[mushroom]

a collection of scientific papers about this very subject:

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/reproduction/sperm/humansperm.htm

Soya also has a part to play - contains phytoestrogens.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12792&feedId=online-news_rss20

I know that people with an underperforming thyroid are advised to steer clear of soya

[gobs]

Back to topic though, if you are interested in individual research papers on that site I sent a link of you can search for them, it throws up more than 500, unfortunately not all say, who commissioned the research and a lot would be by Santo Mate, I'd guess.

There are indeed a few concerns with this magic product's use.

- adsorption is different on diff soil types, temperatures, fertility, ground water, etc

- leaching into surface, ground waters, sewage systems

- altering microbial life of soil

- driving away earthworms and other effects on them

- resistance in some plants due to overuse

- residues due to poor adsorption, leaching, spray drift have an adverse effect on cultivated and non-target fauna and wild life, indeed so now it seems, it has ill effects on a lot of living organisms reproduction

Unfortunately, due to GM crops, developed with resistance to it, overwhelming majority of new research goes into detection of it in food and other implications of its direct use on such food crops.

New research shows that some of these GM crops also have got reproduction problems.

[ToHellWithWeeds!]

I decided it was time to kill the weeds so i trotted off to B&Q to grt some round up then got talking to a chap who said round up was good but only if i didnt want to grow anything next year as it could still be present in the soil for that lenth of time so went out empty handed    went down my lotty and started digging and now pleased that i did it must be better for the soil and produce just thought i would let you know

[mushroom]

Looks like my work is cut out for me tonight, lots of reading to do, i'll do this a bit later this evening... seperating the wheat from the chaff. It's difficult to get a properly rounded picture. So far, I've found the papers either relate to glyp surfecant mixture exposure on applicationor exposure in vitro, the second example is hardly a realistic situation.

Nothing so far of it appearing in food... but then again, much reading to be done.

[ToHellWithWeeds!]

Looks like my work is cut out for me tonight, lots of reading to do, i'll do this a bit later this evening... seperating the wheat from the chaff. It's difficult to get a properly rounded picture. So far, I've found the papers either relate to glyp surfecant mixture exposure on applicationor exposure in vitro, the second example is hardly a realistic situation.

Nothing so far of it appearing in food... but then again, much reading to be done.

Happy reading let us know what you come up with!! im now very weary as to what i put on my soil i suppose you cant beat digging hard work but better in the long run

[gobs]

Good on you Tohellwithweeds!

[mushroom]

Well, I've changed my mind about glyp. Cheers for the heads-up, Gobs.

This is what changed it:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/impacts_glyphosate.pdf

[ToHellWithWeeds!]

Well, I've changed my mind about glyp. Cheers for the heads-up, Gobs.

This is what changed it:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/impacts_glyphosate.pdf

just read it oh my god thank god i didnt use it and now i never ever will so thank you you deserve a big gold star

[gobs]

Thanks for that Mushy, that's a good  paper.

But I was going to post this without you posting that. I just wanted to clarify that I was not on a mission and do not want to convert you or any other non-organic gardener, I just wanted to post this new found information to share with all those concerned in whatever way.

I know it's not the most dangerous chemical we use, the importance of this post is about what it claims to be, which it probably isn't.

You or anybody else, garden in a way you like, if you want to use it, it's legal,  so you can use it. None of my business.

Or is it? As one writer put it, your rights go as far, as you do not hurt someone else's rights, and if someone else the next plot to me is spraying stuff about.... That's another conversation.

But I'm pleased you took the trouble of thinking about it, very intelligent, I would say.

[fatbelly]

Well done folks, and who said debates couldn't be conducted politely.  

Now, would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why sperm count in men today is less than half of what it was post-WWII?  Strikes me that we are part of the ecosystem too ...

Two suggestions from me, either the poison we are putting into our world on a daily basis is slowly having its effect or......nature though the levels of male sperm is trying to keep a population balance given that the earth is now 4 billion people over its sustainable population.

[WG.]

Well, I've changed my mind about glyp.

... and man enough to admit it.

Now ... reading the FOE link might mean my question on sperm count was more "on topic" than you imagined ... "reduced sperm count in rabbits" it said.  Thanks for the link, mushroom.

[gobs]

Well, I've changed my mind about glyp.

... and man enough to admit it.

Now ... reading the FOE link might mean my question on sperm count was more "on topic" than you imagined ... "sperm count in rabbits" it said.  Thanks for the link, mushroom.

I hope you don't wanna breed like rabbits, even though well lovely for multiplication you are.  
Yes, a lot of these chemicals will work on this basis.   Also, as mushy said hot baths, etc are out of question. That's why they are naturally hanging to keep them cool.  

[John]

I'm afraid the FOE report didn't impress me greatly, seems to me that it's reaching to justify a position.

Forget Monsanto's GM aims and concentrating on the risks of glyphosate - it's a low risk herbicide (although FOE seem to think it's a pesticide) -  with low persistence and highly effective.

I'm sorry - I just think FOE are so biased that their report isn't fully credible, which is a shame.

The risk evaluation for an agricultural worker using large amounts of it would be different to that of a gardener using it rarely and selectively. There is, I believe, evidence it caused harm to agricultural workers.

I use glyphosate annually for the paths and sometimes carefully on weeds like couch or bindweed where getting every little bit of root out is well nigh impossible.

Although I haven't used it to clear a plot, I wouldn't rule it out. I'd much rather see a plot get a spray than another newbie give up and go home a failure.

[mushroom]

I'm afraid the FOE report didn't impress me greatly, seems to me that it's reaching to justify a position.

what does that mean?

Forget Monsanto's GM aims and concentrating on the risks of glyphosate - it's a low risk herbicide (although FOE seem to think it's a pesticide) -  with low persistence and highly effective.

Without a doubt it is highly effective. I was saddened to read that its residues were found in lettuce a year after it was applied to the ground. The given half life is 61 days, and even that is meant to be so tightly bound to soil that it's not even available to higher plants. If it's low persistence, then how is it detectable in lettuce a year after it was applied to the ground in question?

The paper doesn't indicate if the residues detected are intact glyp or its metabolite, or if its metabolite is any more or less toxic. Probably outside the scope of the paper.

I'm sorry - I just think FOE are so biased that their report isn't fully credible, which is a shame.

Do you think the report is biased?

I saw 117 references in the report, from all over the place, from various respected organisations.. I know FoE have an agenda, but they are themselves a highly respected organisation. And they aren't blemishing themselves with paying for the science.

I use glyphosate annually for the paths and sometimes carefully on weeds like couch or bindweed where getting every little bit of root out is well nigh impossible.

This kind of usage I'd agree with completely.

Although I haven't used it to clear a plot, I wouldn't rule it out. I'd much rather see a plot get a spray than another newbie give up and go home a failure.

I used it to clear about half of the plot of overgrown grass - i really wanted to kill the roots. The grass is mostly twitch. I wish i hadn't now - 5 or 6 rotovations over that area would have killed it off. I didn't realise glyp acted on the soil fungi and (some) of the bacteria that keep the soil alive.

The fact that a newbie might give up is, to my mind, nebulous. If you want to do it, you're going to.

[John]

excuse me not quoting but I do think FOE started from a premise that Monsanto are evil and all their works are. I'd agree with the first part of that, btw, from what I've seen and read Monsanto have appear to have no morals beyond their profit margin. I'm no friend to them (although I worded that carefully to avoid liability)

Given sensitive enough equipment, I'm sure they can find residues in things. but is it significant? Was the application originally normal? You can bend things so easily -

I'm not qualified to judge the validity of the research but I know spin and agenda when I see it.  Comes from having done it for a living   :oops:  I've no interest in promoting glyphosate, btw. I'm sure they can cite reports but it is easy to take things out of context and exagerate the importance etc.

As for newbies giving up being nebulous, I've not undertaken a statistically significant survey but I've seen it happen.

Like yourself, I suspect, I trust peer-reviewed independent reports far more than reports from those with an agenda to promote or profits to make.