Glyphosate Herbicides Cause Tragic Phosphorus Poisoning of Lake Erie

[Scientific]

Damn it. It feels like the chemical GMO* industrial corporations are trying to poison the whole freaking planet. This crap is in wine, beer, almost every processed food, and the tampons our wives, daughters and sisters rely on. WTF? This is so sick. There is no excuse for poisoning America systematically to garner financial profit for a few - that is just another foul expression of sick Republican-style Values.

No wonder people get honked off when Chem Trolls come around to bash clean, organic food, and to make excuses for these kinds of escalating CHEMICAL GMO horror episodes.

July 4, 2016 - "A new study by experts from Ohio Northern University in the U.S. has shown that glyphosate herbicides are a main cause of the tragic phosphorus poisoning of Lake Erie, which has been causing an increase of harmful algae blooms that foul drinking water and kill fish...."



THE STORY - http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/07/04/glyphosate-herbicides-cause-tragic-phosphorus-poisoning-of-lake-erie/#.V31rxWOOt0d

* Well over 80% of the GMO crops are part of a profiteering industrial chemical ag scheme that depends on the use of the deadly herbicide glyphosate to kill weeds, as well as to kill the microbes that make a soil healthy and alive.

[mopinko]

1. i cant find this study.

only blogs like the one you cite claiming it. of course none link to the actual study.
please see if you can find a link to the actual study. i cant.

[Humanist_Activist]

2. Same here, the hyperbole of the article in question, not to mention its source, makes me...

wonder how accurately they are conveying the study's conclusions, assuming it exists.

Found a lot of studies that mention glyphosate binds in the soil similarly to phosphorus, and hence they are chemical "competitors" but that it only matters if there's a LOT of phosphorus already present in the soil, a lot more than what is typically present in agricultural soil.

[trotsky]

3. Not to mention fertilizer itself often containing significant amounts of phosphorus.

Seems like it would be a tall task to somehow isolate and blame glyphosate for excessive phosphorus runoff.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. The reference to no-till farming seems to pan that out, it seems likely that...

if the phosphorus in the fertilizer doesn't have an opportunity to bind in the soil due to lack of tilling, runoff might be slightly worse. Though I'll be honest, I'm not a farmer, so I don't know if that is even true.

I would prefer to have an abstract or conclusion, to work off of.

[mopinko]

10. from the no-till article

it seems clear that the uncounted thing going on here has to do w drainage tiles, not surface run off.
the glyophosphate thing is more just conjecture based on usage v runoff. correlation. period.

[Orrex]

15. Glyphosate transmutes ordinary water to phosphorus

[trotsky]

17. Damn you, MONSATAN!!! n/t

[Il_Coniglietto]

4. It may not have been published yet

The original source this article has drawn from is here: https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/5793-scientists-glyphosate-contributes-to-phosphorus-runoff-in-lake-erie One of the comments at the bottom says the study is unpublished as of yet and that this is all based on a talk given by Christopher Spiese at a conference (article says Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference). Not sure how accurate that is though.

[yellowcanine]

22. The P runoff appears to be a calculation, not an actual measurement.

It appears they sprayed the glyphosate on bare soil and then took soil samples and analyzed them for release of P.
It is actually a little hard to tell because the article is not a journal article - it is a popular press article with minimal detail as to methodology.

Problems I see:

1)I don't know anyone who sprays glyphosate on bare soil. It is sprayed on weeds and weeds absorb the vast amount of the glyphosate. The article did speculate about glyphosate on plant residues but imo the speculation was not well informed by actual science.

2)The article says nothing about rates and amount of water used. Without those it is hard to tell how realistic the rates and GPA are relative to actual practice.

3)Without a direct measure of P runoff any conclusions are speculative.

4)What were the P levels in the soil to begin with? This is important, because we know that it is only in soils with very high P levels where there is any risk of P runoff. It is true that no-till fields often have higher levels of P in the top several inches and this in itself might be much more of a factor than anything glyphosate might do in releasing soluble P from soil.

[HuckleB]

9. If you're on Facebook...

... search for "Food and Farm Discussion Lab." There is a great discussion of this article there.

Here's a link to the page: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. Once again, you're posting FUD with no basis in science from questionable blogs

trying to purport it as being actual science. You have shown clear confirmation bias with your unScientific posts.

Here's the REAL story, for anyone interested in facts.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/04/clevelands_water_supply_at_ris.html

[Scientific]

7. You don't read threads, do you?

Another off the wall criticism. I've got a helpful idea for non readers, try watching the video that's coming up...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

13. I do.

But you don't post science articles from reputable sources, just anti science blogs, it seems.

[PatSeg]

25. AGU

3 July 2016

As reported recently in the online magazine No-till Farmer, a study led by Ohio Northern University chemistry professor Christopher Spiese links the popular herbicide glyphosate to dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) desorption in soils. Mobilization and runoff of phosphorus to streams and lakes is associated with toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie and the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone.
For decades, soil scientists have understood phosphorus to form low-solubility compounds or to be tightly bound to soil particles. To control phosphorus, it was important to reduce soil erosion. Control erosion and we could control phosphorus runoff. Here is an example of this well-worn but, in my opinion, somewhat outdated understanding from PennState Extension:

Phosphorus is not lost into the atmosphere—rarely does it leach beyond the reach of roots…The concentration of soluble phosphate in the soil solution is very low, and phosphorus is relatively immobile in the soil…Because phosphorus is very immobile in the soil, it does not move very far in the soil to get to the roots. Diffusion to the root is only about 1/8 of an inch per year, and relatively little phosphorus in soil is within that distance of a root.

To the contrary, recent studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) indicate significant leaching of phosphorus from agricultural fields. The Agronomy Society of America reports here:

http://blogs.agu.org/terracentral/2016/07/03/lake-erie-watershed-soil-phosphorus-study-shows-glyphosate-link/

There is a wealth of information out there about Christopher Spiese and this particular study.

https://www.onu.edu/user/12601

[Scientific]

8. Glyphosate can cause cancer - International Agency for Research on Cancer

DU's science hater clique will be sure to damn this hard cancerous reality,
and claim - la dee da - that glyphosate actually builds healthy bodies 12 ways, like Wonder Bread.

Video for those who do not like to read. Kurt Straif, a senior scientist with the International Agency for Research on Cancer:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/07/01/glyphosate-can-cause-cancer/

[mopinko]

11. it is far safer than the alternatives previously used.

there is no if involved w some of the alternatives.

[womanofthehills]

18. No longer thought safer

[HuckleB]

20. It's still known that it's safer.

Conspiracy theory nonsense does not change that.

https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/12/ten-reasons-why-glyphosate-is-good/

[Scientific]

12. Slavish devotion to and belief in corporate 'science-PR, Inc.' is tragic

It's hard to avoid the vociferously voiced 'belief' in Corporate-Industrial Profit-Driven Science PR that is spewed hither and yon. But beliefs have a way of evaporating before facts.

One can only feel pity for the victims who were duped by corporate tobacco 'science.'

And one can only feel pity for the victims of Love Canal who were duped into believing corporate 'science.'

The examples of corporate 'science' beliefs evaporating into thin air in the face of facts and packed-house cancer wards filled with sick people, are legion.

Having had many family members and loved ones succumb to cancer caused by chemicals that corporate 'science' wanted people to 'believe' were safe, I have only the most modest degree of sympathy for the CORPORATE CHEMICAL TRUE BELIEVERS who are striving so wildly to get others to join them in their beliefs.

Perhaps the TRUE BELIEVERS in corporate-pr 'science' should make a pilgrimage to the new Noah's Ark - and see for themselves the way 'belief' can distort the realities of life. They may find, alas, that they have much in common.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. You're funny.

[Scientific]

19. Don't you wish the TRUE BELIEVER Corporate GMO 'Science' Fundies had a sense of humor, too?

That would be a step in the right direction.

But then again, there's nothing funny about what they are doing against the explicit will of the vast majority of American citizens.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

24. Keep that tinfoil tight.

The aliens are reading your mind.

[Odin2005]

16. LOL!

Thats anti-vax level "logic".

[Orrex]

21. Just yesterday I slaughtered a black goat on the altar of Science

How the hell else was I supposed to ensure a rich harvest?

[GaYellowDawg]

23. I've seen you post a number of times...

Your main form of argumentation is to accuse scientists of participating in a conspiracy to support "Corporate-Industrial Profit-Driven Science." Every poster opposing your views is accused of same. Here's the irony in your "Noah's Ark" reply:

Those who stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible often experience cognitive dissonance, or the mental struggle involved when one’s beliefs contradict factual claims. This cognitive dissidence causes people to create conspiracy theories (e.g., "scientists oppose creation to protect their secular humanist ideology&quot . They change facts to match their beliefs, rather than changing their beliefs to match facts.

You do exactly the same thing. Anyone presenting facts that challenge your set of beliefs gets accused of being part of the evil cabal that scientists indulge in, in order to protect profits. You know, being CORPORATE CHEMICAL TRUE BELIEVERS. What you do is exactly what creationists do. They accuse scientists of being "evolution true believers." I've never seen you consider any evidence contrary to what you post. You immediately dump any evidence straight into the conspiracy box and refuse to consider it. If you were willing to read and consider papers contrary to what you post, and form a factually based argument against them, I could respect that. But you don't. The people who refute you do form factually based arguments against your positions. They're not the ones who are science deniers. You are. And unfortunately, it makes your handle ironic, and it makes your accusations of "true believers" both ironic and laughable. I can't take anything you say seriously, and neither can anyone who tries to value facts over beliefs.

[PasadenaTrudy]

26. Oh, amscray.... n/t