Monsanto’s Roundup Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples

originally posted by: Corruption Exposed

originally posted by: olaru12


I have heard of this as well...very sad indeed.

The stuff is turning up pretty much everywhere

I hope that one day we look back and realize how wrong we were to allow this to happen.

Because the masses care more about the Kanye West marriage than they care about their air, water and food quality. Have another Big Mac and Diet Coke with me and watch the world burn.

I love the endless corporate vilification on here.

Round up has been used since the GD 70s for one thing.

It function is a weed control that robs crops of yields that farmers need to make a living.

The next benefit of roundup is that farmers use LESS of them evil fossil fuels spewing that evil C02 in the air.

The benefit after than is that farmers were releasing less of that evil co2 from row crop cultivation.

The more productive plants are the more energy that use that is 'natures' own evil co2 scrubber.

But hey who cares right ?

Demagogue a company, and a product that has been used for near 5 decades that is producing more fuel like ethanol. and food that is feeding, and fueling 7+ billion people on this rock.

a reply to: neo96

What are your thoughts about these toxins being found in 75% of air and rain water samples?

I find it difficult to believe that you are being serious since you barged in here and defended corporations without even addressing the main topic of the OP.

The corporate ass kissing thread is >>>>> that way...

a reply to: Corruption Exposed

What are your thoughts about these toxins being found in 75% of air and rain water samples?

Thought it was obvious that I think little of hit piece articles and 'pictures'.

I find it difficult to believe that you are being serious since you barged in here and defended corporations without even addressing the main topic of the OP.

I find it difficult for people who know nothing about farming or agriculture to be running their mouths about 'pesticides'.

Here is a thought go talk to farmers.


And considering the entire globe was not even 'tested', and can't be means it was just 'sensationalism'

I take threads like this with a grain of salt since it is an extension of a 'political' argument.

Especially the source:

'EcoWatch' eh !

ecowatch.com...

In recent years, Roundup was found to be even more toxic than it was when first approved for agricultural use, though that discovery has not led to any changes in regulation of the pesticide. Moreover, Roundup’s overuse has enabled weeds and insects to build an immunity to its harsh toxins.

Meaning pesticides-round up is REGULATED.

So how can there be '75 % of round up in air and water samples' ?

For all those who hate Monstanto hey lets go back to 1930 yields !

The yield per acre has skyrocketed from 24 bushels in 1931 to a national average of 154 now, or a six-fold gain.

walterfarms.blogspot.com...

That will 'fix' everything.

The yield per acre has skyrocketed from 24 bushels in 1931 to a national average of 154 now, or a six-fold gain.

All made possible by evil,evil gmo, and pesticides like Roundup that isn't the only one out on the market.

Modern farmers only had 1930 yields, and no access to round up there would be people starving, and the agriculture industry would be non existent.

Just for snips and giggles this is what farmers use to use to control weeds.

Which is what round up is used for.



For those who hate round up!

Go on get it banned, and make farmers do it this way!

Sucks to be them !

1000 acres 'no problem' !

2000 acres 'no problem' !

5000+ acres 'no problem' !

Not to mention the semi tractor trailers of added fuel costs they would have to shell out.

a reply to: neo96

There are plenty of places within the US that the water table has been polluted by fertilizer, pest and herbicides. My sister lives in one of those areas in Wisconsin. And her well is deep. But every time it tested, it comes up non-potable due to contamination from run off.

The State and County cracked down on the over use of these items 15 years ago and the water table is improving, but it will take time.

a reply to: TDawgRex

In many cities, glyphosate is sprayed along the sidewalks and streets, as well as crevices in between pavement where weeds often grow. However, up to 24% of glyphosate applied to hard surfaces can be run off by water.[28] Glyphosate contamination of surface water is highly attributed to urban use.[29] Glyphosate is used to clear railroad tracks and get rid of unwanted aquatic vegetation.[2

en.wikipedia.org...

This:

Glyphosate contamination of surface water is highly attributed to urban use

Pretty much shoots the premise in the op.

a reply to: neo96

My sister lives in farm land country. Wisconsin is not known for it's large cities, with except maybe Milwaukee. But back in the day, farms used to be ran by decent sized families, then as time went on, families moved, or became smaller and the use of various tech became a necessity.

I believe that Round-Up has a place, but only in small quantities, I'm not a fan of Monsanto or DeKalb, etc, because they have bought up so many family farms and then let the land just sit (That story has so many roads in so many directions I'm not even going to touch it). But it's the end result I'm displeased with.

a reply to: neo96

Neo, your points are valid... to a ...er, point... but this thread didn't seem to start as blanket corporate vilification, but more a warning about good intentions gone bad.

True, that traditional farming methods hasn't a hope of feeding the swarming masses... and Monsanto has been instrumental in increasing yield, but using highly toxic, long stable compounds that saturate everything is not a solution in the long term.

And Monsanto uses very unsavory tactics and strategies to increase their quarterly earnings, in addition to spreading environmental poison, so I'd think this is more valid criticism than some knee-jerk opinions.

The three main reasons I dislike Monsanto stem from their strong arm tactics in the third world to bully farmers into using their seeds, their spray and kill easy solutions that cause more problems in the long term and their standardization of crops that make those crops very susceptible to disease...a varied crop base is far more stable and resilient when faced with a blight.

That doesn't even touch on a few grievances that are more subjective... like whether their gm is really safe... again, short term profit over long term humanitarian concerns... which is why most "anti-corporatists" exist.

ETA oh, and had to add that they are working towards a total food production monopoly and that sort of power residing with an organization with their track record for abuse and criminality... well, it is scary.

a reply to: Baddogma

True, that traditional farming methods hasn't a hope of feeding the swarming masses... and Monsanto has been instrumental in increasing yield, but using highly toxic, long stable compounds that saturate everything is not a solution in the long term.

Says a group of people who want to turn the agriculture industry back to the 'stone age'.

That is motivated by a political agenda.

Monsanto isn't the only GMO producer, or pesticide producer in the world.

Guess people never heard of these guys.

No wonder with the non stop vilification of Monsanto.

Syngenta

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neo96

Again, your both right and wrong... as we all are at times.

I agree that unthinking hatred for anything is wrong, but just as "granolas" can be painted as reactionary airheads in broad strokes, they have many valid points.

Dialing back farming methods would kill us all... true... but making it less about profits and more about long term goals and health would point us towards enclosed hydroponic high yield complexes, for instance, where toxins wouldn't be necessary.

I simply think there are better solutions and 'bottom line economics' doesn't tend to allow those better solutions to be implemented.

a reply to: Baddogma

but making it less about profits and more about long term goals and health would point us towards enclosed hydroponic high yield complexes, for instance, where toxins wouldn't be necessary.

I am here to say 1930 yields can't and will never pay for current land prices, or machinery costs, or fuel costs or keep pace with future growth.

Profit is already small for agriculture.

The only things that is sustaining agriculture is gmo, and 'roundup'.

Take either or away and that is also she wrote.

The only difference is we will be eating gmo and food that has been dosed with pesticides from Sygenta, and the runner up IMPORTED from elsewhere.

a reply to: neo96

I don't think this is a binary, either or, deal... there are other options.

Monsanto, Sygenta or starve doesn't take into account the better choices and plans that are available.

a reply to: Baddogma

Better plans available eh?

Interestingly enough set a plate of gmo food and another plate of non gmo food down in front of a person and they would not be able to tell the difference.

The only reason people know one is bad is because someone else is telling them it is..

c'mon...we love our corporations screwing us over, oh, we complain a little...but hey, it's better than becoming a commie environmentalist right?......so lets all relax and let capitalism do it's job...besides, it's all about the guns, taxes, Obama, and abortions, let's stick to the agenda, ok?....

a reply to: Corruption Exposed
then why do I still have weeds in my yard?

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: Margana

We eat hybrid bananas, not GMO. GMO is where the food is modified at the genetic level, introducing genes from a completely different species into a plant to take on traits of that species, like human genes into corn, or fish genes into tomatoes.

Hybrid is just cross-breeding two different types of fruit plants and has been done for probably centuries.

Ah, I thought it was done through genetic modification, just not the crazy type they are doing now. Good to know that it's cross-breeding so that I can not use the banana in debates the way that I have.

originally posted by: rickymouse
They will have us dependent on Monsanto to provide all food soon. They will screw up all the land. Weeds actually are necessary for our environment, many creatures count on them. Maybe monsanto wants to kill all the natural medicines, they are tied to pharmaceuticals.

And what they call weeds are actually wildflowers.
Bees need wildflowers' pollen to make honey.
And it goes on...

Hopefully this will produce FrankenBees that are programmed to hone in on the Monsanto corpocrats themselves...and sting them to death.

a reply to: neo96

I'm old enough to remember when DDT was thought of as a great pesticide as well...

Um.... oops ?



Some science is good science some of the time, but not all science is good science all of the time.

... A wise person tends to keep that kind of logic to the forefront, therefore not allowing illogical supposition to get in the way of recognizing potential future problems with said science.