M
moodster
- 363
- 28
LOL one spray in veg once iis ALL u need the only time i wud worry is if you are drinking snorting or injecting it ROFL
Overuse of Eagle 20 and systemics makes resistant fungi
I
ibTheMan
- 1,571
- 36
(Sing it) Fly like an Eagle into the future. (repeat,lol)
qupee
- 183
- 28
Toker Ace
- 158
- 28
Pregnant fiancee? I guess being skeptical of a government report stating a fungicide is apparently kind of safe maybe, and what we don't know about it we'll just take what the manufacturing corporation gives us for the rest. LOFL And you call me ignorant. U little shit. Remember when dupont and uncle sam told us ddt was safe? No? I fucking do.
qupee
- 183
- 28
Yes, you've made your ignorance abundantly clear.
You could research yourself who actually performed the study. I've shown you that here.
But you're too lazy to actually research anything. You just spout your uninformed opinions, which you're perfectly welcome to. But it is you who has your head in the sand. Enjoy your paranoia.
J
jetcat
- 65
- 8
qupee,
This is my last response to you because you are obviously a child kicking and screaming. It scares me that someone as ignorant as yourself has something so gnarly in his arsenal.
This is my last response to you because you are obviously a child kicking and screaming. It scares me that someone as ignorant as yourself has something so gnarly in his arsenal.
qupee
- 183
- 28
That's fine.
You and everyone else has yet to provide any actual evidence that this stuff is harmful beyond mild irritation in the amounts we're using.
You're just talking out of the side of your neck.
Ignorant is screaming "Is too dangerous. Is too, is too." That's all you and Toker Ace are doing. Omg, omg, omg -- it's cheemmmiiicallls. They must be dangerous. They're scary!! (one of you actually said scary, lmfao) The government must be lying to us about all of them and paying to produce fake studies, it's a huge conspiracy!!
The opposite of ignorant is looking at the evidence, taking the time to understand it, and choosing to follow adequate safety precautions in the end anyway.
I know which one I am. I think you are still confused. I'm betting that's a permanent condition for you.
:hi
qupee
- 183
- 28
And since you're just so fucking dense, bro, here. Here's you talking utter bullshit one more time. Failing to read, and spouting you're uninformed crap you only think is true.
Fact? lolz. Here's reality - you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Now go back to your ignorant simpleton life full of your unchallengeable preconceived notions.
And maybe stop parroting everything you read. I know what happened. You read that imidcloprid breaks down slower indoors, which is true, and now you're just saying that about myclobutanil. They're different chemicals.. I know that's hard for you to understand...
How many times do you want me to call you straight to the mat on your blatant BS?
kthxbai.
Fact? lolz. Here's reality - you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Now go back to your ignorant simpleton life full of your unchallengeable preconceived notions.
And maybe stop parroting everything you read. I know what happened. You read that imidcloprid breaks down slower indoors, which is true, and now you're just saying that about myclobutanil. They're different chemicals.. I know that's hard for you to understand...
How many times do you want me to call you straight to the mat on your blatant BS?
kthxbai.
M
moodster
- 363
- 28
i wudnt worry about eagle unless you are snorting it proper over reaction to the use of eagle i might start a thread "eagle = instant death to all "
qupee
- 183
- 28
I might start a thread "how to research the safety of pesticides, fungicides, and their component chemicals incl. proper safe usage guidelines"
motherlode
@Rolln_J
Supporter
- 5,524
- 313
name calling and shit talking will not be tolerated
if you cant be civil then stay out of threads if you have a different opinion
this is a good thread and I dont want to close it just because a couple users cant act like adults
come back with a different attitude or dont come back at all!
if you cant be civil then stay out of threads if you have a different opinion
this is a good thread and I dont want to close it just because a couple users cant act like adults
come back with a different attitude or dont come back at all!
Toker Ace
- 158
- 28
Thank you Motherlode. I think somebody "ignored" this part of their links, which has been my point all along.
Limitations of the toxicity data
pesticides bulletWARNING! Limitations of Available Human Toxicity Data
pesticides bulletHazard Assessment vs. Risk Assessment
pesticides bulletWeight-of-the-Evidence Evaluations
WARNING! Limitations of Available Human Toxicity Data
Human toxicity data do not exist for many chemicals, which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the probable toxicity of a compound. Toxicity tests on laboratory animals are more readily available, with U.S. EPA requiring a certain minimum set of studies for different kinds of toxicity before the chemical is registered (1). In spite of these precautions, there are a number of reasons that the available toxicity data may not accurately reflect the hazard potential of the chemical to humans, including:
Humans are not necessarily similar to rats and other laboratory animals used for testing. Because most test results are extrapolated from rats, mice, dogs or rabbits to humans, noted effects may be different than what humans actually experience. To attempt to discover interspecies differences, U.S. EPA will often require studies on two species of laboratory animal for some types of toxicity testing. In addition, U.S. EPA builds in an interspecies uncertainty factor to set "acceptable" safety thresholds when human data are not available.
Different individuals have different susceptibilities to toxic substances. U.S. EPA builds in an intraspecies uncertainty factor to attempt to take this into account; however, the range of human susceptibility is not actually known. This factor may not be sufficiently protective.
Children and the developing fetus are particularly susceptible to the effects of toxic substances. An exposure that would normally not cause observable adverse effects in an adult animal can cause devastating birth defects or interfere with normal development of a child. U.S. EPA builds in a child uncertainty factor to attempt to take this into account; however, because we lack full knowledge of the mechanism of toxicity in some cases, this factor may not be sufficiently protective.
In laboratory studies, the test animal is exposed to only a single chemical. In the environment, humans are exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously, which can lead to additive or synergistic effects.
Not all types of toxicity are studied in detail. The incidence of some diseases linked to chemical exposure have increased substantially in industrialized countries over the last 30 years or so. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), asthma, early onset of menstruation, multiple chemical sensitivity, certain diseases related to immune system dysfunction, and others. Yet although there is evidence that these diseases have been linked to chemical exposure, the science of understanding the mechanisms of these interactions is not far enough along for regulatory agencies to test a chemical for the potential to cause these effects. Thus, when there is insufficient information about the link between exposure and disease, the process of risk assessment does not fully evaluate these effects. Endocrine disrupting chemicals are an excellent example of a group of chemicals that we know have the potential to be problematic. While EPA is presently developing a test for these chemicals and ramping up a testing program, it is a fact that presently registered pesticides have not been tested for their endocrine disrupting abilities. In the risk assessment process then, this effect is not included as part of the hazard assessment and is therefore ignored.
The process by which chemicals are prioritized for study or included on an official toxcity list (carcinogens, reproductive toxins, etc.) can be as much political as it is scientific. Some chemicals have escaped extensive scrutiny because of interference from the chemical industry.
Fewer independent studies (those conducted by someone other than the pesticide manufacturer) have been conducted on newly registered chemicals, resulting in the appearance that they are less hazardous than those that have been on the market for a longer time and have been more thoroughly studied. While it is often true that these chemicals are less hazardous than the older chemicals, there is no way to be sure this is actually true until 15-20 years have elapsed and the unanticipated side effects have become apparent.
U.S. EPA attempts to compensate for some of these limitations in the data by adding in "Uncertainty Factors" which lower U.S. EPA's "acceptable" dose of the pesticide that is used to set allowable uses, residue tolerances, worker protection standards, and limits for drinking water. Three types of uncertainty factors are used:
Interspecies comparison uncertainty factor: The acceptable dose is lowered by a factor of between 2 and 10 for chemicals for which there are no human data available. For example, if the dose that results in no observed acute toxicity in a rat study was 0.3 mg/kg and there were no human studies available on acute toxicity, the "acceptable" dose for a human is lowered to 0.03 mg/kg. If partial information is available that indicates that humans and rats respond in a similar fashion to the chemical, the uncertainty factor might be less than 10.
Intraspecies comparison uncertainty factor: There are genetic differences in humans' ability to detoxify and eliminate toxic substances in their bodies. A good example is the 80-year-old who has smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for 60 years and does not yet have cancer compared to the 25 year-old who acquires multiple chemical sensitivity after a single exposure to a toxic substance. To account for these differences in susceptibility to toxic substances among humans, the acceptable dose is lowered by an additional factor of 10.
Child uncertainty factor: Since 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act requires the U.S. EPA to add an additional uncertainty factor of between 2 and 10 to account for the special susceptibility of infants and children to toxic substances, unless there are data to the contrary. If additional information is available indicating that children and rats respond in a similar fashion to the chemical, the uncertainty factor might be less than 10.
Reference:
OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines, U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, July 27, 2006. Viewed on August 1, 2006.
Top of page
Hazard Assessment vs. Risk Assessment
The data presented in the PAN Pesticide Database is strictly based on the inherent hazards posed by a particular chemical. Actual risks to humans and the environment can only be evaluated by knowing both the inherent hazards of a chemical and actual exposures to the chemical. If a pesticide is used in accordance with the label instructions, the risks to the user associated with the chemical can be reduced, but never fully eliminated. A problem with the risk management process that U.S. EPA uses for pesticides is that compliance with label instructions is assumed when calculating "acceptable" risks. In fact, people often do not read the label on a pesticide product and even if they do, they may not follow the label instructions. People who are unaware that a pesticide has recently been applied in a particular area will not know to take precautions. Thus, the "acceptable" exposures produced by risk assessment are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about pesticide user behavior.
Top of page
Weight-of-the-Evidence Evaluations
A toxicity evaluation based on the weight of the evidence is one where a panel of experts evaluates all available laboratory studies for a particular type of toxicity (cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm, etc.), as well as any epidemiological or occupational data, to determine a consensus rating for the hazard posed by that chemical. Most "official" toxicity rankings (e.g., U.S. EPA, World Health Organization (WHO), etc.) are determined in this manner. This is the best system we currently have for objectively evaluating the intrinsic hazards of chemicals. Unfortunately, even this system can fail to protect human health and the environment.
There are many obstacles to an objective and timely evaluation of chemicals. For such an official ranking to be possible, the following must be true:
A decision must be made by the evaluating organization that the particular chemical will be evaluated. Because of the expense and time involved in the process, not all chemicals are evaluated in this manner. In theory, those chemicals producing harmful effects in preliminary studies or those in widest use are given highest priority for evaluation. In practice, this process is often politicized, and some toxic chemicals remain unevaluated because of industry efforts to prevent listing of a particular chemical.
There must be sufficient data available for review. It is unfortunately true that there are many chemicals for which the data gaps are substantial. Even though the U.S. EPA requires the manufacturer to conduct a certain minimum set of studies (1) before a chemical can be registered, these studies only evaluate a limited number of effects of the chemical on laboratory animals and do not provide enough information to defnitively say the chemical will not, for example, be carcinogenic in humans or will not harm the environment. More complete information often only appears after the chemical has been in use for years and chronic effects have had time to become evident---DDT is a good example of a pesticide that people once thought was "harmless" but in fact had and continues to have devastating impacts on ecosystems. Independent studies (not conducted or funded by the manufacturer) are critical to an objective analysis, yet these kinds of studies are rarely conducted until after the chemical has caused enough damage to raise suspicion that it is more hazardous than the initial evaluation revealed.
Reference:
OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines, U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, July 27, 2006. Viewed on August 1, 2006.
Top of page
Last updated August 1, 2006 .
Limitations of the toxicity data
pesticides bulletWARNING! Limitations of Available Human Toxicity Data
pesticides bulletHazard Assessment vs. Risk Assessment
pesticides bulletWeight-of-the-Evidence Evaluations
WARNING! Limitations of Available Human Toxicity Data
Human toxicity data do not exist for many chemicals, which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the probable toxicity of a compound. Toxicity tests on laboratory animals are more readily available, with U.S. EPA requiring a certain minimum set of studies for different kinds of toxicity before the chemical is registered (1). In spite of these precautions, there are a number of reasons that the available toxicity data may not accurately reflect the hazard potential of the chemical to humans, including:
Humans are not necessarily similar to rats and other laboratory animals used for testing. Because most test results are extrapolated from rats, mice, dogs or rabbits to humans, noted effects may be different than what humans actually experience. To attempt to discover interspecies differences, U.S. EPA will often require studies on two species of laboratory animal for some types of toxicity testing. In addition, U.S. EPA builds in an interspecies uncertainty factor to set "acceptable" safety thresholds when human data are not available.
Different individuals have different susceptibilities to toxic substances. U.S. EPA builds in an intraspecies uncertainty factor to attempt to take this into account; however, the range of human susceptibility is not actually known. This factor may not be sufficiently protective.
Children and the developing fetus are particularly susceptible to the effects of toxic substances. An exposure that would normally not cause observable adverse effects in an adult animal can cause devastating birth defects or interfere with normal development of a child. U.S. EPA builds in a child uncertainty factor to attempt to take this into account; however, because we lack full knowledge of the mechanism of toxicity in some cases, this factor may not be sufficiently protective.
In laboratory studies, the test animal is exposed to only a single chemical. In the environment, humans are exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously, which can lead to additive or synergistic effects.
Not all types of toxicity are studied in detail. The incidence of some diseases linked to chemical exposure have increased substantially in industrialized countries over the last 30 years or so. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), asthma, early onset of menstruation, multiple chemical sensitivity, certain diseases related to immune system dysfunction, and others. Yet although there is evidence that these diseases have been linked to chemical exposure, the science of understanding the mechanisms of these interactions is not far enough along for regulatory agencies to test a chemical for the potential to cause these effects. Thus, when there is insufficient information about the link between exposure and disease, the process of risk assessment does not fully evaluate these effects. Endocrine disrupting chemicals are an excellent example of a group of chemicals that we know have the potential to be problematic. While EPA is presently developing a test for these chemicals and ramping up a testing program, it is a fact that presently registered pesticides have not been tested for their endocrine disrupting abilities. In the risk assessment process then, this effect is not included as part of the hazard assessment and is therefore ignored.
The process by which chemicals are prioritized for study or included on an official toxcity list (carcinogens, reproductive toxins, etc.) can be as much political as it is scientific. Some chemicals have escaped extensive scrutiny because of interference from the chemical industry.
Fewer independent studies (those conducted by someone other than the pesticide manufacturer) have been conducted on newly registered chemicals, resulting in the appearance that they are less hazardous than those that have been on the market for a longer time and have been more thoroughly studied. While it is often true that these chemicals are less hazardous than the older chemicals, there is no way to be sure this is actually true until 15-20 years have elapsed and the unanticipated side effects have become apparent.
U.S. EPA attempts to compensate for some of these limitations in the data by adding in "Uncertainty Factors" which lower U.S. EPA's "acceptable" dose of the pesticide that is used to set allowable uses, residue tolerances, worker protection standards, and limits for drinking water. Three types of uncertainty factors are used:
Interspecies comparison uncertainty factor: The acceptable dose is lowered by a factor of between 2 and 10 for chemicals for which there are no human data available. For example, if the dose that results in no observed acute toxicity in a rat study was 0.3 mg/kg and there were no human studies available on acute toxicity, the "acceptable" dose for a human is lowered to 0.03 mg/kg. If partial information is available that indicates that humans and rats respond in a similar fashion to the chemical, the uncertainty factor might be less than 10.
Intraspecies comparison uncertainty factor: There are genetic differences in humans' ability to detoxify and eliminate toxic substances in their bodies. A good example is the 80-year-old who has smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for 60 years and does not yet have cancer compared to the 25 year-old who acquires multiple chemical sensitivity after a single exposure to a toxic substance. To account for these differences in susceptibility to toxic substances among humans, the acceptable dose is lowered by an additional factor of 10.
Child uncertainty factor: Since 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act requires the U.S. EPA to add an additional uncertainty factor of between 2 and 10 to account for the special susceptibility of infants and children to toxic substances, unless there are data to the contrary. If additional information is available indicating that children and rats respond in a similar fashion to the chemical, the uncertainty factor might be less than 10.
Reference:
OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines, U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, July 27, 2006. Viewed on August 1, 2006.
Top of page
Hazard Assessment vs. Risk Assessment
The data presented in the PAN Pesticide Database is strictly based on the inherent hazards posed by a particular chemical. Actual risks to humans and the environment can only be evaluated by knowing both the inherent hazards of a chemical and actual exposures to the chemical. If a pesticide is used in accordance with the label instructions, the risks to the user associated with the chemical can be reduced, but never fully eliminated. A problem with the risk management process that U.S. EPA uses for pesticides is that compliance with label instructions is assumed when calculating "acceptable" risks. In fact, people often do not read the label on a pesticide product and even if they do, they may not follow the label instructions. People who are unaware that a pesticide has recently been applied in a particular area will not know to take precautions. Thus, the "acceptable" exposures produced by risk assessment are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about pesticide user behavior.
Top of page
Weight-of-the-Evidence Evaluations
A toxicity evaluation based on the weight of the evidence is one where a panel of experts evaluates all available laboratory studies for a particular type of toxicity (cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm, etc.), as well as any epidemiological or occupational data, to determine a consensus rating for the hazard posed by that chemical. Most "official" toxicity rankings (e.g., U.S. EPA, World Health Organization (WHO), etc.) are determined in this manner. This is the best system we currently have for objectively evaluating the intrinsic hazards of chemicals. Unfortunately, even this system can fail to protect human health and the environment.
There are many obstacles to an objective and timely evaluation of chemicals. For such an official ranking to be possible, the following must be true:
A decision must be made by the evaluating organization that the particular chemical will be evaluated. Because of the expense and time involved in the process, not all chemicals are evaluated in this manner. In theory, those chemicals producing harmful effects in preliminary studies or those in widest use are given highest priority for evaluation. In practice, this process is often politicized, and some toxic chemicals remain unevaluated because of industry efforts to prevent listing of a particular chemical.
There must be sufficient data available for review. It is unfortunately true that there are many chemicals for which the data gaps are substantial. Even though the U.S. EPA requires the manufacturer to conduct a certain minimum set of studies (1) before a chemical can be registered, these studies only evaluate a limited number of effects of the chemical on laboratory animals and do not provide enough information to defnitively say the chemical will not, for example, be carcinogenic in humans or will not harm the environment. More complete information often only appears after the chemical has been in use for years and chronic effects have had time to become evident---DDT is a good example of a pesticide that people once thought was "harmless" but in fact had and continues to have devastating impacts on ecosystems. Independent studies (not conducted or funded by the manufacturer) are critical to an objective analysis, yet these kinds of studies are rarely conducted until after the chemical has caused enough damage to raise suspicion that it is more hazardous than the initial evaluation revealed.
Reference:
OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines, U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, July 27, 2006. Viewed on August 1, 2006.
Top of page
Last updated August 1, 2006 .
Toker Ace
- 158
- 28
Peace Qpee I'm outta here.
qupee
- 183
- 28
Dare I post in this thread again ....
Peace, Toker. I knew I had that ban coming.
I am well aware of the discrepancies between lab testing and human exposure. But we are talking about 1000-fold difference between observed no effect levels and the amounts we may actually be exposed to. And this is standard practice, extrapolating from animal tests and building in safety margins measured in orders of magnitude (10x, 100x, 1000x, lower dosages etc). Many thousands of chemicals have been tested this way, and there is established processes for review that include historical data on human exposure once it is available.
From Health Canada's re-evaluation of Myclobutanil in 2010. There is a lot of good solid info in these docs, and you can find them for any common pesticide/fungicide/etc. - anything that's regulated as far as I can tell.
I guess the only point I really wanted to make was is that there is a metric ton of real, scientific data about any of the pesticides we use. More than enough info to come to one's own informed decisions.
And I think we already know everyone's decisions in this thread so I'll stop beating a dead horse.
I'm not always so grouchy. :)
Peace, Toker. I knew I had that ban coming.
I am well aware of the discrepancies between lab testing and human exposure. But we are talking about 1000-fold difference between observed no effect levels and the amounts we may actually be exposed to. And this is standard practice, extrapolating from animal tests and building in safety margins measured in orders of magnitude (10x, 100x, 1000x, lower dosages etc). Many thousands of chemicals have been tested this way, and there is established processes for review that include historical data on human exposure once it is available.
From Health Canada's re-evaluation of Myclobutanil in 2010. There is a lot of good solid info in these docs, and you can find them for any common pesticide/fungicide/etc. - anything that's regulated as far as I can tell.
I guess the only point I really wanted to make was is that there is a metric ton of real, scientific data about any of the pesticides we use. More than enough info to come to one's own informed decisions.
And I think we already know everyone's decisions in this thread so I'll stop beating a dead horse.
I'm not always so grouchy. :)
J roc
- 36
- 18
Yes, thats what it means.....
J roc
- 36
- 18
"Like if you going nucular, and useing all these chemicals how can you even justifie selling your product to your consumers, as med grade. I hope you guys have warning stickers on you jars, or probably in your case plastic bags.
I smoke Dope, I aint a Dope Head, I get this motha Fucker Runnin Like Both Legz!"
LOL!!!
Seamaiden
Living dead girl
- 23,596
- 638
Actually, that's my definition of stupid. :) Just sayin'!
There are lots of effective, organic, non-resistance-causing ways to deal with it.
Right now my goal is to be proactive and achieve best plant health so they can fight whatever comes their way on their own. However, I'm still workin' on that.
Just sayin'!
And I'm going to put out the call once again for papers or ANYTHING documenting illness or other bad health effects caused by ingestion of powdery mildew in the first place. Sometimes we growers tend to put our horses before our carts. Anyone else here pickin' up what I'm puttin' down?
ttystikk
- 6,892
- 313
Always, Sea.
We Solidarity
- 1,610
- 263
Low plant PH combined with poor plant health/stressed root zones are the major causes of PM. Keep your plant's PH around 6.2 (soil PH no lower than 5.8) and you should be fine.
ArthritiSux
- 778
- 143
Rotation, rotation, rotation.
Latest posts
-
Looking good place to buy seeds.- DanC520 posted
-
First time growing please help- jetbtkng posted
-
Good morning everyone!- GoldenDragondnw posted
-
Your Expertise Purty Plz - yellow leaves- Captspaulding posted
-
Using RO water in coco- GNick55 posted