Re: What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?

Page 10 of 10  
On 21 Aug 2003 15:00:19 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) opined:

Very nice.

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

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

Sic biscuitus disintegrat
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Aug 2003 11:05:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) opined:

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

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

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

No, that's not accurate animaux. The case was settled out of court. There was no mandate from the court. There was no 'immediate order'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in

That may be true and we should try to avoid that as well. But people are irrational, period. That is why they could be deceived by Monsanto and that is why they keep distrusting them after that, maybe longer than needed, but still...

If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it again. I did not say that.
I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational ones. If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will never be heard. Fact of life.

Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their trust. They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational) doubts.

And me :-). Btw. I'm not accusing you of conflict of interest; I just asked you to acknowledge that such things exist and to give us your opinion on it. Since you so intensely ignore that issue it is as if you deny it.

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought and an unacceptable form of doing business, yes. We do not have to agree on that. However, if the sheer amount of historic lies by Monsanto does not even make you doubt the evidence, then you can not expect ppl to take you serious. This is just an observation I make, trying to explain why you didn't win any hearts.

I don't think Monsanto needs any demonizing by me, they are doing a rather good job themselves.
I'm really concerned. Monsanto is trying to use still underresearched GM- technology to get an edge that will pay out 10000-fold during the coming century. Of course they will use any means to get to that goal. They have en enormous apparatus in place to misinform all the officials and they don't even deny it. They have about the worst track-record possible regarding environmental issues. In this game, with huge, huge interests at stake, Roundup plays a central role. It would seem only logical that because of that alone there would be hardly any trustworthy evidence around.
If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us to take your position seriously. To me this thread was an interesting attempt to get some more insight in this difficult issue. In weighing the evidence I tried to get a hold on the thought-processes behind them. I think the picture is complete by now.
Thanks anyway for the lively debate,
Ursa..
--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ mailto: snipped-for-privacy@iname.com \ *-*-* *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Aug 2003 19:02:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) opined:

No, I pretty much meant quite literally, little man, as in tiny, short, needle dick, short, baby hands, maybe even high heeled cowboy booted, too.

Wiggle out of what? And the term okay is not spelled, "OK," for future reference. Yeah, why not. I pulled it out.

Huh? I don't know how aware you are, nor do I know you from this or any other newsgroup, but Tom and I were constant bickering fighters on this newsgroup for years. Then I think we realized we are on the same side and spoke at length and he gave me very good information which now has my garden much healthier and I notice a certain deficit of most noxious weeds as a result of very healthy, overflowing with biota; soil.
I would never pretend to be Snow White. I wouldn't know how. I assure you that though I'm 47 years old I'd never to date seen the Disney torture film, Snow White. I mean, I am white. But I really don't like snow.
You're annoying at best, but if this is YOUR sacred cow, so be it. When will you be spraying. Maybe you can share you RoundUp forays with the rest of us. Tell us all about how you use it in the garden.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[lucid, reasoned commentary snipped]
How dare you invade their pissing match! Who do you think you are, trying to introduce intelligent discussion here? Sheesh, some people...
Jason
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Aug 2003 02:06:10 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

You still don't know shit about gardening. Even a basic understanding of soil biology would lead you to the truth. Truth is hard to find when you are surrounded by Monsanto money!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
vegan <don't bother> wrote:

Pretty pathetic, Tom. Not only do you run and hide when I ask the same questions of you that you cyberstalked to get from me. Now you try to hide behind a sock puppet. It takes a special kind of person to try to hide behind an anonymous ID to engage in personal attacks.
And you, obviously, are that kind of special person. By the way, you don't do it very well. A stalker *and* a coward.
Your hypocrisy is even worse than I thought.
Who do you work for, Tom? Remember, Tom, *you* are the one who thinks this is important -- when you're not hiding behind a sock puppet, that is.
How much money do you make every year pushing your anti-science agenda?
What are *your* credentials?
And, of course, my scientific challenge stands -- one single article that shows that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Just one.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
vegan <don't bother> wrote:

Yes it is. Your hypocrisy, your commercial interests in anti-roundup hysteria, your attempt to hide your identity, your lack of any scientific basis, and your pathetic attempt at personal attack are pretty plain.
Indeed, Tom.
The jig *is* up.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "hunting down" was not done by me. It was done by those who, lacking any scientific basis, decided to try to dig up dirt on me -- and, failing that, made things up.

Then you have not been reading this thread.

First, *no* experiment can show *anything* to be "safe" to your definition. If you apply that standard, the *everything* is life-threatening. In fact, all studies have shown that toxic effects require very high doses or very long incubations. What kind of study, for example, would you require?
Second, the studies were not all done by Monsanto.
Third, if it were "just" that they don't like Monsanto, it would not be necessary to engage in the attempts at personal destruction that paghat, animaux, Tom, and their ilk specialize in. This is not just a matter of them disagreeing with the scientific literature, this thier attempt at witch-burning.

Your memory is faulty. If you read the thread you will notice that the personal attacks started from *day one* with paghat, et al. accusing me of being in the pay of Monsanto, attacking my integrity, etc. There was no "subconscious" misreading here.

Maybe you should be counselling paghat, animaux, Tom, et al.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26 Aug 2003 11:44:22 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

back worked at a plant locally that made 'roundup'. It is a chemical that has to be respected. One of the workers got it on his arm, and by the time he "knew it" he was burned very bad. Like I said, I was a consturction worker there, we were making revisions. I still don't know the makeup of roundup, but if I am around it I'm very careful. Just my two cents, C. L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in message (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Putting Roundup on our arms is not "used as directed" so Roundup is not considered toxic at all according to Bill Oliver's insisting on "used as directed" condition :)
(That means sulfuric acid H2SO4 and hydrofluoric acid HF are pretty safe if we use them "as directed")
Anyway, if you can provide more information about the case in the plant, including dates, locations, and else, others might find more about the safety of Roundup. It is not documented in a scientific journal as Bill demanded, but that provides something the gardeners are looking for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roundup is sprayed in such a manner that it is entirely probable that it will come into contact with skin, it does get inhaled. Humans and animals are very likely to come into contact with sprayed plants as well and get transfer contact. Neither sulfuric nor HF are sprayed in that manner, it is not directed to be used in that manner. The safety of products is tested not just for the majority of people, but the vast majority and for children, who are often much more sensitive. And products must not be safe only for occasional use, but must be safe for those who are using it all the time. A reason many pesticides can only be used by people licensed to do so. Those who's work is applying these pesticides are at the highest risk and why shouldnt they be protected from high and cumulative toxic effects? The only way to assess risk of toxicity is in animals who are given high and cumulative doses. There is very good scientific reasons for the methodology. Past experience with toxins that have slipped thru lesser testing methods has been a painful lesson to the science community. DDT and thalidomide and DES and PCBs not to mention HRT and the long term effect on women. The tests have to get more stringent, not less. But what is sprayed and dumped into the environment has a much greater likely hood of getting into the water supply, a much greater likely hood of persistence and poisoning for generations compared to pills taken by some individuals. This is the poisoning of earth just so a few companies can make some humongous short term profits. 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

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.