Roundup Deemed Dangerous/ Poison Ivy Revisited

I run a farm, and I am extremely careful around my animals. I was very hesitant to use Roundup or anything else near them. I thoroughly read up on Roundup and other weed killers. Roundup came up safe time and time again. I would not believe Monsanto, or for taht matter, the manufacturer of any product. I did read the govt. studies and many more. It appears safe and the safest of all the choices. I still will not use it where my animals will eat for at least a week, and I still try to use as little as possible. However, of the choices available, Roundup seems the safest and the only thing I will use. On my lawn I have spot sprayed individual weeds. Thats a pain in the butt to do, but it works.

Mark

---------------------

Reply to
maradcliff
Loading thread data ...

Basically, yeah. That's it. I have this occasional fantasy about oncologists who are heading toward becoming alcoholics after seeing so many kids with cancer, and what kind of study those guys would set up if they received a huge anonymous donation earmarked for proper research methods.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far from reputable. As for the current issue (Roundup) - that product doesn't and didn't need any hype from the company. It would have poured off the shelves just like it did even if there had been very restrictive use requirements. It was a product that farmers, stockmen, etc. had been praying for since chemicals first came into use.

If you think that Monsanto downplays the dangers of chemicals, just read the application books that come with each package thereof.

In the OP, there were outright lies and distortions in the first few lines of text and it didn't improve from there.

Harry K

Reply to
Harry K

Oh come on now. You mean you;re not gonna believe such credible sources of unbiased scientific research as :

Women's Cancer Resource Center Coaltion for a Healthy Oakland School Environment Greenpeace Natural Health Magazine Organic Gardening Alternative Medicine Magazine

Any one of these could publish a short story from any author with any agenda and no credible qualifications.

The only real research study listed was done in Sweden using 400 patients diagnosed with NH Lymphoma. There, they tried to determine what herbicides and pesticides people were exposed to over the preceeding decades by questioning them or their survivors if they were deceased. Now, already that makes the whole thing suspect. Relying on surveys filled out by survivors as to what chemicals someone was exposed to over the last 25 years is dubious a best. And most of these people were likely exposed to many agents over those decades. Trying to determine what MIGHT have caused cancer from that data is virtually impossible.

And all this one study showed was some increased risk for exposure to glyphosate. Anyone familiar with cancer studies knows that it's not unusual for one study to suggest there MIGHT be an association, then another study to show no association. That's why the scientific community takes all the research as a whole when drawing conclusions. Fear mongerers on the other hand, grasp at any info, then try to make it look like it is the definitive work on the subject. For example, there are thousands of studies one could cite that cast some question on many of the food additives, drugs, or even the foods themselves that we widely use today. If we went off the deep end based on one study, virtually everything would be deemed dangerous.

Reply to
trader4

Please name one or more reputable agencies.

And, the next question is not intended to offend, but I have to ask. When you see articles which cite research sources, how do you decide which to trust? In case this is unclear, here are definitions. Number 2 is the appropriate one in this context.

Main Entry: cite Pronunciation: 'sIt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cit·ed; cit·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciEre to stir, move -- more at -KINESIS

1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court) 2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof 3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise b : to name in a citation 4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent

begin 666 audio.gif M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P`````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D

3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P`` ` end
Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

dihydrogen monoxide

never knew the chemical description of water

Reply to
hallerb

That's what peer review is for.

Bob

Reply to
Bob

You account for such things as well as you can, and use a big enough sample so they average out. It's been done for years.

Bob

Reply to
Bob

Formal human tests of pesticide exposure have been very rare, for obvious reasons. You'll find a few, but nothing statistically significant when compared with the total size of the market.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Monsanto

Harry K

Reply to
Harry K

Monsanto is not an agency, but that response is an interesting clue to how you view these things. How about the second question? When sources are cited, how do you decide which ones you trust?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

According to JoeSpareBedroom :

The one that authored the report I quoted the abstract from does quite well.

Hint: it wasn't Monsanto.

Reply to
Chris Lewis

Was that roundup or was that paraquat?

Paraquat is quite toxic, no question about _that_.

Reply to
Chris Lewis

When Harry K used the term "agency", I interpreted that to mean a government agency. You mentioned a college which, unless I'm reading it wrong, did NOT do the research itself. You posted an article by someone who offered opinions on OTHER peoples' research.

Doesn't matter, though. After you posted that information, I asked you a question which you didn't respond to, unless you also post under the name of "yourname". Until you answer the earlier question, we can't continue.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Paraquat was used on pot plants. Different deal. This was after that debacle.

Reply to
gfretwell

According to JoeSpareBedroom :

Why?

Not a "someone". Several.

So? Reviews of studies are just as valid. That particular agency isn't exactly your typical "college" churning out just philosophy majors either.

How about WHO then?

How about just about all of the other studies on TOXNET (NIH) that a search for "roundup toxicity" yield?

Some of those studies look a bit scary. But look closer - they're talking about _extremely_ high dosage levels.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd notice drinking the LD50 dose of Roundup - which is about a pound of the _pure_ stuff.

What question was that?

That loaded question about "why it can't be believed?", which either turns into a diatribe about trusting Monsanto (which I'm not), or some nonsense about animal tests are always totally irrelevant?

Whereas in fact, animal studies almost always reflect how we react to things, and where they don't, they discover that, because they test it on more than one kind of animal.

Let's on the other hand, talk about Greenpeace asserting that Roundup is "one of the most toxic herbicides", without a slightest shred of evidence, no citations, _nothing_.

Now compare the LD50 dose of Roundup (which is on the order of one _pound_ for a normal size man) with that of caffeine, paraquat, or that matter, table salt.

Reply to
Chris Lewis

Sorry. I'm just refering to the method, not this particular test.

Testing something like this on humans is, of course, rare. Tests on animals can model effects on humans if properly done.

Bob

Reply to
Bob

There is no agreement on how much can be extrapolated from animal tests. The chemical companies say the similarities are either valid, or not, depending on convenience.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Whatever we hosed down Colombian villages with, it doused humans and their food crops.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was something that would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been sprayed with it.

CWM

Reply to
Charlie Morgan

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.