How much roundup can I use before I die ?

[Duke]

Got a bunch of land.

Been using roundup for a few months. I don’t drink it, get it in my mouth or on my skin

I don’t spray it on my garden or around it.

But go on the web and they say touching the stuff will kill you in a week....or that it’s perfectly safe.



How are you land owners keeping the fence line and unmowable areas clean without some form of herbicide ?

[blues]

Got a bunch of land.

Been using roundup for a few months. I don’t drink it, get it in my mouth or on my skin

I don’t spray it on my garden or around it.

But go on the web and they say touching the stuff will kill you in a week....or that it’s perfectly safe.



How are you land owners keeping the fence line and unmowable areas clean without some form of herbicide ?

I don't have a lot of land but have been using it for several years, usually a gallon or two per year.

Other than the glowing aura I put out at night I can hardly tell the difference.

I treat it like I do Radon. In other words, I don't fret over it.

[txdpd]

There’s not much context given in the media hysteria. The vast majority of the lawsuits have involved the commercial use of roundup. Farming, landscaping, grounds keeping, etc. Using a gallon or more per week.

The safe exposure limit is probably 0. But if you wear gloves, and don’t spray with the wind in your face. Something besides roundup will probably kill you first.

[Darth_Uno]

I don't much care for it, but I hose down my rock driveway about twice a year. Considering all the crap I absorb at work and elsewhere, Roundup twice a year isn't really a concern.

I don't use it around the house or fence though. I just weedeat down to dirt, which buys me a couple weeks between having to weedeat again.

If you're wondering, I've tried the water/vinegar/soap mix and it does jack squat for long term control. It kills what you spray it on, but doesn't stop anything from growing right back.

[Duke]

There’s not much context given in the media hysteria. The vast majority of the lawsuits have involved the commercial use of roundup. Farming, landscaping, grounds keeping, etc. Using a gallon or more per week.

The safe exposure limit is probably 0. But if you wear gloves, and don’t spray with the wind in your face. Something besides roundup will probably kill you first.

Exactly.

[Duke]

I don't much care for it, but I hose down my rock driveway about twice a year. Considering all the crap I absorb at work and elsewhere, Roundup twice a year isn't really a concern.

I don't use it around the house or fence though. I just weedeat down to dirt, which buys me a couple weeks between having to weedeat again.

If you're wondering, I've tried the water/vinegar/soap mix and it does jack squat for long term control. It kills what you spray it on, but doesn't stop anything from growing right back.

Isnt that vinegar mix supposed to contain salt ?

[Artemas2]

If it's an electric fence you are best off getting a fencer that is also a "weed burner" that zaps that grass until it dies. It will generally work well, but will become unsightly with dead grass over time. If its something else then goats...lots of goats... and a realistic degree of "that's good enough"

Fence line is a pain I can put in a 20 hour week with the string trimmer alone. We can't spray on our farm because of some organic contract clause (not my department so don't ask). In the heavy growing months I can knock out a few miles once a month to keep it under control and then maybe once more in August and maybe again at the end of October. 10 years ago I was pretty on the spot about doing it every 2 weeks. Now I just don't see the need as much.

[AKDoug]

Might as well go all out. I use Crossbow. Way more effective than consumer grade Roundup. It doesn’t kill trees but takes care of dandelions and small tree growth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

If Roundup was as dangerous as claimed, I'd have been dead by the time I was 16.
I humped a backpack sprayer full of Roundup all summer, every summer from around age 11 to 15 on my Grandads farms.
Zero protective equipment, zero care when mixing it, zero care about exposure while spraying, zero care about post handling clean up.
35 years later and I have zero Roundup related health issues.

[RevolverRob]

They spray that shit from airplanes.

I'm not saying that makes it safe (after all, we used to spray DDT and Agent Orange from airplanes) - but they've been doing that now for about 40+ years? It didn't even take 30 years for them to ban DDT after introduction. And it took < 8 years for them to recognize the effects of Agent Orange on troops to the point where they severely limited and eventually discontinued its use.

I'm just saying...40-years is generally enough time to notice a trend and find the cause. Especially because humans breed like cockroaches.

[CDH]

ALOT!!!!!!

[Darth_Uno]

Isnt that vinegar mix supposed to contain salt ?

There's all kinds of homebrew weedkiller recipes. I tried 50/50 water & vinegar with soap, then straight vinegar with soap, and couldn't tell a difference. Both killed what I sprayed it on, but other stuff grew right back.

Supposedly salt makes it more better-er, but I haven't tried that yet.

[Duke]

Great replies- thank you.

As you can likely tell, I bought land having no idea what to expect. It was a farm and now it’s just sans livestock.

Not much in the way of bother out here

[Duke]

42240

[Casual Friday]

I've used it for years and will continue to do so since it makes life easier for me and cuts down the amount of time I have to run a weedeater around my place. I figure even if it shaves a few years off at the end, having more free time while I'm young will have been a good trade.

I tried the vinegar, salt, and soap combo. It certainly kills the weeds, but they grow right back and spraying takes about as much time as weedeating does, so if I have to do something almost weekly I'd probably just weedeat. I typically only have to apply the Roundup twice a year.

[Mjolnir]

May want to read the dangers of Glyphosate.

Just sayin’...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

Great replies- thank you.

As you can likely tell, I bought land having no idea what to expect. It was a farm and now it’s just sans livestock.

Not much in the way of bother out here

When I was a youth, goats were the go to. I never cared for the milk, though I did like the cheese. Goat meat is somewhere between beef and game, and if prepared correctly is quite good.

Especially with hills, briars, etc. goats are the way to go.

[LOKNLOD]

42240

That's a beautiful place.

*jealousy intensifies*

[JodyH]

When I was a youth, goats were the go to. I never cared for the milk, though I did like the cheese. Goat meat is somewhere between beef and game, and if prepared correctly is quite good.

Especially with hills, briars, etc. goats are the way to go.

Plus you can usually get a big tax break for raising livestock.
If you have a Hispanic population of any size near you, getting rid of excess goats will not be a problem.

[AKDoug]

Plus you can usually get a big tax break for raising livestock.
If you have a Hispanic population of any size near you, getting rid of excess goats will not be a problem.

Goats are keto too.. they're damn good eating, even if they've just been eating weeds.

I'm jealous Duke, but at least you can mow yours. I have 46 acres of woods and 10 acres of gravel pit. It's going to be a long time before my place looks like yours.

[AKDoug]

May want to read the dangers of Glyphosate.

Just sayin’...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Doesn't sound too bad to me. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

[Drang]

Co-worker says he was spraying his back fence with some bleach-based commercial solution, and fortuitously killed a bunch of blackberry vines.
Anything that kills blackberry vines is highly thought of around here.

[Cookie Monster]

I work in land management, mainly forestry but lots of other stuff too.

After reading the MSDS for Roundup, it seems pretty mellow. Industrial applications can get pretty heavy and accumulate over time.

I wear muck boots and nitrile gloves when I spray, spray in low winds and higher humidity, dusk and the like. If I am running through a few gallons I’d change and wash my clothes or use coveralls. That might be a little much but it makes me feel better. Whether it is worth the hassle who knows.

I’d ask more of your purpose and what the end goal. Round up kills everything (mostly), you could get an herbicide that would target grasses or brush and just kill what you don’t want. You could till and seed what you want instead, burn the stuff out, or use animals. Lots of ways but sometimes herbicide is the way. It’s a last resort for me but somethings you have to. Bindweed in my current house, poison oak at my last one. Chemicals are the only way for those.

Good luck.

[txdpd]

Doesn't sound too bad to me. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

More importantly you might want to read up on some of Monsanto’s practices involving suppressing research, paying for bogus research, and lobbying. The usual run of the mill evil empire stuff. There’s a reason why juries have been smacking Monsanto/Bayer with these huge judgements.

[trailrunner]

I have the worst neighbors. Among their transgressions is that they don't take care of their yards, so my lawn is constantly invaded by their crap. Several times a year I spray my perimeter with Roundup to keep the infestation away (and then follow up with a machete and a string trimmer), but this summer, thanks to my neighbors, I learned what goose grass is. As far as I can tell, the only way to deal with it is to spot spray Roundup and re-seed (which I'm doing today). I've already gone through several large containers of Roundup, and I have a fairly small yard. I think I've gotten all the goose grass, but now I have some lovely yellow patches of death in my otherwise nice yard.

As far as long-term health concerns go -- part of my PhD thesis was on quantifying risk from a particular substance. I'm not an epidemiologist, but I did enough study to recalibrate my way of thinking. I grew up in the 60s and 70s and had always naively believed the environmentalists and the media (don't laugh), but after reading the research, and doing my own critical analysis, I concluded that I shouldn't believe anyone at face value. I also learned that we do not have a good way of determining what substances are harmful, and then quantifying that risk. It's much worse when courts and lawyers and big money and deep pockets are involved. Maybe it's gotten better in the 30 years since I looked at this issue, but I don't think so.

[Borderland]

Co-worker says he was spraying his back fence with some bleach-based commercial solution, and fortuitously killed a bunch of blackberry vines.
Anything that kills blackberry vines is highly thought of around here.

I just prune them down to the ground every year. I don't think you can actually kill them. We have a few acres and I left most of it as a woodlot. I'm not a fan of using chemicals on weeds or brush. I spread salt on my driveway every year to kill the grass. I just mow or trim everything else. If I can't do that then it's just going back to nature. I don't mind.

All those chemicals eventually end up in the aquifers. I drink tap water from a well not too far from my house.

[RevolverRob]

Damn, I love blackberry vines.

Let them grow over barb-wire fences and you'll never worry about weed-eating again, they strangle out weeds. And also they'll keep the livestock in. And the neighbors out. Plus in Texas they tend to force the fireants to go somewhere else, besides around the bottoms of fence posts.

And fresh blackberries are delicious. In the summer? When it's hot? Pick some and stick 'em on ice for an hour. It's like heaven sent mana.

I get it, they can be a pain in the ass if you don't control them. But aggressively pruning them back in winter is the way to go.

As for weedeating fence posts. Man, we never did that unless it was dry and thus could be a fire hazard. Otherwise, let it grow. If you need it short, a goat for every two acres you want maintained will generally keep the grass down. We had ten acres, but only 8 of it was "pasture". 4 goats lived happily ever after out there. A water trough and some hay in the winter.

When it's time to put one down - cabrito (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrito) amigos.

1) Dig a pit line it with charcoal and hickory or mesquite
2) skin and gut the goat, remove the head if you don't want it (I usually don't, I'm not big on goat brain)
3) get the charcoal nice and hot get the wood in there, lay tin foil over the coals.
4) lay goat on foil, put foil over the goat.
5) Insert a piece of steel pipe (like gas pipe) into the fire horizontally
6) Take another piece of pipe vertically on the opposite side of of where you put the horizontal one (you're building a fireplace)
7) Bury the fire and goat
8) Wait 24'ish hours
9) Unbury goat and have fucking amazing goat tacos and roast goat sandwiches with friends and family (1 skinny goat serves 3, 1 fat goat serves 5)
10) Enjoy that your goat gave you several years of lawn mowing service and sustenance.

You may choose to season your goat in advance of roasting it. Some do, some don't. My great grandfather never did, instead opting for home made salsa and cilantro and onion with his cabrito tacos.

[Nephrology]

Doesn't sound too bad to me. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

One of the better studies on the risks associated with glyphosate use in humans:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/29136183/

[RevolverRob]

One of the better studies on the risks associated with glyphosate use in humans:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/29136183/

I mean that basically supports that idea that Round-Up is generally safe.

My nitpick -


However, among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant.

Then there was not an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia compared to never users. If something is not statistically significant, it doesn't mean shit in this regard. They are unable to provide statistical support for that hypothesis.


There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.

No. There is some evidence that suggests there could, maybe, be increased risk of AML but this requires not confirmation, but much more thorough investigation.

That statistics presentation and conclusions of that paper should have never made it through peer-review. Complete misuse of statistical analyses and misrepresentation of the actual results of the study. I'm not saying that their conclusion is wrong per-se, just that it is not supported by their data at all. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades, it damn sure doesn't count in statistics and science.

[Nephrology]

I mean that basically supports that idea that Round-Up is generally safe.

My nitpick -



Then there was not an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia compared to never users. If something is not statistically significant, it doesn't mean shit in this regard. They are unable to provide statistical support for that hypothesis.



No. There is some evidence that suggests there could, maybe, be increased risk of AML but this requires not confirmation, but much more thorough investigation.

That statistics presentation and conclusions of that paper should have never made it through peer-review. Complete misuse of statistical analyses and misrepresentation of the actual results of the study. I'm not saying that their conclusion is wrong per-se, just that it is not supported by their data at all. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades, it damn sure doesn't count in statistics and science.


You do realize that these authors are professional epidemiologists, right? From the NCI? Believe it or not, they know what they are doing.

Firstly, I'd start by reading the whole paper:


The rate ratio was elevated and the trend statistically significant with a 20-year lag and tertiles of exposure (to satisfy our reporting criteria due to a smaller number of exposed cases; n = 32 exposed cases; RR = 2.04, 95% CI =  1.05 to 3.97, Ptrend = .04).

Secondly, it's not misleading to point to a trend in the data that fails to reach statistical significance (e.g. their unlagged analysis), particularly when you are doing sub-group analyses (e.g. AML among heavily exposed users). This is important for many reasons:

1. Proper statistical interrogation of subgroups will be accompanied by corrections for multiple comparisons, eg Bonferroni's or Dunnett's, which increases your alpha by necessity. Given that they are looking at the association between Roundup exposure and basically all solid/liquid tumors, their correction for multiple comparisons dramatically decreases the odds that they will detect small differences between subgroups.

2. Corollary of #1, if the initial study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference between two subgroups - particularly if the sample size is rather small (e.g. patients in highest quartile of exposure with AML, who number 32 total), then you run a very real risk of a Type I error.

3. Corollary of #2, it is wholly appropriate for the authors to suggest that further studies should be done to assess the relative risk of AML in patients with glyphosphate exposure, as their initial study is clearly underpowered to interrogate the null hypothesis for this particular sub-group.

With this in mind, a follow-up study appropriately designed and powered to detect a difference between exposed and unexposed cases of AML and high levels of exposure to glyphosate. There is nothing terribly controversial about this.

Finally, I do believe the authors did a very good job explaining the caveats of their observation in their discussion section:


This evaluation has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, despite the specific information provided by the applicators about use of glyphosate, some misclassification of exposure undoubtedly occurred. Given the prospective design, however, any misclassification should be nondifferential and lead to attenuated risk estimates. Second, because we evaluated many cancer sites for potential associations with glyphosate use, we cannot dismiss the possibility that these results were observed by chance, and thus should be interpreted with caution. The fact that no other studies have reported an association between glyphosate and AML risk also calls for cautious interpretation. However, the observed consistent pattern of increasing risk with increasing exposure and the statistically significant trend with lagged exposure of 10 or more years is concerning.

In conclusion, we found no evidence of an association between glyphosate use and risk of any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies, including NHL and its subtypes. However, we found some evidence of a possible association between glyphosate use and AML. This association was consistent across different exposure metrics and for unlagged and lagged exposure. Given the prevalence of use of this herbicide worldwide, expeditious efforts to replicate these findings are warranted.

[BehindBlueI's]

Goats have a distinctive odor, but I bet they have no correlation to acute myeloid leukemia. Just throwing it out there.

[RevolverRob]

You do realize that these authors are professional epidemiologists, right? From the NCI? Believe it or not, they know what they are doing.

And? I'm not questioning their epidemiological ability, the selection of their data, or even their methods. Merely their approach to reporting their results, in as much as what is written within the abstract.

Believe it or not I know what they're doing and what I am doing too.




Secondly, it's not misleading to point to a trend in the data that fails to reach statistical significance (e.g. their unlagged analysis), particularly when you are doing sub-group analyses (e.g. AML among heavily exposed users). This is important for many reasons:

That depends entirely on the context of the study. I have no problem pointing out a trend in the data. Using it as a jumping off point for further analysis/study is perfectly acceptable. Attempting to identify patterns for further investigation is sound scientific process. I do it myself. That said, "trends" are merely trends, unless support can be found. While it may be interesting to further interrogate why such a trend occurs, it's inappropriate to report it as a significant or even "important" trend.



1. Proper statistical interrogation of subgroups will be accompanied by corrections for multiple comparisons, eg Bonferroni's or Dunnett's, which increases your alpha by necessity. Given that they are looking at the association between Roundup exposure and basically all solid/liquid tumors, their correction for multiple comparisons dramatically decreases the odds that they will detect small differences between subgroups.

2. Corollary of #1, if the initial study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference between two subgroups - particularly if the sample size is rather small (e.g. patients in highest quartile of exposure with AML, who number 32 total), then you run a very real risk of a Type I error.

So...the results are that they lacked sufficient power to support their hypothesis...Thus, there is no significant correlation either due to low power of the sample size OR due to there not being an actual correlation. Either result at this stage does not allow us to reject the null: That glyphosate exposure does not increase the risk of certain types of cancers.

Ergo, we must conclude, responsibly, that there is not sufficient evidence to support an increased risk of AML development in glyphosate users vs. not. This is directly contradictory to the results reported in the abstract.



3. Corollary of #2, it is wholly appropriate for the authors to suggest that further studies should be done to assess the relative risk of AML in patients with glyphosphate exposure, as their initial study is clearly underpowered to interrogate the null hypothesis for this particular sub-group.

With this in mind, a follow-up study appropriately designed and powered to detect a difference between exposed and unexposed cases of AML and high levels of exposure to glyphosate. There is nothing terribly controversial about this.


I believe that's what I wrote. A more thorough investigation is required, not "confirmation is necessary". Confirmation suggests that such a trend is real and thus they will confirm the cause. In this case, they must develop an entirely new and appropriate study for this investigation. Thus they must more thoroughly investigate if the trend is even real. At this point is merely suggested in their data. Again, scientifically this is an extremely valid approach and there is nothing wrong with such an approach, but it's not truly a trend until it is supported by their actual data.

That may be splitting hairs to some it isn't to me. It's a fundamental aspect of science to distinguish between pattern, process, and the necessary steps to investigate both. A compelling apparent pattern is cool. Next step, determine if the pattern is real. Finally, identify potential processes that underlay that pattern. That's a solid investigatory framework.

____

None of that excuses the sloppy language and reporting in their abstract.

An abstract to a paper is among the most important pieces, perhaps the most important aspect of a paper. Media will only read the abstract, many authors who may cite your study may only read the abstract (as frustrating as that may be), people who are compiling data for funding agencies may only read the abstract. The abstract is present so a wide audience can read and understand what was done, how, why, and do so quickly. If you do not endeavor to write an honest abstract you've not endeavored to be ethical. This is an ethical violation, one which I might well fail a graduate student for in Bio-Ethics, a class I actually teach to...*gasp* Evolutionary Biologists, Ecologists, Epidemiologists, and even MD-PhDs...(I know right?!)

It's not up for debate whether the paper was better than the abstract. Because the abstract misrepresents the results. Either deliberately or lazily, either case is not an excuse. It's irresponsible and until corrected, I certainly would not have allowed it through peer-review and neither should any of my other fellow scientists. The paper may be methodologically sound and the discussion is perfect. Every piece of a paper must be as accurate and honest as possible. And every piece should be reviewed by peer-reviewers as thoroughly as possible (I know that's frustrating, but it's what we should do and attempt to do). Anything less opens us up to unnecessary review and criticism along with false reporting of our results.

[theJanitor]

That science stuff is too hard for me to understand. But I've been using roundup for years as a kid. I'd run the tractor with a spray tank on the back. I haven't done that in 20 years. but I had 15 years of using the stuff on the farm. Biggest thing for me was using gloves, goggles, and paying attention to the wind

[Duke]

Agri Department of a local college advice mirrors the overall theme of this thread.

Don’t drink it or swim in it and you’ll be okay.


Suppose the fair thing to ask is if any has or knows someone that does have roundup related cancer etc?


Our own Les Pepperoni told me shooting suppressed weapons in my house (as im known to do ) is the most obvious place for added caution in my life.

[blues]

Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.












(Unless it doesn't.)

[Wondering Beard]

Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.












(Unless it doesn't.)

Or until.

[Pistol Pete 10]

Got a bunch of land.

Been using roundup for a few months. I don’t drink it, get it in my mouth or on my skin

I don’t spray it on my garden or around it.

But go on the web and they say touching the stuff will kill you in a week....or that it’s perfectly safe.



How are you land owners keeping the fence line and unmowable areas clean without some form of herbicide ?

Just how much Roundup did you drink?????????

[Drang]

But but but...
"A jury found...!!!!"
("So contact Ambulance Chasers At Law to get your share of the big payout, less our percentage...")

[Grey]

This thread is timely, I need to go kill a bunch of shit, guess I'll break out the roundup and just wear gloves, wash hands and clothes.

[Hemiram]

I'm not really comfortable using it myself as the smell, like lots of other stuff's smell, gets to me, not to mention, it's probably worse than so far is known.

I have a friend who uses it all the time, with no protection, and I have to wonder how many of his endless list of health issues are related to the ignorance is bliss way he uses the stuff? He's got heart issues, stomach issues, pancreatic issues, has more "ologists" than a friend of mine who is pushing 80 does and he's 58!

It's funny how down he is on smoking, when Monsanto has used some of the same tactics the tobacco companies did to keep the truth about smoking and cancer under the radar, but still uses Roundup like it's water. His last dog died of nasal cancer, and I would bet money that she got it from all the roundup he sprays all over his yard. His is the third dog I've known that has had nasal cancer. I never saw a dog with it until about 10 years ago. Not a good way to go.

[Borderland]

What did people do before we had all of these convenient chemicals?

It's widely reported that the decline of game birds (quail and pheasants in this state) is the direct result of habitat loss.

Habitat loss is clean farming. Clean farming is plowing under everything every year and spraying chemicals on everything else. The loss of fence line vegetation (chemical sprays) is one factor in the huge decline of upland game birds.

I know this shit because I used to hunt pheasant and quail a lot. In the 50-60's before we had chemicals and clean farming practices in Yakima Co, WA there used to be pheasants in every field, lots of pheasants. Now F&G has to plant pen raised pheasants every year. If they didn't there wouldn't be any birds to hunt.

Just another downside to using chemicals to kill vegetation.

[Grey]

What did people do before we had all of these convenient chemicals?

It's widely reported that the decline of game birds (quail and pheasants in this state) is the direct result of habitat loss.

Habitat loss is clean farming. Clean farming is plowing under everything every year and spraying chemicals on everything else. The loss of fence line vegetation (chemical sprays) is one factor in the huge decline of upland game birds.

I know this shit because I used to hunt pheasant and quail a lot. In the 50-60's before we had chemicals and clean farming practices in Yakima Co, WA there used to be pheasants in every field, lots of pheasants. Now F&G has to plant pen raised pheasants every year. If they didn't there wouldn't be any birds to hunt.

Just another downside to using chemicals to kill vegetation.

If vines that kill my trees didn't exist I'd let all my shit get overgrown, I'm all about letting things be a bit "wild" for habitat but I just had to cut down two trees due to kudzu vine killing them. I don't know of any other "surefire" way to take care of this crap other than burning it or spending a lot of hours ripping it out.

[blues]

I've let my yards go sorta wild. (The deer and rabbits love it.)

I take the scythe to 'em when it starts to bug me. When I'm in a particularly energetic mood I'll weed eat the sides of the concrete walk and trim the bushes.

The Roundup only gets used (for the most part) on the gravel driveway.

[JodyH]

What did people do before we had all of these convenient chemicals?

Died of starvation.

[UNK]

I worked for a while spraying trees under power lines. I got posion ivy really bad and started doing all the scout work. One of the guys who sprayed all summer started getting lumps about two years later. We were told it was a harmless chemical and you could drink it or spray it in a pond and it wouldnt bother the fish. 🙄
Diesel kills a lot of stuff and i dont think it gives you cancer.

[Darth_Uno]

Diesel kills a lot of stuff and i dont think it gives you cancer.

Post reported to EPA.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stephanie B]

How much roundup can I use before I die ?

All that you want? :cool:

[Duke]

Post reported to EPA.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And just like that we all understood how red flag laws will be used....

[blues]

And just like that we all understood how red flag laws will be used....

https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/-dMSqA1mwjNDnay5Q3jPMbJlWMk=/800x516/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FAK7XCDJQ5CDHNEJIRSKTWUHRM.jpg

"Remove your hands from the Roundup, do not turn around. Walk backward to my voice..."

[UNK]

Post reported to EPA. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let them know I said used motor oil really helps keep the dust down too.

[Drang]

...Diesel kills a lot of stuff and i dont think it gives you cancer.

I dunno about diesel, but just before I hung up my soldier suit for good they told us JP-8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8) does, which really made us feel good about all those times refueling a Blackhawk, say, when it was parked on uneven ground...
Also,
Workers have complained of smelling and tasting JP-8 for hours after exposure. As JP-8 is less volatile than standard diesel fuel, it remains on the contaminated surfaces for longer time, increasing the risk of exposure.[5] JP-8 exposure has also been linked to hearing problems, but rather not being able to hear sounds, the brain has a hard time deciphering a message. Dr. O'neil Guthrie, a research scientist and clinical audiologist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Loma Linda Healthcare System in California, has compared the central auditory processing disorder to dyslexia for the ears.

/digression, we now return you to "Why a jury feels competent to say a substance (or is not) poisonous."

[Nephrology]

And? I'm not questioning their epidemiological ability, the selection of their data, or even their methods. Merely their approach to reporting their results, in as much as what is written within the abstract.

[...]

That may be splitting hairs to some it isn't to me.



You're definitely splitting hairs, man. Particularly given that their lagged analysis was statistically significant, I don't really have a problem with their use of the word confirmation in the abstract.



a class I actually teach to...*gasp* Evolutionary Biologists, Ecologists, Epidemiologists, and even MD-PhDs...(I know right?!)


There's a reason I always got a couple beers at the bar near campus before my 4:00pm Friday ethics class...


It's not up for debate whether the paper was better than the abstract. Because the abstract misrepresents the results. Either deliberately or lazily, either case is not an excuse.

Per above, given that they had statistically significant results in their lagged analysis and a trend towards significance in other analyses of the same cohort, I do not think their language in the abstract misrepresents their findings at all.

[Borderland]

Diesel is as effective as Roundup. Spraying diesel is illegal, spraying Roundup isn't.

Roundup eventually kills freshwater fish.

https://www.invw.org/2010/03/03/958/

[Borderland]

I've let my yards go sorta wild. (The deer and rabbits love it.)

I take the scythe to 'em when it starts to bug me. When I'm in a particularly energetic mood I'll weed eat the sides of the concrete walk and trim the bushes.

The Roundup only gets used (for the most part) on the gravel driveway.

My neighbor turned me on to salt instead of chemicals to keep the grass and weeds out of the driveway. I just buy the salt at Home Depot and use a fertilizer spreader. Salt will kill everything in about a week and it won't come back until next year.

[blues]

My neighbor turned me on to salt instead of chemicals to keep the grass and weeds out of the driveway. I just buy the salt at Home Depot and use a fertilizer spreader. Salt will kill everything in about a week and it won't come back until next year.

Rock salt? It's the damned moss that's the worst of it and I know salt is supposed to work on moss. I just haven't tried it yet.

[BehindBlueI's]

My neighbor turned me on to salt instead of chemicals to keep the grass and weeds out of the driveway. I just buy the salt at Home Depot and use a fertilizer spreader. Salt will kill everything in about a week and it won't come back until next year.

You just buying water softener salt? I've got some poison ivy growing right around my well head and a "natural" way to kill them dead without fire would be ideal.

[Borderland]

You just buying water softener salt? I've got some poison ivy growing right around my well head and a "natural" way to kill them dead without fire would be ideal.

I bought this and was happy with the results.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Diamond-Crystal-Solar-Naturals-Water-Softener-Salt-Crystals-100012454/100172669


I won't really know if it actually kills the weeds and grass until next spring but burning for sure won't kill much of anything. I tried that and it was all growing back in the fall with the mild temps we have around here.

Looking at the replies on the HD website it looks like it's quite lethal on trees and vegetation.

[NEPAKevin]

Salt will kill everything in about a week and it won't come back until next year.

Except Knotweed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynoutria_japonica).

[AKDoug]

Diesel is as effective as Roundup. Spraying diesel is illegal, spraying Roundup isn't.

Roundup eventually kills freshwater fish.

https://www.invw.org/2010/03/03/958/

I don't know. I am cleaning up a 50 gallon diesel spill right now on a property I bought. It had grass and a young spruce tree growing right in the middle of it, and the spill has been there for over a year.

[BJXDS]

one issue with using salt is that it may not dissolve rapidly and run off and kill other vegetation it comes in contact with. The other possible issue with using other substances not specifically designed as an herbicide is that its like using bug spray in place of OC, it doesn't really work that well and it may violate state and federal or environmental laws.

I really don't like like using the shit, but Roundup does work well although it only kills emergent vegetation Not pre-emergent, so it does not kill any seeds, one of the reason you must keep spraying the same areas, sometimes for years.

I can't get grass o grow in the yard with lime and fertilizer, but I can't get rid of weeds in my gravel driveway and landscaping with roundup. It is a never ending battle.

Also what scares the shit out of me is roundup ready crops.

[LittleLebowski]

I wouldn't use RoundUp on a property with a well on it.

[JodyH]

Looks like Roundup is the newest bogeyman fad.
All the cool kids have move on from vaccines and fracking I guess.
I remember the good old days when it was just aluminum pots causing autism.

[BehindBlueI's]

I wouldn't use RoundUp on a property with a well on it.

I use it in the front yard. The well is in the back and the slope means water run off goes back to front.

[blues]

I use it in the front yard. The well is in the back and the slope means water run off goes back to front.

Same situation here. Well is on high ground and the rest of the property is angled below. The driveway I spray, well below.

[Nephrology]

Looks like Roundup is the newest bogeyman fad.
All the cool kids have move on from vaccines and fracking I guess.
I remember the good old days when it was just aluminum pots causing autism.

Not really a great comparison.

Per previously posted paper, there is probably a small but quantifiable risk of hematologic malignancy in people who are heavily exposed.

Consider this in the context of cigarette smoking (something everyone agrees is Bad For You), which does not raise your lifetime risk of malignancy above never-smokers until you hit roughly 10 pack-years (i.e. 1 pack/day for 10 years, 2 packs/day for 5 years, etc).

It's probably not the very most potent carcinogen in the world, but in a stakes/odds analysis, I'd do my best to limit exposure as much as possible. Wear gloves, N95 respirator, etc.

You see enough young people sick and/or dying of weird primary cancers and it makes a little extra precaution seem very much worthwhile.

[BJXDS]

I wouldn't use RoundUp on a property with a well on it.

I hear ya but we have a well and everyone around me uses it including farmers. I don’t really like it but not a dam thing I can do about it. I hope my drilled well is safer than a bored well, but we are all still pulling from the same aquifer.

I wonder what municipalities that have large community wells or pull from reservoirs do to mitigate exposure??

[Borderland]

I hear ya but we have a well and everyone around me uses it including farmers. I don’t really like it but not a dam thing I can do about it. I hope my drilled well is safer than a bored well, but we are all still pulling from the same aquifer.

I wonder what municipalities that have large community wells or pull from reservoirs do to mitigate exposure??

They test their water monthly but that doesn't mean a hell of a lot. Their standards are pretty low. We have 7 water districts where I live (community wells) and none of those 7 district managers will drink the well water. They said that in a closed meeting. My neighbor snuck into a meeting and heard them say it. We just bought a 4 gal filter. He's been filtering his water for years. Most of my neighbors won't drink the well water either.

[RevolverRob]

If you're going to salt, salt the area and then water it thoroughly to allow the salt to be absorbed into the roots systems. Two or three saltings and waterings will generally kill anything in the salt zone and keep it back for 12-18 months.

Remember, never burn poison ivy/oak/sumac when burned the resin that causes skin irritation becomes an aerosol. And breathing that stuff in is REALLY bad for you, it will cause acute upper respiratory illness that can cause permanent damage to the lungs.

[Borderland]

Looks like Roundup is the newest bogeyman fad.
All the cool kids have move on from vaccines and fracking I guess.
I remember the good old days when it was just aluminum pots causing autism.

I think semi-auto rifles is way ahead of Roundup. We all have those around here but we don't drink the well water. ;)

[BehindBlueI's]

FWIW, I wasn't serious about burning it. It's too close to my house and pump electronics anyway. I was just doing the whole "kill it, kill it with fire" bit due to my distaste for dealing with poisonous plants.

[LittleLebowski]

I hear ya but we have a well and everyone around me uses it including farmers. I don’t really like it but not a dam thing I can do about it. I hope my drilled well is safer than a bored well, but we are all still pulling from the same aquifer.

I wonder what municipalities that have large community wells or pull from reservoirs do to mitigate exposure??

I'd recommend buying some SharkBite fittings and running a home water filter setup ala https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?37756-DIY-home-water-filtration

[RevolverRob]

FWIW, I wasn't serious about burning it. It's too close to my house and pump electronics anyway. I was just doing the whole "kill it, kill it with fire" bit due to my distaste for dealing with poisonous plants.

I figured as much. And I'm very allergic to poison ivy so I'm all about destroying it.

I posted more as a general warning to anyone who might be trying to deal with a lot of poison ivy. I've seen the mistake of trying to burn it out play out in person and even though I'm an asshole - I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone. Even if you don't breath it, if you're standing in the smoke plume, you'll have the misfortune of getting poison ivy anywhere the smoke touches you...And that sucks.

[LittleLebowski]

I figured as much. And I'm very allergic to poison ivy so I'm all about destroying it.

I posted more as a general warning to anyone who might be trying to deal with a lot of poison ivy. I've seen the mistake of trying to burn it out play out in person and even though I'm an asshole - I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone. Even if you don't breath it, if you're standing in the smoke plume, you'll have the misfortune of getting poison ivy anywhere the smoke touches you...And that sucks.

I met the widow of a man that died from poison ivy inhalation. No shit. It was horrible and sad.