Reply With QuoteWasDidn't you try the vinegar option as per this thread?
https://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.ph...hlight=vinegar
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
a few weeks ago I got sick of the wild west look of the pavements where I live
So I bought some round up , let em have it and they are dust
Total wipeout
They won't be showing their faces round here for a while I can tell you
Run away
WasDidn't you try the vinegar option as per this thread?
https://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.ph...hlight=vinegar
I used Rounup a lot until I discovered the main ingredient is Glysophate which is carcinogenic. In all truth the stuff isn't that great as the weeds always come back.
It isn't.Originally Posted by Vindec
I bought a bottle of sarsons and put it on the dandelions in the back yard, they shrivelled a bit
That happens to my chips when I put Sarsons on them.
$10 Biilion set aside for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma law suits says differently
its brilliant if you apply it then leave it for two weeks allowing substance to get into roots , the weeds won't come back from that
But other weeds will and its just a case of applying it before the end of the growing season
You can get non glysophate round up , its not as effective though
Exactly. Glyphosphate is a systemic herbicide meaning it takes time to get into the roots, typically 2-3 weeks, rather than a residual herbicide that you can spray on the ground and it will stop anything coming up in future.
You are wrong I'm afraid.
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic...-cancer-study/
The instructions say at least 7 days and not as long as 2-3 weeks. It does kill some weeds but not all. I have been using this stuff for years and only stopped recently. Many weeds come back in my experience.
Sadly it was banned but Sodium Chlorate was the dogs for killing weeds. Trouble is all those oxygen atoms around the chlorine are a bit naughty and when excited can go BOOM!
I am going to try a mix of vinegar and salt on one patch and roundup on another
May the best man win , sorry best weed
Keep that glyphosate off your skin and also don't inhale any spray. Lots of agrochemicals are very dodgy and people left poorly informed. The very worst are insecticides which by their very nature feck up the central nervous system of insects. Chemically they are very similar to chemical warfare agents. Be safe Buddy!
thanks mate I will
I would expect the roundup to work better, but the salt n vinegar will work, and are much less toxic
Doesn't alter the fact that many studies have failed to find a link between glysophate and cancer.
I have given the scum a bloody good leathering with roundup
So, that article contains the following studies.
1) That glysophate is a cancer "promoter". In other words, the study found glysophate may cause tumours to grow faster. It didn't find that it caused tumours.
2) An unpublished 1983 study. Unpublished.
3) Screening of Pesticides with the Potential of Inducing DSB and Successive Recombinational Repair - The study didn't conclude that cancer was carcinogenic.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/09...e-cancer-13490
https://reason.com/2019/02/21/roundup-ready-cancer/The European Food Safety Authority looked at 21 human studies and found no evidence for an association between cancer and glyphosate use. The IARC looked at 19 human trials and found no statistically significant evidence for an association with cancer. It did find three small studies that suggested an association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (not statistically significant).
As already mentioned, the large Agricultural Health Study found no association between cancer and glyphosate in humans. And the 2016 review by Australia’s regulator concluded glyphosate was safe if used as directed.
It’s possible the animus towards Monsanto and genetically modified organisms may have influenced the recent juries’ decision far more than any science. However, these materials had no impact on the scientific findings.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...a-second-look/Case-control studies are notoriously susceptible to the effects of bias, which may be introduced as a result of a poor study design or during the collection of exposure and outcome data.
Over a dozen international and national health agencies have reviewed the safety of glyphosate, some repeatedly, and have found it unlikely to cause cancer and safe when used according to its label.
My mate who has an allotment uses it all the time according to instruction , not in wind , with gloves and if any gets on his skin he has a wash . He has been using it for years . But , he's not a scientist .
The question is do I believe some person on a message board or do I believe the very many articles and legal actions being taken against the Roundup manufacturers as a result of the cancers allegedly caused by some individuals who have used the chemical?
Whatever you might say or think I believe I was right to draw attention to the potential dangers of Roundup.
not sure Bayer would have set aside over $ 10 billion to cover it all, maybe they should have come to CCMB and saved all that money
If it can make cancer's grow ore quicky, then perhaps it can also cause undiagnosed cancers to upstage from something eminently treatable to something that isn't.
There have been court cases against things that do not cause cancer but do up stage it, with potentially big payouts.
You seem to have come to a conclusion that I wrote the studies that I have linked.
The decisions taken in the courts don't alter the scientific facts as presented in the sourced articles. You are correct to draw attention to the potential dangers of Roundup, and I am equally correct to link to articles that cast doubt on some of the claims.
The study didn't actually conclude that they CAN make cancers grow more quickly. It concluded that it MAY make cancers grow more quickly.
The court cases will not alter the conclusions of the scientific studies. The ones quoted as "proving glysophate causes cancer" are flawed for reasons outlined in the articles I have linked.
Posting Permissions
