Originally Posted By: Tbar
Originally Posted By: Cecil Baird1
Sodium bicarbonate and salt according to the chart in this link.

Just as I suspected the WHO has overrated the danger just as in mercury in fish.

https://gmoanswers.com/studies/iarc-classification-glyphosate?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc


Your going to get the EPA types stirred up with that article.




EPA types meaning those folks who care about the environment, have lived in the woods and about the land their entire life instead of transplanting there by choice in recent years, enjoy hunting, trapping, and fishing, can identify plants that are edible vs. those that most certainly are not, can walk up behind you and tap you on the shoulder before you're aware that you're not alone in those woods, and want nothing more than to be able to drink clean water and breathe clean air, and are doing their best to provide for their families by working with their hands and their backs everyday?

Those types are aware that what they do on their own land may indeed affect the properties around, and downstream from their own. And that matters to them, because they were raised believing that it's about more than just themselves. They were taught to appreciate, to respect, and to care about the environment..."take care of it, and it will take care of you."

To those types, being a good steward of the environment is more than just a statement tossed around on a forum. It's not something they do only when it's convenient, or easy, or just when it doesn't interfere with what they WANT to do. It means something.

Silly EPA types.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.