and they continue to claim that it is safe as used directly.
Uh huh. Please provide the EPA document that states that Roundup is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.
OK. Provide the document where the EPA says that Roundup is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.
They are not calling Roundup a dangerous neurotoxin. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.
Fine. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.
Ah, yes. The NCI -- another Monsanto shill as far as you're concerned.
No science, once again. Just cult ranting. Provide a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims that Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. One. Just one.
None of which purport to show any side effects in humans from Roundup when used as directed.
Please prove that pink bunnies with purple antlers don't exist in the wild. After all, just because you can't find them no matter how hard you look doesn't mean that you should infer they aren't there, right? There is not *one* scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that there is any danger to humans from Roundup when used as directed.
You can believe in an unproven, unfounded, undocumented speculation-based "danger" all you want. Just like you can believe that there really is a big purple monster under your bed at night that disappears whenever you look. Just don't pretend your speculations are based on science.
Billo, as an additional example of the acceptance of abstracts in the scientific community, I am familiar with authors' using as a reference in a published paper an abstract of a paper. I have given you links to what an abstract contains.
Billo said: "> Read the context, buddy. Go back and see where "meaningless" was used
My reply: The poster that you are replying to said the following: "You can read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the specifics are going to be meaningless." She did not say that the overall article as described in the abstract was meaningless.
This is what you said: "This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless." Notice, you are now not referring to a "specific". Also, please note your use of the word "them" following "articles", I interpret "them" as referring to "articles". I interpret "one" (as used twice) as referring to the person who cited the article (abstract) feeling that the article (abstract) was meaningful.
If I put that paragraph into context and include the paragraph before that one, the quote becomes: ""As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite articles I have not bothered to read. (Note a blank line appeared here in your post) This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."
Continuing my reply (H. Kuska): there is a world of difference between a "specific" in a paper and the paper itself.
The "This is particularly true" contains the word "This" - which I interpret as the being the paragraph before (not the earlier discussion of a specific section of an actual paper). You may have meant something else; but as you actually wrote it, you are not referring to the comments made by the person that you originally started to reply to (which you now call "the reader") but to the poster of abstracts ("scientific discussion where one is citing articles "). I do not find the abstracts that I post meaningless to me - I feel that I understant the important points.
You have indicated in your comments concerning the "Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in Wistar rats." abstract that to study high dosages is ..... lots of words that indicate (to me) that you feel the study was meaningless..... How can one say that a published study is meaningless (in so many words) and not also be saying something about the authors, editor, and reviewers? i.e. I took your statement concerning meaningless in the context of what you have been saying in this thread.
Yes, you started discussing the post with a third party but you broadened your discussion. In the next set of paragraphs you also indicate that you are no longer just talking to the poster that you started to reply to (for example: " But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles......". Note the appearance of "you all"). . Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com
H. Kuska original statement: > >Now please show me your logic diagram that excludes effects during pregnancy
(Note, I also provided the information that he would need if they had "directed" pregnant women to not use it): My additional original statement: "Concerning the "as directed" I have included the label information for one product
formatting link
may want to start by using the PDF search function for the base word preg to see if it tells pregnant workers not to use the material. I did not look at all the labels, if you are interested go to:
formatting link
can also look at the MSDS:
formatting link
"
Billo's answer:
H. Kuska's original statement: > >Apparently you do not think it is important to know that there is an
No, the book supplied me with the source of many items a Republican friend is constantly bombarding me with as "the truth" according to conservative pundits. A bunch of Harvard students helped Franken research the source of a lot of these "truths," which aren't all that true. I'm having fun with the truth.
Wow is right. Even as loony as Shillo's arguments get, claiming RoundUp is as safe as oxygen & water is beyond loony even by his commonly loony standards. But only "as directed" we must remember! Previously he said it was "safe as table salt" picking up a cue from specific Monsanto PR literature & quoting Monsanto verbatim while pretending he gets these recognizable PR bits from reading "entire" peer-reviewed articles while obviously familiar with nothing that was not already quoted in Monsanto PR pieces.
After comparing it to table salt (the word "table" being essential in such PR spins trying to make salts of glyphosate sound edible, especially since Monsanto does end up causing us to eat the shit), he then posted about twenty times he never posted what he posted, & tried to rewrite it every ten ways from Sunday to mean something other than the merely parroted propoganda he copied from Monsanto without thinking twice. So now it's not only safe AS table salt, it's safe AS water & safe AS oxygen. Well he's welcome to breathe it, swim in it, & sprinkle it on his potatoes (the same potatoes already infused with cancer-causing neurotoxins from RoundUp).
This alternative reality where Shillo eats & drinks & breathes RoundUp & is so happy & safe in that soupy grey universe of his, all thanks to Lord Monsanto, well gosh, that place must exist only in his room at the mental asylum.
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in news:bj5vm1$8ar$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.radix.net:
You can just as well stop it Bill. You stories you tell and even the way you deliver them remind ppl of the way they were deceived in the past.
Even when you were right, you'd never convince anybody. The reason is you're unable/unwilling to acknowledge that serious ppl are seriously concerned. Unless you show at least some understanding about your opponents, not just the hardliners but the average ppl that they come from, ppl will in the end see you as a puppet for the industry. In fact they do already. You overdid it; I think it is a character flaw; many scientists have it. You're just to sure of yourself; nobody can be _that_ sure. Have you never wondered?
As opposed to believing the anti-science hysterics, who deserve unquestioning allegiance, eh?
I acknowledge they are concerned. I just wish they would stop lying about what the scientific literature says. Somehow, though, that's just too much to ask.
See, Ursa, I expect that "average people" will be able to see through the ecofundamentalist hysteria when shown the tactics of the cult. I think that "average people" are pretty smart. I think they realize that it's not inappropriate to ask for scientific data to back up scientific claims. I think they realize that it's not a good idea to lie about what scientific articles say. I think they realize that it's not a good idea to try to demonize and personally attack anybody who doesn't unthinkingly agree to the party line as a "Monsanto shill." I think "average people" realize that when cultists stoop to the kind of attacks the people here have attempted, these people have nothing but their fundamentalist religious fervor behind them.
The funny thing, Ursa, is that it's considered bad to dare question the dogma put out by the ecofundamentalists -- anybody who doesn't unthinkingly accept whatever bullshit the ecofundamentalists ply is "a puppet for the industry."
I am not "that" sure of myself. I simply know that when people lie about what scientific articles say, when they pretend to science that doesn't exist, and when they rely primarily on personal attack to make their points, they probably don't have a very good position.
Why am I sure that you can't come up with a single scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed? Because I have read the literature and because if there was such an article, people who push the anti-Roundup hysteria wouldn't have to lie about what the articles state.
I am quite willing to be proven wrong. You can prove me wrong by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
Until then, don't criticize me for daring to ask for it when cultists lie and state such data exists.
I know it's heresy, but it's about time somebody noted the ecofundamentalist emperor has no clothes, at least on this issue.
In article , snipped-for-privacy@MOiname.VEcom says... :) Unless you show at least some understanding about your :) opponents, not just the hardliners but the average ppl that they come :) from, ppl will in the end see you as a puppet for the industry. In fact :) they do already. :) Why would you think "average ppl" look at him as a puppet to the industry. I would think most know that those who choose to live their life in a "Sky is falling" attitude are too emotionally tied to their beliefs to attempt to hold down a discussion and am more surprised Bill even bothers.
Shillo also just doesn't care what's true & looks at things WAY more one-sidedly than either a scientist (he NEVER sounds like one) or an activist. For instance, when one looks at the assessments of the possibilities of glyphosate alone being carcinogenic, the best assessments disagree. The EPA classifies it as a Class C carcinogen ("probably" carcinogenic to humans), but other government departments classify it as Class D (probably carcinogenic to animals).It may in the long run prove to be a much more aggressive human carcinogen than that, the indicators are not in glyphosate's favor, but "probable" is close enough for anyone sensible to avoid it. Yet to Shillo, the only important point is that EPA never said it was DEFINITELY a carcinogen. To him that automatically means it isn't! As for RoundUp per se (rather than just the glyphosate) five components of it (ingredients, decay chemicals, & common contaminants) are DEFINITIVELY carcinogens.
But really one could overlook the cancer threat & restrict one's worries to the environment per se & see even more clearly that RoundUp is a dangerous, harmful product that has already done extravagant harm -- these things aren't even questionable. Yet Shillo twists & misrepresents the evidence to say not only "NOT carcinogenic" when it clearly is, but he goes further to deny all the other enormous risks & problems with glyphosate. He LIES and PRETENDS these problems don't exist if it is "used as directed" -- he parrots that lie even when repeatedly corrected, because in fact when used as directed it has caused extravagant ecological problems from adaptive superweeds to frog extinctions to weakening of trees' winter hardiness & resistance to pathogens & threatening endangered native flora, to stunted seedlings planted in RoundUp treated ground MONTHS after treatment, to the unintended death of century-old hedges in England, to stunting & death of spruce seedlings in Canada -- all the results when Used As Directed. None of which matters even a little to an appalling scamp who is devoted to Monsanto & glad to serve his buddies by serving as a lying shill on UseNet -- which, by the by, Monsanto has asked its employees to do as a "tactic" intended to muddy the truth & demean environmentalists & scientists alike who Monsanto can't buy off or control.
So rather than admit this chemical causes harm he argues whether or not the proof that glyphosate harms animal endocrine & reproduction systems even applies to humans, & drags out again & again Monsanto-generated stats already widely peer-reviewed & shown to include conclusions not substantiated by the research, & generated by specialists in slight-of-hand in favor of the chemical & tobacco companies. None of which matters to Shillo. He frankly doesn't care about the facts -- he cares about muddying the facts as complete honesty will never show Monsanto to be a trustworthy guardian of environmental & public health. For all the smoke & mirrors he attests to, some fabricated, some at least moderately close to the truth, the bottom line really is that glyphosate products have already been throughly proven to be greatly harmful to the environment, & will not be used by responsible gardeners & farmers or anyone who cares one whit about the environment OR human health.
That really is the bottom line: It causes harm & will not be used by anyone responsible.
Billo said: "> Why am I sure that you can't come up with a single scientific
H. Kuska reply: Billo, ????????? You were shown such article(s), for example: "I posted an abstract which was titled "Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population" (published in 2001).A key section was: "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."You "commented" (I did not consider a rebuttal) on this abstract on August 31. On September 1 I posted an abstract titled "Title: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA." )published in
2002). A key sentence in this abstract is: "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."
Now please show me your logic diagram that excludes effects during pregnancy from the universe that you include in the logic circle of "not dangerous to humans when used as directed."
Concerning the "as directed" I have included the label information for one product
formatting link
may want to start by using the PDF search function for the base word preg to see if it tells pregnant workers not to use the material. I did not look at all the labels, if you are interested go to:
formatting link
can also look at the MSDS:
formatting link
" Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com
Fine. Provide the reference from the EPA that states that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. It really is that simple. Since you clearly have the citation where the EPA says that, there's no need to talk *around* it.
No, the bottom line is that claims that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed are not based in science, but instead in simple cultish repetition.
C'mon, paghat, you have claimed you have EPA documents stating that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Bring them on out. I've given *my* citations from the EPA that say the opposite. It really is easy to find them. Go ahead.
No, Henry. I simply accept what authors state. The association, in the words of the authors, is "tentative." You may think they're lying, but I believe them. And, since it compares glyphosate+pesticide to glyphosate, to draw the conclusion that this means that glyphosate alone is dangerous is drawing a conclusion that was simply not tested.
If you want to test the toxicity of using glyphosate, then test it against *not* using glyphosate.
If you test eating red beans + arsenic against eating red beans alone, and the people who eat red beans and arsenic get sick, that's not an indictment of the beans. Yet you claim it is.
I am quite willing to accept what these paper say. I just don't like people pretending the papers say things they
*don't* say or pretending they make claims they *don't* make.
You keep acting like I am criticizing the papers. I am not. They are great papers in the sense that they are careful in their claims. Unfortunately, the people who tout them are not as careful; they are whom I criticize. My problem is with you, not with the authors or the journal.
You really should stop misstating my position in order to argue straw men. That doesn't say much for the rest of your argument.
In this particular article, in which other pesticides
glyphosate had a higher risk than glyphosate alone, the finding is not surprising. There are many pesticides for which the acceptable exposure rate depends on incomplete absorption. Roundup contains substances that enhance absorption. Many other studies have shown that toxic effects are either greatly enhanced or due primarily to surfactants.
Thus, the author's findings that Roundup+pesticide is more dangerous than Roundup alone is in line with previous findings. Your claim that this is an indictment against Roundup alone, however, is simply not supported by the paper. It was not
*tested* by the authors. This is not a criticism of the paper; it is a criticism of your claims about it.
billo said: "> Dude, read the paper. What is the referent group for this OR calculation?
H. Kuska reply: Billo, please go back to table 6, that is where the referent herbicide group (that you refer to) was utilized (8 out of 118). The authors do not have to state what referent group they are using for each Odds Ratio calculated, it is defined by definition. If you are unwilling to accept this by trusting the authors, do the calculation yourself for the similar phosphine case (see below).
Readers of this thread can check the calculation themselves by using the following program:
formatting link
raw information on page 445 is:
"Altogether 3.8% of children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of those who did not use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or neurobehavioral sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22-5.05). Similarly, use of the phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) was overrepresented in the adverse birth and development effect group. Forty-three percent of the children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported ADD/ADHD used phosphonamino herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35 - 9.65)."
The above is the odds ratio data that appears in the abstract for glyphosate. Unfortunately for this discussion, they do not give sufficient raw data in the body of the paper to check this number; but they do for the parallel phosphine case which they treat in detail (for the readers of this thread, it is common in articles, to save space, to only treat in detail one case if the others are similar).
For phosphine the calculated OR was reported as 2.48 with a CI of 1.2-5.1. Unfortunately, the raw data is given on page 445 as percent. To use the above program per cent has to be changed to whole numbers. This will have a significant effect on the CI and also possibly lead to small round off errors in the OR but will give you a ballpark figure to show that they used the correct referent group.
a = 3.8% which when converted to whole numbers is 38. b = 100% - a = 96.2% which converted is 962. c = 1.5 % which when converted to whole numbers is 15 d = 100% - c = 98.5% which converted is 985
The calculated OR is 2.59 and the 95% CI is 1.42-4.75.
Please let me know if there are any points that you need clarified.
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com
In the words of The Dalai Lama, when asked if science proved reincarnation didn't exist he said: " I will renounce it immediately."
So, if H.H. can say that of a basic and profound belief in Buddhism that we reincarnate, why can't simpletons get their minds around the dangers of glyphosate?
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.