Re[6]: Zmena klímy je mýtus a GMO potraviny nás zabijú :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	Re[6]: Zmena klímy je mýtus a GMO potraviny nás zabijú
template:	4
parent:	Re[5]: Zmena klímy je mýtus a GMO potraviny nás zabijú
owner:	Kwisatz Haderach
viewed by:
created:	03.04.2015 - 00:33:11

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63539
63556
63998
7879929
7880068
7880113
7880177
7880187
7880198
7880478

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

pockaj jednalo sa o glyfosat alebo konkretne roundup?
lebo glyfosat by mal byt pri spravnom pouziti podstatne bezpecnejsi ako vacsina herbicidov a hlavne sa za 2 tyzdne rozpadne. problematicke su skor stopove zlozky roundupu. ci? mas link, neviem googlit akosi...

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

00000101000635390006355600063998078799290788006807880113078801770788018707880198078804780788048307880495

dik
v podvedomi by ma taky dokaz asi urcitym zvratenym sposobom tesil, ale:

"For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals."
To mi pride ako tie testy na karcinogennost marihuany, kde mysi zili niekolko tyzdnov neustale v ganjovom dyme.

Tu http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-103601_30-Oct-91_265.pdf je sice popisana metodika a vypada celkom rozumne, otazne je, ci sa clovek vobec moze dostat za zivot k takemu mnozstvu gyfosatu pokial ho nevypije priamo (3-34 mg/kg/den).

Inac ta povodna studia je tusim z roku 99. Cize 16 rokov je glyfosat zahrnuty medzi moznymi karcinogenmi, akurat sa k tomu nevyjadrili, ti predstavitelia establismentu, voci ktorym ti konspiratori konspiruju :)

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880478078804830788049507880736

Hej ved to som pisal hned na zaciatku ze to vela neznamena, zatial. Tak ale aspon sme uz postupili z 'je to bezpecne' na 'nie je to apokalypsa' :).

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483078804950788073608327428

co toto?
http://www.agris.cz/clanek/195816

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483078804950788073607880872

jj imho tieto jemne nuansy su v zaujme zachovania objektivity celkom dolezite.

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness

0000010100063539000635560006399807879929078800680788011307880177078801870788019807880478078804830788049507880500

nie je to sice primarne problem GM technologii, ale pouzivania pesticidov vobec, no ked sa to tu uz zacalo riesit, tak by som rad potvrdil tvoj odhad, ze to nie je ziadna apokalypsa:

“The IARC process is not designed to take into account how a pesticide is used in the real world – generally there is no requirement to establish a specific mode of action, nor does mode of action influence the conclusion or classification category for carcinogenicity.

“The IARC process is not a risk assessment. It determines the potential for a compound to cause cancer, but not the likelihood. Exposure assessment in epidemiological studies on the effects of pesticides is notoriously difficult. Agricultural workers, the most commonly studied group, are almost never exposed to just a single pesticide and it is very difficult to establish cause and effect.

“The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.

“These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm.”
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

000001010006353900063556000639980787992907880068078801130788017707880187078801980788047807880483078804950788050007880506

este by som dodal ze je rozdiel medzi "how the pesticides are used" a "how the pesticides should be used", pretoze viem o odbornikoch, ktori striekaju bez ohladu na predpovede pocasia a donedavna prekracovali odporucane davky.

don't take my kindness as a sign of weakness