Climate/ecological breakdown

Bayer is Monsanto, bought so the Americans could infiltrate the EU.

Thanks. I thought that was the case but wasn’t sure …

1 Like

Bayer was founded in 1863. This makes interesting reading. Bayer (entreprise) — Wikipédia. Monsanto was founded in 1901. As they were the ones to patent a glyphosate-based product, they’ve become an easy target for the xenophobe French press. Sadly, no-one ever seems to look beyond the sensationalist hysteria or the brand name ‘Round-Up’…
If it’s used reasonably, it’s an invaluable tool in agriculture and horticulture. The abuse generated by the agri-techniciens, who ‘advise’ the agriculteurs on it’s use, above all in France, have certainly contributed to the demonisation. Hopefully, France’s stance on reduced use and under certain conditions will lead to the recognition it deserves, as an irreplaceable aid.

Just popped in to SF and noticed 10+ posts on climate/ecological breakdown, thought Geof Cox was back!


Sadly with these wonder solutions, the scientists consider only a narrow terms of reference. Once in the human body it causes microbiome upsets which is the angle I come at it from. Yes bloody marvelous as an insecticide but bloody horrible in humans.

It’s not an insecticide. it’s a herbicide. If it’s used correctly, it doesn’t enter into the human body. It’s use to dessicate crops to advance their harvest will be definitively banned, and rightly. That’s the sort of abuse that I mentioned above. Frankly, reading your posts, there’s absolutely nothing that one can eat or drink that doesn’t cause some harm to somebody. I subscribe to the old French view that everything in moderation, and variety in quantity, is the way to go :grinning:

1 Like

Yes sorry herbicide, I was busy cooking my dinner and not paying full attention.
It absolutely does enter the human body and distrupts microbiome and worse.
There is plenty you can eat and drink without causing harm but avoiding ultra processed crap is the first place to begin


1 Like

Concerning, close to home


Quantifiable urine glyphosate levels detected in 99% of the French population, with higher values in men, in younger people, and in farmers | Environmental Science and Pollution Research.


Great Britain’s departure from the EU at the end of 2020 means that glyphosate can be used until December 2025.

Clearly, a toxic chemical but in the competition to provide more food and les loss, humans must consume a little poison.

1 Like

And with a poor diet for some it exasperates health conditions which the cost for looking after are met by someone elses budget sheet, only many of the huge corporations have feet in several camps.

We are being lied to on so many levels.

As I have said before Copout28, farce :face_with_symbols_over_mouth::angry:

COP28: UAE planned to use climate talks to make oil deals

Groundbreaking transatlantic flight using greener fuel lands in the US

22 countries seem to have taken a stupid pill, including France & the UK.

Reported in the Guardian coverage of COP28.

There’s a lot of truth in most of what John Kerry says here, as long as you substitute “nuclear” for “alternative power sources to wind and power, and/or reliable and large energy storage technology”. Yes, nuclear could theoretically be part of the solution to this problem, and it’s possible to implement, but it’s not the only solution by far.


What sticks in my craw is the drive to build new nuclear. We can’t escape the reality that there are many nuclear plants around the world & I would urge the powers that be to wring as much life our of them as is safely possible, as it’s more important to shut done the coal& gas plants first.

However, to waste time, money, & resources to create new toxic radioactive legacies seems like madness. All that engineering knowledge will be far better spent on the clean alternatives.


The huge problem of China and other countries such as India, Bangladesh etc, building so many new coal and gas power stations will negate a lot of good being done by other countries, it needs to be addressed

Where do you stand on nuclear fusion ? I know, it’s been 50 years away for the last 60 years, and, excepting a completely new way of harnessing fusion, I’m still not convinced that it’s going to be a viable option, regardless of the nuclear waste issue which is reckoned to be a small fraction of much lower half life waste (a few years rather than thousands to millions of years). Also, even if all goes to plan with the various research around the world, the biggest being in France, it will still be a minimum of 25 years before anything gets to generate energy for people. We need something quicker than that, and whatever that solution is, I think it could make fusion redundant.

With the leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.

There’s a huge nuclear fusion reactor a safe(ish) 150 million kilometres away. We should focus on using that. Otherwise it’s a pipe dream.