U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Garden
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 11:18 AM
 
1,691 posts, read 546,416 times
Reputation: 1410

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts2uiam View Post
Really. Wow that is just rude. We all have something to contribute.
Sorry, but this is one way "alternate facts" arise, from folks whose knowledge may be close, but not close enough.

For coldjensens, your toxicologist was no doubt referring to the well known roundup toxicity for aquatic life. It's right on the label, and means that even runoff from a treated area can be harmful to aquatic life. This mostly applies to ponds and lakes (so don't use it around your lake house!). Many streams and rivers, sadly, don't have much life in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Floribama
11,709 posts, read 26,256,186 times
Reputation: 8987
I worry more about herbicides that break down much slower, such as atrazine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM
 
13,418 posts, read 11,000,354 times
Reputation: 16360
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernnaturelover View Post
I worry more about herbicides that break down much slower, such as atrazine.
The problem with the "round up breaks down quickly" argument is that frequently the daughter compounds are just as toxic if not more so, but the companies deliberately mislead people into thinking "broken down" means no longer toxic. That is not the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:50 PM
 
13,418 posts, read 11,000,354 times
Reputation: 16360
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbear99 View Post
Thought so, because no scientist properly trained in chemistry would refer to "daughter chemicals". That's a meaningless term in chemistry. The proper terms are "derivatives" and "degradation products", depending on context. You still feel you're competent to interpret the literature on chemicals? With little training in chemistry?
My undergrad is in an interdisciplinary science, so I have had course work right through p-Chem and environmental chemistry. Between undergrad and grad degrees I have over 50 credits in chemistry from 100 level right through 500. I am familiar with the literature in general and round up in particular. Odd to try to presume someone's level of training from a word choice on a non science based forum.

Meanwhile the term is meaningful enough to be used in titles of peer reviewed literature.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6977229190001H

Some examples of the term used in peer review lit, especially as it relates to environmental toxicology.

Kawasaki, Masahiro. "Experiences with the test scheme under the chemical control law of Japan: An approach to structure—activity correlations." Ecotoxicology and environmental safety 4.4 (1980): 444-454.

"hydrolitically or photolitically changed into any daughter chemicals"

Bedient, Philip B., et al. "Environmental impact of fipronil to the Louisiana crawfish industry." Environmental Forensics 6.3 (2005): 289-299.

"Fipronil is transformed into three main degradation daughter chemicals,
sometimes referred to as either “metabolites” or “degradates”

Burnell, Daniel K., James W. Mercer, and Lawrence S. Sims. "Analytical Models of Steady‐State Plumes Undergoing Sequential First‐Order Degradation." Groundwater 50.3 (2012): 394-411.

", steady-state concentrations of parent and daughter chemicals undergoing advection"

And those are just the first three that came up. Do you still want to stand by the following statement "no scientist properly trained in chemistry would refer to "daughter chemicals"? Or are those scientists also not "properly trained"?

If we are competing credentials are you a toxicologist or phd chemist?

Last edited by lkb0714; Yesterday at 02:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
10,754 posts, read 7,985,445 times
Reputation: 23940
Glyphosphate is rapidly degraded by microbial organisms. Amino methyl phosphonic acid levels may increase during the time glyphosphate is present because it is a by-product of glyphosphate degradation. The half-life of glyphosphate in the soil is from 30 - 60 days.

Quote:
If we are competing credentials are you a toxicologist or phd chemist?
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:59 PM
 
1,691 posts, read 546,416 times
Reputation: 1410
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
And those are just the first three that came up. Do you still want to stand by the following statement "no scientist properly trained in chemistry would refer to "daughter chemicals"? Or are those scientists also not "properly trained"?

If we are competing credentials are you a toxicologist or phd chemist?
Different is disciplines have different jargon. It is no surprise to me that the term "daughter" found in the literature, non-chemical though. Even you say it's "environmental". So you use the jargon of enviromental sciences. I use the jargon of chemistry. Regarding the literature, surely you know that in rather controversial topics like the environment and toxicology, you will find a variety of positions taken. And it's important in science to recognize that validation (replication) of research results by other parties is crucial. Recent work in psychology IIRC found that 1/3 or so of published studies could not be replicated. So I tend to put little value in un-replicated studies.

For the record, undergrad degree in chemistry. PhD in the biochemistry of virus, postdoc in same. So yea, "PhD chemist" is pretty close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Naperville, Illinois
2,838 posts, read 2,415,202 times
Reputation: 4699
The OP didn't ask for debates on the pros and cons of pesticides or the technical qualifications of thread posters - and has in fact disposed of the plant already by yanking it out. There is no longer a plant to kill. Kind of silly continuing this, don't you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:51 PM
 
13,418 posts, read 11,000,354 times
Reputation: 16360
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbear99 View Post
Different is disciplines have different jargon. It is no surprise to me that the term "daughter" found in the literature, non-chemical though. Even you say it's "environmental". So you use the jargon of enviromental sciences. I use the jargon of chemistry. Regarding the literature, surely you know that in rather controversial topics like the environment and toxicology, you will find a variety of positions taken. And it's important in science to recognize that validation (replication) of research results by other parties is crucial. Recent work in psychology IIRC found that 1/3 or so of published studies could not be replicated. So I tend to put little value in un-replicated studies.

For the record, undergrad degree in chemistry. PhD in the biochemistry of virus, postdoc in same. So yea, "PhD chemist" is pretty close.
Sorry but the fact that you are continuing to standby the statement that those who literally study the breakdown of chemicals in the environment are "not properly trained" because they use the perfectly MEANINGFUL term of daughter chemical means that despite claiming training you lack the intellectual integrity to admit when you were wrong.

Environmental chemistry IS chemistry. Jargon from their field, applied to that field is CORRECT.

You were wrong, you should admit it, and we can move on. Strawmen of replication being irrelevant to your supposition that I am not "properly trained" for using jargon that is perfectly acceptable in the field being discussed.

And for the record, biochem of viruses is no closer to environmnetal toxicology than environmental biology which is what my actually graduate degree is in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:52 PM
 
1,691 posts, read 546,416 times
Reputation: 1410
Vasily, you've been on these boards for what, 8 years, and must have noticed by now that most of these threads meander a bit, often to areas completely different. Discussing toxicity of garden chemicals in a garden thread, where people are considering use, is hardly "silly", especially since others in the future might read the thread. Hopefully they'll find the topic informative, especially if they recognize that environmental and toxicology issues are complex, often without black and white answers,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
20,350 posts, read 52,872,965 times
Reputation: 18951
Besides when you get sciencey types arguing over who is smarter, it is always amusing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Garden
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top