Glyphosate: an effective ecological herbicide, not carcinogenic, not endocrine disrupting

[Obamot]

Apart from that the error on organophosphates was not made by izentrop but by bardal.

Yes, it is Izentrop the author of a masterful blunder peremptory.

And Bardal came to the rescue made news of it by not seeing any carbon in glyphosate.

As for you, you come to put your sophistic thought here to save the furniture by adding a blunder, which this time is not scientific.

Phew! Econologie is proud to have great rigorous scientists like the three of you. You raise the level, that's for sure.

But hey, trying to respect the scientific approach does not mean not making mistakes

The scientific approach in medicine is not just about doing double-blind randomization on 5000 patients and sending everything that does not fall into the trash.

Ah but there is BIGGER still, it is precisely the peremptory side, I have rubbed shoulders with Georges Charpak (CERN) and Linus Pauling (orthomolecular medicine) of “real” scientists, and all had this in common - their humility - it was really very, very rare that they were categorical, while here the trolls regularly chatter about what they believe to be certainties!

[ABC2019]

trolls regularly talk to their hearts about what they believe to be certainties!

if that's your definition of a troll, you put yourself in that category.

[izentrop]

The word glyphosate is indeed the crux of this affair which should have remained only a news item instead of being taken up by all the French press Even international. Analysis indicates that he was poisoned by an organophosphate but it is not known which one.
In addition, in a greenhouse in the open, the toxic vapors are perhaps concentrated.

So much hay for so little, you really have to look for the audience has taken everything. "Agri basching" does not eat bread.

[Obamot]

It looks like the repartee of “Moindreffor” in worse

The mini trolls DON'T IN THE DISCLAIMER (and on several occasions ...)

[Exnihiloest]

trolls regularly talk to their hearts about what they believe to be certainties!

if that's your definition of a troll, you put yourself in that category.

Absolutely. But in reality there is amha no troll on this forum. On the other hand there are gugusses who do not accept the contradiction nor the theses opposed to theirs, to the point of reacting viscerally rather than argumentation.
They see those who bring an opposition as wanting to argue for free, that is to say as trolls. For a gugusse it is indeed always obvious that his theses are the right ones and that if we dispute them, it is because we are in bad faith, or at the boot of unsavory organisms, or a manipulator ... in short a troll.

Everyone can believe that what he says are certainties, and has the right, gugusse or not. The one who expresses his conviction "non viscerally"will stick to arguments on the subject, and thus defend its position, which is quite normal in a debate.
But the gugusse, he refuses that the certainties of others can be of the same level as his and say with the same good faith. And this refusal results in the Gugusse by personal attacks because the Gugusse shows himself incapable either of bringing detailed objections, or of accepting that they can be refused by another point of view. The personal attack, including treating the other as a troll to discredit him, is what he has left, that's how we recognize a gugusse. In the gugusse the guts take precedence over the cortex even if it has one, even a large one.

For the less understanding gugusses, I specify that the personal attack, it is the global cataloging of the other as a named person or well identified: "you are a troll", "you are a liar", "you are in the service of Monsanto "," you are a gugusse "are personal attacks. "You are wrong to say that", "there you are wrong", "your last assertion is a lie", are not if they are supported and not systematic because it is no longer the person who is targeted, but well what she says, punctually. When the gugusses, who think they know what trolls are, now know so much about themselves, perhaps they will change their behavior to no longer be? We can dream.

[Obamot]

trolls regularly talk to their hearts about what they believe to be certainties!

Absolutely. But in reality there is amha no troll on this forum. On the other hand there are gugusses who do not accept the contradiction nor the theses opposed to theirs, to the point of reacting viscerally rather than argumentation.

Gosh ! You mean glyphosate wouldn't be eco (no) logical then, and you encourage us to have opposing opinions ...?
Awesome...!
But then if they're not trolls, in a forum eco (no) logist, what is it? Idiots or lobbyists?

[izentrop]

ANSES signs the end of the release of glyphosate

The long-awaited publication of the latest report from the National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) concerning the results of its comparative evaluation between glyphosate and its non-chemical alternatives can only be perceived as an admission of the impossibility of "getting out of glyphosate".

"For the health authorities," glyphosate is not substitutable "in all situations", recognizes Le Monde in its October 9 edition. "It is not tomorrow that farmers will completely abandon glyphosate to weed their rows of potatoes or vines with a hoe", deplore the authors of the article, Stéphane Mandard and Stéphane Foucart, two journalists sympathetic to the cause. antipesticides, while the radical activist François Veillerette admits to the facts: “Glyphosate still has a bright future ahead of it. "So," the state buries the release of this toxic product, worries the boss of Generations Futures.

He's not wrong. In addition to the many agricultural technical dead ends, now recognized, which would result from a ban on this herbicide, a certain number of non-agricultural sectors would also have been very largely handicapped by such a decision. This is the case with SNCF. As the leading consumer of glyphosate, it will therefore be able to continue to treat its entire network without restriction, since, as ANSES notes, uses on railways “cannot be completely replaced by non-chemical alternatives without having significant consequences, in particular for the safety of operators and users of these services ”. The same goes for industrial and military sites, highways, airports, the electricity network, and even the conservation of historic monuments, for which ANSES considers that this herbicide - among the most environmentally friendly available on the market - remains the best possible solution.

In this issue, as in that of neonicotinoids, it is clear that pressure from environmentalists is a very bad advisor, and that it is better to think twice before succumbing to the populist sirens whose credo is to ban everything.

It is clear that used wisely, it is very useful for reducing the carbon impact (conservation agriculture without tillage), providing organic matter in the soil and even facilitating carbon storage in the soil, therefore a tool in the fight against global warming.

[Janic]

It is clear that used wisely, it is very useful for reducing the carbon impact (conservation agriculture without tillage), providing organic matter in the soil and even facilitating carbon storage in the soil, therefore a tool in the fight against global warming.

Absurd reasoning. It's like asking someone if they'd rather have their right hand amputated or their left hand amputated for convenience. Any fool will prefer to keep both intact; glyphosate like any other synthetic product is a poison and its use is only justified by its manufacturers and users for economic and not health reasons.

[izentrop]

I forgot to say that the anthroposophical reasoning was useless, since the decision has been made.

[Obamot]

ANSES signs the end of the release of glyphosate

The long-awaited publication of the latest report from the National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) concerning the results of its comparative evaluation between glyphosate and its non-chemical alternatives can only be perceived as an admission of the impossibility of "getting out of glyphosate".

"For health authorities, 'glyphosate is not substitutable' in all situations", thus recognizes Le Monde

And to think that you are giving France Soir nicknames ...

Have you ever wondered why covid-19 is wreaking havoc around the world? It will have killed more people in a year than low dose irradiation in 35 years. Do you prefer to continue purring with the mainstream intoxicating, your head in a bag? Because you still believe that having made this decision will solve all the problems of soil depletion and the fact that CONSUMERS DO NOT WANT THIS POISON.

You are still the king of opportunistic and short-sighted positions. As for anthroposophy and your obscure posts, you're very far from it! Would you like to give us lessons in philosophy or humanism? ( ) did you eat a clown?

What is happening with the covid is only a foretaste, it is “a warning” of the excesses of humanity, not at the theological level, but DIRECT, from a system based on profit at all price, and the ethical drifts which lead men depriving others of the means to heal themselves on the altar of money. How did we get here

And hey, it's not on a mind like yours that we can count on debating ethical, economic and societal issues. And even less of public health.