Glyphosat er en katastrofe i Agentina , der forties af Dansk Landbrug...

Predictions from quantum chemistry calculations and state of the art cryogenic electrospray ionization infrared spectroscopy provide evidence that water exists as pentagonal dodecahedron clusters based on the golden ratio, the magic number woven into the fabric of the universe and consciousness

Mae-Wan Ho: It was Alfred North Whitehead's idea that electrons had consciousness. Whitehead, to me, was a really important philosopher. He was also a mathematician. He had the idea that you cannot really understand nature except as an organism and with the sensitivity of the organism. To Whitehead everything in nature was an organism to varying degrees, from electrons, fundamental particles to galaxies. It's a very beautiful idea actually.

Mae-Wan Ho: Absolutely, yes. I think we have a completely obsolete medical system. It's committed to this gene-centered approach. A lot of money has been spent on sequencing genomes, etc. They really have got to keep the myth going. They've got to say, well we're going to find the genes that make you ill or predispose you to all kinds of illnesses. But they never can find them. This just goes on and on.

I don't know if you've noticed but at first it was genomics and then transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics, etc. Because they don't know what else to do. It's really mind-numbing.

With cancer, for example, they keep sticking to this idea that it's caused by gene mutations. Again, they're chasing their own tail. That's why we have such a horrible medical system. The best thing to do is to avoid it.

Termination Notice

It is with great sadness that the Institute of Science in Society is to cease operation at the end of March 2016 on account of serious illness of our Director Dr Mae-Wan Ho.

Hun mener helt alvorligt, at vand har hukommelse of kan "huske" molekyler, der har været i vandet tidligere, og at elektroner har bevidsthed!!!

Kvarker, elektroner og fotoner har en minimal form for bevidsthed, hævder panpsykister. Hjernen skaber ikke bevidsthed, men samler og raffinerer et råstof, der findes overalt i Universet. En opsigtsvækkende teori vinder indpas i bevidsthedsforskning

Nederst, basalt, finder man fysikken, og oven over den ligger kemien. Længere oppe finder man biologien og derover psykologien. Hvis man forestiller sig sådan en trappestige, hvor befinder bevidstheden sig så? Indtil for nylig lød den altdominerende antagelse i filosofien og naturvidenskaben, at bevidstheden først bliver tændt på trappetrinet over biologien. At biologiske processer i hjernen skaber – eller er lig med – bevidsthed.
Men hvor rigtigt det end måtte lyde, så er det aldrig blevet dokumenteret. Og nu vinder den modsatte tese frem i bevidsthedsforskningen: Panpsykisterne, som får mere og mere vind i sejlene, hævder, at bevidstheden findes i elementær form helt nede på bunden af trappestigen – at elementarpartikler er ved bevidsthed eller rummer kimen til bevidsthed...

Både KOSMOS og N A Nielsen afviser, at er i det hele kan være et sundheds problem med at anvende Glyphosat i landbruget - også i Argentina og USA

Glyphosat eller Roundup-resistent ukrudt har bredt sig i store dele af Argentinas landbrugsjord, og nu tyder alt på at herbicidformuleringen er akut giftig.

Læs originalartiklen her

Artiklen har været bragt i Dansk Kemi nr. 9, 2009. Teksten kan desuden læses uden illustrationer, strukturer og ligninger herunder. Se relaterede artikler nederst på siden.

Af Carsten Christophersen

I 2002 dukkede en glyphosatresistent (GR) biotype af johnsongrass eller vild durra – Sorghum halepense op i Argentina. Den har spredt sig til praktisk talt alle landbrugsområder i Argentina og den dækker nu mindst 10.000 hektar (100 km2). Genmodificeret soja, der er gjort resistent mod glyphosat (Monsantos Roundup Ready sojabønner), blev indført i midten af 1990'erne. Nu er over 16 mio. hektar beplantet med den. Når nu vild durra, der regnes blandt de 10 værste ukrudtplanter i verden, er blevet tolerant eller ufølsom over for herbicidet, så stiger forbruget nærmest eksponentielt, hvilket illustreres ved at der i 1991 blev brugt en mio. l glyphosatformulering og i 2007 180 mio. l. Det er mellem fire og fem l for hver af de over 41 mio. indbyggere i landet....

If the millions of regular people who have asked Monsanto to stop selling their toxic chemicals is not enough, more than 30,000 doctors and health professionals are asking that glyphosate be banned.

The doctors are part of FESPROSA, Argentina's Union of medical professionals. Citing the World Health Organization's recent declaration that the glyphosate chemicals used in Monsanto's best-selling herbicide Round Up (formulated to use on Round Up Ready crops) are "likely carcinogenic," they add an additional disclaimer:

Glyphosate is also associated with:
*Spontaneous abortions
*Birth defects
*Skin disease
*Respiratory illness
*Neurological disease

kfl skrev:

If the millions of regular people who have asked Monsanto to stop selling their toxic chemicals is not enough, more than 30,000 doctors and health professionals are asking that glyphosate be banned.

The doctors are part of FESPROSA, Argentina's Union of medical professionals. Citing the World Health Organization's recent declaration that the glyphosate chemicals used in Monsanto's best-selling herbicide Round Up (formulated to use on Round Up Ready crops) are "likely carcinogenic," they add an additional disclaimer:

Glyphosate is also associated with:
*Spontaneous abortions
*Birth defects
*Skin disease
*Respiratory illness
*Neurological disease

Både KOSMOS og N A Nielsen afviser, at er i det hele kan være et sundheds problem med at anvende Glyphosat i landbruget - også i Argentina og USA

Du understøtter N A Nielsen's bemærkninger og derfor kan man forledes til at tro, at du er enig med ham, men for at fjerne al tvivl:

Mener du, at det er problemfrit at anvende Glyphosat ?

kfl skrev:
Se følgende Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxATngnqgv8

N A Nielsen

Jeg har ikke til hensigt at tillægge dig meninger, som du ikke har. Hvis det er tilfældet beklager jeg og undskylder.

This kind of apology shifts the blame onto the offended party, and denies personal acceptance of wrongdoing, as in "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said". The "if" implies that the apologiser either doesn't even know they did wrong (and did not bother to find out) or else does not acknowledge that they did wrong and so are pretending to apologise because they feel obligated to rather than because they are actually sorry. There is no confirmation that the apologiser actually regrets anything or has learnt anything from what they did that was wrong.

https://www.google.dk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:DNK&dl=da&hl=da&q=befolkningstilv%C3%A6kst#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ag_lnd_frst_k2&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:ARG&ifdim=region&tstart=-290048400000&tend=1350943200000&hl=da&dl=da&ind=false


1992 var der 342.000 kvatratkilometer skov

2012 var der 280.000 kvatratkilometer skov

Tilbagegang i skovareal på 20 år: (( 342 - 280 ) / 342) * 100 = 18%

Den passer fint ind i mit billede af dig, kfl.

Ho was a co-founder and director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an interest group that campaigns against what it sees as unethical uses of biotechnology.[10] The group published about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and water memory.
In reviewing the organisation, David Colquhoun accused the ISIS of promoting pseudoscience and specifically criticised Ho's understanding of homeopathy.[8]
The institute is on the Quackwatch list of questionable organizations.[11] In February 2016 ISIS announced it was "terminating" activities due to the "serious illness" of Mae Wan Ho. They noted, The "Institute of Science in Society website will remain as a static archive, but we will not be circulating any more reports beyond the end of March 2016."[12]

Could pesticides - their use and abuse - increase levels of cancer and birth defects? It is a question asked across the vast belt of Argentina where GM crops are grown. In Chaco, the Minister of Public Health wants an independent commission to investigate a growing health crisis.

Dr Raul Horacio Lucero, head of molecular biology at the National University of the North East in Chaco, also collected data about disabled infants who began to be referred to him in the 1990s.

"I'm talking about all kinds of disability - some had missing limbs, others had aberrations of their sex organs," he says.

Dr Raul Horacio Lucero has charted birth defects among infants in Chaco

"I didn't see any alteration at a chromosomal level, so then I began questioning the mothers. What they all had in common was they had been exposed to agrochemicals."

But none of these observations amount to scientific proof.

Seveso's report, based on questionnaires and anecdotal evidence from local people like Carlos, is a long way from establishing a causal relationship between agrochemicals and cancer. And it isn't clear which pesticides women were exposed to.

There could be other possible reasons for the apparent rise in cases of eclampsia and birth deformities - perhaps more women with problematic pregnancies were being seen at the hospitals, or more sick babies were surviving. Health problems could also be explained, it's been suggested by scientists, by household chemicals, arsenic in the water, or heavy metals in the soil. No one knows.

Meanwhile, producers of agrochemicals say they are scientifically proven not to be carcinogenic, or to adversely affect reproduction or development.

kfl skrev:
Det er noget af en stråmand NAN laver på mig, idet udgangspunktet ikke kun var de kritiserede artikler, men en lang række andre artikler, samt en generel mistanke om glyphosats skadelige egenskaber. Tre af de centrale publikationer kan læses her:

Glyphosat og Fødsesldefekte, samt en flere andre publikationer, som ikke er nævnt.

Desuden er der en diskussion om en fortsat godkendelse af glyphosat i landbruget på EU-plan. Er det ikke OK, at undersøge pro et contra i denne diskussion ?

Hertil kommer en besynderlige kommentarer fra NAN:

Den passer fint ind i mit billede af dig, kfl.

Er det en trussel ?

Hvad vedkommer dette diskussionen om Glyphosat?

Det er muligt, at jeg undlader at kommentere NAN fremover, idet de altid er fulgt af evindelige person angreb.

Mine forventninger til NANs svar er, at der kommer en lang svada af person angreb, som kun har meget ledt med diskussionen om glyphosat.

I den næste par år vil NAN igen og igen komme tilbage til de referencer og klandre mig for at have citeret dem...uanset om glyphosat er et problem eller ej i Argentina.

Samlet set, er det min overbevisning, at Roundup er skadelige for både naturen og folkesundheden. Gives GMO-afgrøder fri, vil man kunne nå tilstande som i Argentina.

..N A Nielsen afviser, at er i det hele kan være et sundheds problem med at anvende Glyphosat i landbruget - også i Argentina og USA

"Hvis det er tilfældet...." Det var dog en lurvet ikke-undskyldning. Det er åbenbart ikke nok til en undskyldning fra dig, at jeg fortæller dig, at du tillægger mig en mening, som jeg ikke har, og som jeg aldrig har givet udtryk for?
At du benytter slags skin-undskyldning, der skal sætte dig selv i et bedre lys, samtidig med, at du undgår at give undskyldningen til den forurettede, kommer ikke bag på mig. Den passer fint ind i mit billede af dig, kfl.

EFSA and EU Member States have carried out a risk assessment and peer review that updates our scientific knowledge of the toxicity of glyphosate.

The substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans. Glyphosate is not proposed to be classified as carcinogenic under the EU regulation for classification, labelling and packaging of chemical substances. In particular, all the Member State experts but one agreed that neither the epidemiological data (i.e. on humans) nor the evidence from animal studies demonstrated causality between exposure to glyphosate and the development of cancer in humans.

Jeg gidder [sic] ikke det personfnidder, som NAN hele tiden lægger op til.

Introduction
For nearly 10 years, the residents of rural and periurban areas, where agricultural activities are carried out based on the current model of agro-industrial production, have been demanding to the political authorities, the courts of justice, and also protesting before the general public, because they feel that the health of their communities is being environmentally affected, mainly through sprayings of agrochemicals used for different types of agricultural crops, but also for the handling and storage of these chemicals in populated areas, the waste disposal, as well as the collection of grains soaked with chemicals within the towns.

N A Nielsen skrev:
Jeg har ikke forstand på dette emne, og jeg har ikke udtrykt en holdning til det.

»En fornærmelse«.Sådan benævner kritikere medicinalfirmaet Grünenthals historiske undskyldning for de tusinder af ofre for firmaets medicin thalidomid. Midlet, der skulle fjerne morgenkvalme hos gravide, forårsagede i 50erne, at børn blev født blinde, døve, uden arme og ben og med hjerneskader. I 1961 blev medicinen trukket tilbage.

Men nu er det tyske medicinalfirmas direktør Harald Stock kommet med en historisk undskyldning for skandalen. I forbindelse med afsløringen af en bronzestatue forestillende et barn uden lemmer i den tyske by Stolberg, sagde Stock dog også, at firmaet ikke på forhånd havde haft mulighed for at opdage medicinens katastrofale bivirkninger. Og det er den tilføjelse, der har gjort ofrene og deres talsmænd rasende.
--
Da medicinen i 1961 blev trukket tilbage fra markedet, var mere en 10.000 børn verden over født med handicap, fordi deres mor havde taget medicinen. Dertil kommer de mange børn, som ikke overlevede fødslen. I dag er mellem 5.000 og 6.000 af ofrene stadig i live.

Thalidomide was first marketed in 1957 in West Germany

N A Nielsen skrev:
Men hvis man skal vælge ét mål for udviklingen i sundhedstilstand blandt verdens mennesker, så er det bedste mål efter min mening udviklingen i den forventede levealder, der nærmer sig 70 år for en gennemsnitlig verdensborger. Smag på den. 70 år!

Jakob skrev:
­­

N A Nielsen skrev:
Men hvis man skal vælge ét mål for udviklingen i sundhedstilstand blandt verdens mennesker, så er det bedste mål efter min mening udviklingen i den forventede levealder, der nærmer sig 70 år for en gennemsnitlig verdensborger. Smag på den. 70 år!

Det er så hans trøst til familierne, som har fået syge og svært handicappede børn.
Den lystavle bør han da næsten rejse rundt med og vise de pågældende, så han kan lære dem, at de ikke har noget usundt at klage over.

@kfl

Du må også hellere læse om alle andre stoffer, der optræder i miljøet, så du bedre kan afgøre, om der kan være tale om en cocktaileffekt.
Hvis andre stoffer medvirker, så er det jo synd og uretfærdigt at give glyphosat hele skylden. Kemikalier har nok også følelser og krav på en retfærdig rettergang, hvor tvivlen også kommer dem tilgode...

­­

I USA er Round Up nemlig kommet på listen over kræftfremkaldende stoffer.

N A Nielsen skrev:
Jakob er som altid helt væk fra lystavlen, og jeg har ikke i sinde at spilde min tid på ham. Men hvis man skal vælge ét mål for udviklingen i sundhedstilstand blandt verdens mennesker, så er det bedste mål efter min mening udviklingen i den forventede levealder, der nærmer sig 70 år for en gennemsnitlig verdensborger. Smag på den. 70 år!



kfl, det amerikanske EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) har ligesom det europæiske EFSA lavet et digert værk på over 200 sider om glyphosat. Når du har tygget dig igennem det, vil jeg da gerne høre dine indvendinger mod deres redegørelse, der konkluderer, at det er usandsynligt, at glyphosat er kræftfremkaldende.

http://src.bna.com/iE2

Og blot fordi EPA eller en anden påstår, at Glyphosat er ufarligt, så gør det ikke nogen forskel. Glyphosat er registreret som kræftfremkaldende i Californien, og er det stadig.

The U.S. EPA has set a drinking water Health Advisory (HA) for glyphosate. The lifetime HA for an adult is 800 ppb for effects other than cancer risk. Glyphosate is listed in EPA's group D for cancer risk, which means there is not enough evidence and not enough data to demonstrate that it is a cancer risk (1988).

Sep 4, 2015
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list the chemicals identified in the table below as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 651). This action is being proposed pursuant to the "Labor Code" listing mechanism2 . OEHHA has determined that tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, and glyphosate meet the criteria for listing by this mechanism.

kfl skrev:
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE OF GLYPHOSATE

The U.S. EPA has set a drinking water Health Advisory (HA) for glyphosate. The lifetime HA for an adult is 800 ppb for effects other than cancer risk. Glyphosate is listed in EPA's group D for cancer risk, which means there is not enough evidence and not enough data to demonstrate that it is a cancer risk (1988).

Notice of Intent to List: Tetrachlorvinphos, Parathion, Malathion, Glyphosate

Sep 4, 2015
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list the chemicals identified in the table below as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 651). This action is being proposed pursuant to the "Labor Code" listing mechanism2 . OEHHA has determined that tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, and glyphosate meet the criteria for listing by this mechanism.

Det først nævnte artikel fra 1988 siger, at der ikke er nok grundlagt til at betegne glyphosat som cancer fremkaldende.

Den anden artikel fra 2015 siger det modsatte med den modifikation, at man har til hensigt...

Jeg har kun hurtig læst disse artikler om der er forbeholdt længere ned i artiklen ved jeg ikke.

For mig ser det ud til, at davidsvarrer påstand er korrekt.

I USA er Round Up nemlig kommet på listen over kræftfremkaldende stoffer.

Glyphosat er registreret som kræftfremkaldende i Californien, og er det stadig.