seems to be a mantra for those intent on ending medical and environmental testing. But, why not? We know all too well the great potential for profit that deregulation has brought to our banking system. Why not, spread the profit incentive around?

I guess when you realize their true GOP motive of wanting a small, ineffective gov't, is really to make it easier for criminality to go unnoticed, one can understand why it is that every single aspect of our lives is overshadowed by a relentless and conscienceless pursuit of money trumping life, from the neverending wars to controlling the food supply and money.

Don't take solace either that at least we are democrats. The revolving door of gov't and big business swings for both parties, and MONEY does indeed trump everything in politics. We've got former Sen. Blanche Lincoln's company lobbying for Monsanto, Rumsfeld has long held interests in Monsanto and its other entities. Is it any wonder the Monsanto Act passed?

We the people are being bombarded through a plutocracy that has usurped our gov't, and they've got the money and the politicians to do what they please.

I got this message for 6 of the links provided by the post, including the one to the USGS study. The third link goes to a whacko vaccine conspiracy theory. The 6th one goes to an Agent Orange conspiracy page. Others go to pages that have no mention of the issues raised here. Why are you wasting our time?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24549493

Stop wasting your time, Nitram. Ignore me.

What really chaps my hide is how you're responsible for other people's mistakes and/or opinions as a result of being concerned about your fellow wo/man and seeking to inform them by posting something of interest to you and you think might be to others -- so they might better protect themselves. Or whatever.

And this is what you get for posting someone else's bad links: ''Stop wasting my time.''

WTH? Their time?

Wait! Of course! You have apparently forgotten the nonexistent rule that you must vet everyone and make certain they pass the Official DU Smell Test™ and if there is any taint, off with their heads! Likewise, that includes checking all the links (including the advertising ones!) in the thread that come with the post -- before you post it, of course! Make sure no one is inconvenienced for say.... 2 or 5 seconds of their precious lives by clicking a dead link -- or worse {gasp} a link to an icky conspiracy site with all their cooties!!!! Oh horrors!!!!

Isn't that what we pay you for!?!?!? Duh. Hengh!?!?

- There are many people I'm beginning to see here I think might better use their time learning some manners, but it'd probably be seen as a waste of their time so I'll keep that advice to myself and just ignore them like you, instead.

when Du'ers are rude, there is usually an axe to grind. It could be that rats travel in packs, or the driveby hit squad, one never knows. Sadly, many DU'ers have been driven away, people that actually contributed to issues and actually learned the art of discussion and debate, but they can't be bothered to stay and put up with those who tend to engage in these nasty tactics. Trolls can plant themselves for months and years, what better way to disrupt a site?

OTOH, I sometimes feel empowered by the GMO bashers, to post even more info, it tends to make the bashers more transparent and reveals negative agenda. It also tends to show that they are very lacking in democratic ideals and tendencies, so it leaves us ALL with a better picture of the real agenda behind their childish antics.

Who knew, one can disagree and make an argument without the BS, it is possible...

I always enjoy your posts and input, DeSwiss.

...that posting a number of broken and irrelevant links to support a theory is the fault of the reader, not the poster? Shouldn't the poster exert a modicum of diligence in checking links before posting them? The fact is, I was interested in the post because I work in watershed management and am concerned about the effect of glyphosate on the water supply. I guess I should have assumed the poster was scientifically illiterate and an internet newbie. Is that what you are suggesting?

BTW, the pubmed article states that glyphosate was not measured in 1995, so there was no comparison between those years for the herbicide. Rather, several pesticides (not herbicides) were tested and compared for both 1995 and 2007. The poster wrote that there was "an 18-fold glyphosate use increase in Mississippi during that time period alone", but the pubmed article does not support that statement. Would you like to say that when a poster makes misleading and incorrect statements that is the reader's fault?

the study (see excerpt below).

A "modicum of diligence" on YOUR part might have been in order to realize I did not intentionally supply a broken link and it was part of the video info at youtube. I also would be happy to supply any other link that might have been broken. (They did work for me at YT, so I do apologize if they did not work for you and tried to supply a working link.) It is quite obvious that whenever anything is posted here about GMO's or Monsanto, the same group crawls out to defend them, even though there is nothing that is not provided by Monsanto to support safety or concerns over a multitude of issues surrounding GMO's.

Even though countless scientists and biochemists, etc., have come forward to raise alarming concerns and EVIDENCE refuting the safety and providing evidence of medical issues surrounding GMOs, it's never seems to be enough.

I feel like the issues that are pointed out here are attacked repeatedly with the same BS agenda. It smacks of science denial.
By the time the insulting is over on these issues, any concerns the average person might have about GMOs are reduced to falling under the category of "woo". It's a tired and worn out approach that has no merit.

Here are the other links:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/new-review-points-to-glyphosates-dangerous-health-effects/#

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-weedkiller-found-75-air-and-rain-samples-gov-study-finds



Shall I keep going?

...are you concerned about glyphosate? I shouldn't have to explain that they are two different issues. And the extrapolation the researchers made to estimate the amount of glyphosate in the air in 1995 is questionable at best. I am interested in facts, not speculation. I have no interest in defending Monsanto or glyphosate, but I would like to have solid evidence to back me up when I criticize them. I'm still looking for that.

glyphosate issues surrounding Monsanto's Roundup.

I have supplied the link that explains the 18 fold increase of glyphosate found in the soil, the issue you said you were concerned with.
The timeline is spelled out in that link.

GMO's and glyphosate are intimately entwined thanks to Monsanto, I won't insult you by saying you should know this, but will offer further reading for you to understand the full implications and concerns scientists are having.

There is plenty of solid evidence freely available on the internet. That evidence is why countries are banning Monsanto products.

http://gmo-awareness.com/resources/glyphosate/

and (more on the glyphosates in the water/air from Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-glyphosate-pollution-idUSTRE77U61720110831

U.S. researchers find Roundup chemical in water, air

Wed, Aug 31 2011

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Significant levels of the world's most-used herbicide have been detected in air and water samples from two U.S. farm states, government scientists said on Wednesday, in groundbreaking research on the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's Roundup.

"It is out there in significant levels. It is out there consistently," said Paul Capel, environmental chemist and head of the agricultural chemicals team at the U.S. Geological Survey Office, part of the U.S. Department of Interior.

Capel said more tests were needed to determine how harmful the chemical, glyphosate, might be to people and animals.

The study comes on the heels of several others released recently that raise concerns about the rise of resistant "super weeds," and other unintended consequences of Roundup on soil and animals.

Capel said glyphosate, the key ingredient in "Roundup" herbicide, was found in every stream sample examined in Mississippi in a two-year period and in most air samples taken. Tests were also done in Iowa.

"So people are exposed to it through inhalation," said Capel.

The research did not look at the impact of the glyphosate in the air and water; the purpose was purely to determine exposure.

More research is needed, Capel said, to analyze the implications.

It is difficult and costly to test for the presence of glyphosate, a popular herbicide used around the world to control weeds on farm fields, golf courses and in residential yards. As a result, little research has been done on the implications for waterways and the air, according to Capel.

"This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season," said Capel. "It is used so heavily and studied so little."

Capel said researchers looked at samples from Mississippi, a key agricultural area for corn, soybeans, cotton and rice. Many farmers of those crops use large quantities of glyphosate when growing to combat weeds. Researchers also took samples from areas in Iowa.

Monsanto Co. introduced glyphosate to the world in 1974 branded as Roundup, and has made billions of dollars over the years from Roundup herbicides as well as from the "Roundup Ready" corn, soybeans and cotton the company has genetically engineered to survive dousings of glyphosate.

Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States are part of the Roundup Ready system.

The USGS said more than 88,0000 tons of glyphosate were used in the United States in 2007, up from 11,000 tons in 1992. The big increase in usage has spurred concerns on many fronts, most recently from farmers and environmentalists noting the rise of "super weeds" that are resistant to Roundup.

Fast-growing, glyphosate-resistant weeds are choking out crops in some areas, and some scientists say research shows harmful effects of glyphosate products on soil organisms, on plants, and on certain animals.

The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the registration for glyphosate and the data gathered by the U.S. Geological Survey has been submitted to the EPA, said Capel.

The EPA has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate should continue to be sold or in some way limited. The EPA is working closely with regulators in Canada as they also assess the ongoing safety and effectiveness of the herbicide.

Monsanto spokeswoman Kelli Powers said the company was reviewing the study. The EPA had no immediate comment on the study.

address your concerns? Seems you were able to follow the links to the agent orange you alluded to earlier? I guess NOT all links were broken, or were you simply going after the only ones you could to support your attack?

Transparency ultimately wins, try as one may to hide their true intent.

...and probably a poor listener. I cited the Agent Orange article as one of the few unbroken links, but one that was not relevant to the glysophate, GMO issue. Perhaps you should slow down. You have passion, but should balance it with some work on coherence of thought and logical sequence of ideas.

Lots and lots of tinfoil-hat stuff, Bilderberg conspiracy theories, "Eisenhower Death Camps," etc.

When do you plan to actually use a *CREDIBLE* source?

if you take issue with them specifically. I love your input Archae, it really makes people realize exactly where you are coming from, little doubt left.

You don't like Truthstream Media's issues? SO what. On this one, they are spot on.

And "Truthstream" is yet another bullshit source.
But since they agree with your pet hysterics, that makes them all right, I guess.

You reject all sources, apparently, be they "tinfoil" or otherwise. You are transparent. Funny how you try to slash and burn any bad press for your favorite subject, GMO's.
You ought to go work for Monsanto, they are the kings of ignorance, and philanthropic billionaires.

The study they are quoting is questionable.

However, here is a more reasoned discussion about glyphosate use.

http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction/

I can't find the USGS publication the story is supposedly quoting. I did a search of USGS publications and there are some serious dangers to using glyphosates but I've not found any study that measured it in rain water or in the air except in this story which is reprinted on some very questionable sites.

is broken. Is that the study you are referring to? If there's a problem with links, I'll have to know which one you specifically had an issue with.

What article was retracted by Mother Earth News? There are plenty of links they provide to substantiate the effects of glyphosate.
here:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/monsanto-glyphosate-herbicide-limits-zwfz1306zhun.aspx#axzz35rUw87ag

and here:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/dangers-of-glyphosate-herbicide-zmgz13onzsto.aspx#axzz35rUw87ag

by the USGS on findings of glyphosate in rain water and air.

Don't get me wrong, Mother Earth News has a deep concern about the horrible affects of glyphosates on the environment. I just couldn't find where they quoted this particular study.

Here is the link to Mother Earth News where they talk about it.
http://now.motherearthnews.com/zine/featured/you-should-be-worried-about-the-high-lev/413363553448754d426f7559666349674b794f6f65413d3d

If you click on view original story, you get sent to GIST
http://grist.org/list/you-should-be-worried-about-the-high-levels-of-weed-killer-in-air-and-water-heres-why/

They posted this: "Correction: This post originally linked to a study whose methods and conclusions have been challenged, and which we’re not comfortable relying on. For a better explanation of the issues around glyphosate please see this article. We’ve removed this post from our story listings but are keeping this page available for the record."

Anyway, I truly believe glyphosates are dangerous to the environment. Reading the abstract, the study seems to be valid. I think I will get the full text.

Thanks for posting the link.

further study is needed.

It is a complicated issue. So why do we continue to ease regulation and EPA thresholds? It stinks, the revolving door is dictating policy, and that effect in itself is hazardous to our health and this planet.

http://inhabitat.com/monsantos-toxic-herbicide-roundup-found-in-75-percent-of-rain-and-air-samples/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1552-8618
Report on roundup to be published soon, on this journal on environmental toxicology and chemistry.

Liquidated, and with its assets to be used to clean up the mess they've smeared all over the earth and its inhabitants.

- Fucking poisoners.....

K&R

[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.


[/center]

Towns poisoned by Monsanto

...Séralini KICK