Groundswell 2017

[Breakthru]

just back from a Europe tour so a bit late to the discussion.
Can only reiterate most of above ref talks overlaps (been explained by @martian). Very thought provoking and while a lot may disagree on the pesticides dissing it is very concerning that in roundup ready crop areas where crops are treated three times that cancer rates are now one in two of the population and forecast to be 1 in 1. Everybody with cancer!
The speakers had a point to put over and obviously spoke passionately but reasoned discussion and facts and figures are what we are all after surely.
Chris Sait reckons glypho has 3 years, do you take this as a heads up or wait and see if the forecast is more about the forecaster than the future.
If the facts quoted stand up should we agree not to use as sunshine in a can directly applied to food crops and only as weed cleanup to protect it for a few years more till an alternative is made?
I look forward to the audio and possible adjoining slide show.
Many thanks to the Cherry family for an excellent setup and hospitality and a range of very thought provoking speakers.
Top class even better than last years excellent first foray. B

 

[SilliamWhale]

just back from a Europe tour so a bit late to the discussion.
Can only reiterate most of above ref talks overlaps (been explained by @martian). Very thought provoking and while a lot may disagree on the pesticides dissing it is very concerning that in roundup ready crop areas where crops are treated three times that cancer rates are now one in two of the population and forecast to be 1 in 1. Everybody with cancer!
The speakers had a point to put over and obviously spoke passionately but reasoned discussion and facts and figures are what we are all after surely.
Chris Sait reckons glypho has 3 years, do you take this as a heads up or wait and see if the forecast is more about the forecaster than the future.
If the facts quoted stand up should we agree not to use as sunshine in a can directly applied to food crops and only as weed cleanup to protect it for a few years more till an alternative is made?
I look forward to the audio and possible adjoining slide show.
Many thanks to the Cherry family for an excellent setup and hospitality and a range of very thought provoking speakers.
Top class even better than last years excellent first foray. B

Evidence please?

And not that discredited non-hodgkins lymphoma one thanks

 

[Breakthru]

Evidence please?

And not that discredited non-hodgkins lymphoma one thanks

Refer to Chris Sait talks when they go live.
He talks at government and even prime ministerial levels in some cases and this is his view and has some important listeners.
One other quote from him related to tests on 1400 Oz primary school children.
They all contained the 12 primary chemical blocks albeit all at less than 4ppm limits.
A researcher looked at only 100 of the many possible combinations and found three of the combinations to be carcinogenic where individual levels were within permitted levels.
He spoke very quickly and digressed often so my notes are not comprehensive so I look forward to the audio postings.
I am very open minded and prefer logical sensible debate above evangelicalism, in whatever sphere, so found his talks especially very thought provoking.
I suggest you like myself listen to the audio of the speeches and then his assertions can be debated in more detail.
I passed the comment on glypho on the basis that if his view of 3 years before banning is correct then being proactive to preserve its use only for use against weeds in stubbles which is the most important use for no till or min till is better than a complete ban without a known alternative.
I like alternatives such as the foliar feeds I sell to control slugs or leatherjackets/flea beetles etc but so far the alternative to glypho is either doomed already and not as efficient or so far non existent to the best of my knowledge. Massive market so they will be working on it no doubt.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Refer to Chris Sait talks when they go live.
He talks at government and even prime ministerial levels in some cases and this is his view and has some important listeners.
One other quote from him related to tests on 1400 Oz primary school children.
They all contained the 12 primary chemical blocks albeit all at less than 4ppm limits.
A researcher looked at only 100 of the many possible combinations and found three of the combinations to be carcinogenic where individual levels were within permitted levels.
He spoke very quickly and digressed often so my notes are not comprehensive so I look forward to the audio postings.
I am very open minded and prefer logical sensible debate above evangelicalism, in whatever sphere, so found his talks especially very thought provoking.
I suggest you like myself listen to the audio of the speeches and then his assertions can be debated in more detail.
I passed the comment on glypho on the basis that if his view of 3 years before banning is correct then being proactive to preserve its use only for use against weeds in stubbles which is the most important use for no till or min till is better than a complete ban without a known alternative.
I like alternatives such as the foliar feeds I sell to control slugs or leatherjackets/flea beetles etc but so far the alternative to glypho is either doomed already and not as efficient or so far non existent to the best of my knowledge. Massive market so they will be working on it no doubt.

Before we discuss further do you mean Graeme Sait or Chris Sait?

 

[Breakthru]

Before we discuss further do you mean Graeme Sait or Chris Sait?

Graeme

 

[yellow belly]

if glyphosate is banned world wide then farmers will receive very high prices for the remaining crops

 

[Clive]

just back from a Europe tour so a bit late to the discussion.
Can only reiterate most of above ref talks overlaps (been explained by @martian). Very thought provoking and while a lot may disagree on the pesticides dissing it is very concerning that in roundup ready crop areas where crops are treated three times that cancer rates are now one in two of the population and forecast to be 1 in 1. Everybody with cancer!
The speakers had a point to put over and obviously spoke passionately but reasoned discussion and facts and figures are what we are all after surely.
Chris Sait reckons glypho has 3 years, do you take this as a heads up or wait and see if the forecast is more about the forecaster than the future.
If the facts quoted stand up should we agree not to use as sunshine in a can directly applied to food crops and only as weed cleanup to protect it for a few years more till an alternative is made?
I look forward to the audio and possible adjoining slide show.
Many thanks to the Cherry family for an excellent setup and hospitality and a range of very thought provoking speakers.
Top class even better than last years excellent first foray. B

cancer rates will increase as people live longer - its just statistics

life expectancy has risen consistently

1000 years ago no one lived long enough to get cancer

 

[martian]

cancer rates will increase as people live longer - its just statistics

life expectancy has risen consistently

1000 years ago no one lived long enough to get cancer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/
Not sure that's quite right. I draw your attention to this little nugget that @mikep dug up last year. Nub of it is that in the 1850's life expectancy (once you made it to 5 years old) was much the same then as it is today. People died of infectious diseases then and degenerative diseases today. A very thought provoking read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/

 

[York]

Martian,
you are absolutely right. If you cut out of the statistics, even the last 40 years, all people which died below 5 years, or so, in Africa, you didn't end up with a huge difference in life expectancy to western civilisation.
Every one should talk with his doctors what they say. especially ask the doctors which are >60 of age.
To make a even further point, maybe some oldtimers can help. Look up animal nutrition books of the early 80's and compare what numbers they used as mineral contend in the grains and what same books of actual release date use today as standart values in mineral contend infeed stuff.
unfortunately I have to find the actual edition of my Animal feeding book to compare. Project for the next winter.
Mrs. Jonex had also good comparison, referring even to a study of your island.
York-Th.

 

[mikep]

Martian,
you are absolutely right. If you cut out of the statistics, even the last 40 years, all people which died below 5 years, or so, in Africa, you didn't end up with a huge difference in life expectancy to western civilisation.
Every one should talk with his doctors what they say. especially ask the doctors which are >60 of age.
To make a even further point, maybe some oldtimers can help. Look up animal nutrition books of the early 80's and compare what numbers they used as mineral contend in the grains and what same books of actual release date use today as standart values in mineral contend infeed stuff.
unfortunately I have to find the actual edition of my Animal feeding book to compare. Project for the next winter.
Mrs. Jonex had also good comparison, referring even to a study of your island.
York-Th.

Gist was that the Victorians worked harder and eat twice as much we do today but a lot of unprocessed foods and fresh veg. Little sugar little alcohol and little tobacco.
Things went down hill with processed meat from s America, steel milled flour and cheap sugar.

 

[The_Swede]

This whole business of pesticides being carcinogens is a bit of a red herring in my view. I refer back to my previous (rather facetious) post re eating red meat whilst sat around an open fire. Even if glyphosate was shown definitively to be in the same carcinogen bracket as say beef just look at the relative consumption volumes for the vast majority of the populous. Then you factor in generally poor diets (but not necessarily due to the quality of the raw materials I may add), sedentary lifestyles, air pollution perhaps even stress and there are clearly a host of far more significant contributory factors to the rise of cancer.

 

[mikep]

This whole business of pesticides being carcinogens is a bit of a red herring in my view. I refer back to my previous (rather facetious) post re eating red meat whilst sat around an open fire. Even if glyphosate was shown definitively to be in the same carcinogen bracket as say beef just look at the relative consumption volumes for the vast majority of the populous. Then you factor in generally poor diets (but not necessarily due to the quality of the raw materials I may add), sedentary lifestyles, air pollution perhaps even stress and there are clearly a host of far more significant contributory factors to the rise of cancer.

Glypho in bread has been found at 7-100
ppb. Wine has 125,000ppb alcohol which is a higher risk carcinogen according to the experts.

 

[The_Swede]

The defence rests... [emoji6]

 

[Breakthru]

Graeme Saits' contention was that Glypho was originally thought only to be a disrupter in plants, birds and fish. He said it had been found that it was a disruptor of a very important set of bacteria in the human gut.
He went on to discuss the effect of diet on resistance and immunity quoting most of sub saharan africa having 50-90% Aids rates. 1 country only 1% due to their diet and also quoted Korean and Georgian long lives due to eating fermented beans and sauerkraut respectively. As in mob stocking, no till principles feeding the microbia.
He and others like him have the ear of very important decision makers so what I am asking is should we agree to stop using glypho directly on food crops for artificial ripening voluntarily so that we can continue to have it available solely for weed control till an alternative is available.
If not then his contention is it will only be around for 3 years maximum with or without an alternative which as many agree is a serious game changer.
I am not saying I totally agree with what he said but am asking the question of whether we are proactive or just wait and possibly end up crying over spilt milk we may have avoided.
Listen to the audio when it comes out, very thought provoking.

 

[Breakthru]

Not sure that's quite right. I draw your attention to this little nugget that @mikep dug up last year. Nub of it is that in the 1850's life expectancy (once you made it to 5 years old) was much the same then as it is today. People died of infectious diseases then and degenerative diseases today. A very thought provoking read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/

Excellent two days, thank you very much.
Could you release Sait and Jones audio as soon as possible even if it means not releasing all the talks at the same time. They were both were very passionate in their beliefs and I think the audios' will create more argument and counter argument and facts on TFF.
These glypho discussions are taking place in many other places here in the UK and elsewhere.
We need to study closely what the anti's are saying and have the time to either agree a compromise or state the alternative facts.
I am not taking sides only pointing out notice has been given, correctly or not.

 

[mikep]

Graeme Saits' contention was that Glypho was originally thought only to be a disrupter in plants, birds and fish. He said it had been found that it was a disruptor of a very important set of bacteria in the human gut.
He went on to discuss the effect of diet on resistance and immunity quoting most of sub saharan africa having 50-90% Aids rates. 1 country only 1% due to their diet and also quoted Korean and Georgian long lives due to eating fermented beans and sauerkraut respectively. As in mob stocking, no till principles feeding the microbia.
He and others like him have the ear of very important decision makers so what I am asking is should we agree to stop using glypho directly on food crops for artificial ripening voluntarily so that we can continue to have it available solely for weed control till an alternative is available.
If not then his contention is it will only be around for 3 years maximum with or without an alternative which as many agree is a serious game changer.
I am not saying I totally agree with what he said but am asking the question of whether we are proactive or just wait and possibly end up crying over spilt milk we may have avoided.
Listen to the audio when it comes out, very thought provoking.

I think this is the same bad science that is getting too much publicity on the back of the green movement. It is down to dose not ability, it may have some unwanted effect but the dose rate needs to be much higher than it ever is going to be in reality.
The f**kwits are going for hazard not risk.

 

[York]

maybe, if the organisers are bold enough, they should invite Prof. Don Huber next year for Groundswell? For the animal side it
s Prof.. Dr. Monika Krueger of the Vet. Uni. Leipzig which does work on botulism & Glyphosate on animals. She has some very nice pictures of the gut system.
Don Huber is very knowledgeable on the topic of Pesticides & effects on plants.
last week I was in Estonia. Never have seen so many negative effects of chemical usage. Need only compare the plants in the fields, like near power posts, which didn't get a dosage & the rest of the field. It pays to do "zero plots" controls.
Maybe this people are also a good invite for BASE annual meeting.
Did organise a day seminar with both of them years ago. It changed the usage of pesticides in all operations which attended. Since then I'm not liked by german Min Till association any more. Tehy will even not shake hands with me at their annual meeting.
York-Th.
p.s. sorry, off topic

 

[SilliamWhale]

This whole business of pesticides being carcinogens is a bit of a red herring in my view. I refer back to my previous (rather facetious) post re eating red meat whilst sat around an open fire. Even if glyphosate was shown definitively to be in the same carcinogen bracket as say beef just look at the relative consumption volumes for the vast majority of the populous. Then you factor in generally poor diets (but not necessarily due to the quality of the raw materials I may add), sedentary lifestyles, air pollution perhaps even stress and there are clearly a host of far more significant contributory factors to the rise of cancer.

I agree. Why pesticides and why cancer in particular I ask?

 

[SilliamWhale]

Refer to Chris Sait talks when they go live.
He talks at government and even prime ministerial levels in some cases and this is his view and has some important listeners.
One other quote from him related to tests on 1400 Oz primary school children.
They all contained the 12 primary chemical blocks albeit all at less than 4ppm limits.
A researcher looked at only 100 of the many possible combinations and found three of the combinations to be carcinogenic where individual levels were within permitted levels.
He spoke very quickly and digressed often so my notes are not comprehensive so I look forward to the audio postings.
I am very open minded and prefer logical sensible debate above evangelicalism, in whatever sphere, so found his talks especially very thought provoking.
I suggest you like myself listen to the audio of the speeches and then his assertions can be debated in more detail.
I passed the comment on glypho on the basis that if his view of 3 years before banning is correct then being proactive to preserve its use only for use against weeds in stubbles which is the most important use for no till or min till is better than a complete ban without a known alternative.
I like alternatives such as the foliar feeds I sell to control slugs or leatherjackets/flea beetles etc but so far the alternative to glypho is either doomed already and not as efficient or so far non existent to the best of my knowledge. Massive market so they will be working on it no doubt.

I haven't heard his audio so I can't comment specifically. But I do see that Mr Sait has multiple business based around the "nutrition" sector. This business model involves expensive courses, nice certificates and products and potions which are "good" because he provides them not "bad" monsanto. A possible feeling that you may discover undiscovered secret, hidden information that the system, or universities or nasty chemical companies (those very highly regulated chemical companies by the way) don't tell us is also part of the deal.

I'm sorry but I call bulls**t on a lot of it. Not least because the world of Nutritionism is full of bad science and unproven remarks on grouping things into bad vs good rather the sensible approach of toxicity vs dose.

If Glyphosate and cancer has a strong relationship I would want to know about it but I just don't see it at the moment. The evidence for seems very sparse. If someone is claiming that it does cause cancer above and beyond a lot of other products then we need to take a closer and continual look at it but I don't see how Graham Sait can claim the truth about it now.

 

[Dan Powell]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-said-smoking-doesnt-kill_us_58121434e4b064e1b4b0bf93

@SilliamWhale Will, you accuse Graeme Sait of benefiting financially from his claims. Fair enough, but if you follow the money in the debate, I think you'll find Monsanto and many other vested interests (including every farmer in the world running a no-till / min-till system) will be pumping all their propaganda and scientific research in the opposite direction. Same as happened in the tobacco industry not too long ago. Talk about vested interests!

In this post-truth / post-facts age, where you don't appear to even be able to trust the scientific community to tell us how it is, who can we really trust?

For myself, I wouldn't trust a multinational chemical juggernaut to do anything other than pursue profit at any cost.