Re: Roundup Unready

Page 2 of 8  
it is your response that is content free. skip the question and move right to an attack on the motives of the writer. motives are unknowable and mere speculation. However, knowing the background of the chemical company is a very good predictor of current behavior. Very interesting 60 minutes last night ... Monsanto in Alabama has contaminated an entire town with PCBs. They have known about its effect on the people there for more than 30 years and have done nothing. They have already paid out in lawsuits. But when the courts were getting ready to hand down a ruling making Monsanto clean up the toxin the EPA quickly made a secret deal with Monsanto to extend the period of "study" of the problem another 2 years. So much for the EPA "protecting the environment" or the people in that town. Monsanto has a horrendous track record. I dont know why the citizens of the US cannot be better protected from all such predatory companies. Ingrid
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On the contrary. When you get a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, get back to me.
The rest is religious ranting. The ecofundamentalists simply can't abide a heretic.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You tell em billbo...Yeah! after all what could some analytical chemist know about detrimental effects...<end sarcasm>
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:55:10 -0500, Stephen Sassman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

You're turning into quite the little ankle-biter, aren't you, Tom. First you cyberstalk, then you try to use sock puppets and anonymity, and now you follow me around from thread to thread.
OK, Tom, my challenge stands.
One single scientific article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
One. Just one.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population Authors: Tye E. Arbuckle,1 Zhiqiu Lin,2 and Leslie S. Mery3 Author's Affiliation: 1Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Canada; 3Cancer Bureau, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Journal: Environ Health Perspect 109:851-857 (2001).
Abstract: "The toxicity of pesticides on human reproduction is largely unknown--particularly how mixtures of pesticide products might affect fetal toxicity. The Ontario Farm Family Health Study collected data by questionnaire on the identity and timing of pesticide use on the farm, lifestyle factors, and a complete reproductive history from the farm operator and eligible couples living on the farm. A total of 2,110 women provided information on 3,936 pregnancies, including 395 spontaneous abortions. To explore critical windows of exposure and target sites for toxicity, we examined exposures separately for preconception (3 months before and up to month of conception) and postconception (first trimester) windows and for early (< 12 weeks) and late (12-19 weeks) spontaneous abortions. We observed moderate increases in risk of early abortions for preconception exposures to phenoxy acetic acid herbicides [odds ratio (OR) 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-2.1], triazines (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0), and any herbicide (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9). For late abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9), thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated risks. Postconception exposures were generally associated with late spontaneous abortions. Older maternal age (> 34 years of age) was the strongest risk factor for spontaneous abortions, and we observed several interactions between pesticides in the older age group using Classification and Regression Tree analysis. This study shows that timing of exposure and restricting analyses to more homogeneous endpoints are important in characterizing the reproductive toxicity of pesticides."
--
Henry Kuska, retired
snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in Wistar rats.
Author: Dallegrave, Eliane; Mantese, Fabiana DiGiorgio; Coelho, Ricardo Soares; Pereira, Janaina Drawans; Dalsenter, Paulo Roberto; Langeloh, Augusto
Author Address Department of Pharmacology, Instituto de Ciencias Basicas da Saude, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Sarmento Leite 500, Sala 202, 90046-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, BrazilDepartment of Pharmacology, Instituto de Ciencias Basicas da Saude, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Sarmento Leite 500, Sala 202, 90046-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Published in: Toxicology Letters (Shannon), volumn 142, pages 45-52, (2003).
Abstract: "The aim of this study was to assess the teratogenicity of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) (as commercialized in Brazil) to Wistar rats. Dams were treated orally with water or 500, 750 or 1000 mg/kg glyphosate from day 6 to 15 of pregnancy. Cesarean sections were performed on day 21 of pregnancy, and number of corpora lutea, implantation sites, living and dead fetuses, and resorptions were recorded. Weight and gender of the fetuses were determined, and fetuses were examined for external malformations and skeletal alterations. The organs of the dams were removed and weighed. Results showed a 50% mortality rate for dams treated with 1000 mg/kg glyphosate. Skeletal alterations were observed in 15.4, 33.1, 42.0 and 57.3% of fetuses from the control, 500, 750 and 1000 mg/kg glyphosate groups, respectively. We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup(R) is toxic to the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton."
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, yes. If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will poison it. Go back and read the article, instead of just downloading the abstract. Tell me, Henry, *how much* did it take to cause problems compared to exposure associated with use as directed?
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Biilo puked

we've had enough of you will we die?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

Oh, the secretive little anklebiter is still here. Still no science, and you still only have personal attacks.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Sep 2003 23:51:14 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

So you take being called a Monsanto shill a personal attack...some would simply view your religious fervor to defend your benefactor pure and simple shill!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

The lies from you just keep coming, don't they, Tom? It's unfortunate that the ecofundamentalists have to rely on nonexistent science and, when confronted, turn to bald-faced lies to attempt personal destruction.
In contrast to me -- who has both science and truth on his side.
Tell me, Tom, who do *you* work for? How much money do *you* make every year promoting the anti-science agenda?
Now, run away, hypocrite.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

LOL so the second coming has happened and I missed it!!!
ALL HAIL PRINCE OF SCIENCE!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, at least he's only making claims for "his side," which is not the environment's side quite clearly! If his side really is to harm the environment then science & truth supports that he does so when using RoundUp! Extinction of two frog speces so far; loss of century-old hedges in England to glyphosate drift; stunting of plants seeded into areas treated with glyphosate MONTHS before seeding; weakening of winter tolerance in shrubs & trees & greater susceptibility to fungal diseases all caused by RoundUp when "used as directed." And even if someone in his family DOES come down with nonhodgson's lymphoma, who's to say it wasn't Shillo's brand of table salt after all, rather than the Roundup contaminating the foodchain.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

Hey, I'm not the prince of science, I just don't choose to ignore it because it conflicts with my cult.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Any fool with a modicum of internet skills can find that your UNC professors have worked as consultants for Monsanto. Your own leadership in your current position have consulted with and worked for Monsanto. Circumstantial? Perhaps, but your fervor clearly provides your identity as billo the Monsanto shillo....
<another nip at billo the shillo's ankles>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

Oh, dear! Someone at the University of North Carolina might have once worked as a consultant to Monsanto!! Now *everybody* who ever went to UNC is a Monsanto shill. Christ. You're worse than a Stalinist. Line up all 25,000 students against the wall and give them a loyalty test to the ecofundamentalist cult.
I love this. You can't find any dirt on *me* so now you try to brush all 500,000 people who ever walked through the halls of UNC.
Tell me, hypocrite, who do *you* work for? How much money to *you* make touting your anti-science agenda?
Oh, I know, you don't dare answer.
Pathetic.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 17:29:35 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat) wrote:

Pobably good advise. As rare as it is, this clowns not worth it, I've trashed the thread.
Pretty kewl to find out how many here (scientists included) see the shill for what it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt. After all, if one gives a short term exposure to enough water, it is deadly. I also suppose you are actively working to remove oxygen from the atmosphere, since oxygen is an tremendously deadly poison at high doses.
In fact, the authors of your papers do not make the claim you pretend. Were you to actually read the articles, you will note that *they* do not claim that their article shows that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.
For those not familiar with scientific methods, and wonder if "Henry" has a point, it turns out that *everything* is toxic when given in high enough doses. The fact that something is toxic when given in high enough doses, such as water or oxygen, does not imply that it is deadly with chronic exposure. In fact, there are protocols for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols, Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo said: In fact, there are protocols

H. Kuska reply: Please provide the references
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure, no problem.
Try:
Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. "Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans." Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2000 31:117-165.
The danger of Roundup is so small that it is difficult to provide any study that will show any excess mortality. Attempts to do so have failed. However, it is possible to calculate the excess mortality of all pesticides/herbicides put together (of which Roundup is among the most safe).
Thus, lumping Roundup in with known carcinogens and bad actors, you can get some data about the real environmental risk in terms of excess cancer mortality.
On average, there are 20 excess deaths per year in the US due environmental exposure to all pesticides and herbicides combined, out of a total of around 560,000 total cancer deaths in 1999.
In 1981, Doll and Peto's epidemiologic estimates of quatitative cancer risk found pesticide/herbicide exposure to be negligible (Doll R. Peto R. "The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today" J. Natl. Cancer Institute. 1981 1191-1308.).
This study was confirmed in 1987 by the EPA (Gough, M. "Estimating cancer mortality: epidemiological and toxicological methods produce similar assessments." Environ Science and Technology 23:925-930).
This was again confirmed in 1996 by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences who found that "the great majority of individual naturaly-occuring and synthetic chemicals in the diet appear to be present at levels below which any significant adverse biologic effect is likely, and so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk." (NRC, 1996 "Carcinogens and anticarcinogens in the human diet: A comparison of naturally occurring and synthetic substances. National Research Council. Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309053919/html/index.html http://stills.nap.edu/html/diet/summary.html
This was again confirmed in 1996 a consortium including the World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute of Cancer Research, World Health Organization, National Cancer Institute, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Their metanalysis revealed that food contamination with pesticides posed any significant cancer risk. In fact, they note that the use of pesticides may *reduce* the rate of cancer worldwide by making foods with cancer-preventative substances more available.
In particular they note that "there is no direct evidence that herbicide residues, when regulated and monitored, significantly affect human cancer risk." (Chapter 7, Section 7.1.2 "Herbicides.")
World Cancer Research Fund. "Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective." New York: American Institute for Cancer Research. ISBN 1899533052 670 pp
http://www.wcrf.org/report /
This was again confirmed in 1997 with the Canadian Cancer Society report on pesticides, which affirmed Doll and Peto's conclusion. "The Panel concluded that it was not aware of any definitive evidence to suggest that synthetic pesticides contribute significantly to overall cancer mortality."
"8. The Panel did not find any exising evidence that crop protection chemicals and lawn and garden products are likely to be a major cause of cancer."
(Ritter, L., Clark, H. Kaegi, E., Morrison, H., Sieber, S. "Report of a panel on the relationship between public exposure to pesticides and cancer." Cancer 80:2019-2033,1997)
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.