Re: Roundup Unready

Page 4 of 8  


Shillo also just doesn't care what's true & looks at things WAY more one-sidedly than either a scientist (he NEVER sounds like one) or an activist. For instance, when one looks at the assessments of the possibilities of glyphosate alone being carcinogenic, the best assessments disagree. The EPA classifies it as a Class C carcinogen ("probably" carcinogenic to humans), but other government departments classify it as Class D (probably carcinogenic to animals).It may in the long run prove to be a much more aggressive human carcinogen than that, the indicators are not in glyphosate's favor, but "probable" is close enough for anyone sensible to avoid it. Yet to Shillo, the only important point is that EPA never said it was DEFINITELY a carcinogen. To him that automatically means it isn't! As for RoundUp per se (rather than just the glyphosate) five components of it (ingredients, decay chemicals, & common contaminants) are DEFINITIVELY carcinogens.
But really one could overlook the cancer threat & restrict one's worries to the environment per se & see even more clearly that RoundUp is a dangerous, harmful product that has already done extravagant harm -- these things aren't even questionable. Yet Shillo twists & misrepresents the evidence to say not only "NOT carcinogenic" when it clearly is, but he goes further to deny all the other enormous risks & problems with glyphosate. He LIES and PRETENDS these problems don't exist if it is "used as directed" -- he parrots that lie even when repeatedly corrected, because in fact when used as directed it has caused extravagant ecological problems from adaptive superweeds to frog extinctions to weakening of trees' winter hardiness & resistance to pathogens & threatening endangered native flora, to stunted seedlings planted in RoundUp treated ground MONTHS after treatment, to the unintended death of century-old hedges in England, to stunting & death of spruce seedlings in Canada -- all the results when Used As Directed. None of which matters even a little to an appalling scamp who is devoted to Monsanto & glad to serve his buddies by serving as a lying shill on UseNet -- which, by the by, Monsanto has asked its employees to do as a "tactic" intended to muddy the truth & demean environmentalists & scientists alike who Monsanto can't buy off or control.
So rather than admit this chemical causes harm he argues whether or not the proof that glyphosate harms animal endocrine & reproduction systems even applies to humans, & drags out again & again Monsanto-generated stats already widely peer-reviewed & shown to include conclusions not substantiated by the research, & generated by specialists in slight-of-hand in favor of the chemical & tobacco companies. None of which matters to Shillo. He frankly doesn't care about the facts -- he cares about muddying the facts as complete honesty will never show Monsanto to be a trustworthy guardian of environmental & public health. For all the smoke & mirrors he attests to, some fabricated, some at least moderately close to the truth, the bottom line really is that glyphosate products have already been throughly proven to be greatly harmful to the environment, & will not be used by responsible gardeners & farmers or anyone who cares one whit about the environment OR human health.
That really is the bottom line: It causes harm & will not be used by anyone responsible.
-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

Fine. Provide the reference from the EPA that states that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. It really is that simple. Since you clearly have the citation where the EPA says that, there's no need to talk *around* it.

No, the bottom line is that claims that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed are not based in science, but instead in simple cultish repetition.
C'mon, paghat, you have claimed you have EPA documents stating that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Bring them on out. I've given *my* citations from the EPA that say the opposite. It really is easy to find them. Go ahead.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <Xns93ECED18F61F7majorursaianemcom@
:) 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. :) Why would you think "average ppl" look at him as a puppet to the industry. I would think most know that those who choose to live their life in a "Sky is falling" attitude are too emotionally tied to their beliefs to attempt to hold down a discussion and am more surprised Bill even bothers.
--


Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!



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

And just because someone wants to believe in an unproven risk doesn't justify lying about what the science actually says. It's one thing to note that Rounup has no proven danger to humans when used as directed; it's another to claim that there is a proven danger and lie about the scientific data.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--

Outgoing email checked by Norton AV
"D Kat" < snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...
Dave

buying
plant
with
discredit
you
there
similar
by
eyerackies.
America.
it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:15:32 GMT, "David J Bockman"

Poor naive David uses poisoned wood in gardens and greenhouses and now considers black helicopters paranoia! You've got it reversed as usual.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Aw hell, Tom, we both should know better than to waste time on these morons. Black helicopters indeed... Back to gardening related topics! Being a prowd Canuckistani and as it's legal and all that, I'm going to perform a marriage ceremony for 2 gay clones in a special made hoophouse. No, really! Bwaaaaaaahaaaa!
--
msn messenger: Hortus Plasticus ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com)
Outgoing email checked by Norton AV
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What do I have reversed Tom?
Dave
wrote:

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

I wondered that too. Black helicopters are poisonous & pressure treated wood is paranoid.
I once had a black helicopter hover over my house perfectly stationary for a great length of time in the middle of the night. It really was unnerving, especially when one peers from the bedroom window pondering all the paranoid theories, & it's just hovering there, hovering, hovering, making a muted fuf-fuf-fuf-fuf sound endlessly.
Later in the paper I by mere chance caught a note on what that was about. They were taking heat-sensitive photographs of local neighbhorhoods to establish which houses had inadequate insulation.
-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
wrote:
: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?
--
Wendy Chatley Green
snipped-for-privacy@cris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No, the book supplied me with the source of many items a Republican friend is constantly bombarding me with as "the truth" according to conservative pundits. A bunch of Harvard students helped Franken research the source of a lot of these "truths," which aren't all that true. I'm having fun with the truth.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not that uncommon. There's a psychiatric disorder called polydipsia in which people drink too much water. See:
Lightenberg, JJM, et al. "A lethal complication of psychogenic polydipsia: cerebral edema and herniation" Intensive Care Medicine 1998 24:644-645
Clearly, we must ban water.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 EXPOSURET20, 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"billo" said: > "Despite the fact that the doses used in this study would never expected to

reported by

or children

shows that the

skeletal system."

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 snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov /
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."
--
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

If you are unfamiliar with the structure of scientific articles, you may 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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: http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/courses_s_2003/chem_220/chem_220_labs/abstract.pdf http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/classes/bio190/abstract.html http://science.widener.edu/svb/essay/writing.pdf
2) Look at the instructions to authors of the individual scientific journals. http://www.e-journals.org / For example in the journal Environmental Science and Technology https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/menu_content/authorchecklist/es_authguide.pdf : the 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 snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... and not *one* of them makes the claim to show that Roundup is not safe when used as directed. Not one.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo, each reader can judge for him/her self what information the abstract provides; he/she can then decide whether they want to look at the full paper and/or whether the abstract is sufficient for their purpose. In making that decision I expect that they will take into consideration that the scientists involved, the editor, and the reviewers have mutually agreed that the paper was worth publishing and that the abstract represented what is in the paper. I would also expect that they will take into consideration the reputation of the journal and the authors' affiliations.
If you feel that the editor and reviewers were in error in approving the wording/publication, you are entitled to submit your own analysis of any paper for publication. It will be sent to reviewers, and then the editor will review their comments and make a decision on whether your comments/interpretation are worth publishing.
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

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.