Re: Roundup Unready

[Tom Jaszewski]

Using compost tea can introduce the biology to put nitrogen fixing bacteria fungi and protazoa in the soil!

[Tom Jaszewski]

Great post Dr.!!!

[dr-solo]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List

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.

[Bill Oliver]

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

[Bill Oliver]

"At some level..." Indeed, if you give an animal enough of anyting -- including water -- you will cause pathology. Did you read the article? Tell me, what did the authors say about the dosage and exposure compared to what people who use it as directed are exposed to?

I'll give you a hint -- it was not at normal exposure levels.

Tell me, do you consider water to be a poison?

Do the authors make the claim that this shows that Roundup is dangerous when usd as directed? No, they do not -- because that's not what it shows.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

And content-free. Let's ignore science because our religion dictates they must be wrong. It is the equivalent of Creationism.

billo

[dr-solo]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List

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.

[Henry Kuska]

Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web page

Abstracts are a very important part of a publication as that is all most scientists will ever read. Thus, the authors, referees, and editor make every effort to make sure that it accurately reflects what is in the paper. Authors: Garry VF, Harkins ME, Erickson LL, Long-Simpson LK, Holland SE, Burroughs BL.

Affiliation: Environmental Medicine and Pathology Laboratory, 1st Floor Stone Laboratory 1, University of Minnesota, 421 29th Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA.

Published in: Environ Health Perspect ;110 Suppl 3:pages 441-9,(2002 Jun).

Title: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA.

Abstract: "We previously demonstrated that the frequency of birth defects among children of residents of the Red River Valley (RRV), Minnesota, USA, was significantly higher than in other major agricultural regions of the state during the years 1989-1991, with children born to male pesticide applicators having the highest risk. The present, smaller cross-sectional study of 695 families and 1,532 children, conducted during

1997-1998, provides a more detailed examination of reproductive health outcomes in farm families ascertained from parent-reported birth defects. In the present study, in the first year of life, the birth defect rate was 31.3 births per 1,000, with 83% of the total reported birth defects confirmed by medical records. Inclusion of children identified with birth or developmental disorders within the first 3 years of life and later led to a rate of 47.0 per 1,000 (72 children from 1,532 live births). Conceptions in spring resulted in significantly more children with birth defects than found in any other season (7.6 vs. 3.7%). Twelve families had more than one child with a birth defect (n = 28 children). Forty-two percent of the children from families with recurrent birth defects were conceived in spring, a significantly higher rate than that for any other season. Three families in the kinships defined contributed a first-degree relative other than a sibling with the same or similar birth defect, consistent with a Mendelian inheritance pattern. The remaining nine families did not follow a Mendelian inheritance pattern. The sex ratio of children with birth defects born to applicator families shows a male predominance (1.75 to 1) across specific pesticide class use and exposure categories exclusive of fungicides. In the fungicide exposure category, normal female births significantly exceed male births (1.25 to 1). Similarly, the proportion of male to female children with birth defects is significantly lower (0.57 to 1; p = 0.02). Adverse neurologic and neurobehavioral developmental effects clustered among the children born to applicators of the fumigant phosphine (odds ratio [OR] = 2.48; confidence interval [CI], 1.2-5.1). Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category. Finally, these studies point out that (a) herbicides applied in the spring may be a factor in the birth defects observed and (b) fungicides can be a significant factor in the determination of sex of the children of the families of the RRV. Thus, two distinct classes of pesticides seem to have adverse effects on different reproductive outcomes. Biologically based confirmatory studies are needed."

[Tom Jaszewski]

Biilo puked

we've had enough of you will we die?

[Bill Oliver]

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

[Bill Oliver]

Oh, the secretive little anklebiter is still here. Still no science, and you still only have personal attacks.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

be surprised to learn that not all of the information in the article is present in the abstract. In fact, it is a common misconception among the scientifically naieve that one can comprehend an article from the abstract. The purpose of the abstract is to provide information to let one know whether or not he or she should read the article; it is not a substitute for reading the article.

And, in fact, the article does not make the claim to show that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

Since I know you will not actually bother to read the articles you pretend to know about, lets see what the authors say about the human interpretation of the data:

"Despite the fact that the doses used in this study would never expected to correspond to human exposure levels under normal circumstances, as reported by Williams et al. (2000) for glyphosate and polyoxyethyleneamine in adults or children (margins of EXPOSURE=5420, 3370 and 461577, respectively), this results shows that the commercial formulation poses an increased potential risk for the rat skeletal system."

In other words, the dosage required for this does *not* translate into danger to humans. Of course, I am sure that you know *much* better than those silly scientists know.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

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

[Henry Kuska]

H. Kuska reply: If someone is interested in reading about the purpose of abstracts in the scientific literature, I have 2 suggestions:

1) a Google search. These are mainly of use to the beginning student scientist. The following are just a few hits of such a search: Look at the instructions to authors of the individual scientific journals. example in the journal Environmental Science and Technology following appears: "Abstract. An abstract must accompany each manuscript. Use between 150 and 200 words to give purpose, methods or procedures, significant new results, and conclusions. Define any abbreviations used in the abstract. Write for literature searchers as well as journal readers. Include major quantitative data if they can be stated briefly, but do not include background material."

I have provided the abstract of articles (without personal interpretation) that I feel are related to this discussion. Anyone who is interested in reading further can go to a University Library and look at the journal or have the library obtain a copy of the journal article through Interlibrary Loan (or in some cases purchase it through the Internet). You can follow the scientific comments concerning an article (i.e. see what other scientists have to say about it) by looking in Science Citation Indexes. There will normally be about a one year time delay before an article is cited.

Henry Kuska, retired [e-mail]

[Henry Kuska]

"billo" said: > "Despite the fact that the doses used in this study would never expected to

Sorry, I cannot follow the logic of your "in other words" unless you are trying to use a strict reading that this was done on rats so it has no meaning for humans (I doubt that the scientists who did the research were worried about the health of rats only, I also doubt that the reviewers and the editor would have accepted the paper for publication if they agreed with your "interpretation".

As you stated they said: "results shows that the commercial formulation poses an increased potential risk for the rat skeletal system." If you decide not to utilize the Precautionary Principle after reading this, that is your choice.

Henry Kuska, retired [e-mail]

[Henry Kuska]

billo said: In fact, there are protocols

H. Kuska reply: Please provide the references

Henry Kuska, retired [e-mail]

[Tom Jaszewski]

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!!

[Wendy Chatley Green]

:Have you read Al Franken latest book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell :Them"? I'm in the middle of reading it and a "truth" that comes through :loudly is that whenever a lie is repeated or spun often enough it becomes a :truth. : :Something to think about.... :) :

You needed Al Franken's book to tell you that?

[dr-solo]

As a scientist I read abstract when they are outside my immediate research area. The abstract is like a picture of a building, the rest of the article is like the instructions and sequence for constructing the building. Most people even architects are not interested in the building instructions unless they are planning to build the same building. That is not to say the rest isnt important in certain circumstances, such as when one is not sure how rigorous the publishing journal is. For example, the introduction and references illuminate how current and widely read the authors are. But in general, those not in the field are not going to glean very much out of the paper. You can read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the specifics are going to be meaningless. It is impossible to assess if their procedures are normal practice in that field. What is more illuminating is to see who is quoting a particular article and if they are agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. Ingrid

[e-mail] (Bill Oliver) wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List

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.