all 17 comments

[–]Billy 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Roundup for homes is mostly used for things that aren't weeds anyway like clover and dandelions.
Clover used to be in grass seed mixes so you didn't have to buy fertilizer bc it's nitrogen fixing, deer also love it so they go for that before your plants. They also like dandelions, bees like both as well. There was a clever marketing scheme to get rid of both, sell you more fertilizer and animal control products.
BTW opt for the organic grass fert, it last twice as long so it is cheaper in the long run. It also sticks around longer in rain, first big rain on the chemical stuff it just runs off into the drains, meanwhile it kills the soil so you have to buy more and more stuff.
If you bag grass, don't, maybe every once in awhile if you get thatching, but use it as compost.
Let grass patches that are in seed alone for a few mows, it's free grass seed.

[–]Billy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the fall, mow all of them leaves into the garden, free mulch and organic matter. When spring comes, mow over it again. You'll be surprised how good it looks. Save coffee grounds in the previous empty container and toss that around the garden or in ant problem areas.

[–]d3rr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate trying to maintain a clover free lawn, it's balder than my hair line. I'm switching back to heavy clover. It will attract bees too.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dandelion sap isn't nice, so I don't like the plants. Clover, however, is definitely part of a lawn.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Costco rocks! They pay their employees decent wages.

They prioritize service and employees; over profit.
Respect.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They prioritize service and employees; over profit.

This will, in the long run, get them more profit. So really, they're being selfish by being altruistic. You've got to be kind to be cruel.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

they're being selfish by being altruistic. You've got to be kind to be cruel.

I am not the least bit surprised that you would arrive at this fundamentally contradictory conclusion.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was poor satirical wordplay. I stand by the the first sentence, and the second is valid if you're feeling particularly cynical.

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is kind of sad. As I understand it, the evidence that RoundUp causes cancer is very dubious, and yet because a jury of laymen, non-scientists sided with the plaintiff, now some people and some companies are acting as though it's settled science that RoundUp causes cancer. It's scary how people so often confuse legal conclusions with what is factual and true, for example, you ask people why drugs are bad, so often they say "because they're illegal."

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

the evidence that RoundUp causes cancer is very dubious,

Finally! A voice of reason! Though I've been almost completely convinced that it does cause cancer, so maybe we could debate it.

I'll start: Monsanto (allegedly?) manipulated many authoritative sources to say that glyphosate was safe, and I assert that they would not have done this (and risked the discovery of this fudging) had they not determined themselves that it wasn't as safe as they claim. Therefore, this is evidence that it wasn't as safe as they claim.

[–]ikidd 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

To my knowledge there are dozens of well designed studies that say it's safe at the low doses that even farmers get, let alone anything else, and it degrades so quickly that there's nothing left to get anywhere near a consumer. The studies that say there's a risk are of dubious construction, refer to doses millions of times higher, or are generally meta-studies of bad design and conclusions. The junk science behind European bans is well known, but authorities like Health Canada which are not known for letting things get very far beyond super safe are perfectly fine with it and have reviewed it repeatedly.

But there's a lot of conspiracists here, so that doesn't play well.

There's also the "well, Monsanto is a multi-billion dollar company so they must be evil somehow", ignoring the fact that they had a lower market capitalization than Whole Foods Group when they were sold to Bayer.

Plus, I tell you right now if it weren't for glyphosate, we'd be using twice as much land and 3 times as much fuel to produce the same amount of food. So decide how much of the Amazon you want cut down for more farmland, and how much harder you want CO2 targets to be reached. Or how many more brown people you want dead, because starving kills much better than some imaginary effects of glyphosate.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. That's why I'm trying to get to the truth, and ignore my personal biases. Weedkillers definitely help to grow food more efficiently; else they wouldn't be used.

And glyphosate, in theory, is a lot better than most weedkillers; it (in theory) is as dangerous to non-plants as penicillin is to non-eubacteria.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I assert that they would not have done this (and risked the discovery of this fudging) had they not determined themselves that it wasn't as safe as they claim.

It's equally plausible that they feel the product is safe, and also want to ensure that third parties support their position, all the same. You're suggesting that the fact that Monsanto did something unethical must mean RoundUp causes cancer, you're jumping from A to Z and skipping the rest of the alphabet. It's not unusual for a rich corperation to have a huge legal department that attacks and defends on multiple fronts, especially when they're being sued for $270,000,000 in a trial by jury. Sure, this was probably a bad idea on their part, but to conclude that this means RoundUp must be unsafe is silly. If I break the speed limit or shop lift, that doesn't mean I must be liable to commit murder, too. Multiple health and safety organizations all around the world have concluded that there is no evidence RoundUp causes cancer. Do you have reason to suspect RoundUp causes cancer that goes beyond how you choose to interpret the actions of the defendent?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, not really. Many studies conclude it does, many conclude it doesn't.

Then again, it's not great stuff. Personally, I'm more concerned by the affect on wildlife.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't think drugs are bad?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Drugs are bad because they're harmful and addictive, and because the restrictions on supply cause people to do terrible, terrible things to fulfil those addictions – slowly killing themselves from multiple directions.

The illegality has no bearing. In fact, in certain situations, it makes things worse. Legal and heavily, heavily taxed, with the money going towards support groups, might be a more effective way of making the drugs go away.

[–]EddyInTheFlow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bingo. The best solution from the perspective of harm reduction would be to give addicts free, clean drugs, in parallel with info on side effects and resources to help them quit if they want to.