Regarding the articles concerning second hand smoke that billo refered to:
I have started a new thread (with links) on an environmental forum for those
who are interested:
Henry Kuska, retired
No, pseudoscience is claiming that studies claim what they don't claim.
Henry trots out the Ontario article as his proof that Roundup is
dangerous, when the authors themselves note they are not even
*testing* that question.
Henry trots out an article on Leydig cells and claims that is
proof that Roundup is dangerous, when the author himself states
that the article doesn't even *address* that question.
Henry trots out an article from the Red River, and ignores what
the authors write in order to pretend that is says something
it doesn't say.
And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read
the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading.
Indeed, there is some pseudoscience here, but it's not coming from me.
It is coming from you and your ilk who claim "proof" without bothering
to read the article and by contradicting what is explicitly stated in
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.