Re: Roundup Unready

Page 3 of 8  


Yeah, and the stupid World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, National Cancer Institute, etc. All part of that great Monsanto Conspiracy.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oliver) wrote:

Touchy touchy. When you make a decision to be as wrong as you enjoy being, you should just keep repeating the same three or four basic lies you're so enamored of, & keep citing & re-citing Monsanto's man Ian Munro as the only "good" science. But when you reduce yourself to calling your betters "stupid" over statements you yourself cooked up from scratch, well, you'll barely even convince your personal choir if you keep that up.
You list in your alleged "conspiracy" FOR Monsanto some of the same organizations you've previously deplored for releasing non-peer-reviewed warnings against Monsanto products, but now suddenly you dream up new positions for all of them! Although Monsanto still distributes a 1994 W.H.O. statement that glyphosate is not a proven carcinogenic, WHO has published warnings against RoundUp for other reasons, & are not even any longer repeating that it is not a carcinogen, leaving that open due to the most recent evidence. You (like Monsanto) may LOVE what WHO said ten years ago, but have to overlook what they've said since. And what WHO presently says is that acrylamide & polyacrylamide neurotoxic pollution of the food chain is already a very real health hazard (Weis, Science 27, 2002). These pollutants are reaching the environment almost exclusively from additives in RoundUp that are supposed to reduce the also-serious problem of "drift" (such as has killed century-old hedges along the English countryside). These pollutants are finding their way into tubrous vegatables & in fruits, further assisted by the RoundUp surficant in penetrating plant cells [Smith, Ecotoxicol. Env.35, 1996; 37, 1997; Leonard, J. Chromatographic Sci 37, 1999]. Now it is true that WHO in their first published article felt it political expedient to not mention Monsanto by name when warning against the Monsanto chemicals in RoundUp, & this "oversight" was spun out into a scandal by people annoyed that they skipped that chance to point the finger in the only direction feasible. It remains, WHO is now spreading warnings against the use of chemicals dispersed into the environment in the Monsanto product, & they are calling it a dangerous neurotoxin.
RoundUp additives as deadly neurotoxins in the foodchain pretty much outweighs WHO's studies that showed nothing more than this: if people & animals eat a lot of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops, they won't drop dead -- that's what Monsanto likes to hear, but it's not much of an endorsement. What WHO is saying more clearly about RoundUp Ready crops is that they do indeed result in super-weeds, & almost every month WHO's profound scepticism about RoundUp Ready crops increases over the bases of neurotoxic additives reaching the foodchain & weeds becoming superweeds. WHO have furthermore blasted Monsanto very confrontationally about the milk-modifying products -- both for Monsanto lying about the amount of hormone still in the milk, & the beef & milk being in general unsafe. WHO has even implicated Monsanto's rBGH in Mad Cow Disease because of hormone injections increasing cattle susceptibility. In the very near future the USA may be the ONLY country left that does not warn consumers about rBGH contaminating beef & milk -- & WHO is really pissing off Monsanto for having come down on the right side of this issue. So while WHO has done a few things that got them a bit of backlash & embarrassment for walking "too carefully" around Monsanto's justly hurt feelings, overall, no, WHO is NOT your personal Monsanto-lovin' buddy.
And EPA's in on your alleged conspiracy to assist Monsanto? Their recurring investigations & chastisements of Monsanto for inventing statistics & fabricating studies doesn't make EPA Monsanto's best buddy either, though hiring people out of EPA into giant-salery jobs, & buying off Congress to restrict EPA from action, doesn't make EPA quite the watchdog they should be until we get out from under the current Republican big-corporation preferences. So again, you may selectively find EPA letting Monsanto get away with murder (literally) here & there, but in total, many at the EPA deplore the harm Monsanto persists in doing, & do not trust Monsanto to provide research findings that isn't phony.
But oh yes, the National Cancer Institute -- I notice you don't say National Cancer Society which is independent of Monsanto. I still think your allegation of "Conspiracy" doesn't apply when Monsanto is so proud & publicity-happy about their take-over of the NCI. They built NCI's City of Hope institute then placed it under the control their own Monsanto employee, Michael Friedman (senior Vice President of Clinical Affairs for Monsanto, as well as National Cancer Institute chief of clinical investigation), assisted by another Monsanto vice-president, Philip Needleman -- all to make sure NCI research remains "Monsanto-appropriate" So yes, you can find NCI claiming the decaying byproduct of RoundUp, formeldehyde, does not cause cancer no matter how great the evidence that it is, & other Monsanto-serving nonsense generated in a Monsanto-built lab run by Monsanto-appointed researchers & officers. Oh yes, Friedman is a piece of work, & you're quite right to charge him with serving exclusively Monsanto/Searl/Merkh/Dupont interests, but it's not a Conspiracy because that implies secrecity, & NCI is very up-front about serving Monsanto & Merkh foremost. But what happened back when it was NCI that first publicized the fact that Monsanto is directly responsible for the increase of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in America? Oh right, that was before Monsanto built the new lab & put their own man in charge -- back when NCI told Congress that non-Hodgson lymphoma was six times higher in Anniston than nationally, thanks entirely to Monsanto, which has done nothng to this day to correct the Anniston problem except tell the people not to go outside in their own yards.
Even now though, we can look to the National Cancer SOCIETY for a bit more independence. NCS has been warning against glyphosate-contaminated chicken, cattle, hog, & goat meats, plus eggs & soybean products, since 1996. They have warned since 1992 that Monsanto pesticide & herbicide (including trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosate) has been implicated in non-Hodgson's lymphoma.
You can call the facts a "conspiracy theory" until the cows come home, but the truth is the truth. Glyphosate & other Monsanto products get a clean bill of health when Monsanto pays for or personally orchestrates the study -- that's self-interest, not conspiracy. Studies independent of Monsanto, devoid of self-interest, provide a much more mixed picture, one that generally warns of sundry dangers ranging from probable to definite. And what they have to say about Monsanto's milk-contaminating hormones really ain't pritty.
So keep on bleeting "Ecofundies!" and "Conspiracy theories!" -- that may indeed, in the end, be your only possible tactic, having by now run your favorite Ian Munro bullshit "science" further than it ever reached.
-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

and they continue to claim that it is safe as used directly.

Uh huh. Please provide the EPA document that states that Roundup is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

OK. Provide the document where the EPA says that Roundup is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

They are not calling Roundup a dangerous neurotoxin. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.

Fine. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.

Ah, yes. The NCI -- another Monsanto shill as far as you're concerned.

No science, once again. Just cult ranting. Provide a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims that Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. One. Just one.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in

You can just as well stop it Bill. You stories you tell and even the way you deliver them remind ppl of the way they were deceived in the past.
Even when you were right, you'd never convince anybody. The reason is you're unable/unwilling to acknowledge that serious ppl are seriously concerned. Unless you show at least some understanding about your opponents, not just the hardliners but the average ppl that they come from, ppl will in the end see you as a puppet for the industry. In fact they do already. You overdid it; I think it is a character flaw; many scientists have it. You're just to sure of yourself; nobody can be _that_ sure. Have you never wondered?
Ursa..
--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ mailto: snipped-for-privacy@iname.com \ *-*-* *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As opposed to believing the anti-science hysterics, who deserve unquestioning allegiance, eh?

I acknowledge they are concerned. I just wish they would stop lying about what the scientific literature says. Somehow, though, that's just too much to ask.

See, Ursa, I expect that "average people" will be able to see through the ecofundamentalist hysteria when shown the tactics of the cult. I think that "average people" are pretty smart. I think they realize that it's not inappropriate to ask for scientific data to back up scientific claims. I think they realize that it's not a good idea to lie about what scientific articles say. I think they realize that it's not a good idea to try to demonize and personally attack anybody who doesn't unthinkingly agree to the party line as a "Monsanto shill." I think "average people" realize that when cultists stoop to the kind of attacks the people here have attempted, these people have nothing but their fundamentalist religious fervor behind them.
The funny thing, Ursa, is that it's considered bad to dare question the dogma put out by the ecofundamentalists -- anybody who doesn't unthinkingly accept whatever bullshit the ecofundamentalists ply is "a puppet for the industry."
I am not "that" sure of myself. I simply know that when people lie about what scientific articles say, when they pretend to science that doesn't exist, and when they rely primarily on personal attack to make their points, they probably don't have a very good position.
Why am I sure that you can't come up with a single scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed? Because I have read the literature and because if there was such an article, people who push the anti-Roundup hysteria wouldn't have to lie about what the articles state.
I am quite willing to be proven wrong. You can prove me wrong by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
Until then, don't criticize me for daring to ask for it when cultists lie and state such data exists.
I know it's heresy, but it's about time somebody noted the ecofundamentalist emperor has no clothes, at least on this issue.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billo said: "> Why am I sure that you can't come up with a single scientific

H. Kuska reply: Billo, ????????? You were shown such article(s), for example: "I posted an abstract which was titled "Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population" (published in 2001).A key section was: "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."You "commented" (I did not consider a rebuttal) on this abstract on August 31. On September 1 I posted an abstract titled "Title: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA." )published in 2002). A key sentence in this abstract is: "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."
Now please show me your logic diagram that excludes effects during pregnancy from the universe that you include in the logic circle of "not dangerous to humans when used as directed."
Concerning the "as directed" I have included the label information for one product http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/content/crop_pro/ready_master_atz/label.pdf , you may want to start by using the PDF search function for the base word preg to see if it tells pregnant workers not to use the material. I did not look at all the labels, if you are interested go to: http://www.cdms.net/manuf/mprod.asp?mp#&lc=0
You can also look at the MSDS: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp23P011.pdf "
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

should read

Cut and paste error
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo said: "> Dude, read the paper. What is the referent group for this OR calculation?

H. Kuska reply: Billo, please go back to table 6, that is where the referent herbicide group (that you refer to) was utilized (8 out of 118). The authors do not have to state what referent group they are using for each Odds Ratio calculated, it is defined by definition. If you are unwilling to accept this by trusting the authors, do the calculation yourself for the similar phosphine case (see below).
Readers of this thread can check the calculation themselves by using the following program: http://www.ahp.niu.edu/oleckno/SampleApplet/OddsRatio.html
The raw information on page 445 is:
"Altogether 3.8% of children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of those who did not use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or neurobehavioral sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22-5.05). Similarly, use of the phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) was overrepresented in the adverse birth and development effect group. Forty-three percent of the children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported ADD/ADHD used phosphonamino herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35 - 9.65)."
The above is the odds ratio data that appears in the abstract for glyphosate. Unfortunately for this discussion, they do not give sufficient raw data in the body of the paper to check this number; but they do for the parallel phosphine case which they treat in detail (for the readers of this thread, it is common in articles, to save space, to only treat in detail one case if the others are similar).
For phosphine the calculated OR was reported as 2.48 with a CI of 1.2-5.1. Unfortunately, the raw data is given on page 445 as percent. To use the above program per cent has to be changed to whole numbers. This will have a significant effect on the CI and also possibly lead to small round off errors in the OR but will give you a ballpark figure to show that they used the correct referent group.
a = 3.8% which when converted to whole numbers is 38. b = 100% - a = 96.2% which converted is 962. c = 1.5 % which when converted to whole numbers is 15 d = 100% - c = 98.5% which converted is 985
The calculated OR is 2.59 and the 95% CI is 1.42-4.75.
Please let me know if there are any points that you need clarified.
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

I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles without reading them, but let's see, just for chuckles what the authors said.
In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and not just in the table to which you refer. If you read the text of the paper, the paragraph where they discuss the glyphosate OR *starts* by noting the referent group is the herbicide group.
Here, Henry, let's see what the text says:
"Examination of the frequency of applicator families with birth defects by pesticide use class category (Table 6) shows that 15.4% of applicators who applied fumigants, insecticides, and herbicides had at least one child with a birth defect compared with 6.8% in the referent exposure group who applied only herbicides... Altogether, 3.8% of children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of those who did not use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or neurobehavioral sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22?5.05). Similarly, use of the phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) was overrepresented in the adverse birth and developmental effect group. Forty-three percent of the children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported ADD/ADHD used phosphonamino herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35-9.65). No other commonly used pesticide compared by major organ and/or functional system was uniquely associated with specific adverse birth or developmental effects. Use of different classes of pesticides over the 4?6 months of agricultural pesticide use compared with the use of herbicides and no other pesticide class (herbicide use period, -15 April to 1 July) suggests that interaction among pesticide classes used may be a factor in the birth defects observed (Table 6)."
So, Henry, the paragraph begins by noting the the referent group was the herbicide-only group, the paragraph ends by noting that the referent group was the herbicide group, the OR is in the middle, and the conclusion is the one I note -- that the interaction between pesticides is the probable cause.
But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying, and that they are using a different referent group while claiming they are using the herbicide group, go ahead. If you want to claim the authors are lying when they say that it's the interaction of pesticides and not Roundup alone, then run with it.
But the bottom line is that the authors wrote what the authors wrote, and the authors used the referent group they claimed, and the conclusion is the one they concluded.
And if you bothered to read the damned articles, you would know that.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please feel free to contact them and ask them.
But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your "I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
H. Kuska reply to billo: I have tried to the best of my ability to explain to you the basis of "your" difficulty comprehending the basics of an odds ratio calculation. I even provided you with a third party computer program so that you (and others) can test "your" interpretation against my interpretation. The calculation based on my interpretation is consistent with the published results; the calculation based on "your" interpretation is not consistent with the reported results. That is sufficient information for me to conclude that I have interpreted the paper correctly. I am sorry that you are not able to understand what I have presented. Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
wrote:

Table
it
the
sure
That
apply
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:
"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are considered experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed paper, this is a reviewed paper."
Go for it.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
H. Kuska reply to billo: please note that I said that the not having the paragraph marker could of occurred after the editing process and that "Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers." (I was trying to bend over backwards to accommodate your problem). Note the use of the word "some". When I was composing that reply, I considered adding the word "initial" before the word "confusion". In retrospect I probably should have as I assume any scientist who would have had any initial confusion would have done the logical thing - which is to repeat the calculation him/her self..
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
wrote:

and
Table
it
the
sure
That
apply
considered
paper,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, Henry. I simply accept what authors state. The association, in the words of the authors, is "tentative." You may think they're lying, but I believe them. And, since it compares glyphosate+pesticide to glyphosate, to draw the conclusion that this means that glyphosate alone is dangerous is drawing a conclusion that was simply not tested.
If you want to test the toxicity of using glyphosate, then test it against *not* using glyphosate.
If you test eating red beans + arsenic against eating red beans alone, and the people who eat red beans and arsenic get sick, that's not an indictment of the beans. Yet you claim it is.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am quite willing to accept what these paper say. I just don't like people pretending the papers say things they *don't* say or pretending they make claims they *don't* make.
You keep acting like I am criticizing the papers. I am not. They are great papers in the sense that they are careful in their claims. Unfortunately, the people who tout them are not as careful; they are whom I criticize. My problem is with you, not with the authors or the journal.
You really should stop misstating my position in order to argue straw men. That doesn't say much for the rest of your argument.
In this particular article, in which other pesticides + glyphosate had a higher risk than glyphosate alone, the finding is not surprising. There are many pesticides for which the acceptable exposure rate depends on incomplete absorption. Roundup contains substances that enhance absorption. Many other studies have shown that toxic effects are either greatly enhanced or due primarily to surfactants.
Thus, the author's findings that Roundup+pesticide is more dangerous than Roundup alone is in line with previous findings. Your claim that this is an indictment against Roundup alone, however, is simply not supported by the paper. It was not *tested* by the authors. This is not a criticism of the paper; it is a criticism of your claims about it.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo said: "> The paradigm for glyphosate is the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma example, which

VERY RECENT (September 2003) NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, KANSAS UNIVERSITY, AND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA JOINT PAPER.
Title: Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men.
Authors: De Roos A J; Zahm S H; Cantor K P; Weisenburger D D; Holmes F F; Burmeister L F; Blair
Authors affiliation: A Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, USA. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA,
Published in: USA OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (2003 Sep), volumn 60(9), E11. (it is not yet up on their website, their most recent issue is the August issue).
Abstract: "BACKGROUND: An increased rate of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has been repeatedly observed among farmers, but identification of specific exposures that explain this observation has proven difficult. METHODS: During the 1980s, the National Cancer Institute conducted three case-control studies of NHL in the midwestern United States. These pooled data were used to examine pesticide exposures in farming as risk factors for NHL in men. The large sample size (n = 3417) allowed analysis of 47 pesticides simultaneously, controlling for potential confounding by other pesticides in the model, and adjusting the estimates based on a prespecified variance to make them more stable. RESULTS: Reported use of several individual pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to increasing numbers. CONCLUSION: Consideration of multiple exposures is important in accurately estimating specific effects and in evaluating realistic exposure scenarios."
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
I guess that in addition to providing "fishes", I should show the reader how to fish. It is my understanding that this site is one of the ways that medical doctors keep up with late-breaking information in their specialty.
The National Library of Medicine, provides free access to over 12 million MEDLINE citations back to the mid-1960's and additional life science journals. It now also provides links to some sites which provide full text articles.
It can be reached at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
My 9-7-2003 search using just the term Glyphosate can be viewed at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
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

I have not read this article. Since it is not my habit to pretend I know what an article says without reading it, I will comment when I have read it.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8 Sep 2003 01:25:22 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

This has been one grand charade shill. You are posting in a gardening group pretending to have a clue about the damaging effects of roundup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

No, I simply don't belong to the Psychic Science Network like you do.
Oh, and that reminds me Tom, since you have taken it upon yourself to follow me around engaging in nothing but personal attacks, you make a big deal of where I work and where I trained. Yet you run away when I ask those same questions of you.
Who do you work for, Tom? Why are you so ashamed of it?
How much money to you make pushing your anti-science agenda, Tom? Why do you refuse to tell us?
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.