Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by timjwilson

  1. 3 minutes ago, NoVaDamer said:

    Yes, you stated this in the post when you first cited the link. I opened the link, did not recognize the organization, so I opened their "About" link and found this: 

    U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit investigative research group focused on promoting transparency for public health. We are working globally to expose corporate wrongdoing and government failures that threaten the integrity of our health, our environment and our food system.

    They are an advocacy group, with a specific objective. I admit they list many studies on both sides of this issue, but since they have a built-in bias, I don't trust them to be objective.


    European Assessment Group on Glyphosate report on glyphosate renewal

    Evaluation of the scientific quality of industry studies of genotoxic properties of glyphosate

    Comments concerning the mutagenic/genotoxic properties of glyphosate

    Toxicological and Metabolism Studies summary by industry

    Albaugh 2014 glyphosate reverse mutation assay Switzerland

    Syngenta 2012 glyphosate technical micronucleus assay in bone marrow cells of the mouse

    Dow Chemical 2012 Micronucleus test of glyphosate TGAI in mice

    Industrias Afrasa 2012 reverse mutation with glyphosate

    Helm 2010 Reverse Mutation Assay glyphosate using bacteria

    Helm 2010 reverse mutation assay 

    Helm 2010 mutagenicity of glyphosate testing

    Helm 2009 mutagenicity study of glyphosate Germany

    Helm 2009 Micronucleus test of glyphosate in bone marrow cells of rat

    Syngenta 2009 glyphosate reverse mutation

    Jingma Chemicals China 2008 evaluation of the mutagenic potential of glyphosate by reverse mutation assay 

    Jingma 2008 evaluation of mutagenic potential of glyphosate by micronucleus assay in mice

    Syngenta 2008 glyphosate micronucleus assay in bone marrow cells of the mouse

    Helm 2007 Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test for glyphosate

    Helm Do Brasil 2007 Bacterial reverse mutation test glyphosate

    Nufarm 2007 reverse mutation glyphosate technical 05068

    Nufarm 2007 1061403 reverse mutation glyphosate technical 05067

    Nufarm 2007 1061402 reverse mutation glyphosate technical 05070 

    Nufarm 2005 glyphosate technical micronucleus test in the mouse

    Monsanto 1998 Mouse micronucleus screening assay of MON-0818

    Zeneca Glyphosate 1998 acid Invitro 

    Cheminova 1996 reverse mutation glyphosate Brazil

    Cheminova 1996 A micronucleus study in mice for the product GILFOS

    Zeneca 1996 glyphosate mutagenicity potential

    Zeneca 1996 Glyphosate acid mouse bone marrow micronucleus test

    Zeneca 1996 glyphosate acid mouse lymphoma gene mutation assay

    Sanko 1995 glyphosate in vitro cytogenetics

    Sanko 1995 glyphosate DNA Repair Test

    Sankyo 1995 reverse mutation study 

    Mastra and Maruzen Kako 1995 Technical glyphosate

    Mastra and Maruzen Kako 1995 reverse mutation assay glyphosate

    Agrichem 1995 Evaluation of ability of glyphosate to induce chromosome aberrations

    Feinchemie Schwebda 1994 DNA repair test with primary rat hepatocytes

    Feinchemie Schwebda 1994 in vivo mammalian bone marrow cytogenetic test

    Feinchemie Schwebda 1993 Mutagenicity-micronucleus glyphosate test in swiss albino mice

    Feinchemie Schwebda 1992 Dominant lethal test in Wistar rats

    Monsanto 1992 Mouse micronucleus study of Roundup

    Monsanto 1992 glyphosate mutagenicity assay on Roundup

    Monsanto 1992 Mouse micronucleus study of RODEO glyphosate formulation

    Monsanto 1992 glyphosate mutagenicity assay on RODEO herbicide

    Monsanto 1992 mouse micronucleus study of DIRECT formulation

    Monsanto 1992 glyphosate mutagenicity potential DIRECT brand

    Hoechst Dodigen 4022 1992 study of mutagenic potential in strains of salmonella and E Coli

    Hoechst Dodigen 4022 1992 Chromosome aberrations in vitro in V79 Chinese hamster cells

    Cheminova 1991 #12323 glyphosate mutagenicity test

    Cheminova 1991 #12324 Mutagenicity test micronucleus glyphosate

    Cheminova 1991 #12325 glyphosate mutagenicity test in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test

    Monsanto 1990 Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay of MON 0818

    Monsanto 1983 In vivo bone marrow cytogenetics study of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats

    Monsanto 1983 glyphosate gene mutation assay

    Monsanto 1981 Ames salmonella mutagenicity assay of MON 8080

    Monsanto 1980 Dominant lethal mutagenicity assay with technical glyphosate in mice

    Institute of Environmental Toxicology 1978 Glyphosate report of mutagenic study with bacteria

  2. 11 hours ago, NoVaDamer said:

    @CactusMike, That's the EPA's job. I think you're questioning why ANY pesticide residue is legal. My guess is scientists have found some minimal amount is "safe" (granted, that's a relative thing). I recall that the US FDA has a limit for how many "insect parts" and "rodent hiars" can be in some prepared foods. Yum.

    @timjwilson, I already checked out your links, and thanks for that. The first was very good. The second was from an advocacy organization, so I decided not to do their verify their links. I'm happy to stay with the lineup of governments and experts saying one thing, some other governments/experts saying another.

    You misunderstand. They listed everybody's studies; not their's. This just saved me listing them.

  3. 1 hour ago, NoVaDamer said:

    In your original post, you only mentioned "numerous studies presenting evidence of harm to humans." I was simply pointing out what the US EPA states. I appreciate your addtion of the NIH study; US Right to Know is an advocacy group, not a scientific or medical enterprise. Lest anyone think the US EPA is out on a limb here, I would add this, also from the EPA:

    "EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert panels and regulatory authorities, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)."

    That makes the US, Canada, Japan, the EU, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, and the WHO in agreement.

    Just so you know, my reason for posting the 2nd link/article is that it lists and links many (myriad) studies on both sides of the cancer debate.

    Personally I've observed changes in soil microbial populations following glyphosate application to associated plants [however never recorded data]. 

  4. 12 hours ago, NoVaDamer said:

    From the US Environmental Protection Agency:

    EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:

    • No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults.
    • No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The Agency concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature. For instance, IARC only considered eight animal carcinogenicity studies while EPA used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies. EPA does not agree with IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

    Don't confuse the various studies with recent court rulings, where the manufacturer was held liable. 


    Link:  https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No risks of concern to human health from current uses,are more sensitive to glyphosate.

    Of course they did. There are arguments and studies pro and con the industry. Causing cancer is the main thing looked at but there is also ecological harm to soil to consider.

    A review concerning cancer;  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26883814/

    The debate and a myriad of studies;


  5. 2 hours ago, RickS said:

    Was this recent... that you spoke directly with Dr. Macias?  Do you know if he is back in Ajijic 'permanently' now?  For the last few years he has mostly been in the US... Houston to be exact... and rarely to my knowledge at 'his' Dental Express office.

    I've had several things done with/by him in the past and think that he is excellent. But in the last few years I don't find him in Ajijic much.   Just wondering if anything has changed in his schedule.


    I believe his son is there running the place. I think I paid around 400 pesos for a very good cleaning.

  6. Just a little heads up to dog owners. As I was walking my dog up Hacienda (?) into Villa Nova I saw a 'gardener' masked up and spraying glyphosate (Roundup) on the road's edge so I turned around. I cannot present any dog specific studies right now but there are numerous studies presenting evidence of harm to humans. I do know as a soil microscopist that it does not dissipate as rapidly as claimed by manufacturers. I suggest keeping your eyes open for this if walking your dog.

    I believe it will be banned in Mexico effective January 2023. 

    • Thanks 1
  7. 4 hours ago, Fred Habacht said:

    Actually, Dra. Candy does implants....locally.

    Interesting. So she is a dental surgeon? If you don't mind telling, did she complete a satisfactory implant on you? What period of the time did process take place over?

    A Mexican friend reported getting 2 implants several years ago in La Floresta (can't remember name) which were completed in total over several days. A friend in Vancouver reported the same. The dentists here, who I asked, complete them only over several months.

  8. 50 minutes ago, Natasha said:

    Incorrect my friend.  And please note Dr. Carlos is no longer with D.E., as I mentioned above.

    I know that Dr. Carlos is not at DE. I had a long discussion with him wherein I asked him if he does the implants or brings in a surgeon. He brings in a surgeon, as I stated. If he did the implants, I would have attended his office.

    I then asked his opinion of the surgeon who is brought in by Dental Express. He said that he is a good surgeon, therefore I went ahead with the appointment at DE after a discussion with their surgeon.

    I was blind sided by the additional costs as mentioned, which was the major point of my post. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was attempting to convey, 

  9. I believe all local dentists bring in surgeons from Guadalajara to do implants. This is the case with Dental Express and Dr. Carlos. If you get an implant at Dental express be aware of added costs. The advertised price on the sign out front only covers the post; not the filler (bone graft), membrane nor tooth (crown). The actual cost is more than double of that advertised.

  10. If you like alfalfa, it competes with weeds, once established and if seeded heavily. It also puts nitrogen into the soil, it is a useful herb and cuttings can be soaked in water for 24 to 48 hours for a plant fertilizer. And it makes pretty flowers. 

  11. The dog Buster that I told the story about jumped from a moving trailer yesterday. We searched everywhere for hours and no sign. This morning the guy at the dog social place by the cemetery said he saw a post online about someone picking up a dog that jumped from a trailer. If anyone know anything please contact me.or Marcos at 332 954 4349


  • Create New...