Glyphosate toxicity Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.[46] Nonetheless, as with other herbicides, the EPA requires that products containing glyphosate carry a label that warns against oral intake, mandates the use of protective clothing, and instructs users not to re-enter treated fields for at least 4 hours.[46][47] Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.[48] Human The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity.[46] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.[46] Effects on fish and amphibians Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet because glyphosate binds to soil, persistence of over a year have been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[46] In streams, maximum glyphosate concentrations were measured immediately post-treatment and dissipated rapidly.[46] Glyphosate is "practically nontoxic to slightly toxic" for amphibians and fish.[49] Wikipedia again. Roundup (Glyphosate) is the least toxic herbicide in the world. This accounts for its widespread use and acceptance for use on food products by the EPA. It is an acid molecule that inhibits plant enzymes (not animal enzymes) and kills plants. In contact it binds with soil and and degrades. Unless you swallow it before it dries it is basically harmless to humans or pets. Organic herbicides would be limited to vinegar or practices such as mulching. All fine for small plot in your backyard, but impractical on a commercial farm. Here is a snippit from the Renegade Gardener that should be mandatory reading for those who rail against Roundup and demand the use of organic pesticides. "You chose glyphosate as your cause? FYI, the most commonly used pesticide in the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s, copper sulfate, is far more toxic and still widely in use today in the US and around the world. Where? Organic farming. Copper pesticides are organic, understand, and approved for use today in the US, England (well, not for long) and many other countries. Each season, organic farmers spray it by the hundreds of thousands of gallons. It has an EIQ of 47.8! That’s off the charts!!" Roundup has an EIQ of 15.3 Here is a link that might be useful: Renegade Gardener on organic pesticides.

Sherrmann: I don't know how to do italics either, so I'm just going to use the age old quotes, should I quote you. =0) The different systems were all listed on a website at one time, but it was several months ago, I believe it's "hillaries" plan that has the communist bent I mentioned (though I could be wrong on that....). Obama had one that makes a immediate "check-up" mandatory, though I don't remember what happens if you tell them to pound sand. "WHY ARE YOU NOT BOTHERED BY THAT?" Who says I'm not?!? Ok, I'm not as bothered by companies restricting the folks who choose to use their company, because each and every one of those folks have the choice not to give that company their money. (I also understand that those companies have made agreements with the doctors on their list, that they can only charge their people certain amounts, thus saving the insurance company and the consumer both money. Thus the reasons for the lists.... of course you can go outside your system, but the company will only pay the amount they have worked out with the doctor on their list... you will have to pay the rest.) Consumers seem to have forgotten that what they buy, they get. If there is not an option out there that they find ok, then they have the choice not to buy at all. We had a post either here or in the money saving forum that proves that point to the letter. Someone wanted to be able to pay their bill by phone without charge. At least 5 folks came on saying that they should just accept what the company offered, even if it wasn't what they wanted. Excuse me WHAT?!?!?!? Why the heck should we do that? There are too many companies offering similar services to settle for what one company offers. My dad just had a woman for a satellite company tell him that he had to either pay $70 for a service call, or pay a monthly fee to have them come out and fix their equipment, that there was no other choice. She was actually shocked to find out that HIS choice would involve a rival company and NOT paying this company's bogus fees. (they came out and fixed their stuff without charge) Yes, I know, just like that lady on the phone, many believe that they do not have a choice in the insurance company they choose. It's simply not true. You always have a choice. It may be between something bad and something worse, but it is still a choice. "I DON'T THINK IT IS OK FOR "SOME OF US TO FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS." NO ONE IS MORE ENTITLED TO GOOD HEALTH CARE THAN ANYONE ELSE." No, it's not "OK", but it IS going to happen. No matter how good the system it's still run by people, and people aren't perfect. There are folks in every system in the world falling through those cracks. Are wealthy people "entitled" to more/better care simply because they can pay for it themselves? As much as it seems to go against the grain, and that I hate the word "entitled"....... Yes. In the same way as they are "entitled" to better houses, better cars, and even better tvs. They can pay to fly to where ever the expert in their particular problem is, they can afford to stay as long as they need to in that area, they can afford the fees that the best can charge. They can also chase all over the world for the latest "cure" not available here, to the scientists and the wackos who they think can help. They can pay to have a private nurse come to their home and stay with them for 24 hours a day for months and/or years. And as much as many may hate it, those wealthy folks chasing the fountain of youth, allow the experts to volunteer their time helping those that may not have as much. Allows them to charge less if anything to those who can not afford to pay. And in the case of a home health nurse... pays a living salary for someone else. This does not mean that everyone should not be able to get some basic care. It does not mean that everyone should be able to get good care. And if you need me to pay for your basic health care, then you should be willing to go through the systems currently in place. They may be broken, but they are in place. Somehow it seems to speak to the "throw away" society we have become that no one is interested in fixing what we have, they just want to go out and buy "healthcare 2.0". Kidney cancer (hopefully you are doing better now) is not a minor ailment. I believe that the comment was directed at those who could not be bothered to take a few hours off work to take a kid with a cold to the regular doctor. Anyone who has ever been in an ER has seen the number of folks with routine care concerns that are filling up the seats and bogging down the staff. Each and every one of those folks are going to be charged ER rates, which is probably 2-3 times more than a regular office visit, even including the time off work. Which may have something to do with Americans "paying twice as much" for care than other parts of the world, if in fact we do. If we do it is probably the ONLY thing we pay more for. I believe that I am intelligent enough to make my own decisions, and am old enough to take responsibility for my own actions or inactions. Whatever they may be. I wonder how many folks will be thrown into financial trouble by these plans (even those without a communist bent). With many living paycheck to paycheck and that's without insurance... how much worse off will those that we are supposedly trying to "help" be? How many will tank out and go under with the additional tax burden? Yes, it sounds good as long as you do not scratch the surface. So did ARM's and IO loans not too long ago......

I just can't wait until January when Albertan's don't have to pay for health care anymore. Not that it'll matter..... the government will probably just increase our taxes. LOL

News says that the official rep of a politician running in an election in B.C. (Green Party?) had sued someone who sent a message somewhere (quite public, I gather) that related to his political candidate, in which the message was not actionable, but a couple of links were included which led to material that the petitioner claimed was hate material, and that the one who sent the link should be held responsible, as though it was his/her own writing. The defendant said that such links were more like footnotes in an essay or book, referring to further information, but not necessarily to be held accoutable to the writer. The Supreme Court of Canada has just agreed with the position that the links are to be regarded as footnotes, not needing to be defended by the writer of the current piece. ole joyful