The Dose Makes The Poison.

[HuckleB]

https://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/the-dose-makes-the-poison/

"Paracelsus was a 16th century Swiss German physician, alchemist, astrologer who found the discipline of toxicology. He came up with this basic principle of toxicology: The dose makes the poison.

“All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities. It is only the dose which makes a thing poison.”

So many of us misunderstand basic chemistry and what ‘toxic’ really means. I can relate. Chemistry was my WORST subject in high school. Most of what I have learned (and since become interested in) has been cultivated through my PhD studies and in projects since then.

Toxicity is an indicator of how poisonous a substance is to a biological entity. Any chemical can be toxic if absorbed or consumed in large enough amounts. Chemistry is all around us and we are all comprised of chemicals (matter). Some chemicals are man made others occur naturally: in our bodies, manufactured in plants, in our food and in the air we breathe. In fact, there are more naturally occurring chemicals than man-made ones. Chemical reactions and interactions in our bodies occur all the time.

..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Somehow this gets lost, along with many other non-hyperbolic matters, far too often at DU. I hope, for the sake of us all, that that starts to change.

[Sinistrous]

1. Kick, in the hope somene else will read it.

[misterhighwasted]

2. Bookmarked I find this interesting & useful though some on the list are common known

I didn't consider caffiene Toxic, but I guess in some people with certain conditions it very well could be.

Vitamin D, though I knew it to be harmful in larger doses, wasn't aware just how toxic it can be, until just recently.

Indeed, the dose makes the poison.

I am passing this on to my FB page.
Thanks.

[HuckleB]

9. It is good to know this information, both to keep oneself safe from poison, and...

... to keep oneself safe from fear mongerers.

[katsy]

3. Most every element on that list

Is measurable and/or labeled for ingredients or has a toxicity warning (cyanide).

Label gmos and let people decide what they consider safe for themselves.

There are environmental question marks about the safety of gmo farming/roundup use.

https://www.occupycorporatism.com/harvard-study-proves-dangerous-gmos-humans/

Recently, Harvard and Yale scientists started working with a kill switch to gmos in case the gmos affected the environment. You can google if u wish.

Just as I am able to estimate my safety zone with intake of caffeine, cyanide, msg, salt or water people should be empowered to judge the safety of what they ingest or what they deem ethical in the handling of environmental issues or treatment of animals for food production.

Progressives can handle the science of gmos when all the facts are clear and time tested. Many drugs were safe until one day they weren't. Many materials like fire retardants were safe until they weren't. Lead paint was fine until it wasn't. And don't forget smoking. Corporations all loved selling crap that was dangerous. That is why labeling is so important. People must evaluate the science for themselves. Who believes the fucking corporations anymore?

[HuckleB]

4. Label "Mutation Bred" Foods NOW!

Until you promote that, you've got no justification. Well, you still don't, because every GMO is different, just like every mutation bred plant is different. It gives you no information. The entire anti-GMO crusade is just unethical marketing for one set of corporations. You seem to be fine with such unethical corporate behavior.

I'm not.

[katsy]

5. Address the recent Yale/Harvard studies

I do not have doubts about gmo vaccines/insulin which are clearly labeled and time tested.

My family to this day are farmers in Europe and one in the States. I have no problem with their methods. If something goes wrong a small group of unfortunates may get sick or die. Not the environment on a large scale. We affect our own by what we bring to market.

The jury is still out on the environmental affect of Monsanto and its ownership of gmo seeds and environmental impact of its pesticides.

I don't need justification so stop being snippy. I wasn't rude to you. The fact that Harvard and Yale are studying the matter at hand because of valid environmental concerns should give people concern.

Fukushima reactors were safe til they weren't. It's not just the Japanese that will pay the price...

Fuck corporations and their assurances. They are notoriously corrupt in their quest for profits.

[HuckleB]

7. Cherry picking studies out of context, and using the "science was wrong" gambit.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

How predictable.

Oh, and that Harvard study actually said nothing about GMOs. That's just nonsense pushed by your bad source. Oh, and the study is contradicted by other studies, so it's not exactly solid.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-co2-nutritious-food.html

Now, where is your advocacy for labeling mutation breeding foods?

[katsy]

10. Mutagenesis acceptable to me

GMOs not.

Any study u don't like u criticize and mock. There's nothing to be resolved by arguing further.

Science evolves as our knowledge of nature does. It's right until it isn't then we correct our understanding.

Maybe your faith in gmo safety belongs in the religion section of du. I've never known scientists so rabid in their "belief".

[HuckleB]

13. Thanks for the confession.

You don't care about safety, just pushing bad propaganda.

WOW!

Atomic Gardening - The Ultimate Frankenfoods
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836

[fasttense]

6. Problem is known information

Your toxicity chart based on rat ingestion is only accurate If what Monsanto is telling the world about its science on Round Up is true.

Also your toxicity chart fails to account for accumulated amounts inside the GMO organism and inside the ingesting organism. So Round Up maybe at toxic levels in Americans right now after years and years of GMO corn ingestion. And the toxicity of each GMO organism is not on your chart. Do they even know how much round up is in each kernel of corn, each teaspoon of high fructose corn syrup or cup of cornmeal?

Arsenic use to be the go to chemical for pest control (yes I'm talking pesticide and not deadlier herbicides but it relates.). They claimed it was NOT absorbed by the plant. Then one day a whole town almost died of arsenic poisoning. Turns out one apple orchard had used so much arsenic it had poisoned every apple eater in the town.

One last problem with your chart. It does NOT account for interaction with other chemicals and unusual environmental situations. Lab rats are maintained in fairly comfortable conditions, until they are poisoned anyway. They are not exposed to other chemicals that could affect toxicity results.

[HuckleB]

8. Monsanto has nothing to do with it.

It's time to stop pushing anti-GMO lies for no good reason.

[katsy]

11. That was a thoughtful analysis

And it points out the faults of your graph.

Monsanto's roundup certainly does have everything to do with the uproar.

[HuckleB]

12. Ignorance of basic science has everything to do with the "uproar."

Bad propaganda and baseless fear mongering has everything to do with the "uproar."

Actual science has nothing to do with the "uproar."

GLYPHOSATE AS A CARCINOGEN, EXPLAINED
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/03/glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen-explained.html

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943

Expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/
Let's put the science back into progressive politics!

[fasttense]

19. Monsanto makes round up that farmers pour all over their GMO plants created by Monsanto.

GMOs are a danger to everyone.

[HuckleB]

20. Nice claims.

They still have nothing to do with it, and your post appears to show that did not bother to read the OP.

And, no, GMOs are not a danger to everyone.

If you really believe that they are, then prove it with a consensus of science-based, peer-reviewed information.

[fasttense]

24. How much Round UP is found in a corn kernel, a cup of corn syrup and a tablespoon of soybean oil?

"In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean."

We're now starting to understand just how false such statements are. For example, last summer, a groundbreaking study revealed a previously unknown mechanism of harm from glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

The research showed that glyphosate residues, found in most processed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar beets, corn, and soy, "enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/20/glyphosate-roundup-levels.aspx

A new study led by scientists from the Arctic University of Norway has detected “extreme levels” of Roundup, the agricultural herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, in genetically engineered soy.

The study, coming out in June’s issue of Food Chemistry and available online, looked at 31 different soybean plants on Iowa farms and compared the accumulation of pesticides and herbicides on plants in three categories 1) genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” soy, 2) conventionally produced (not GE) soy, and 3) soy cultivated using organic practices. They found high levels of Roundup on 70 percent of genetically engineered soy plants.

Crop scientists have genetically engineered soy to survive blasts of Roundup so farmers can spray this chemical near crops to get rid of weeds. But some so-called “super weeds” resistant to Roundup have developed. In turn, some farmers use yet more Roundup to try to kill those hardy weeds. This leads to more Roundup chemicals being found on soybeans and ultimately in the food supply.

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/04/extreme-levels-herbicide-roundup-found-food

One of the only legs biotech has had to stand on is Monsanto’s shill scientific studies and political bullying. The latest independent study from the Arctic University of Norway has detected “extreme levels” of the biotech giant’s RoundUp herbicide in our food, proving that the agricultural herbicide manufactured by Monsanto has utterly changed our food supply. And it is anything but safe, no matter the propaganda churned out by oligarchic companies.

While Big Ag keeps telling the world that GM food is no different than real food, it becomes exceedingly clear that this is utterly false. They use this lie to pass their GM crops through regulatory agencies, using what is called the ‘substantial equivalence’ argument. This, despite the fact that other studies have already proven that there are ‘anti-nutrients’ in GM food.


The Norwegian study, coming out in June’s issue of Food Chemistry, and available online, looked at 31 different soybean plants on Iowa farms and compared the accumulation of pesticides and herbicides on plants in three categories: 1) genetically engineered “RoundUp Ready” soy, 2) conventionally produced soy (meaning not GM soy), and 3) organic soy. The researchers found high levels of RoundUp on 70 percent of genetically engineered soy plants.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/food-found-extreme-levels-monsantos-round-norwegian-study/#ixzz3Vz7FaTw2
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

[BlancheSplanchnik]

14. non-hyperbole

Is less wharrgerrbley.

[HuckleB]

15. So, you're saying there is more than one reason to wear a helmet. -eom-

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. heee.

[HuckleB]

17. Is conventional food "drenched in chemicals"?

http://www.watchusgrow.org/illinois-farm-families-blog/is-conventional-food-drenched-in-chemicals

[fasttense]

21. Of course "conventional" foods are drenched in chemicals.

If by conventional you mean foods farmed with chemicals. Chemical farmers who don't want to drive their house sized tractors more than once or twice a season have to use lots and lots and lots of chemicals. They use round up too. GMOs were designed to use with chemicals. In fact, some even produce chemicals inside of them. But if GMOs were designed to grow in droughts, to be blight and virus free, to withstand sudden climate changes or be more nutritious then I might actually be in favor of them. But they are NOT. They are only designed to make huge greedy corporations more wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

There are very efficient non chemical farming practices but they do require more planning and effort. I farm and sell my produce and lamb. I use NO chemicals. Unless you consider milk, pepper sauce, molasses and manure chemicals. Yes, some years I can not grow certain foods because of sudden infestations of foreign insects. But eventually I learn chemical free ways to deal with the Asian bugs so that they don't get out of control.

I could tell you stories about bugs that would amaze you. I have actually developed a system where I have NO Fleas, NO mites and very few ticks. My dogs, sheep and chickens don't get sprayed for fleas, ticks or mites. In the last 5 years, none of those pests have bothered my animals and I have not used any chemicals to kill the insects. It's all about equilibrium. But it takes time and effort to get your land and animals all in sync. It's something most corporate farmers don't want to bother with.

[fasttense]

23. The rules for posting on DU do not allow for personal insults.

Here are the facts about GMOs. It's a great site. You should visit it.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[Fumesucker]

18. Botulin toxin is perfectly safe, it's used for cosmetic purposes