Molbiol.ru | О проекте | Справочник | Методы | Растворы | Расчёты | Литература | Орг.вопросы Web | Фирмы | Coffee break | Картинки | Работы и услуги | Биржа труда | Zbio-wiki NG SEQUENCING · ЖИЗНЬ РАСТЕНИЙ · БИОХИМИЯ · ГОРОДСКИЕ КОМАРЫ · А.А.ЛЮБИЩЕВ · ЗООМУЗЕЙ Темы за 24 часа [ Вход* | Регистрация* ] Форум: | |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
Автор - artais: Все, уважаемый, я Вас понял. Великая цель спасения человечества от страшного Скрябина вполне оправдывает ЛЮБЫЕ средства. Понял. Хорошо. Дискутировать с Вами, очевидно, малоосмысленное занятие.
Alager com alager |
Fortune |
"Успокойтесь" не обьяснение, почему можно? Глобальный эффект для обывателя не так страшен как его личное здоровье. Обьясните мне ситуацию с удобрениями, почему риск от чрезмерной дозы не увеличится? [Текст переведён с транслита] |
artais Постоянный участник |
Но и, уверяю вас, все не так плохо. |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
Автор - artais: Я их видел по ТВ, читал их писанину. Этого вполне достаточно.вы лично не знакомы ни с кем из \"Зеленой Писи\" Против НАУЧНЫХ экологических организаций я ничего не имею. Когда они приведут доказательства вреда устойчивых к глифозату сортов хотя бы на уровне расчетов из имеющейся и новой агротехники, то я им, пожалуй, поверю. Пока что НИ ОДНОЙ работы такого рода я не видел. Только пузыри из соплей. Все. |
artais Постоянный участник |
Dymich: искутировать с Вами, очевидно, малоосмысленное занятие. Не слишком ли вы высокомерны, уважаемый? |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
Автор - Fortune: Сударыня, Вы биолог или как? Вы знаете, что даже ПОЛНЫЙ запрет минеральных удобрений не гарантирует от отравлений нитратами?
То artais Обьясните мне ситуацию с удобрениями, почему риск от чрезмерной дозы не увеличится? [Текст переведён с транслита] |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
Автор - artais: В меру.Не слишком ли вы высокомерны, уважаемый? Если таковы ЦЕНТРИСТЫ... |
Fortune |
Автор - Димыч: Сударь, я канешна дико извиняюсь, но как-то полагала, что риск этого отравления зависит все-таки от концентраций. Может просветите если это не так... Сударыня, Вы биолог или как? Вы знаете, что даже ПОЛНЫЙ запрет минеральных удобрений не гарантирует от отравлений нитратами? [Текст переведён с транслита] |
dbaev Постоянный участник |
Автора бы в эту лужу соляной кислоты окунуть |
artais Постоянный участник |
The use of glyphosate in the first phase of the eradication of illicit crops began in mid-December 2000, without much success. The spraying has not eradicated the cultivation of coca in southern Colombia. However, humans and animals have suffered severe health problems as a result. Soil, air and water have been contaminated. While food crops have been destroyed. Farm animals and fish are also adversely affected. All this means the food base of farmers and indigenous people is weakened. Additionally, there is a negative impact on the region’s biodiversity (flora and fauna in the Amazon basin). The negative effects on the environment and health increase when you fumigate with airplanes. No pilot, however experienced they are, can prevent the indiscriminate fumigation of crops, forests and humans. In May, 2001, the second phase of fumigation began. The object was to finish the job. The new formula is composed of Roundup Ultra, which contains (glyphosate + POEA) + Cosmo Flux 411F. Scientists are unaware of the risks of using the new glyphosate formula. However it has been tried by the Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes de Colombia (The National Counsel of Narcotics in Colombia). Surely the intention in the application of this new formula is to experiment in the Amazon and develop new and more powerful chemical and biological agents in the war on drugs. Eventually this will allow for the development of new chemical weapons. The possibility of potential harm to the environment and human health was ignored, because the standard for evaluation of potential risk was calculated using "normal, recommended conditions of use" based in northern ecosystems, that do not represent conditions in southern ecosystems. |
artais Постоянный участник |
Glyphosate: • is used to kill plants that are not desired in pastures and to kill large leaf perennial herbs; • is a systemic herbicide which means its effects are permanent; • it acts in “post-emergency” situations, i.e., for use after crop planting; • it is not selective, nor indiscriminant; • it has a large spectrum, i.e., it has toxic effects on the majority of the species of plants; • it is highly soluble in water and practically insoluble in organic solvents, i.e., it is easy to mix with water but not with oils; • it is an acid, but it is transferred in the form of salts with the most common salt being salt isopropilamina (IPA) of N-(fosfonometil) glicina or salt isopropilamina of glyphosate. Its most well known commercial name is: Monsanto’s Roundup, which exist various formulas. Generally Roundup contains: • 480 g/L of IPA salt of glyphosate which is the principle, active toxic that kills plants. • a surfactant called: POEA (polioxietil amina). (A surfactant, like soap, is a substance that modifies the surface tension of the mix to improve the biological activity). In Ecuador Roundup is used as: • a herbicide in agricultural practices, • a grain dessicant • to increase the size of the endemic plants naranjilla and tree tomato. In Colombia, beyond these uses, it is primarily sprayed by airplane, to ripen sugar cane. It is also used in the forced eradication of crops classified as illicit. Roundup normally used in agricultural practices contains 41% IPA salt of glyphosate. Ultra Roundup, used in the eradication of illicit crops, contains 43.9% of the active ingredient. Effects of the glyphosate on live organisms Glyphosate in Plants: The herbicidal action of glyphosate is designed to inhibit the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids. These aromatic amino acids are used in the synthesis of proteins that are essential for the growth and survival of the plants. Glyphosate inhibits the important enzymes in the synthesis of aromatic amino acids. In sugar cane, it reduces the activity of one of the enzymes involved in the process of metabolizing sugar. Glyphosate, designed as a herbicide for a large spectrum of plants, has toxic effects on the majority of plant species. It can be a risk to species in danger of extinction if it is applied in areas where these species are found. According to information from the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as cited by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN)-Asia/Pacific, more than 74 species in the United States could be put in risk of extinction because of the use of glyphosate. The same source stated that sublethal doses (below the mortal limit) of glyphosate could raise the susceptibility of some plants (i.e., apple, soy, tomato and barley) to diseases caused by fungi. In the Ecuadorian Amazon there are approximately 4857 plant species (31.7% of the national total) of which some 235 are endemic. The application of glyphosate could present a risk to the conservation effort. Also, many insects, birds, mammals, microorganisms and habitants of the humid, tropical forest depend on this flora, and would also be threatened. Additionally, glyphosate can inhibit the growth of beneficial fungi that help plants absorb nutrients and water. For example, in one study, it prevented the formation of nitrogen fixing rhizomatic nodules in clover, during a period that lasted 120 days after the treatment. Small doses can interfere with metabolic processes in plants. In beans it can inhibit the absorption of potassium and sodium. In asparagus and flax, glyphosate can reduce the production of lignine. Roundup can produce perverse chromosomal abberations in the points of onion root cells. It is thought that this effect on the chromosomes of these cells is a result of the surfactante. Also, it has been a reported that of glyphosate has similar effects on the root tips of hyacinths. Glyphosate on animals In animals: In studies of animals, secondary effects in addition to gastrointestinal irritation, have been reported. Also, food consumption decreases. It has been reported that dogs and rats gain less weight. Diarrhea and loss of weight has been found with cows (Cox, 1995; Dinham, 1999; Greenpeace, 1997; Moses, 1993; Williams et al, 2000). In field studies, populations of small mammals have also been affected by glyphosate because of the vegetation death. These mammals depend on the vegetation for food and protection. According to Williams et.al (2000), the “serious toxicity” of the herbicide Roundup in rats, has very low with values of oral LD50 (lethal doses), greater than 5.000 mg/kg dermal, of body weight. Apparently in this case the rats were not influenced by the POEA surfactant. LC50, with inhalation for four hours by rats is 3.18 mg/L. According to the sheet of technical information from Monsanto (1992) the LD50 oral for rats is 5.600 mg/kg. The serious toxicity of the surfactante POEA (contained in the formula) is between 4 and 5 times greater than that of glyphosate and Roundup. The LD50 oral (in rats) and dermal (in rabbits) is reported to be ~1200 and >1260 mg/kg respectively. With a base in these tests being LD50 (without considering the effects on eyes and skin), Roundup and POEA are classified in the following toxicological categories: Toxic Classification of glyphosate, Roundup and POEA Type of exposure Glyphosate y Roundup POEA LD50 Tox. Cat. LD50 Tox. Cat. Observations Oral 5600 mg/kg IV ~1200 mg/kg III 5 times more toxic Dermal >5000 mg/kg III >1260 mg/kg II 4 times more toxic Inhalation 3.18 mg/L III Insects and other beneficial arthropods: Glyphosate is toxic to a number of beneficial organisms such as wasps, predator arthropods, soil aerators, humus formulators and a number of aquatic insects. Fish and other aquatic organisms: Different species of fish have different susceptibilities to glyphosate. The high toxicity in terms of the LC50 (lethal concentration), varies between 3.2 and 52 PPM. This means it has a moderate toxicity. However, Roundup is 30 times more toxic to fish than the glyphosate alone. This means that it is highly toxic to these aquatic organisms. There are factors that influence the toxicity of glyphosate and the products it contains. These include: a) the species; B) the quality of the water (glyphosate in soft water can be up to 20 times more toxic to trout than in hard water); c) species age (Roundup can be four times more toxic to a young trout than to a fully developed, older trout); d) the nutrition (the toxicity is greater to fish that are not well nourished); e) the temperature (toxicity increases as temperature increases, having a greater effect on aquatic species that are susceptible to these changes). Sub-lethal effects on fish can also be significant and occur when there are lower concentrations of glyphosate in water. For example, in studies of trout in equivalent concentrations the middle to a third of the LC50 caused erratic swimming. Trout also demonstrated difficulty breathing. These changes in their behavior alter their ability to feed, migrate, defend themselves and reproduce. Birds: Glyphosate is moderately toxic to birds. In an addition to the direct effects, it can have indirect effects because it kills plants. This can cause a dramatic change in the structure of the community of plants, affecting the populations of birds because that depend on the plants for food and protection. This has been documented with studies on specific populations. Earthworms: A study in New Zealand demonstrated that glyphosate significantly affects the development and survival of one of the most common earthworms in agricultural soils. Applications every 15 days in small doses (1/20 of the normal dose) reduces earthworms growth, increases the time it takes for the worms to mature and causes an increase in their mortality rate. Effects of Glyphosate in the enviornment Gllifosato in the soil: The half-life of glyphosate in soil (time that it takes for half of an environmental component to disappear) is around 60 days or two months, according to the USEPA. The half-life can be can be up to one to three years, according to studies carried out in Canada and Sweden. The EPA adds that in field studies they have found residues a year later (Dinham, 1998; Cox 1995). Glyphosate in water: It is highly soluble in water, with a solubility of 12 grams/liter at 25 degrees C. It lasts less time in water than it does in soil, however, it has the capacity to be absorbed by particles in suspension such as organic material, minerals and sediments. In Canada studies have found that it lasts 12 to 60 days in water in tanks, but it lasts for a longer time in bottom sediments. A study carried out in the US state of Missouri found that the half-life of glyphosate in bottom sediments was 120 days. Studies carried out in the states of Michigan and Oregon found that the existence of glyphosate was greater than a year in bottom sediments. Glyphosate is a known contaminant of surface water and underground reservoirs. For example in two reservoirs in Canada contamination was found. One was contaminated by run-off from an agricultural treatment and the other was contaminated by a spill. Glyphosate has also contaminated surface waters in Holland and seven wells in the United States (one in Texas and six in Virginia). In the United Kingdom the Welsh Water Company has detected levels of glyphosate higher than the permissible levels, as defined by the European Union, in waters since 1993. The USEPA has detected residues of glyphosate, higher than the maximum authorized level of 0.7 mg/L, in water for human consumption. This contamination can cause accelerated respiration, lung congestion, kidney damage as well as damage to the human reproductive system (Dinham, 1999). Effects to human health and symptoms of poisoning by Roundup It is reported that the surfactant POEA contained in the formula, causes: • gastrointestinal damage • damage to the central nervous system • respiratory problems • destruction of red blood cells in humans. Additionally, because it contains molecules of the chemical compound 1-4 dioxide, POEA can produce the following impacts: • cancer in animals • intestinal damage • damage in human kidneys. This means that glyphosate in Roundup Ultra is more toxic than glyphosate alone and it is more toxic than regular Roundup. In various countries Roundup has been the first pesticide to poison humans. The majority of the poisonings have resulted in skin and eye irritations to workers, during the mixing, carrying or application of Roundup. Also, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, an increase in blood pressure and allergic reactions have been reported after exposure to Roundup. In cases of poisoning studied by Japanese medical professionals, the majority of the poisonings were caused by accidental or intentional ingestion of Roundup. However, they also studied occupational exposure. They reported that the symptoms of exposure may include: • gastrointestinal pain, • massive loss of gastrointestinal fluids, • vomiting, • excessive fluid in the lungs, • congestion or lung dysfunction, • pneumonia, • loss of consciousness, • destruction of red blood cells, • abnormal electrocardiograms, • low blood pressure, and • kidney damage or failure. In the cases that have resulted in death, the death usually has occurred a few days after ingestion. Taking into account that 41% of glyphosate is in the form of isopropilamina (IPA) that is in Roundup formula. There is 480g of IPA salt/L of glyphosate. The average weight (man or women) used in the evaluations of security and risk is 65 kg. The lethal doses of glyphosate is in mg/kg of the weight of the body, in the cases described corresponded to: Quantity of Roundup ingested in fatal cases in humans (mL) Lethal doses of glyphosate in the Roundup ingested, mg/kg of the body weight Equivalent toxic classification in humans Ranges for the toxic classification (mg/kg) 85 256 II >50-500 184 554 III >500-5000 200 602 III “ 206 620 III “ 263 791 III “ Pertaining to the suspicion that none of the investigators would compare the LD50 of lethal doses to humans (half what could kill a human) to determine a toxicological category. The lethal doses reported in humans are located in category II (highly toxic) and in the III (medium toxic level), closer to II than IV is the location of lethal dosage results reported in rats. When comparing the serious toxicity, in the perspective of human cases you find the following: Compound LD50 oral in rats (mg/kg) Toxic Comparison Glyphosate 5600 Table salt 3000 Vitamina A 2000 POEA 1200 ~5 times more toxic than glyphosate is to rats Roundup Lethal doses in humans (mg/kg) 791 7 times more toxic than glyphosate is to rats 1.5 times more toxic than POEA 620 9 times more toxic than glyphosate is to rats 2 times more toxic than POEA 602 9 times more toxic than glyphosate is to rats 2 times more toxic than POEA 554 10 times more toxic than glyphosate is to rats 2 times more toxic than POEA 256 22 times more toxic than glyphosate is to rats 5 times more toxic than POEA In terms of serious toxicity, Roundup can be up to 22 times more toxic to humans than it is to rats. Studies have suggested that the serious toxicity of Roundup probably should be attributed to the sufactant. This evidence, explains why Roundup, in various countries is one of the first herbicides to have caused occupational poisoning to humans. Damage to the eyes and skin: According to the Farm Chemicals Handbook, published in the United States, with information obtained from the USEPA, glyphosate is considered a severe irritant to eyes but it does not irritate skin. However, in the monitoring and interviews to the frontier with Colombia we have confirmed the affections to skin in the 47.6% of the persons living 0-2 km. from the site of sprayings. Also 37.2% of the people living 5-6 km from the fumigations sites presented dermatitis. Year Toxicological Category Warning for use in the United States 1994 I DANGER (eye) 1995 I (technical) II (Roundup) DANGER (eye) WARNING 1999 II (technical) WARNING 2000 II (technical) WARNING Source: Farm Chemicals Handbook In studies reported by Williams et. al. (2000) regarding the exposure of rabbits to the herbicide, Roundup in concentrate caused a severe irritation in the eyes as well as an irritation to the skin. The same authors reported that POEA is a severe irritant to the skin and corrosive to the eyes, when it was tested on rabbits. In general, the potential irritation of POEA is consistent with the active properties of the surface surfactants. Considering the irritating and corrosive properties of POEA along with the understanding that the toxicity of Roundup can be increased in humans between 7 to 22 times (with respect to the toxicity of glyphosate in rats), one would be able to suggest that Roundup represents a significant risk of irritation to the eyes and skin of humans. Roundup is more toxic to humans than it is to cows, because all the doses (in mg of Roundup/kg of the weight of the body) given to the cows in this study, were lethal to the people who ingested Roundup intentionally, according to the information in Williams et. al., 2000. Furthermore, the calculation of exposures up to 104 times greater than glyphosate, resulting from the air applications of Roundup Ultra and Cosmo-Flux 411F the situation could be significantly more dangerous to human beings. In various circumstances the most serious intoxications have been in children, for following reasons according to Nivia (2000)and Williams et. al. (2000): • Because children are smaller they are poisoned with smaller quantities of pesticides than adults; • Children are less developed, and they are more susceptible to the effects of the poisons than adults;. • Children have a greater exposure to contaminated foods because they eat more food per kilogram of body weight than other age groups; • Often the liver and other organs in children do not have the capacity to deal with certain herbicides; and • The immune system in children is not completely developed and so they are at greater risk of becoming sick. Contamination of foods: The analysis of residues of glyphosate and metabolite AMPA (aminometilfosfónico acid ) are difficult and costly. For this reason they are not routinely carried out by the US government, but there are investigations that demonstrate that glyphosate is translated to the parts of the plants that are used as food. For example, studies have found glyphosate in strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, lettuce, carrots and barley, after application. They have also found residues of glyphosate on lettuce, carrots and barley, planted a year after the glyphosate was applied (Dinham, 1999). According to the World Organization of Health, the use of Roundup as a herbicide before the collection of wheat results in "significant residues" on the grains; the stalk can contain residues 2 to 4 times greater than the complete grain and the contamination is not reduced with baking. Residues on barley can be transferred to beer (Dinham, 1999; PAN/Asia-Pacific). The use of glyphosate on animal feed can result in residues in and on animal kidneys, meat, milk and eggs. Residues are found up to one year after application to plant material and water. Residues are found up to two years after application to products stored as animal feed. In natural environments the residues can be found for a long time after application. A study reported by PAN/Asia-Pacific found residue levels at 45 mg/kg in lichens 270 days after application. Analyses of wild cherries after application in forests, demonstrated that residues last on 0.1 PPM for at least 61 days. Residues of glyphosate and metabolite AMPA can present risks to the consumers. For this reason they have established tolerances or maximum limits of residues of glyphosate for different foods. The following are some actual limits used in North America. Residuo limits on some foods LMR Food Country 0.01 Blackberries and Raspberries Canada 0.05 Vegetable oil and cotton seeds United States 0.1 Rice, whole corn, kiwi, eggs, cow milk, pig meat and poultry products “ “ 0.2 Whole soy seeds “ “ 0.5 Flour “ “ 1 Corn “ “ 2 Beans “ “ 5 Peas, soy, wheat “ “ 10 Cotton seeds in the United States and oats in Canada United States, Canada 20 Oats, barley, soy, dry soy, wheat In U.S. the tolerance with oats was 0.1 PPM. In 1997 it changed to 20 PPM Source: FAO/WHO Food Standards Program. In information is available on the Internet World wide sales of glyphosate Glyphosate is principally manufactured by Monsanto, and the worldwide sales are over $US1.5 billion. It is calculated that the sales will grow to $US2.0 billion in the next five years. This is equal to more than 40,000 tons of the active ingredient (Dinham, 1998). The sales of this herbicide, represent close to 40% of the agrochemical market of Monsanto on a worldwide level (worldwide sales totaled $US4.03 billion in 1998, a 23.2% increase from 1997). In 1998 Monsanto was the leading producer of genetically modified seeds to resist the glyphosate (Dinham, 1998). Such seeds are used to increase there sales of Glyphosate. Comercial Names of Glyphosate in ECUADOR ARBEX ATILA 35.6 SL/GLYPHOSATE AUROUND 41% W/W S AZOTE BANOX CACIQUE CALDON CANDELA SUPER CRYSTAL GLYPHOSATE 360 DREXEL GÑLIFOSATO 48 SL ESTELAR 480LS/ GLYPHOSATE 489 LS FLAME PLUS 360 FLAME PLUS 48% GLIALKA/GLYPHOSATE GLIFOIN GLIFOLAQ 35.6 SL GLIFOMAT 500 GLIFONOX BIO GLIFONOX CRYSTALGLL FUEGOATRED GLIFOPAC GLIFOSAN GLYPHOSATE GLYPHOSATE GLYPHOSATE 489 GLIFOCOR GLYPHOSATE 480 LS GLYPHOSATE 62% MATERIAL TECNICO GLIPHOSATE 41% SL GLIFOCOR 48 SC GLYPHOGAN MATERIA TECNICA MON-0139 PILARSATO PILLAROUND PIN UP PINSATO RANGER RANGO 480 SL RINDER ROCKET / ROUNDUP 747 RODEO RONDO ROUNDUP/FUETE LS/RANGER 480/BATALLA SANGLIFO 48% LS SUPER GLYPHOSATE TECNI/ Source: SESA List of registered names of Glyphosate in the Ecuadorian Service of Agricultural and Fishery Health (Servicio Ecuatoriano de Sanidad Agropecuaria -SESA)- 2001 The use of Roundup Ultra on illicit crops After the failure of the first round of fumigations as part of Plan Colombia, they changed from using Roundup to the use of Roundup Ultra. The ingredients in the Roundup family are basically glyphosate in the form of the salt isopropilamina (IPA) and the surfactant POEA. According to the official information from the Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, Colombia (National Narcotics Council of Colombia), the actual mix includes: ROUNDUP ULTRA which 38.6 % is acid as the active ingredient, equivalent to 43.9 % IPA salt of glyphosate and not the 41% that is contained in the commercialized Roundup, + POEA + Cosmo-Flux 411F. ROUNDUP ULTRA = ISOPROPILAMIA SALT + POEA + COSMO-FLUX 411F According to the technical parameters of the National Narcotics Council, for the fumigation by air, of illicit crops, the following quantities were used in the mix (Information of Activities and Functions of Environmental Audit, November, 1999): Airplane cargo 300 – 450 gallons 1137 – 1705 liters Spraying of Roundup Ultra, with 43.9% of glyphosate 23.4 L/ha (30 a 50 drops/cm2) 10.3 L/ha of glyphosate Total quantity of liquid sprayed 0.4 – 0.7 mm3/cm2 40 – 70 L/ha If you consider that an airplane carrying 300 gallons (1137 liters) deposits 40 L/ha of the mix, spraying 23.4 L/ha of Roundup Ultra, this spraying is equivalent to 10.3 L/ha of glyphosate in the form of IPA salt. This means that the Roundup Ultra is applied as 58.5 % of the mix and the glyphosate as 26% and not at the 1% recommended in the United States for land applications, where products for personal protection are used and the spraying is directed at the weeds in agricultural plots. In Colombia glyphosate is used in a concentration up to 26 times stronger, with the addition of the surfactant Cosmo-Flux 411F. The surficant can quadruple the biological reaction of Roundup. In this regretful situation, there is something more disturbing, relating to various claims that when the airplanes fumigate campesino areas they return to fumigate the same field 4-6 times, and sometimes up to 12 times. Coadyuvante Cosmo-Flux 411-F according to the Technical Sheet 313.03, (May 30, 1994) of Cosmoagro, the additive for spraying agrochemical Cosmo-Flux 411-F, is described chemically as a mix of mineral oil and surfactant, especially non-ionic, with connecting agents. (Cosmoagro has its headquarters in Palmira, Colombia.) This component increases the biological action of glyphosate contained in the formula. Within these surfactant is included Silwet L-77 and Agri-Dex, which, when they were used alone did not increase the activity of glyphosate. However when they were combined in a 1:1 mix (in volume) they increased the toxicity of glyphosate on coca four times in comparison to the commercial formula of Roundup. Environmental Effects Sub-lethal doses of glyphosate, moved by the wind damage the natural environment and can affect some species at more than 20 meters from the site of contact. In the application of the herbicide the drift is unavoidable and the extent of the drift will depend on various circumstances. These include the form of application (land or air) and wind velocity. When glyphosate is sprayed from an airplane only 5% to 15% of the herbicide makes it to the intended plot of land. The rest is dispersed over the surrounding natural ecosystems and human populations. This is how the human health is impacted and the environment contaminated. The average distances for the different techniques of application are the following: • Land application: Between 14% and 78% of the applied glyphosate will not affect the intended site of application (i.e. it will drift). • Sensitive species die at 40 meters. The models indicate that species can die at 100 meters. They have found residues at 400 meters from the site of land application. • Application with helicopter: Between 41% and 82% of the applied glyphosate with the helicopter is displaced outside the intended site of application. A California study found glyphosate 800 meters from the site. • Airplane application: This technique of application results in the greatest drift. Another California study found glyphosate 800 meters from the intended site of application. In Canada they have calculated that the buffer zones should be between 75 and 1,200 meters to avoid damages to the vegetation that you intend to protect. Threats to Amazonian biological diversity In the Ecuadorian Amazon there are around 305 species of mammals, 1485 spedcies of birds, 4857 species of plants. 29.6 % of the Ecuadorian amphibians are found in the Amazon and 27.8 % of the reptiles are also found there. In the Napo River alone there are 470 specios of fish. This represents a greater diversity than has been found in any other river system of similar size, in the world. The Ecuadorian Amazon represents at least 2% of the total for the overall Amazon basin, but has: • The third highest number of amphibians • Fourth highest number of birds • Fourth highest number of reptiles • Fifth highest number of monkeys • Sixth highest number of flowering plantas • Sixth highest number of mammals. Of the nine indigenous communities that are found in the Ecuadorian Amazon, four could be affected by the fumigation with glyphosate. In the northern zone along the border with Colombia, live the Cofán, Siona, Secoya and Quichua. Their presence has helped conserve this region of the Amazon. These indigenous people have a vision of long-term, sustainable management of Amazonian ecosystems. They also share a strong connection with the land as part of their lifestyle. Actual Situation In the Putumayo area studies have claimed with, an increasing frequency, intoxication of humans and animals. These reports have also noted the death of cows, horses, pigs, dogs, ducks, chickens and fish. By February 21, 2001 the list of damages reported to the Police of the Guamués Valley in Putumayo, was: • 4,289 affected people, • 178,377 affected animals and • 7,252 hectares of affected crops (banana, yucca, corn, coca and others). This was as a result of the spraying that was initiated during the end of December, 2000. During the months of January and February, 2001 in the municipalitites of San Miguela and Guamués Valley received 1,443 complaints from the heads households. Eighty percent of these, or 1,160 complaints, were that one or more family members had suffered health problems that could be attributed to the fumigation. In Ecuador the cases are not isolated, but the few groups that are investigating are not coordinated and many cases have been classified as "orchestrated claims." The government of Ecuador is responsible because they are not taking needed, urgent action to prevent environmental damage. Pesticides and Food Sovereignty To have food to eat is a basic human right and it can only be guaranteed in a system where there is food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is a right that each nation needs to maintain. There should also be a capacity to produce basic foods in each town, respecting the cultural and productive diversity. We have the right to produce our own foods on our own lands. Everybody and each person needs to have access to foods that are not contaminated, but are nutritious, culturally appropriate, and in sufficient quantity and quality to live a sane and dignified life as a human being. However, the actual agricultural production has made it impossible for millions of farmers and habitants of indigenous towns to produce and consume healthy, uncontaminated foods, because of the use of herbicides and pesticides. Through the commercialization of pesticides and herbicides agrochemical companies have attempted and are attempting to end food sovereignty in the towns. The herbicides and pesticides destroy other crops and also kill or harm domestic animals that are used as food or are sold. It is becoming impossible for the farms to exercise their right of sovereign autonomy and to have food that is not contaminated with chemicals. With the use of herbicides and pesticides, diseases are developing a resistance to the chemicals. This means the farmers are forced to increase the doses and mix various products to increase the toxicity. This results in a greater danger to health and the larger impact on the environment. What can be done? • Demand that the Ecuadorian government take urgent measures to prevent environmental damage and damage to the human health that continues in the Amazon region. • Demand an immediate end to aerial and other forms of fumigation in the Amazon region. • Begin judicial actions on a national and international level to uphold and secure fundamental rights guaranteed nationally, in the constitutional, and internationally by various organizations and conventions. • Question the agricultural model primaced on the use of chemicals, especially herbicides and pesticides. • Demand information on the pesticides and herbicides that are used in the country so we have the power to exercise our right of objection. La información se basa en el Informe de Elsa Nivia Las Fumigaciones Sí son peligrosas, presentado en la Conferencia “Las Guerras en Colombia: Drogas, armas y petróleo, realizada en la Universidad de California en Davis, en mayo de 2001-07-23 Informe de investigación sobre el Impacto de las Fumigaciones del Putumayo en Ecuador, presentado por Acción Ecológica en junio del 2001 |
artais Постоянный участник |
|
dbaev Постоянный участник |
Не перегружайте форум- он не резиновый. Могли бы только линки запостить. |
Fortune |
[quote][b] [quote]Но совсем недавно в научном журнале «Ланцет» была опубликована статья, в которой говорилось о том, что фрагменты ДНК встраиваются в микрофлору желудка. [/quote]Микрофлору ЖЕЛУДКА???? Автора бы в эту лужу соляной кислоты окунуть [/b][/quote]Вот именно |
artais Постоянный участник |
|
artais Постоянный участник |
|
Wolf Постоянный участник |
А к Скрябину я не отношусь с уважением вовсе. Хотя я за ГМ. Устаканится. Не было машин - не задавили бы. Но это уже сказали. |
DmitriM Постоянный участник |
|
Esya Постоянный участник PA, USA |
|
Esya Постоянный участник PA, USA |
|
Wolf Постоянный участник |
|
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
[artais], а не кажется ли вам, что механические культиваторы еще страшнее? Убивают всю растительность подряд, в почве разлагаются еще медленнее. На репродуктивную сферу человека опять же влияют, если под культиватор попадает. |
artais Постоянный участник |
Что ни говори, а компаниями движет главным образом жажда финансовой успешности, а не "научно-технического прогресса". Поэтому если не будет никаких факторов, ограничиваюших таких гигантов, как Монсанто, что же тогда может начаться? Мне показался странным ваш аргумент типа, ну и что, вон заводы тоже дымят, культиваторы культивируют, леса вырубают и ничего, живы до сих пор, что же теперь, все запретить? По моему, это бред, тогда вообше можно положить на экологический кодекс и все свести к принципу максимальной экономической выгоды от природопользования. По моему, это путь, о котором человечество еше очень пожалеет. |
|
|
artais Постоянный участник |
|
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
|
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
|
artais Постоянный участник |
Печальный факт. |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
[Текст переведён с транслита] |
|
Значит нормальные люди - это те, кто в кожаной обуви? Забавно |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
|
|
Автор - <Lexx>: Не нормальные люди, а люди из подобных организаций. Как-то бороться за свободу тренсгенных мышей и носить обувь из натуральной кожи - не очень совместимые вещи.
Вот о том то и речь. Никто и не говорит, что они идиоты, как раз даже наоборот. Они там деньги зарабатывают, а не за природу борятся. Значит нормальные люди - это те, кто в кожаной обуви? Забавно |
artais Постоянный участник |
Я посмотрел ваш линк и класс Ц меня просто привел в ужас, что же тогда класс Б, который якобы гораздо безобиднее. Что же тогда глифозат не в классе А? Да, Димыч, надо сказать, что в ваших постах столько тенденциозности, что ни мне, ни каким-либо экологам столько не снилось. Мне кажется вы заняли совсем крайнюю позицию, зачем? И так ясно, что опасность есть. Никто же не ругает ядерную энергию, не надо только бомбы взрывать. Здесь ситуация несколько аналогична. Трансгенные растения нужны, но возможно не всякие и не везде. Неужели у большинства форумчан негативный опыт/впечатления о природоохранных организациях??? |
artais Постоянный участник |
|
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
Об опрыскивании кокаиновых плантаций. На мой взгляд в данном случае имеет смысл говорить о неприемлемой стратегии, а не обсуждать глифосат. Та статья, что подлиннее, просто дурацкая: ну глупо обсуждать токсичность для растений у гербицида поскольку у него все же такое назначение. Я тут зашел на гринписьный сайт, открыл пару отчетов за последние годы. Интересно. Особенно структура расходов. [Текст переведён с транслита] |
artais Постоянный участник |
|
Прохожий Участник |
|
artais Постоянный участник |
|
artais Постоянный участник |
|
artais Постоянный участник |
Mezhdu prochim sovershenno uzhasnoe delo, glifozat otdihaet - po sravneniyu s etim - detskie igrushki. |
artais Постоянный участник |
"вползти новому игроку", "устоявшийся рынок" И что за игрок туда вползал? Все умозаключения подобного рода не основаны на фактах, они не более, чем ваши домыслы и спекуляции. И еше у меня вопрос к Димычу: чем вас смутила структура раshодов? |
Tom1 Постоянный участник |
Все умозаключения подобного рода не основаны на фактах, они не более, чем ваши домыслы и спекуляции." 1.Не надо так кипятица... чревато.... 2. А теперь прикиньте сколько заработали разработчики и производители одних только дезодорантов на новых брендах????? Если бы народ не запугивали "озоновыми дырами" после потребления вреона хрен в сумку была бы отдача от новых косметических средств..... [Текст переведён с транслита] |
artais Постоянный участник |
Я вообше за НАУЧНЫЕ еко-организации. По краиней мере для публики есть некие гарантии их личной незаинтересованности. |
Dimych Постоянный участник Kr-sk - Puschino - NYS - Calgary... Круг замкнулся |
[Текст переведён с транслита] |
Прохожий Участник |
Не-а, я не великий геополитик-экономист, просто у меня всегда отторжение когда мне сильно что-то навязывают, не приводя логичных объяснений. А так уж случилось, что я у знакомых экологов-аэрозольщиков видел экологическую монографию, датированные чуть раньше чем "антифреоновый" бум. Так в них большая концентрация озона шла чуть ли ни как негативный фактор... А как потом резко все изменилось... Просто когда в соверменном мире подонимается такая шумиха из ничего - это всегда 100% чей-то капитал в этом заинтересован. Я в экономике не силен, поэтому многое из современнной экономической науки не понимаю. По карйней мере, когда это пытаются излагать некоторые политики. Но зато и не верю красивым словам, скептик я по натуре в таких делах. А когда начинают всякий страшилки рассказывать, то про атом, то еще про что, то во мне еще и любопытство просыпается - а к чему бы это? А научные эко-организации... Трудно все это организовать, ИМХО. Сами подумайте, кто денег на это даст? Компании, государство, они так в этом сильно заинтересованы? |
Прохожий Участник |
|
Vadim Sharov Постоянный участник Россия |
Что до полезного русла. Пусть за раздельный сбор мусора борються. |
artais Постоянный участник |
Вечная проблема желтой прессы - что не страшно и не бред - не интересно. |
L-2M Постоянный участник |
Во-вторых. Обсуждавшийся выше глифосат и устойчивость к нему, как видится эта проблема лично мне. Дело в том, что гербицид этот активен при попадании на зеленый лист, причем листьев на растении должно быть много (знаю, потому что пользуюсь). Отсюда мы имеем вывод, что обработка глифосатом имеет смысл только во время активной вегетации сорняков. На практике это означает (для наших широт) – с конца мая и до, в лучшем случае, августа, а в совсем уж идеальном – начала сентября (дальше зелень жухнет). Вам эти сроки ничего не напоминают? Да, это время вегетации сельхозрастений. То есть, сравнительно малотоксичный и быстроразлагающийся глифосат малоэффективен, потому что не может применяться в оптимальные сроки из-за неспецифичности своего действия. Если же повысить устойчивость сельхозрастений к этому гербициду, то можно будет проводить обработку в оптимальное для этого время. Кстати, это может означать также с о к р а щ е н и е числа необходимых обработок и, таким образом, у м е н ь ш е н и е вредного воздействия сельхозпроизводства на местные биоценозы, и соответственно, на всю биосферу… Вот так. |
« Предыдущая тема · Беседа · Следующая тема » |