Re: What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?

Good for you. One very OCCASIONALLY finds actual surgeons posting in the medicine newsgroups, but mostly a bunch of dumb farts who think they can cure cancer with echinacea, & one VERY occasionally finds working writers in the "writers" newsgroups, but mostly just wannabes who reinforce each others amateur standards & beliefs. It's generally to be expected that anyone in a How To Write Good newsgroup will speak loudest about How To Write Good when they've never figured out how to go about it at all, beyond the utterly democratic context of usenet, or posting their crap at websites. And frequently their delusions & ideas are so off the mark that they doom themselves through their own poor choices & mistaken beliefs, & really won't like the HONEST answer to such questions as "how do I get an agent" and other wannabe obsessions -- thus never can get can count working writers among their peers. But if they're talentless anyway, perhaps no reason to give them the correct information. Even so, misc.writing, in among the flamers & fools, is sometimes very comical (on purpose even), & a few genuinely charming people, with or without delusions of actual talent.

One of the books I was contracted for, which I turned in, was paid for it & spent the money, but which has been pending now for YEARS, was a guide to miniature vegetable gardening in finite innercity spaces -- it was such a cute book with tiny pictures of tiny veggies growing in tiny gardens, I just loved working on that project. It got to the point of galleys, & proof flats for the cover illustration -- then illness struck the publisher & they went from ten books a year to less than one a year. Every time I think about that little book I wish I could get the rights back as it would be so easy to sell again. But alas it was work for hire & I cannot just withdraw it from that publisher, even if they never do finish the project.

It's been years since I've had to garden in an ultra-finite space & even the yards I have now sometimes seem too limiting since I can't do such things as collect a whole bunch of beech tree cultivars, which I would certainly do if I had a lot of land. I wish I could plant a flowering understory in a surrounding piece of property that was half wilderness. I just want to spread out & spread out, & collect more trees as well as small things . . . if someday when I'm a feeb and have to garden only in a window box in the old folks home, I suppose I'll readjust, but cannot at present quite imagine it. If I ever sell the house we own now, the only thing that would make the disruption rewarding would be if the next place could be gigantic garden time.

A regular here, Valkyrie, went from big gardens to patio gardening, & her experiences shared in this group have many times gotten me thinking about whether I would get depressed about scaling down or just maximize the experience of smaller space & get just as much pleasure. People do adjust to much tougher things.

-paghat the ratgirl

Reply to
paghat
Loading thread data ...

Give it up Bill. I never mentioned where you work, nor do I care, nor do I necessarily believe because you have published papers, have different degrees and can cut open a human down the middle that, you are necessarily more qualified than any of us to determine that glyphosate is unhealthy or not.

I am not keeping Tom's work place secret, I happen to know where he works. That's all I said. I still have no idea, nor do I care where you work.

I've been in the same category as you with someone with way too much free time to drum up every post I'd ever made and used them against me. That didn't work on me, and it shouldn't work on you, either.

All I am saying is that I am a homemaker, where I used to work is of no value to you now, and that's really all I have to say. If Tom decides to tell you where he works, so be it. I can say he is qualified and rather well informed. I don't need to blow smoke up his ass. He is confident in himself.

So, anything else? If not, then take good care and forever may you be mindful that the peer reviewed studies can and are tainted in the agchem industry. It's done all the time. If Dr. Leibig were still alive, I'd send you to him to find out. I'm relatively sure you can drum up his C.V.

Reply to
animaux

Oooo, a scientific question. No such thing as perfect science. Again and again I will tell you that the agchem industry has many of their facts eliminated altogether from their *scientific, peer reviewed data* and I don't trust it. Not for a long, long time.

I read about one sentence in paghats rants and my head spins. She is either way too intelligent for me, or way too full of shit. Either way, I can't get through much more than a sentence.

I have no secrets. I won't post my work address to you, if that's what you mean. I work at home. I'm a house wife. A house frau. A gardener, retired, free of working at the wheezing fluorescent tubes of the work place.

However, I stand on solid ground that, Roundup is not safe as table salt and indeed does cause damage to soil where VAM fungi live and without fungi, many plants could not exist. But do use it, drink it, baths are good too. Just not in my house, please.

Reply to
animaux

Boy, why didn't I think of that very perfectest answer!

Reply to
animaux

Thanks for proving my point davey.....

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

MOMMY!!! Look what "Paul E. Lehmann" left in the bathroom sink:

Incorrect. What it is doing is creating an emotional alienation such that people who ought to be smart enough to read for themselves are willing (and admitting) to permit their sense to be clouded by their emotions.

"credence" comes from the facts. Billo did not say "Glyphosate is as safe as table salt."

I have quoted what he did, in fact, say. Irrespective of your personal distaste for Billo's persistance, the facts stand by themselves.

Reply to
gekko

No problem tommy...

Dave

" EPA is reviewing CCA under two different tracks which will result in the most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide... It is important to note.. that EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing structures made with CCA-treated wood."

Testimony of Jack E. Housenger, Associate Director, Antimicrobials Division Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Before the Consumer Product Safety Commission Hearing on Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood March 17, 2003

formatting link

Reply to
David J Bockman

How's this then. You don't know shit about human pathology.

The questions is not whether or not Roundup is bad for roses.

The question is whether or not Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.

That's a pathology/toxicology question.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Effective December 31, 2003, the use of CCA-treated wood will be limited to certain industrial and commercial applications. This change reflects increased concerns in the marketplace about the safety of treated wood containing arsenate and chromium, particularly in applications such as playground equipment. Residential applications affected by the change include play structures, decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios, and walkways/boardwalks. CCA-treated wood has been the overwhelmingly dominant preservative-treated wood in the United States, particularly in residential applications. The applications affected by the CCA settlement are the major markets for treated wood and major markets for the Southern Pine industry. Some applications not affected by the settlement include highway construction, marine (saltwater) applications, utility poles, pilings, and selected engineered wood products.

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003

EPA FINALIZES VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION OF VIRTUALLY ALL RESIDENTIAL USES OF CCA-TREATED WOOD

David Deegan 202-564-7839/ snipped-for-privacy@epa.gov

On March 17, EPA granted the voluntary cancellation and use termination requests affecting virtually all residential uses of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood. Under this action, affected CCA products cannot be used after Dec. 30, 2003 to treat lumber intended for use in most residential settings. This transition affects virtually all residential uses of wood treated with CCA, including play structures, decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios and walkways/boardwalks. This action was proposed in February 2002 by the registrants of CCA-pesticide products used to treat wood. Phase-out of the residential uses will reduce the potential exposure risks to arsenic, a known human carcinogen, thereby protecting human health, especially children's health and the environment.

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

That's great as a religious statement. Your belief may be *about* rationality, but it is itself irrational, as I will discuss below.

And here is where your irrationality manifests. The studies that fail to show any danger from Roundup are *not* Monsanto studies. Certainly, Monsanto data threw down the claim, but there have been tens of studies trying to disprove the claim. They have

*all* failed. Independent government studies have confirmed that Roundup is safe to humans when used as directed.

But all you can think of is "Monsanto." You cannot even

*think* of Roundup independent of your ideologic opposition to Monsanto.

And in doing so, you not only have to dismiss the Monsanto data, you have to dismiss *all* verified data.

That is where you become irrational. From the perspective you promulgate, *all* science, *all* governments, *all* organizations (other, of course, anti-Roundup advocacy groups) are tainted by Monsanto. The judge of whether or not a study is corrupt is *not* in how it was done, *not* in its methods, *not* in its inherent quality. The judge of whether or not a study is to believed relies solely in its *results.* If it shows Roundup is bad, it must be a good study. If it fails to show that Roundup is bad, it must be tainted by Monsanto.

I have addressed the issue. There are no studies that show any danger of Roundup to humans when used as directed. There exist independent studies that show that Roundup is safe when used as directed.

You ask the impossible. No matter *what* Monsanto does, it will not be enough. There is no "much better job" that can be done when nothing Monsanto says is believed.

It has been. All those studies trying to knock down Monsanto's claims that failed. What do you think they were doing? All those independent government studies. What do you think they were doing?

Exactly. Regardless of the biology, Roundup is thought crime. It has nothing to do with science *or* rationality.

The fact is that controlled studies have been done to induce toxic effects. These invariably require high doses and/or long incubations that do not represent any reasonable condition of normal use. There is no more that *can* be done. The way you show something is safe is to expose test tissue/organisms/etc. to the substance and see how much it takes to cause problems. That has been done. *Every* study shows that toxic effects require high doses and/or long incubations, *no* studies show toxic effects at exposures related to use as directed. What more, exactly, do you want?

And there will never be enough, because any facts you don't like you will dismiss as being thought-crime.

That's right. If the Germans hadn't shown remorse, all their cars would thus have bad brakes, no matter what any performance tests, mechanical evaluations, or engineering studies showed. That's what you call rational.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

I thought I cleared this one up about a hundred posts ago! I was the one who said Monsanto's ad campaign where they say, "Roundup, safe as table salt..." was pulled by a New York court and was being sued for a number of things. I don't ever recall YOU saying the phrase. I do think maybe some poor editing in posts may have made it look like you said it, and you may have. I know for sure that I said it. Hope that clears things up.

Victoria

Reply to
animaux

Many people have "cleared this one up." Paghat doesn't care. She knows it's a lie. She prefers the lie -- like pretending to scientific data that doesn't exist, and pretending to dangers that do not exist.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Must have been a huge disappointment for you. And it sounds like a great book -- are you sure there's no way you can resurrect it? Since the publisher, in effect, defaulted on your agreement, it would seem that you'd have some options of getting it published. It's such a shame to just let the project die.

I sometimes miss having a big yard where I can plant huge perennial gardens ... but frankly, I don't miss the work involved. (Does that make me a gardening misfit?) But I do get so much enjoyment out of all the flowers I'm raising in planters and pots. Hey, wanna peek? Here:

formatting link

Reply to
PJ

Billo, I truly do not know where you work. There are many parts of this thread I have not read. I have no reason to be dishonest with you. I am not made of deceits, sorry to say.

Reply to
animaux

You certainly don't know the science. The only credentials you trotted out was a religious catechism and the admission that you made a career out of pushing this hysteria and are now retired on the proceeds. You have condemned rational and scientific examination as, in your sexist and bigoted way, merely my "silly little man world of knowing."

But hey, if you want to trot out some bona fides in human pathology, trot them out. I'm willing to see them.

No, my claim is, and always has been, that Roundup is safe to humans when used as directed. If you agree that this is true, then say so. Otherwise, don't try to play word games and diversions.

Indeed. Only anti-science fanatics should be able to opine about Roundup on a gardening newsgroup, eh?

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

That's right. You love science as long as it agrees with your preconceptions. Otherwise, toss it out.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Used as directed being the key phrase. It's not used as directed in most cases, and that misuse is indeed harmful to humans. Maybe you need to think outside the box a little.

I never deceived you. If I have, you didn't quote it here. I merely said that RoundUp is not safe for humans. Prove to me it is safe. Prove to me humans use it correctly. Prove to me RoundUp Ready Soy and Corn is safe to consume. Tell me how the world is better off having it than not having it. All thoughts which go well outside the tiny corridor within which you make your scientific claims.

What religious fanaticism? What the hell are you talking about?

I wouldn't know. I actually don't really care, either.

What's in this for you? Must be something. I can't wrap myself around this silly notion that because a label says something, you actually believe people read it and follow it.

That is silly.

Reply to
animaux

In article , snipped-for-privacy@jh7ikd.net says... :) on the planet. I have respect for all :) life. :) :) Unless of course you happen to be a harmless solitary wasp that has decided to associate in large numbers on your property, turning over enough dirt in a 24 hour period that would make any ant green with envy..then it's a case of break out the tennis rackets..tis time to kill dem cicada killers!! :)

Reply to
Lar

It could be that the little "EPA never banned CCA" chappy was lying on purpose, or it may be like a lot of other arguing-in-favor-of-big-business in this thread, if it is "true" the ban never occurred, it becomes so by playing convoluted semantic games avoiding actualities. The industry did a proper end-run in agreeing with EPA to voluntarily stop selling the product -- thereby making any EPA ban a unecessary. This is how EPA usualy gets bad stuff off the market, years & years of negotiation rather than strong-arming. The industry comes out ahead on two levels, first, by settlement they got to select the phase-out period & keep selling all existing stocks of CCA lumber for a couple more years & even make more of it for market right up to the end of 2003. Second, for lawsuits already in progress & more certain to occur in the future, the industry won't have the issue of the EPA having forced them against their will. A settlement is not a ban -- a ban would only follow a failure to compromise -- therefore, semantically speaking, EPA having forced the industry to stop poisoning people isn't the same as EPA banning the industry from doing so. Semantics are feeble things for covering lies, but it permits the lies to be carried over even into courts of laws without some judge slamming the attorneys in the clink.

-paghat the ratgirl

Reply to
paghat

HomeOwnersHub website 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.