Re: Roundup Unready

Page 5 of 8  


The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is that it does.

I never claimed that it was a bad paper. I simply note that it does not claim what you imply. It is a good paper that does not claim that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is what I object to.

I don't have to. I have no quarrel with what the paper actually *says.* I have a quarrel with your implication that it claims something it does not claim.
In particular, it does not pretend to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. In fact, the authors are careful *not* to make that claim. I applaud the authors. I take issue with your attempt to pretend the authors claim something they do not claim.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billo states: "> The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is that it does."
H. Kuska reply: the topic of this thread is not determined by you, it is determined by the original August 26 post: ------------------------------------------- "Mindfully.org note: Roundup Unready just barely touches on the problems with Roundup. Its target genetically engineered crops are commingling with weedy relatives, thus creating super weeds. This is indeed a major problem for commercial farmers around the world. In his article on Jan. 14, 2003, Andrew Pollack wrote that Roundup-tolerant crops are now found in "Delaware, Maryland, California, western Tennessee and at the edges of the Corn Belt in Ohio and Indiana." Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser says superweeds are ubiquitous throughout Canada. But I'd like to broaden the scope of discussion here by including the human and animal health effects of Roundup. It is both a carcinogen (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and an endocrine disruptor (inhibits steroidogenesis). The testing that revealed those two points looked at glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, by itself. The complete formulation is even more toxic.
One of the premises for Roundup and genetically engineered crops was that they would reduce the use of toxic pesticides. And Roundup was billed as being "as safe as table salt," until the Attorney General of the State of NY won a suit against Monsanto for such lies. Some farmers have had to use as much as 6 times the recommended amount of Roundup to come close to killing some of those super weeds. To sidestep the lost efficacy, Monsanto is mixing the good 'ol standard pesticides into Roundup that it was supposed to safely replace as well as tweaking the concentration of glyphosate in the mix. The result is that more toxic chemicals are used in spite of the "official" reports of lowered quantities. The Roundup story is also political, but that can wait for another day." ------------------------------------------------------------ H. Kuska reply, continued: your key word seems to be based on the word "imply", See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imply for a definition. Notice the "To involve by logical necessity;". I am sorry but your use of logic escapes me.
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

However, you posted in response to my challenge. I wrote a challenge to show a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that purported to show that Roundup was dangerous to humans when used as directed.
I gather then, that when you posted in reply to that challenge, you were actually *not* posting in reply to that challenge, but merely posting non-responsive things that had nothing to do with the claim that Roundup is or is not dangerous to humans when used as directed.
Good. I'm glad we've cleared up that your article posts have nothing to do with the question of whether or not Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, and we agree that these articles do not do that.
Next time, when I challenge people to provide an article showing that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, and you post a reference as a follow-up, please point out that you are not responding to that challenge, but instead that you are responding to some other, unrelated post. That will clear up any confusion as to whether or not you are actually pretending that your posts are responsive.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Billo Shillo is a bundle of "tactics" but is not in the least interested in the logical. He'll wear you down eventually by his completely moronic repetitious bleetings for "cites!" when you just gave seven cites, then claim he beat you at a pissing match he was playing with himself, aiming it into his own mouth very effectively. No matter how well & correctly he is answered, & no matter how many times, he will pretend were never answered at all, or that your answer stinks, then he'll eventually get round to re-posting his most preferred citation (from a known fraud) while pretending he's read everything & you've not, always pretending his "everything" couldn't be found in a single PR piece generated by Monsanto.

If he knew for a certainty his whole family would drop dead within the week he wouldn't change his position, because his position was never based on rationality. His trust in Monsanto is like a guy who fired a rifle at three of his four kids, killing each in turn with the Agent Orange bullet, the PCBs bullet, & the beef hormones bullet, & yet still willing to try the round-up-bullet next & kill the fourth kid too, because the manufacturer insisted THIS time the latest bullet really will safely bounce off a child's noodle.
-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

None of which purport to show any side effects in humans from Roundup when used as directed.

Please prove that pink bunnies with purple antlers don't exist in the wild. After all, just because you can't find them no matter how hard you look doesn't mean that you should infer they aren't there, right? There is not *one* scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that there is any danger to humans from Roundup when used as directed.
You can believe in an unproven, unfounded, undocumented speculation-based "danger" all you want. Just like you can believe that there really is a big purple monster under your bed at night that disappears whenever you look. Just don't pretend your speculations are based on science.

Yes, stay away from that evil oxygen and water.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

excludes effects during pregnancy

"directed" pregnant women to not use it): My additional original statement: "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 "

important to know that there is an

------- H. Kuska's summary: WOW!
--
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

Wow is right. Even as loony as Shillo's arguments get, claiming RoundUp is as safe as oxygen & water is beyond loony even by his commonly loony standards. But only "as directed" we must remember! Previously he said it was "safe as table salt" picking up a cue from specific Monsanto PR literature & quoting Monsanto verbatim while pretending he gets these recognizable PR bits from reading "entire" peer-reviewed articles while obviously familiar with nothing that was not already quoted in Monsanto PR pieces.
After comparing it to table salt (the word "table" being essential in such PR spins trying to make salts of glyphosate sound edible, especially since Monsanto does end up causing us to eat the shit), he then posted about twenty times he never posted what he posted, & tried to rewrite it every ten ways from Sunday to mean something other than the merely parroted propoganda he copied from Monsanto without thinking twice. So now it's not only safe AS table salt, it's safe AS water & safe AS oxygen. Well he's welcome to breathe it, swim in it, & sprinkle it on his potatoes (the same potatoes already infused with cancer-causing neurotoxins from RoundUp).
This alternative reality where Shillo eats & drinks & breathes RoundUp & is so happy & safe in that soupy grey universe of his, all thanks to Lord Monsanto, well gosh, that place must exist only in his room at the mental asylum.
-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

There he goes again, Henry, the Bleeting Billo Shillo! He well knows THERE IS NO SAFE WAY TO USE ROUNDUP. He has yet again given as truth his own redundancies (his mere bleeting "when used as directed, bleet bleet"). Using deadly toxins "as directed" is a labeling procedure that achieves a minimal level of legality only. As it turns out, it is even based on falsified data. It is also based on some bits of real data derived from decay periods that occur ONLY in controlled laboratory conditions & do not apply to gardens or crops. These "directions" overlook temperature variance, overlook bonding with other chemicals in the environment, overlook actual soil conditions that can in many instances permit glyphosate to remain active for months to over a year depending on percentage of organic content & numbers of microorganisms, overlooks even the fact that it is a MIX of chemicals squirted all over the place & not the individidual chemicals given limited testing in laboratory conditions, overlooks the chemicals which this mix of toxins breaks down into some of which are known to be increasingly toxic & carcinogenic, overlooks the untested chemicals & chemical combinations since there's a lot more in a jug of RoundUp than is on the label, overlooks the dioxane & other contaminants inevitably in RoundUp, even overlooks the fact that the surficant alone increases the toxicity of glyphosate & its ability to enter cells -- all that before evne getting to the sad fact that tons of it are NOT used as directed, though Monsanto sells it for off-label uses all the time, even for use directly in watersheds, & applied directly on RoundUp Ready crops so as to toxify basic food products. The "as directed" instructions are fraudulant to begin with, these instructions are based on phantasmagoric invention, then it is sold for off-label use anyway.
Which is why independent non-Monsanto studies have found RoundUp to be risky for people even with minute exposures, & most assuredly harmful to the environment in HUGE ways, even when used "as directed" since there really is no way to use it safely.
I know Billo Shillo will retell the same old couple of lies again & again, though, cuz that's all he's got left.
-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:

Welcome to your fan club, Henry. Abandon science and enjoy the cult.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
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

Fine. However, don't pretend you know what the article actually says.
More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't read as evidence it says what it does not say.

Well, no. If you are knowledgeable about the area it will not be meaningless. You don't have to be doing research in the field, you merely have to know what the procedures are.
Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion.
"As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite articles I have not bothered to read.
This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless.
But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles in areas of which you are profoundly ignorant, you don't know what the articles actually mean, and that you are not competent to understand the articles had you actually bothered to read them.
If that's the claim you want to make, run with it. Otherwise, read the articles and don't pretend they say what they don't say.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Biiio, states: "> More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't

"practice", I have tried to point out to you (with documentation) what the procedures are for writing abstracts and that the editor and reviewers have decided whether what is in the abstract accurately reflects what is in the paper. AND "> Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going

comment). AND "> "As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to

scientist, second, I have been communicating on the internet in scientific discussions since the internet was first available for scientific discussions (that was the original purpose of the internet). Most scientific libraries are not wealthy enough to purchase each and every journal, plus there are articles in many different languages. Apparently, the scientists that I have been communicating with feel very confident in discussing a paper based on its abstract. If you are a scientist and refuse to partake in such discussions that is your decision. AND "> This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one

"meaningless" I find your conclusion that it is meaningless, well, shall I say "interesting". AND "> But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles

a professional scientist?????? Maybe you can set up logic diagrams to show us how you reached such conclusions. AND "> If that's the claim you want to make, run with it. Otherwise,

decided it represented the paper.
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

Yeah. Here's a "rule." If you want to pretend you know what an article says, read it. Don't fake it.

Blah blah blah. Yeah, I have been communicating on the internet in scientific discussions since the internet was first available for scientific discussions, too. And I don't care if you can or cannot read a foreign language. If you don't bother to read an article, don't pretend to know what it says.
And the bottom line is that it's even *sillier* to ignore what is *in* the article because it isn't in the abstract.
The fact is that the authors of these articles do *not* make the claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed -- in the abstract *or* in the article. The difference is that in the article they go into details as to why the cannot make that claim. Since you can't bring yourself to read the articles, you miss that little bit.

Read the context, buddy. Go back and see where "meaningless" was used and how it was used in the sentence I was replying to. It referred to the *reader* finding the article meaningless because he or she was not competent to understand the article. It did not refer to anything about the authors. Surely you are not that silly; why are you trying to willfully misstate my position?
Your attempt to make my reply say something that I clearly did not mean doesn't say much for your skill at divining information from scientific articles without reading them.

Yawn. Here's a clue. There's a reason journals contain whole articles and not just abstracts. It's because important stuff is in the *articles.* The idea that one can read a two paragraph abstract and get everything that's in a 20-page article is just silly.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billo, as an additional example of the acceptance of abstracts in the scientific community, I am familiar with authors' using as a reference in a published paper an abstract of a paper. I have given you links to what an abstract contains.
Billo said: "> Read the context, buddy. Go back and see where "meaningless" was used

My reply: The poster that you are replying to said the following: "You can read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the specifics are going to be meaningless." She did not say that the overall article as described in the abstract was meaningless.
This is what you said: "This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless." Notice, you are now not referring to a "specific". Also, please note your use of the word "them" following "articles", I interpret "them" as referring to "articles". I interpret "one" (as used twice) as referring to the person who cited the article (abstract) feeling that the article (abstract) was meaningful.
If I put that paragraph into context and include the paragraph before that one, the quote becomes: ""As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite articles I have not bothered to read. (Note a blank line appeared here in your post) This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."
Continuing my reply (H. Kuska): there is a world of difference between a "specific" in a paper and the paper itself.
The "This is particularly true" contains the word "This" - which I interpret as the being the paragraph before (not the earlier discussion of a specific section of an actual paper). You may have meant something else; but as you actually wrote it, you are not referring to the comments made by the person that you originally started to reply to (which you now call "the reader") but to the poster of abstracts ("scientific discussion where one is citing articles "). I do not find the abstracts that I post meaningless to me - I feel that I understant the important points.
You have indicated in your comments concerning the "Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in Wistar rats." abstract that to study high dosages is ..... lots of words that indicate (to me) that you feel the study was meaningless..... How can one say that a published study is meaningless (in so many words) and not also be saying something about the authors, editor, and reviewers? i.e. I took your statement concerning meaningless in the context of what you have been saying in this thread.
Yes, you started discussing the post with a third party but you broadened your discussion. In the next set of paragraphs you also indicate that you are no longer just talking to the poster that you started to reply to (for example: " But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles......". Note the appearance of "you all"). . 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

"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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think it's time for rec.gardens.roundup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In the words of The Dalai Lama, when asked if science proved reincarnation didn't exist he said: " I will renounce it immediately."
So, if H.H. can say that of a basic and profound belief in Buddhism that we reincarnate, why can't simpletons get their minds around the dangers of glyphosate?
V
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:16:33 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.xx.com opined:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.xx.com wrote in message

Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is 100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.
Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment results.
I am a newcomer of rec.gardens and I don't think I should say this as if I am an old timer, but I think people spent too much effort in threads about Roundup, trying to convince others Roundup is safe or Roundup is dangerous. It is not necessary. Didn't one netter suggest the newsgroup to be renamed rec.gardens.roundup?
The key is the other silent lurkers, reading the messages in rec.gardens without posting, and even a larger group of people who do not read rec.gardens and they think of the solution to eradicate weeds and buy Roundup in Home Depot. These are the target population.
I suggest people stop arguing and debating with Bill Oliver. It is time wasting. Try to read messages by other netters. If they suggest using Roundup, telling them why it is not good. If they face a radical situation and they cannot help but use Roundup, ask them to use it very sparingly, and recommend the alternatives, which might take more money, more time, more sweat, but being more friendly with the earth.
Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am quite happey to be proven incorrect. It would help if people didn't lie about what articles stated, however.

And it doesn't matter if your opinion is based on a lie.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message wrote:

Bill, Bill, Bill. I do not care what others argue with you regarding Roundup safety and toxicity. The fact is, all others will now turn their attention to educate other gardeners why Roundup is bad. Maybe they are using facts, maybe they are using lies, maybe they are using their own experiences.
Now you can also turn your attention into convincing other gardners that Roundup is 100% safe, use it as much as they want (of course, "as directed" :P) Let's see which side prevails.
Paghat is telling others what berries to choose for a nice winter theme, and tons of other useful information (like dealing with slugs). Now an inexperienced newbie arrives in rec.gardens. She faces Bill Oliver whose only contribution in rec.gardens is arguing Roundup is safe, and paghat who claims Roundup is dangerous while providing tons of other useful gardening tips. Who do you think the newbie is likely to believe in?

Better correct "a lie" into "an unproven claim". At least, I myself as of now never claimed anything about Roundup based on a lie. If you have problems with lies, deal with them, but don't deal with me :P
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.