Re: Roundup Unready

Page 7 of 8  
Tom Jaszewski <newsgroup> wrote:

I said "different domain" not "anonymous IP."
cssa.com != livesoil.com
nslookup cssa.com
Non-authoritative answer: Name: cssa.com Address: 205.206.32.64
nslookup livesoil.com
Non-authoritative answer: Name: livesoil.com Address: 66.209.74.9
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey, Dokta Laura is a dokta of gym teaching. Yet, she somehow has a show all about psychology, which is cloaked under a show about morality.
opined:

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

No, but the truth really isn't what's important here, is it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then don't read.

There is nothing that says that some day it will be found that growing one crop next to another will cause both crops to be poisonous. It has never happened, to my knowledge, but one cannot rule out everything. Does that mean that you should never plant crops?
The only think you know is that after all this looking, the kind of thing you are talking about has not happened. That suggests that unless you are doing something novel, it will not happen. If you believe that one should live one's life believing that things for which there is no evidence are about to happen, go ahead. However, most people look for evidence before drawing conclusions.

I decide that something is safe by looking at the available evidence. The evidence is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed. Even if the untested hypotheses that certain groups with high exposure to multiple pesticides and herbicides may be at a slightly higher risk for rare problems were nor found to be a false lead from noisy statistics, I would ask if I fall in that group.

What does this have to do with my statement?

That's fine. You can advocate whatever you like on the basis of taste, aesthetics, religion, or whim. I won't argue with you, and I won't criticize you.
Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message wrote:

I didn't, or actually I seldom. If others' messages cannot express their keypoint in the first 48 lines at least, I would not be able to grasp their points. For scientifc journal papers, this is why abstracts exist.

No, but again, people made mistakes in invented chemicals before. DDT, Thalidomide, ozone-depleting carbon fluorides, you name them. Compared to mistakes of growing some plant beside another and created a monster or a poisonous fruit, the latter is few and far between -- not what I can think of.

We are human beings, not computer programs. Therefore there are situations where people do not look for evidence before drawing conclusions, and therefore there are religions in the world.

Is it safe for non-humans? Of course, Roundup is toxic and should be toxic for the weeds it is supposed to suppress, but how about the other plants, pets, honey bees, and your children playing in the yard?
In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans completed the food chain.
Please be aware I am not refuting your criterion in judging the safety of Roundup or any other xxxx-cide. You do what you believe. You benefit from the ease of using Roundup to kill weeds, and you suffer (if there is such an effect) from Roundup if your criterion is later found wrong.
But by similar arguments, others can also use their own criteria.

If you choose to eat a Big Mac in every meal, I do not think you should sue McDonald afterwards for your obesity. If you smoke 6 packs of cigars every day, I do not think you should sue tobacco companies 15 years later. If you believe in Roundup, support it rigorously and refute others' opposite views, I do not think you should sue Monsanto later for Roundup -- if later there is a class-action lawsuit.

Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?
Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot explain how they fly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <4cf8dc14.0309092251.75c94d86
:) In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as :) directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans :) completed the food chain. You've been "drawin" DDT out lately as if it was a six shooter :) It's sort of comparing apples to oranges. The pesticide industry is the second most regulated/tested industry there is, pharmaceuticals is number one. The days of pre market testing was nothing when it came out as compared to todays products. One of DDT's sister pesticides that was also pulled for environmental issues (chlordane) actually has gone through the testing after it was pulled and could technically be put back into the market as a restricted use product (don't worry, I doubt that would ever happen). :) Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There :) are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not :) yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am :) not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not :) be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot :) explain how they fly. :) Think that was the bumblebee.
--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/bludf2.jpg


Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... and a documented urban legend. It is untrue both in the more common claim that scientists "proved" that bumblebees can't fly and in the second claim that aerodynamics engineers cannot explain how they fly.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/mvnb
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


You can add more and more rigorous tests. For most synthesized chemicals and drugs, the tests will be conclusive. For some of them, the tests can still be inconclusive. There is no guarantee the tests we do on xxxx will be conclusive.
And the ozone-depleting freon was neither done by the pesticide nor pharmaceutical industry.

Not sure. Anyway, my point is in gardening, botany and zoology there are still many unsolved mysteries. Using scientific approach on these problems is a good one, but don't expect science to cover everything. Yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, science is not the solution of everything. I did not challenge the anti-Roundup hystterics because they didn't like it on religious principles, matters of faith, aesthetics, whatever. I called them on their pretense that their statements of faith were based on science -- and that they lied about what the science said in order to do it. That is what I object to.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message wrote:

Don't forget science is done by humans. Human beings can twist facts (emphasizing the parts they like and playing down on those they don't want), and so can they twist facts. It is like the polls. By "designing" the questions in a certain way, you can move people's comments in the direction you like to see. The same thing can be said on scientific experiments on Roundup or any pesticide safety.
So talking about Roundup safety. The anti-Roundup people can emphasize its effect on salmon, pets, and monarch butterflies and stay shy of human beings (IF, it is indeed safe for humans). The pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto, might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable" results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.
How to draw the conclusion and interpret the results is up to each individual, each gardener and each farmer. Unfortunately, not everyone is a scientist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the inherent problem is ... scientists really cant run controlled experiments on humans like they can on animals for this kind of toxicity. So toxicity studies for humans are retrospective enrolling huge numbers of people and trying to determine excess diseases without being able to hold anything as a control. What makes it worse is there is no way of really determining who has and who hasnt had contact once the toxin is released into the environment. There was just a bit of junk science on TV last night. Some study found how even mild exercise like walking reduced cancer rates. Its all complete and utter nonsense. Anybody can find any association they want using statistics. Without a mechanism of action all they got is a statistic blip. Ingrid
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Siberian Husky) 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

Well, no. First, you assume that someone is either "pro-Roundup" or "anti-Roundup." Many people are neither. Second, particularly for academia and government, if someone funds a large study, there better damn well be a publication at the end of the tunnel or there won't be any more funding. Nobody is going to spike a large multicenter study on Roundup because of the results. Third, I have no problem with people "emphasizing" one thing or another. I have a problem with people saying that articles say things they don't say. I have problems with people saying a study proves ill effects in humans when the authors explicitly state they aren't even testing it. I have a problem with people trotting out studies on cells and claiming that proves a danger when the authors themselves note that such an inference cannot be made. That's not "emphasizing." That's deceit.
I am not "pro-Roundup." I am anti-deceit.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message

Today John Smith discusses the performance of New York Yankee and Boston Red Sox with you, and you claim John Smith thinks there are only two baseball teams in MLB?
This observation is wrong on your part. I only stated what pro-Roundup people will likely do and what anti-Roundup people will likely do. This does not imply I believe no one fits in the "neither pro-Roundup nor anti-Roundup" category.

That is right. I think someone else has already pointed out this issue, and I do not remember anyone objecting to that view.
And unfortunately, the organizations/corporations/individuals who are likely to fund such studies are also those which tend to have a prejudice on either "Roundup is safe" or "Roundup is dangerous". The organizations/corporations/individuals who are more impartial might take less interest to fund such studies -- they might see farther about *ALL* pesticides.

In that case, next time when you write "up to now Roundup is not found dangerous for human beings when used as directed", please add a comment about the other domestic and wild animals, and anything which could eventually go into human bodies through the food chain (unless Roundup is expected to decompose well before that stage), otherwise you are emphasizing the human part and playing down on the effect on other plants and animals. You should write "up to now Roundup is not found dangerous for human beings, plants (except weeds) and wild animals when used as directed", or "up to now Roundup is not found dangerous for human beings when used as directed, as for wildlife we do not have conclusive results yet".
And you might want to address the situation when Roundup is used with other fertilizers or pesticides, say, you applied Sluggo here and then you immediately apply Roundup. "Used as directed" might not include this scenario, but gardeners might likely do this and the scientific researches should also test this. It is like plastic bags for toddlers. You cannot say they are safe for toddlers when used as directed. You also have to test some scenarios which are NOT as directed by ordinary users might do.
And finally when several people argue with you that Roundup is bad, you should not treat them into a team and believe they are the same thing, that if Mr. A applies to deceit then you claim all others do too. Please try to treat each other individually.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans. I tend to stick to topics I know.

I have. I have not, for instance, accused *you* of deceit. The people I have accused, I have accused for a reason.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
and you think that qualifies you as a scientist? 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

It answers the question as to why I discuss effects on humans as opposed to other things. Thank you for your interest.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh. That's a lot like an old Medical Examiner joke:
Q) What do Medical Examiners call motorcyclists? A) Organ donors.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Second hand smoke - this is another topic which would be more appropriate for another discussion group; but for those interested, here is the MedLine search for the keywords "second hand smoke" (to find all articles related to this subject, a number of different sets of keywords would have to be used in separate searches):
http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/?query_1=second+AND+hand+AND+smoke&dsmdl=on&ranking=1
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

A more profitable search would be to use the term "passive" rather than "second hand" and to use MEDLINE.
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.