Oil Earthquakes confirmed

[Eagle Eye]

The word "international" is all I need to see to know where to place anything they say, publish, predict, blame, support, caution against or recommend. They survive on grants. As for me, I don't trust them.

Woody

WOWOWOWOWOWOW
Do you know how much medical research is publicly funded? and you don't trust any of that.
Rather you will put your trust into a private company that funds its own research. Now their results could not be biases at all???!!!

 

[Eagle Eye]

What ever
Go bathe in the stuff if you want, i don't care.

 

[dennishoddy]

“The chronic toxicity of glyphosate is low; the only significant toxicity seen in a number of animal bioassays was mild hepatotoxicity at high doses in mice. There is no evidence of carcinogenicity.” But this does not prove it



Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (1991):

“Health and Welfare Canada has reviewed the glyphosate toxicology database, which is considered to be complete. The acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. The submitted studies contain no evidence that glyphosate causes mutations, birth defects or cancer.”

US Environmental Protection Agency, Registration Eligibility Document (US EPA, 1993):

“Based on the results of its reregistration review, EPA has concluded that all registered uses of glyphosate are eligible for reregistration. The Agency has classified glyphosate as a Group E carcinogen (signifies evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans).” evidence just like the evidence i provided, in a reputable journal



World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 159 (WHO IPCS, 1994):

“Animal studies show that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.”Obviously an erroneous conclusion since a recent study in a reputable journal disputes this claim.

World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (WHO/FAO JMPR, 2004)

“In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”This is the most important one of all UNLIKELY, NOT "DOES NOT"



Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA, 2013) review of the Earth Open Source report “Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark?”

“The APVMA currently has no data before it suggesting that glyphosate products registered in Australia and used according to label instructions present any unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and trade …”

“The weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic. “



Glyphosate Reevaluation Assessment Report, Germany Rapporteur Member State for the European Annex I Renewal of Glyphosate (2014)

“…glyphosate was considered unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans …” Unlikely



“In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of carcinogencity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and development or of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate. “

Now there is a study that claims that there are health effects. HMMM maybe the others missed something. That is actually the beauty of Science. It is self correcting. In light of new evidence.... we change our mind. Don't get too stuck in your ways my friend.[/QUOTE]

You just proved my point again. Nobody can prove it does. Just like nobody can prove wastewater injection can cause earthquakes.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Yet you gobble all that other stuff up and defend it like its the word of god.
If this is for the sake of argumentation, then you and I both failed.

I am trying to bring a potential health risk to your attention, not claim that it ends the debate.

You are welcome and good night

 

[Defnestor]

Earthquakes are just the Earth shivering from the Global Something-ing.

 

[farmerbyron]

You probably use Roundup all the time, maybe you even sell it or apply it for a living?

I frequently use roundup and it is definetly one of the more benign chemicals that I come into contact with. The most concerning chemicals I deal with are 2-4D and very occasionally, Atrazine. There are others but 2-4D gathers my attention the most as it is a known, proven carcinogen. Not just "may be a carcinogen".

Even as such if you are pursuing such anti technology alarmism against RR crops, then maybe you are familiar with the concept of "the dose makes the poison"? For one thing, glyphosate is a contact herbicide with a relatively short period before it breaks down. Another thing is that at least for brand name roundup powermax, it takes 23oz per acre to control most weed pressure. An acre is 43,560 sq ft if you feel like doing the math. In short, a fine mist of contact herbicide is not going to end up in your damn food.

I know your the environmentalist type so would you rather have farmers go back to the wide spread use of Atrazine, which is a known contaminant to ground water? Not to mention that herbicides like Atrazine rely on soil activity which hangs around for several years at heavier doses. Glyphosate resistant crops is one of the best things to happen for the environment as far as agriculture is concerned. Not to mention that it allows for greater efficiency of production, keeping food costs unnaturally low. One farmer can cover 1000+ acres a day with a sprayer while if they were conventional tilling would only get a few hundred acres done and exponentially more fuel burned.

This anti technology crap for agriculture is just as stupid as the anti vaccine nuts rejecting the benefits of modern healthcare.

 

[dennishoddy]

This anti technology crap for agriculture is just as stupid as the anti vaccine nuts rejecting the benefits of modern healthcare.

The link I disputed displayed this in the body of the info that led me to search a little deeper about the web site owners.

"Other Glyphosate Links to Disease

Besides links between glyphosate and cancer, glyphosate has been linked to autism (see: MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025), gluten intolerance and allergies, destroying the microbiome, antibiotic resistant bacteria, kidney disease, and infertility."

Kind of covers every know disease on the planet earth.

 

[farmerbyron]

The link I disputed displayed this in the body of the info that led me to search a little deeper about the web site owners.

"Other Glyphosate Links to Disease

Besides links between glyphosate and cancer, glyphosate has been linked to autism (see: MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025), gluten intolerance and allergies, destroying the microbiome, antibiotic resistant bacteria, kidney disease, and infertility."

Kind of covers every know disease on the planet earth.

Half of all children autistic in 10 years? Kind of a bold prediction with a short timeline. A recipe for loss of credibility very soon. Just like those predictions of rising sea levels and increasing hurricanes made in the late 90s/early 2000s by the GW folks.

 

[dennishoddy]

Half of all children autistic in 10 years? Kind of a bold prediction with a short timeline. A recipe for loss of credibility very soon. Just like those predictions of rising sea levels and increasing hurricanes made in the late 90s/early 2000s by the GW folks.

The "science" of anything depends on grants. One researcher can go against the body of evidence at the moment and get some money.

I will say that sometimes that one lone voice in the wilderness can make a difference and cause the community to look in another directions, sometimes with success.

I never rule out the other guy 100%, but I do rely on the preponderance of evidence. Always keeping an open mind.

The Green Science from the 70's said we would be covered in Glaciers by now in North America. Almost all studies published at that time pointed to that being the correct scenario.
We know that is not what happened.

I can say that anybody eating bacon will die though.

 

[Dave70968]

I don't think the Ok earthquakes have been proven. Its suspected.

As I stated before, there are disposal wells all over Okla, Tx, NM, Ar, Ks, SD, MT, yet the conclusion is drawn from a dozen disposal wells in the OK area of some shakes.

That is not a definitive conclusion of fact. Nor is it scientific analysis of the available data to prove one way or the other. Its just that those wells happened to be in the area of a seismic event.
That would be like charging everybody around a death a murderer before you knew it was a natural death or a murder. I know that's a red herring, but it is what it is.

How can you say its proven, when the water injection is going on all over the Midwest? 12 wells don't prove anything.

If it is proven that waste water injection wells cause earthquakes then Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisanna [sic], North Dakota and a lot of other states should be having a lot of earthquakes

In what way were you involved in the industry? It is a vast industry. You could have had a job in an oil field company's warehouse, so I ask again, do you have any actual hands on knowledge of injection wells or oil and gas wells?

And your proof... Oklahoma is one of many states where there are injection wells. Are other states seeing a rise in seismic activity due to injection wells? Or is Oklahoma special in that we are the only ones who get to experience it.

The underlying geology matters.

Go spray a concrete pillar with a hose. Go do the same to a Jenga tower. Do you expect the same results?