Discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances

[4channel]

Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.

Take the issues of let's say ....  fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe?  What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?

Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that?  Could it be political? What are your thoughts?

NOTE:

Spoiler

This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as  always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.

[jetho1680]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

Like you, who never actually contributes anything to a discussion?

---

Your contribution to this thread, as with others you post, rates amongst the highest and well thought out replies                               
I have ever read on this board.  

It shows that playing too much contact sport or living near a 5g tower causes no health issues at all.

[chameleon54]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

This is not ' tin foil ' stuff.

Why are you still using Glyphosate when there are alternatives.

---

There are some people / organisations who will throw the "Tin foil hat" insult at anti-pollution campaigners and people opposed to the use of agri-chemicals such as Roundup etc.. In the media the people who oppose or question the use of agri-chemicals are discredited with this conspiracy theorist tin-foil tag nonsense just as someone who questions or opposes the addition of fluoride to our water. . So chameleon54 was correct in the quotation.

---

I have to admit, in the past I have disregarded concerns about Roundup raised by others on the basis, the science simply didn't support their concerns. So in that regard, while not actually using the term,  I have considered their concerns " tinfoil hat stuff "

We now find either the scientific opinion has changed, or more likely, science that in the past was suppressed has now been proven overwhelmingly correct and the concerns some minorities have expressed in the past about Roundup have in fact proven to be correct.

Tin Foil Hat views are simply that. One person or groups opinion of another's views and beliefs. While Dom may not consider the Roundup debate, Tin Foil Hat " stuff,  among professional farmers, previous objections to Roundup use that where not based on the science of the day where definitely considered " Tin Foil Hat " opinions..

So on that basis I have changed my opinion from one of disregard to acceptance that in this case it appears the " Tin Foil Hat " brigade where in correct all along. While I,m still using Roundup, I have certainly tightened up on my safety measures while using the chemical.

[domino-710]

Okey Dokey.

Tin Foil Hat Stuff : LOL

Animals & Pets - excluding Bees.

Products containing glyphosate may cause eye or skin irritation. ... Pets may be at risk if they touch or eat plants that are still wet with spray from products containing glyphosate. Animals exposed to products with glyphosate may drool, vomit, have diarrhea, lose their appetite, or seem sleepy.

Personal Health - note : probable.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans. In 2017, the EPA determined that glyphosate isn't likely to cause cancer in the size of dose a person would be likely to get. Liver and kidney damage. Glyphosate may affect your kidney and liver.

So - with all the info why would you use it when there are alternatives.

And how blackberry bushes get to the size of buses - when they are dealt with on a regular basis beats the heck out of me.

And you argue 5g & flouride. 

[chameleon54]

---

@bright.ton42 wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

---

Have another look - there is plenty of info out there to choose from - not much of it in this instance is tin hat stuff.

It is a choice to use it or an alternative - but perhaps convenience is a factor.

---

Or cost?  It is cheaper to use?  I don't know, just wondering. 

---

Chemical use is only one of the tools I and other farmers use to control weeds. All have benefits and problems.

In the past cultivation was the most common form of weed control for the sowing of crops, but this has been largely discontinued as it causes damage to soil structure, releases stored moisture and resulted in wind erosion and dust storms as valuable top soil blew away.

Slashing and mechanical control is one option that is regularly used, but is only suitable in places accessible by machinery. Most major weed infestations occur in areas that are difficult to access such as rocky ravines or swampy marshes.

Hand hoeing is suitable on small localised infestations but not practical where weeds cover large areas and numbers are significant.

Its the same with cut and swab techniques. ( placing chemical direct into a plants trunk by hand ) I use this technique at times, when weeds are in wooded areas, but it is not practical on large infestations.

Contractors offer a mulching service where weeds, roots and all are simply pulverised by a giant mulcher. It works well, but again only suitable to accessible areas and it takes any native vegetation with it.

Is cost a factor ? Supermarket customers demand cheap food. If one store is too expensive, customers will go somewhere else. This means the greatest amount food must be produced for the cheapest price. This feeds back to farmers working on minimum labor inputs and using the most practical forms of weed control. 

Organic and bio dynamic systems can work but actual production is much lower and costs much higher. This is why you pay substantially more for these products. If everyone on the planet moved to an organic style diet, food costs would skyrocket and poorer nations people would starve as there would simply not be enough food produced to feed everyone..

[chameleon54]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Okey Dokey.

Tin Foil Hat Stuff : LOL

Animals & Pets - excluding Bees.

Products containing glyphosate may cause eye or skin irritation. ... Pets may be at risk if they touch or eat plants that are still wet with spray from products containing glyphosate. Animals exposed to products with glyphosate may drool, vomit, have diarrhea, lose their appetite, or seem sleepy.

Personal Health - note : probable.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans. In 2017, the EPA determined that glyphosate isn't likely to cause cancer in the size of dose a person would be likely to get. Liver and kidney damage. Glyphosate may affect your kidney and liver.

So - with all the info why would you use it when there are alternatives.

See previous post. Often there are no other practicle alternatives. How do you propose I tackle huge blackberry or Gorse infestations covering areas the size of a footy field in steep, rocky ravines without machinery access ?

And how blackberry bushes get to the size of buses - when they are dealt with on a regular basis beats the heck out of me.

And you argue 5g & flouride. 

---

Unfortunately they are not always dealt with promptly. While weed control on my own farms is kept up to date, I farm in a peri urban area where there are a lot of hobby farmers and absent city owners. These people rarely have the equipment or expertise to control serious weed infestations and so they just get totally out of control. You don't need me to tell you this, it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about weeds and takes a drive through our peri-urban areas. 

I graze sheep on around a dozen of these hobby farmer blocks and as part of my lease agreements I try to get these weed infestations under control. It can be incredibly hard when weeds have been let go for ten or fifteen years. Its got to the point where I wont take on any more of these heavily weed infested properties. I,m getting too old for that game.

[4channel]

---

***

---

***

---

  ***

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

I guess the bringing up dangers of fluoride would have nothing to do with all the water filters these "health mags" are peddling?

---

@4channel wrote:

Definitely not Kazumi. The anti-fluoride movement or the people who are educating us about the dangers of fluoride come from different place than the filter sellers. It would be like saying that locksmiths are connected with the stolen goods fencing criminal network.  Obviously water filter suppliers and manufacturers are here because of what's in our water and locksmiths are here because of what's out there in the community.

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

The mags get income from those ads.   They print articles that suit the people who pay them. 

---

4channel writes:

Yes, the mags get money from the ads but the people who warn bout the dangers of fluoride, mobile phone radiation, GM food, chemicals in food, bad nutrition, over work, lack of well-being etc. are not in that product to magazine chain. Take away the magazine and they would still find a plaftorm as many already do.

[domino-710]

Still not sure of your point.

Roundup - is a choice - use it or don't - know the probable - maybe - consequences - for both health & environment.

The rest of the tin foil rubbish is still conjecture.

Flouride has around for multiple decades - anyone know of anyone - anyone - suffering - from any effect from flouride.

Any adult - any kid - anywhere.

Has 5g even happened. Sheesh.

And part of your lease agreement is to keep those under control - I'm not oblivious to the odd Ranger checking each year - nor the forms necessary to prove - something has been done.

[chameleon54]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Not exactly a novice - with ??? acres for adjisting horses - for the past 25 years.

Blackberry - Lantana etc.

---

Not all hobby farmers neglect their weeds. For some people their properties are their pride and joy and they do a tremendous job of manicuring them like parklands and they keep their animals like pets. It seems many people retire and decide to buy that little farm they always wanted. . Unfortunately within a few years their health deteriorates and it all gets too much, but they love the place they live in. that's when things can spiral out of control.

I purchased my peri urban farm around 14 years ago. Back then it was mainly dairies, horticulture and vines in the area. Since then the city has moved closer and we have had an influx of wealthy, high profile business owners and international investors move into the area. While its great for property prices, these types of absent, wealthy owners seem to be some of the worst offenders for letting weeds and vermin get away from them.

[domino-710]

I'm not sure what is getting away from you here.

Every year an arrangement is made for inspection by local Rangers - carried out & a report sent as to what needs addressing.

That is followed through with shots - the dye contained in the spray -  obvious.

No Pitt Street farmers here.

[simone4010]

Do dollars$$$$$$ sometimes speak louder than the inner voice of morality?

4channel - It's a big yes from me. I think the problem is with who is funding some of these studies. Research costs money and sometimes there is a conflict of interest with who is funding the studies. The money generally comes from the government, big pharmaceutical companies and the food industry. For example, if a soft drink company is funding research into whether soft drink causes heart disease or obesity, the results will hardly be negative against the soft drink company.

I guess It's the same as being given a hypothesis at uni and It's your job to prove or disprove it. Depending on your beliefs, you will only reference peer-reviewed articles that support your beliefs. Similarly, scientists can be bias. They can cherry pick information to support what they believe.

I'm reading an interesting book at the moment written by an American M.D. In it he mentions the Californian branch of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics had their lunch sponsored by McDonald's. Hmmm....talk about a conflict of interest.

When I read articles/studies/Research I always check to see who has funded it and whether they have an interest in my health or are simply protecting their bottom line.

(4channel - 'you' in the above is not meaning you personally, just you in general)

One last thing and it's just my personal opinion. It would be nice for people to learn to disagree not be disagreeable.