Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PufPuf23

(9,892 posts)
41. I must have been posting while you were researching.
Fri Sep 11, 2015, 11:02 AM
Sep 2015

24D and 245T (now banned) are not very effective against monocots (grasses, conifer trees), markedly so depending on time of application.

Glyphosate targets grasses, herbaceous plants, and seedlings but is not that effective on established woody vegetation.

Montsanto developed Roundup/glyphosate and genetically engineered food crops to be Roundup resistant.

Now that the patent is ending on glyphosate, Monsanto is looking to develop a new herbicide to maintain high profit margin herbicide production.

See "Monsanto to replace Roundup with RNA altering plant spray "

http://www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-to-replace-roundup-with-rna-altering-plant-spray

Other recent articles on Roundup/glyphosate.

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/09/california-moves-protect-citizens-monsanto-s-gmo-weed-killer

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

I was long ago a CA Licensed Pest Control Applicator (IIRC the title correctly) while a US Forest Service employee. When I was a teen in early 1970s, worked as ground crew for helicopter spraying of Army surplus Agent Orange for "conifer release" in clearcut plantations. The USFS had a moratorium on herbicide spraying in mid 1970s then restarted the program using "new" chemicals such as glyphosate and hexazinone. I obtained the License when I was project manager of a controversial glyphosate project in 1983 (my last contact with herbicides as resigned from USFS in 1985). The county had passed a local ordinance against herbicide use in the forest and there was a lawsuit between the county and California Department of Food and Agriculture over jurisdiction; in either case, the USFS was exempt as Federal lands. The USFS initiated an epidemiological study of its employees who had exposure in 1980s and I applied but was not selected as my experience included multiple chemicals. I wonder if some of my current health problems are related but, unlike the VA, there seems to be no programs for non-military government employees that were exposed. When I was a teen involved in phenoxy application, we would bring changes of clothes and wash in the creek. Another chemical used was MSMA, an arsenate used with no protection. Before being banned, applicators had to have regular blood tests while using MSMA. By the time of the glyphosate project there was a tight protocol on applications which were essentially paramilitary operations. There were about 30 federal law enforcement officers providing security. My then wife was a water monitor in 1980(?) on the Ranger District where we had been before and came home after several days for fresh clothes etc accompanied by a Federal Marshall who would not let us be alone together because to the District Ranger I was a security risk (might slip her something to squirrel the samples, which I would never do). Then I transferred and the first thing they do is dump a herbicide project in my lap. Then I quit the USFS after 16 years and going to university for that career. Fuck Reagan.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Great news and past due. n/t L. Coyote Sep 2015 #1
K&R awoke_in_2003 Sep 2015 #2
Well, when the only permissible "science" is that in the service of the bottom line... villager Sep 2015 #4
I always though Roundup should come in an orange container Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #3
Agent Orange is a mixture of 24D and 245T, phenoxy herbicides. PufPuf23 Sep 2015 #11
Agent Orange was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D muriel_volestrangler Sep 2015 #12
I must have been posting while you were researching. PufPuf23 Sep 2015 #41
This puts it in the same category as aspirin, oral contraceptives, and alcohol. Nailzberg Sep 2015 #5
And coffee too. progressoid Sep 2015 #6
You are free to swap out your "Morning Joe" with Monsanto's finest.... villager Sep 2015 #7
Which would you rather drink? n/t pnwmom Sep 2015 #9
You ask that question as if the answer is supposed to be somehow signficant Major Nikon Sep 2015 #22
If you're not prepared to use a product incorrectly NuclearDem Sep 2015 #24
It's kinda like asking someone why they wouldn't want to shove a toothbrush up their ass Major Nikon Sep 2015 #25
And working third shift. NuclearDem Sep 2015 #10
You guys really *are* working third shift, villager Sep 2015 #14
You know, when it comes to these accusations of being paid posters NuclearDem Sep 2015 #15
Am waiting for an example of "understanding" rather than snarkery, villager Sep 2015 #16
From what I've seen of your posts on this matter NuclearDem Sep 2015 #17
More of your scientific understanding and rational discourse! villager Sep 2015 #18
I just always wonder arikara Sep 2015 #19
Because it's an issue worth debating. NuclearDem Sep 2015 #23
Well I guess that cuts both ways arikara Sep 2015 #27
Because 1 in 5 US children live below the poverty line and I want families to afford to eat. Nailzberg Sep 2015 #29
Thank you for acknowledging. All of those products must be labeled. So should GMO's. n/t pnwmom Sep 2015 #8
Those products will be labeled as carcinogens. GMOs aren't carcinogens. Nailzberg Sep 2015 #28
LOL. Aspirin, alcohol, and birth control aren't labeled because they're carcinogens pnwmom Sep 2015 #30
I think you're thinking of two different things Orrex Sep 2015 #32
You're right -- and I'm not saying that aspirin, etc., are labeled for GMO content. pnwmom Sep 2015 #34
Sure they could. Orrex Sep 2015 #35
There is no compelling reason if you are convinced by the GMO producers research. pnwmom Sep 2015 #36
Suspicion isn't a compelling reason. Orrex Sep 2015 #37
Suspicion based on past history is a compelling enough reason, IMO, pnwmom Sep 2015 #38
Suspicion is not sufficient because it's not a matter of trust Orrex Sep 2015 #39
If you don't mind, what is your response to the fact that until a few years ago GMO researchers pnwmom Sep 2015 #40
No. They are labeled as required by Prop 65 as carcinogens. Nailzberg Sep 2015 #33
But what about "SCIENCE" ??!!11!!?? GreatGazoo Sep 2015 #13
Ever since CA made Disneyland put up "substances here may cause cancer" signs all over the place, Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #20
Or conversely, the line in the movie "Bliss" is increasingly correct: villager Sep 2015 #21
my son hides the round up MFM008 Sep 2015 #26
If he objects to doing his job, then he should quit or be fired Orrex Sep 2015 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»California EPA Moves to L...»Reply #41