal/Green credo. Animals good. Humans bad.
Falling downstairs kills 700 and hospitalises 43000 people every year, yet
I donrCOt see any campaign to ban them and make people live in bungalows.
On 25/04/2025 14:07, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But in the case of things like DDT, which was well on the way to
eradicating malaria and various other insect borne illnesses, the ban
was disastrous. The lives of raptors were valued moire highly than the
lives of human beings.
But that seems to be the Left/Liberal/Green credo. Animals good. Humans bad.
Falling downstairs kills 700 and hospitalises 43000 people every year, yet >> I donrCOt see any campaign to ban them and make people live in bungalows.
Oh, it will come...
On 25/04/2025 13:21, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Carrots can kill you.
I suppose that depends on what you do with them.
Eating them is enough...
Feb. 17, 1974
LONDON, Feb. 16rCoA coroner's inquest here has found that the death of a 48rCEyearrCEold healthrCEfood enthusiast was caused by rCLcarrotrCEjuice addiction.rCY
The coroner's court heard evidence this week that Basil Brown, a scientist had taken 70 million units of Vitamin A in 10 days. In addition he was drinking about a gallon of carrot juice a day during that time. His skin
was bright yellow when he died.
Dr. David Haler, the pathologist who performed an autopsy, said that the effect of the enormous intake of Vitamin A from carrots and tablets was indistinguishable from alcoholic poisoning. It produces the same result,
he saidrCocirrhosis of the liver.
-----------------------------------------------------
Nov 17, 2024 6:04 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) rCo An outbreak of E. coli has infected dozens of people who ate bagged organic carrots, and one person died from the infection.
Altogether, 39 people were infected and 15 were hospitalized in 18
states after eating organic whole and baby carrots sold by Grimmway
Farms, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Sunday.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/04/2025 14:07, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[rCa]
But in the case of things like DDT, which was well on the way to
eradicating malaria and various other insect borne illnesses, the ban
was disastrous. The lives of raptors were valued moire highly than the >>>> lives of human beings.
But that seems to be the Left/Liberal/Green credo. Animals good. Humans bad.
Falling downstairs kills 700 and hospitalises 43000 people every year, yet >>> I donrCOt see any campaign to ban them and make people live in bungalows.
Oh, it will come...
And yet the environmentalists cannot point to a single person who has died from glyphosate in their diet, yet want it banned. Balance of risks?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:21, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Eating them is enough...
Carrots can kill you.
I suppose that depends on what you do with them.
Feb. 17, 1974
LONDON, Feb. 16|ore4rCYA coroner's inquest here has found that the death of a
48|ore4-Eyear|ore4-Eold health|ore4-Efood enthusiast was caused by |ore4+ocarrot|ore4-Ejuice
addiction.|ore4-Y
The coroner's court heard evidence this week that Basil Brown, a scientist >> had taken 70 million units of Vitamin A in 10 days. In addition he was
drinking about a gallon of carrot juice a day during that time. His skin
was bright yellow when he died.
Dr. David Haler, the pathologist who performed an autopsy, said that the
effect of the enormous intake of Vitamin A from carrots and tablets was
indistinguishable from alcoholic poisoning. It produces the same result,
he said|ore4rCYcirrhosis of the liver.
-----------------------------------------------------
Nov 17, 2024 6:04 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) |ore4rCY An outbreak of E. coli has infected dozens of people who
ate bagged organic carrots, and one person died from the infection.
Altogether, 39 people were infected and 15 were hospitalized in 18
states after eating organic whole and baby carrots sold by Grimmway
Farms, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Sunday.
Two deaths 50 years apart, one from an overdose of Vitamen -A tablets
and the other from e-coli. I'm not that keen on carrots, so you have
given me the evidence I need to politely decline them. :-)
And yet the environmentalists cannot point to a single person who has died from glyphosate in their diet, yet want it banned. Balance of risks?
On 25 Apr 2025 at 16:14:30 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And yet the environmentalists cannot point to a single person who has died >> from glyphosate in their diet, yet want it banned. Balance of risks?
I'm not "An Environementalist" as such, although, being a recycler from birth,
it seems, I am definitely on the green side of the fence.
But I'm not bothered about the odd human dying of glyphosate (there are far too many humans anyway).
What bothers me is this: we are fortunate enough to live in a very small village, quite far from the nearest town, and much further from any city. When we moved here about 40 (Forty?!?!?!) years ago, the local countryside was
well populated with birdlife of all kinds, with rabbits, badgers, etc, and even the odd red squirrel. Nowadays when we go for a local 3 mile walk from the village, we don't see many birds at all - if any! - never mind mammals. If this is not caused by the farming industry, what _is_ causing it?
[cue: specific explanations which might explain specific species loss. But wholesale depletion of formerly large populations of British birds, some of which we won't ever since again around here?]
Best wishes, all
John
What bothers me is this: we are fortunate enough to live in a very small village, quite far from the nearest town, and much further from any city. When we moved here about 40 (Forty?!?!?!) years ago, the local countryside was
well populated with birdlife of all kinds, with rabbits, badgers, etc, and even the odd red squirrel. Nowadays when we go for a local 3 mile walk from the village, we don't see many birds at all - if any! - never mind mammals. If this is not caused by the farming industry, what_is_ causing it?
[cue: specific explanations which might explain specific species loss. But wholesale depletion of formerly large populations of British birds, some of which we won't ever since again around here?]
We thought much the same as you, when it came to the apparent amount of birds, but what changed our minds was a phone app that identified birds
from their chirpings. There are far more varieties of birds about than we ever imagined, yet we see very few, mainly blackbirds, robins, blue tits, magpies, pigeons, and goldfinches, but they are but a fraction of the
variety that are about. From memory the app has also picked up dunnocks, wrens, bullfinches, woodpeckers, long-tailed and great tits, and more that
I canrCOt now recall.
Nowadays when we go for a local 3 mile walk from
the village, we don't see many birds at all - if any! - never mind mammals. If this is not caused by the farming industry, what _is_ causing it?
... a few weeks ago I did have a couple of bluetits
tapping on my study window. Two of them? Always together. Were they a
pair? Popular opinion holds that a bluetit does this to scare off his reflection which he sees as a rival. But would a pair (male/female) do this?
rCaa few weeks ago I did have a couple of bluetits
tapping on my study window.
On 27/04/2025 20:14, Another John wrote:
What bothers me is this: we are fortunate enough to live in a very small
village, quite far from the nearest town, and much further from any city.
When we moved here about 40 (Forty?!?!?!) years ago, the local countryside was
well populated with birdlife of all kinds, with rabbits, badgers, etc, and >> even the odd red squirrel. Nowadays when we go for a local 3 mile walk from >> the village, we don't see many birds at all - if any! - never mind mammals. >> If this is not caused by the farming industry, what_is_ causing it?
[cue: specific explanations which might explain specific species loss. But >> wholesale depletion of formerly large populations of British birds, some of >> which we won't ever since again around here?]
It bothers me too, except round here we have to freaking MUCH wildlife.,
I have badgers camping out at the bottom of the garden, deer have
destroyed too may trees and rabbits have ruined my Rosemary bush.
Pheasants sit there and give me the finger. Jackdaws and even an owl
fall down the chimney and crap on my sofas.
What there hasn't been though is much in the way of honey bees. Or butterflies. Despite the government subsidising the farmers to plant
meadows full of weeds. And grazing grounds for deer.
What we dont get these days is house sparrows, because regulations have denied them the usual nesting spots, things that live on horseshit
directly or indirectly - because there are no horses except round here. Hedgehogs because the environmentalists went soppy over the badgers that kill them , and badgers are now a total menace.
You forget that many of the species of 'garden' birds were on fact once
very rare, until the creation of pastures for grazing opened up their natural habitat.
Species change. One cold winter will cull 95% of the wrens and it may
take a decade to recover.
Dutch elm disease killed nearly all the English Elms and only now am I seeing elms start to re grow.
We have diseases on birch trees, ash die-back and so on, that will dramatically alter the ecosystem and lead to speciation change
Forever changes, mate. Nostalgia for 'the way it was when I were a lad'
is pathetic.
Feeding people disadvantages other animals. Whose side are you on?
You want wildlife, go to Birmingham, I hear the rats are flourishing.
I see more foxes in towns than I ever do in the countryside.
David Rance <david@SPAMOFF.invalid> wrote:
... a few weeks ago I did have a couple of bluetits
tapping on my study window. Two of them? Always together. Were they a
pair? Popular opinion holds that a bluetit does this to scare off his
reflection which he sees as a rival. But would a pair (male/female) do this?
Another possibility is that they are trying to dig insects out of the
window surround. Were they pecking the glass in the centre or the woodwork/plastic at the edge?
On 28/04/2025 15:35, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
David Rance <david@SPAMOFF.invalid> wrote:
... a few weeks ago I did have a couple of bluetits tapping on my study
window. Two of them? Always together. Were they a pair? Popular opinion
holds that a bluetit does this to scare off his reflection which he
sees as a rival. But would a pair (male/female) do this?
Another possibility is that they are trying to dig insects out of the window surround. Were they pecking the glass in the centre or the woodwork/plastic at the edge?
Pecking the glass. It's an aluminium frame and they didn't seem
interested in that.
David Rance <david@SPAMOFF.invalid> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 15:35, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
David Rance <david@SPAMOFF.invalid> wrote:
... a few weeks ago I did have a couple of bluetits tapping on my study >>>> window. Two of them? Always together. Were they a pair? Popular opinion >>>> holds that a bluetit does this to scare off his reflection which he
sees as a rival. But would a pair (male/female) do this?
Another possibility is that they are trying to dig insects out of the
window surround. Were they pecking the glass in the centre or the
woodwork/plastic at the edge?
Pecking the glass. It's an aluminium frame and they didn't seem
interested in that.
I asked because I've had them pecking the putty on my wooden-framed
windows. it does sound as though yours were peckig at their
reflections.
inside some of my north-facing windows to prevent birds flying into them
when all they could see was the reflection of the sky.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Presumably the reason for using glyphosate hasnrCOt gone away, so
if it was banned, what would be used in its place?
Salt and vinegar ...
And that has proved safe, effective, and economically viable at
agricultural scale?
Because our local authority has little money, they can only afford
one man with a backpack sprayer to walk all the streets applying weed
killer to the pavements and kerbs. It takes him two years to cover
the LA area. Needless to say, itrCOs a weed fest.
I make up my own glyphosate and do the same job for some 600 to 700
linear yards of local streets. Embarrassingly, people pop out of
their houses or stop their cars to say thanks.
Because one of the people once asked what I was using, and pulled a
bit of a face when told, the next year I bought 5 litres of expensive German-made rCygreenrCO weed killer.
I read the instructions, and applied the potion according to them.
The weeds grew and multiplied, and came back vigorously the next
Spring.
I went back to using glyphosate.
I'll come back to your pollinator comment below.
So you believe that glyphosate is carcinogenic? The Greens continue to
push that despite all the scientific evidence and Regulatory Agency
reviews to the contrary.
And now that has been debunked, there seems to be a search for something else to link it to. How about the "b|-te noire" of dementia? You think that's far fetched? See this recent paper <https:// jneuroinflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/
s12974-024-03290-6> "Glyphosate exposure exacerbates neuroinflammation
and AlzheimerrCOs disease-like pathology despite a 6-month recovery period in mice":
What did they do? They tested brain function in transgenic and non- transgenic AD mice, by dosing them with glyphosate at 50 and 500mg/kg a
day for 13 weeks (according to <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC4804402/>, that would be the equivalent of a human taking about 1 or
10ml glyphosate concentrate (360mg/ml) daily for 13 weeks!) The authors justify the dose based on the EPA Registration Eligibility Decision for glyphosate in 1993.
"The EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario" that is assuming that 100% of all possible commodities/acreages were treated and assuming that tolerance-level
residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded
that chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.
A reference dose (RfD) or estimate of daily exposure that would not
cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime of 2mg/kg/day has been
proposed for glyphosate."
Assuming that's correct, would you take 140 mg glyphosate (about 0.4ml
of concentrate) daily? The EU sets the limit at 0.5mg/kg/day, and even
that is rarely exceeded according to the wiki section at <https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Residues_in_food_products>.
Interestingly, "Glyphosate residues below the European MRLs were most frequently found in dry lentils, linseeds, soya beans, dry peas, tea, buckwheat, barley, wheat and rye". In other words, the basic staples for most of us. Perhaps most amusing of all: "Of the products that exceeded MRLs, one third were organic products."
There seem to be numerous other recent papers investigating this
"possible link" between glyphosate and dementia. I wonder if all this research will prove fruitful, or will eventually be found wanting like
that concerning cancer.
The overuse of glyphosate by British farms is a very serious problem.
It and its decomposition products not break down anywhere near as
fast as is claimed, and are polluting the soil, watercourses etc.
And its heavy use on crops (sic) and especially field boundaries
has led to a serious loss of biodiversity and pollinating insects.
The reason it is called 'safe' is that it is no direct threat to humans.
I use it, in moderation, but the Greens are the scientific ones in
this debate, as in many others. If it can't be properly controlled,
there is a damn good case for banning it.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 11:49:50 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,285 |
