it is your response that is content free. skip the question and move right to an
attack on the motives of the writer. motives are unknowable and mere
However, knowing the background of the chemical company is a very good predictor
current behavior. Very interesting 60 minutes last night ... Monsanto in
contaminated an entire town with PCBs. They have known about its effect on the
people there for more than 30 years and have done nothing. They have already
out in lawsuits. But when the courts were getting ready to hand down a ruling
Monsanto clean up the toxin the EPA quickly made a secret deal with Monsanto to
extend the period of "study" of the problem another 2 years. So much for the EPA
"protecting the environment" or the people in that town.
Monsanto has a horrendous track record. I dont know why the citizens of the US
cannot be better protected from all such predatory companies. Ingrid
email@example.com (Bill Oliver) wrote:
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
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.
On the contrary. When you get a scientific article in a peer-reviewed
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when
used as directed, get back to me.
The rest is religious ranting. The ecofundamentalists simply can't
abide a heretic.
You're turning into quite the little ankle-biter, aren't
you, Tom. First you cyberstalk, then you try to use
sock puppets and anonymity, and now you follow me around
from thread to thread.
OK, Tom, my challenge stands.
One single scientific article in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.
One. Just one.
Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on
the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population
Authors: Tye E. Arbuckle,1 Zhiqiu Lin,2 and Leslie S. Mery3
Author's Affiliation: 1Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health,
Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Ontario Canada; 3Cancer Bureau, Population and Public Health Branch, Health
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Journal: Environ Health Perspect 109:851-857 (2001).
"The toxicity of pesticides on human reproduction is largely
unknown--particularly how mixtures of pesticide products might affect fetal
toxicity. The Ontario Farm Family Health Study collected data by
questionnaire on the identity and timing of pesticide use on the farm,
lifestyle factors, and a complete reproductive history from the farm
operator and eligible couples living on the farm. A total of 2,110 women
provided information on 3,936 pregnancies, including 395 spontaneous
abortions. To explore critical windows of exposure and target sites for
toxicity, we examined exposures separately for preconception (3 months
before and up to month of conception) and postconception (first trimester)
windows and for early (< 12 weeks) and late (12-19 weeks) spontaneous
abortions. We observed moderate increases in risk of early abortions for
preconception exposures to phenoxy acetic acid herbicides [odds ratio (OR) 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-2.1], triazines (OR = 1.4; 95% CI,
1.0-2.0), and any herbicide (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9). For late abortions,
preconception exposure to glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9),
thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of
pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated risks.
Postconception exposures were generally associated with late spontaneous
abortions. Older maternal age (> 34 years of age) was the strongest risk
factor for spontaneous abortions, and we observed several interactions
between pesticides in the older age group using Classification and
Regression Tree analysis. This study shows that timing of exposure and
restricting analyses to more homogeneous endpoints are important in
characterizing the reproductive toxicity of pesticides."
Henry Kuska, retired
Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in
Author: Dallegrave, Eliane; Mantese, Fabiana DiGiorgio; Coelho, Ricardo
Soares; Pereira, Janaina Drawans; Dalsenter, Paulo Roberto; Langeloh,
Author Address Department of Pharmacology, Instituto de Ciencias Basicas da
Saude, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Sarmento Leite
500, Sala 202, 90046-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, BrazilDepartment of
Pharmacology, Instituto de Ciencias Basicas da Saude, Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Sarmento Leite 500, Sala 202, 90046-900,
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Published in: Toxicology Letters (Shannon), volumn 142, pages 45-52, (2003).
Abstract: "The aim of this study was to assess the teratogenicity of the
herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) (as commercialized in Brazil) to Wistar
rats. Dams were treated orally with water or 500, 750 or 1000 mg/kg
glyphosate from day 6 to 15 of pregnancy. Cesarean sections were performed
on day 21 of pregnancy, and number of corpora lutea, implantation sites,
living and dead fetuses, and resorptions were recorded. Weight and gender of
the fetuses were determined, and fetuses were examined for external
malformations and skeletal alterations. The organs of the dams were removed
and weighed. Results showed a 50% mortality rate for dams treated with 1000
mg/kg glyphosate. Skeletal alterations were observed in 15.4, 33.1, 42.0 and
57.3% of fetuses from the control, 500, 750 and 1000 mg/kg glyphosate
groups, respectively. We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup(R) is toxic to
the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton."
Henry Kuska, retired
Yes, yes. If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will
poison it. Go back and read the article, instead of just
downloading the abstract. Tell me, Henry, *how much*
did it take to cause problems compared to exposure associated
with use as directed?
The lies from you just keep coming, don't they, Tom? It's
unfortunate that the ecofundamentalists have to rely on
nonexistent science and, when confronted, turn to bald-faced
lies to attempt personal destruction.
In contrast to me -- who has both science and truth on his
Tell me, Tom, who do *you* work for? How much money do
*you* make every year promoting the anti-science agenda?
Now, run away, hypocrite.
Well, at least he's only making claims for "his side," which is not the
environment's side quite clearly! If his side really is to harm the
environment then science & truth supports that he does so when using
RoundUp! Extinction of two frog speces so far; loss of century-old hedges
in England to glyphosate drift; stunting of plants seeded into areas
treated with glyphosate MONTHS before seeding; weakening of winter
tolerance in shrubs & trees & greater susceptibility to fungal diseases
all caused by RoundUp when "used as directed." And even if someone in his
family DOES come down with nonhodgson's lymphoma, who's to say it wasn't
Shillo's brand of table salt after all, rather than the Roundup
contaminating the foodchain.
-paghat the ratgirl
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Oliver) wrote:
Any fool with a modicum of internet skills can find that your UNC
professors have worked as consultants for Monsanto. Your own
leadership in your current position have consulted with and worked for
Monsanto. Circumstantial? Perhaps, but your fervor clearly provides
your identity as billo the Monsanto shillo....
<another nip at billo the shillo's ankles>
Oh, dear! Someone at the University of North Carolina might have
once worked as a consultant to Monsanto!! Now *everybody* who ever
went to UNC is a Monsanto shill. Christ. You're worse than a
Stalinist. Line up all 25,000 students against the wall and
give them a loyalty test to the ecofundamentalist cult.
I love this. You can't find any dirt on *me* so now you
try to brush all 500,000 people who ever walked through
the halls of UNC.
Tell me, hypocrite, who do *you* work for? How much
money to *you* make touting your anti-science agenda?
Oh, I know, you don't dare answer.
Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt.
After all, if one gives a short term exposure to enough water, it is
deadly. I also suppose you are actively working to remove oxygen
from the atmosphere, since oxygen is an tremendously deadly poison
at high doses.
In fact, the authors of your papers do not make the claim you pretend.
Were you to actually read the articles, you will note that *they* do
not claim that their article shows that Roundup is dangerous when used
For those not familiar with scientific methods, and wonder if "Henry"
has a point, it turns out that *everything* is toxic when given in
high enough doses. The fact that something is toxic when given in
high enough doses, such as water or oxygen, does not imply that
it is deadly with chronic exposure. In fact, there are protocols
for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols,
Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.
Sure, no problem.
Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. "Safety evaluation and risk
assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient,
glyphosate, for humans." Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2000
The danger of Roundup is so small that it is difficult to
provide any study that will show any excess mortality.
Attempts to do so have failed. However, it is possible
to calculate the excess mortality of all pesticides/herbicides
put together (of which Roundup is among the most safe).
Thus, lumping Roundup in with known carcinogens and
bad actors, you can get some data about the real
environmental risk in terms of excess cancer mortality.
On average, there are 20 excess deaths per year in
the US due environmental exposure to all pesticides
and herbicides combined, out of a total of around
560,000 total cancer deaths in 1999.
In 1981, Doll and Peto's epidemiologic estimates of
quatitative cancer risk found pesticide/herbicide
exposure to be negligible (Doll R. Peto R. "The causes
of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks
of cancer in the United States today" J. Natl. Cancer
Institute. 1981 1191-1308.).
This study was confirmed in 1987 by the EPA (Gough, M.
"Estimating cancer mortality: epidemiological and
toxicological methods produce similar assessments." Environ
Science and Technology 23:925-930).
This was again confirmed in 1996 by the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
who found that "the great majority of individual
naturaly-occuring and synthetic chemicals in the
diet appear to be present at levels below which
any significant adverse biologic effect is
likely, and so low that they are unlikely
to pose an appreciable cancer risk." (NRC,
1996 "Carcinogens and anticarcinogens in
the human diet: A comparison of naturally
occurring and synthetic substances. National
Research Council. Washington, DC. National
This was again confirmed in 1996 a
consortium including the
World Cancer Research Fund, American
Institute of Cancer Research, World
Health Organization, National Cancer
Institute, and the International
Agency for Research on Cancer. Their
metanalysis revealed that food
contamination with pesticides posed
any significant cancer risk. In fact,
they note that the use of pesticides
may *reduce* the rate of cancer worldwide
by making foods with cancer-preventative
substances more available.
In particular they note that "there is
no direct evidence that herbicide residues,
when regulated and monitored, significantly
affect human cancer risk." (Chapter 7,
Section 7.1.2 "Herbicides.")
World Cancer Research Fund. "Food,
Nutrition, and the Prevention of
Cancer: A Global Perspective." New
York: American Institute for Cancer
Research. ISBN 1899533052 670 pp
This was again confirmed in 1997 with
the Canadian Cancer Society report on
pesticides, which affirmed Doll and
Peto's conclusion. "The Panel
concluded that it was not aware of any
definitive evidence to suggest that
synthetic pesticides contribute
significantly to overall cancer mortality."
"8. The Panel did not find any exising
evidence that crop protection chemicals
and lawn and garden products are likely
to be a major cause of cancer."
(Ritter, L., Clark, H. Kaegi, E.,
Morrison, H., Sieber, S. "Report
of a panel on the relationship
between public exposure to pesticides
and cancer." Cancer 80:2019-2033,1997)
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.