Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  Spraying in Colombia: Is it Safe?
Posted by FoM on August 23, 2001 at 22:12:33 PT
Sibylla Brodzinsky, David Adams & Paul de la Garza 
Source: St. Petersburg Times  

science In this region of southwest Colombia, a song with an unusual subject is on people's minds these days. It's a ditty about a herbicide.

Written by Celimo Hoyos, Damned Glyphosate addresses the U.S.-sponsored aerial eradication of illegal crops in Colombia. "They order the spraying without looking at the calamities," says the song. "They damage our environment and leave behind disease. . . . That's why I damn that damned glyphosate." It could well be referring to farmer Juan Rengifo.

Snipped


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #9 posted by dddd on August 24, 2001 at 19:17:34 PT
Good question CongressmanSuet
" Where is Ralph Nader while all this is happening..."

Where is anyone while all this is happening!?There seems to be
a remarkable absence of any widespread public scrutiny here.

I would like to see Connie Chung do some Condit type interviews
with Rand Beers,or those of his ilk......

.ZERO accountability in government,is perhaps our worst problem nowdays...

dddd

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by CongressmanSuet on August 24, 2001 at 18:21:18 PT
Contained damage...

I love it where he says, well, its only a skin rash that lasts for like 5 days, we can live with that. Where is Ralph Nader while all this is happening...


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by Pontifex on August 24, 2001 at 12:04:33 PT:

Si-i-i-inging in the glyphosate
TDM, I share your feelings to the nth power. Glyphosate apologists, those who claim that it has only limited and transient health effects, should put their asses where their mouths are, and line up in a field for their chemical showers.

In fact, Rand Beers suggested that he would do exactly that! Well, actually, HE wouldn't do it. He said that he would line his family up in the field instead. That's definitely the "quote of the summer", but I haven't been able to find it online. If anyone knows the URL, I would really appreciate it.

Still, it sounds like Beers is changing his spin a little. Originally he wouldn't admit to any negative health effects.

Dr. Russo, I think ICI, the British chemical company, is withdrawing their support for sound business reasons. The whole Columbian mess is a powderkeg, and ICI's board of directors probably doesn't feel that the risk to future profits -- and potential legal liability -- is worth the extra revenue today.

Monsanto, on the other hand, has a long and storied partnership with the U.S government, one chapter of which Kaptinemo just pointed out. Also, they're making a lot more money out of this than ICI.

In the run up to WWII, America would not even sell helium to Nazi Germany (leading to the hydrogen-fueled Hindenburg disaster), much like ICI is refusing to get involved in Columbia's explosive situation. But can you imagine I.G. Farben, makers of Zyklon-B poison gas, withdrawing their support for Hitler? I.G. Farben is still in business.

If history is any guide, the Drug War will eventually collapse, but Monsanto will live on, unpunished and so much the wealthier.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 24, 2001 at 07:16:43 PT:

Consider This
The British company that made the surfactant had no knowledge that it was being used in Colombia, and did not wish to take part. Do they know something that the rest of us should?

Beyond the toxicity question in humans, it is clear that spraying the Amazon is an ecological disaster. We have no business there. As Noam Chomsky suggested, what if China declared a War on Tobacco and came to Amerika to spray our fields. Crazy indeed.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on August 24, 2001 at 06:56:17 PT:

Hey, Doc
I just had a horrible thought; what are the chances that any of these surfacants have DMSO-analog properties? Carrying the toxic organo-phosphates through cellular membranes using DMSO's modalities? It might account for the rapid onset of symptoms when exposure has only been topical, rather than through direct inhalation.

Back when I was with the Chemical Corps they used to scare the bejeezus out of us by telling us the Sovs used surfacants as thickeners to extend the lethal abilities of nerve agent weapons like VX. The surfacants were supposed to be analogous to the thickening agent for napalm, but with a twist; cellular conductivity.

Given that Uncle had some nasty stuff of his own at places like Dugway and Tooele, it's entirely possible that this Cosmo-flux is a derivative of the same thickening/cellular transport chemical in the WetEye bombs stored there. And who was the biggest supplier of chemical precursors for the CBW programs in the US?

Monsanto.

This is REALLY sick.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 24, 2001 at 05:47:56 PT:

Clarification
Round-Up contains glyphosate, and not 2,4-D. I am merely trying to demonstrate that manufacturer and complicit governments have claimed that many pesticides or herbicides are safe when they have in no manner been proven so. Why do you think that many of us garden organically?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 24, 2001 at 05:45:18 PT:

2,4-D and Canine Lymphoma
Past studies have demonstrated an association of 2,4-D with lymphoma (lymph node cancer) in dogs (do search at PubMed). More recent studies have tried to refute this, but could there possibly be conflicts of interest behind them?

Dog is man's best friend for good reason. Much as we try to separate ourselves from the so-called beasts, it makes intuitive sense to me that if a substance possibly causes lymphoma in dogs when used in recommended amounts on your lawn to kill weeds, that surely it poses a risk to humans on the ground in Colombia, where they are using higher potencies with surfactant, thereby increasing systemic absorption. I would not use the Colombian and Amerikan assurances against harm as toilet paper.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on August 24, 2001 at 04:53:52 PT:

Say, WHAT????
"Instead, U.S. and Colombian officials say the skin rashes and other symptoms are more likely because of far stronger chemicals, including gasoline and sulfuric acid, used to grow coca and process coca leaves into the paste that yields cocaine.

I was drinking some Pepsi when I read this and almost choked. Sure. Yeah, right. "Juan Valdez" the coffee-baron, doesn't have any clean water to bathe his kiddies with, so he sprays them with gasoline and sulfuric (battery) acid from his coca processing operation every morning before sending them off to school.

I. F. Stone warned us: all governments are run by liars, and no one should believe anything they say. This bald-faced, brass attempt to snooker the American people is the most egregious example of this at work seen yet. They are so used to lying, they've forgotten Lincoln's Dictum about fooling all the people all of the time. so their lies will become ever more presposterous until no one will be able to maintain a straight face in their presence.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by tdm on August 24, 2001 at 04:45:05 PT:

further testing needed
I have a great idea for testing the safety of both Roundup and the Roundup/surfactant mixture. Let's line up anyone (especially those who say the peasant farmers are lying) who thinks these chemicals are harmless to humans. Then we'll give them a nice healthy dose from a crop duster. If they're *so certain* it causes no human damage that they'll continue to support spraying it on the farmers and their families, I'm sure they'll have no objections to their own little glysophate shower. If they refuse this little experiment, then I'm afraid the cat's out of the bag and it's too late to close the barn door. Or something like that.

tdm

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on August 23, 2001 at 22:12:33