Re: Roundup Unready

Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is

100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.

Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment results.

I am a newcomer of rec.gardens and I don't think I should say this as if I am an old timer, but I think people spent too much effort in threads about Roundup, trying to convince others Roundup is safe or Roundup is dangerous. It is not necessary. Didn't one netter suggest the newsgroup to be renamed rec.gardens.roundup?

The key is the other silent lurkers, reading the messages in rec.gardens without posting, and even a larger group of people who do not read rec.gardens and they think of the solution to eradicate weeds and buy Roundup in Home Depot. These are the target population.

I suggest people stop arguing and debating with Bill Oliver. It is time wasting. Try to read messages by other netters. If they suggest using Roundup, telling them why it is not good. If they face a radical situation and they cannot help but use Roundup, ask them to use it very sparingly, and recommend the alternatives, which might take more money, more time, more sweat, but being more friendly with the earth.

Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.

Reply to
Siberian Husky
Loading thread data ...

billo said: "> The paradigm for glyphosate is the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma example, which

VERY RECENT (September 2003) NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, KANSAS UNIVERSITY, AND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA JOINT PAPER.

Title: Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men.

Authors: De Roos A J; Zahm S H; Cantor K P; Weisenburger D D; Holmes F F; Burmeister L F; Blair

Authors affiliation: A Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, USA. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA,

Published in: USA OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (2003 Sep), volumn 60(9), E11. (it is not yet up on their website, their most recent issue is the August issue).

Abstract: "BACKGROUND: An increased rate of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has been repeatedly observed among farmers, but identification of specific exposures that explain this observation has proven difficult. METHODS: During the 1980s, the National Cancer Institute conducted three case-control studies of NHL in the midwestern United States. These pooled data were used to examine pesticide exposures in farming as risk factors for NHL in men. The large sample size (n = 3417) allowed analysis of 47 pesticides simultaneously, controlling for potential confounding by other pesticides in the model, and adjusting the estimates based on a prespecified variance to make them more stable. RESULTS: Reported use of several individual pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to increasing numbers. CONCLUSION: Consideration of multiple exposures is important in accurately estimating specific effects and in evaluating realistic exposure scenarios."

Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com

formatting link

Reply to
Henry Kuska

I guess that in addition to providing "fishes", I should show the reader how to fish. It is my understanding that this site is one of the ways that medical doctors keep up with late-breaking information in their specialty.

The National Library of Medicine, provides free access to over 12 million MEDLINE citations back to the mid-1960's and additional life science journals. It now also provides links to some sites which provide full text articles.

It can be reached at:

formatting link
9-7-2003 search using just the term Glyphosate can be viewed at:

formatting link

Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com

formatting link

Reply to
Henry Kuska

I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles without reading them, but let's see, just for chuckles what the authors said.

"Examination of the frequency of applicator families with birth defects by pesticide use class category (Table 6) shows that 15.4% of applicators who applied fumigants, insecticides, and herbicides had at least one child with a birth defect compared with 6.8% in the referent exposure group who applied only herbicides... 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 developmental 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). No other commonly used pesticide compared by major organ and/or functional system was uniquely associated with specific adverse birth or developmental effects. Use of different classes of pesticides over the 4?6 months of agricultural pesticide use compared with the use of herbicides and no other pesticide class (herbicide use period, -15 April to 1 July) suggests that interaction among pesticide classes used may be a factor in the birth defects observed (Table 6)."

So, Henry, the paragraph begins by noting the the referent group was the herbicide-only group, the paragraph ends by noting that the referent group was the herbicide group, the OR is in the middle, and the conclusion is the one I note -- that the interaction between pesticides is the probable cause.

But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying, and that they are using a different referent group while claiming they are using the herbicide group, go ahead. If you want to claim the authors are lying when they say that it's the interaction of pesticides and not Roundup alone, then run with it.

But the bottom line is that the authors wrote what the authors wrote, and the authors used the referent group they claimed, and the conclusion is the one they concluded.

And if you bothered to read the damned articles, you would know that.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

No, pseudoscience is claiming that studies claim what they don't claim.

Henry trots out the Ontario article as his proof that Roundup is dangerous, when the authors themselves note they are not even

*testing* that question.

Henry trots out an article on Leydig cells and claims that is proof that Roundup is dangerous, when the author himself states that the article doesn't even *address* that question.

Henry trots out an article from the Red River, and ignores what the authors write in order to pretend that is says something it doesn't say.

And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading.

Indeed, there is some pseudoscience here, but it's not coming from me. It is coming from you and your ilk who claim "proof" without bothering to read the article and by contradicting what is explicitly stated in the articles.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

I am quite happey to be proven incorrect. It would help if people didn't lie about what articles stated, however.

And it doesn't matter if your opinion is based on a lie.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

I have not read this article. Since it is not my habit to pretend I know what an article says without reading it, I will comment when I have read it.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

This has been one grand charade shill. You are posting in a gardening group pretending to have a clue about the damaging effects of roundup.

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

Bill, Bill, Bill. I do not care what others argue with you regarding Roundup safety and toxicity. The fact is, all others will now turn their attention to educate other gardeners why Roundup is bad. Maybe they are using facts, maybe they are using lies, maybe they are using their own experiences.

Now you can also turn your attention into convincing other gardners that Roundup is 100% safe, use it as much as they want (of course, "as directed" :P) Let's see which side prevails.

Paghat is telling others what berries to choose for a nice winter theme, and tons of other useful information (like dealing with slugs). Now an inexperienced newbie arrives in rec.gardens. She faces Bill Oliver whose only contribution in rec.gardens is arguing Roundup is safe, and paghat who claims Roundup is dangerous while providing tons of other useful gardening tips. Who do you think the newbie is likely to believe in?

Better correct "a lie" into "an unproven claim". At least, I myself as of now never claimed anything about Roundup based on a lie. If you have problems with lies, deal with them, but don't deal with me :P

Reply to
Siberian Husky

No, I simply don't belong to the Psychic Science Network like you do.

Oh, and that reminds me Tom, since you have taken it upon yourself to follow me around engaging in nothing but personal attacks, you make a big deal of where I work and where I trained. Yet you run away when I ask those same questions of you.

Who do you work for, Tom? Why are you so ashamed of it?

How much money to you make pushing your anti-science agenda, Tom? Why do you refuse to tell us?

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

And that's the difference. You don't care if it's truth or lies. I do.

No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please feel free to contact them and ask them.

But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your "I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:

"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are considered experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed paper, this is a reviewed paper."

Go for it.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Reply to
Henry Kuska

H. Kuska reply to billo: please note that I said that the not having the paragraph marker could of occurred after the editing process and that "Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers." (I was trying to bend over backwards to accommodate your problem). Note the use of the word "some". When I was composing that reply, I considered adding the word "initial" before the word "confusion". In retrospect I probably should have as I assume any scientist who would have had any initial confusion would have done the logical thing - which is to repeat the calculation him/her self..

Reply to
Henry Kuska

billo said: "That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies. It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they were definitive do it because they have an agenda."

H. Kuska comment: billo again appears to be using a modified criteria: (this is the original one - "come up with a single scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed") to one where the scientific study must be "definitive". Unfortunately in science "definitive" is almost an impossible goal (in non simple yes/no situations). It is also a relative concept. What one group may consider for all practical purposes as "definitive" another group may not. For example, there is still a group that argues against the banning of DDT. You may have noticed that we use " 95 % Confidence Intervals". This means stasticially that the number can be thought of as being within that range with a 95 % confidence limit.

A large study is being done: "An ongoing study funded jointly by the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health and the EPA is tracking 90,000 herbicide applicators and their spouses to look for possible health effects of pesticides." (quote from the following July

2003 article:
formatting link
).

If you would like to read additional information about chemicals and birth defects you can do a Google search. A recommended site is the March of Dimes site:

formatting link
specific page on that site of interest is:
formatting link
. The pertanent information is:

"Can pesticides harm an unborn baby? Pregnant women should avoid pesticides, whenever possible. There is no proof that exposure to pest-control products at levels commonly used at home pose a risk to the fetus. However, all insecticides are to some extent poisonous and some studies have suggested that high levels of exposure to pesticides may contribute to miscarriage, preterm delivery and birth defects. Certain pesticides and other chemicals, including PCBs, have weak, estrogen-like qualities called endocrine disrupters that some scientists suspect may affect development of the fetus's reproductive system.

A pregnant woman can reduce her exposure to pesticides by controlling pest problems with less toxic products such as boric acid (use the blue form available at hardware stores). If she must have her home or property treated with pesticides, a pregnant woman should: a.. Have someone else apply the chemicals and leave the area for the amount of time indicated on the package instructions. b.. Remove food, dishes and utensils from the area before the pesticide is applied. Afterwards, have someone open the windows and wash off all surfaces on which food is prepared. c.. Close all windows and turn off air conditioning, when pesticides are used outdoors, so fumes aren't drawn into the house. d.. Wear rubber gloves when gardening to prevent skin contact with pesticides." MedLine is the source of the latest scientific information for doctors. I post abstracts from it on general public internet boards. My policy has been to post them without comment. If the reader does not have the background to understand the abstract; and if is potentially applicable to their lifestyle (in this case pregnancy), I would hope that she would bring the abstract to the attention of their doctor.

The Minnesota study states "about 3.7 % of children born on an average day in the United States are said to have a birth defect". I do not know about your family, but in my family the pregnant woman have practiced the Precautionary Principle with regard to potential birth defect agents. If a pregnant woman decides to use Round-Up, according to the most recent information available (the 2002 Minnesota paper under consideration here - "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."); she is increasing the odds of having of baby with a neurobehavioral birth defect. If she wants to waits for a "definitive" study, that is her choice; but according to the knowledge now available, she is running an increased risk. This is not simply an increased risk of a one time and it is over event, this is an increased risk of having brought into this world a child who may have a lifetime birth defect and a possible potential of being able to pass it along to future generations! About 15 years ago I read a very interesting book about birth defects and chemical exposure. Unfortunately I do not remember the title, only the subtitle - "Blame it all on Mother". After reading that book, I included information from it in my lectures about chemical safety - One of my favorate quotes went something like the following: it is a horrible thing when a war kills such and such many people, it is also horrible when a plague kills such and such many; but the real, "super" horrible event is if we somehow introduce something that ruins the gene pool or otherwise has an effect over multgenerations. A little background may be in order: Historically, we started out with brute force poisons. As our understanding of biology/botany increased, we were able to develop more specific poisons, i.e. ones that we "thought" would only affect a certain biological pathway; for example, one that only an insect had. Unfortunately, nature did not decide to make all fungi silicon based life forms and all insects calcium based life forms. Instead, we are finding out that many biological pathways are similar in different life forms. That said, I will now make what appears to be a very cold statement. Similar to what I just said about normal natural disasters, the poisons of the past could kill, say, a hundred people, or a thousand people, or even a million people; as far as the big picture is concerned - so what? These are just numbers in one dimension. With our new more sophisticated "poisons" we have to be concerned about affecting the gene pool. This is a two dimensional poison - today and future generations. A comparison more familiar to the public is to compare a biodegradable poison spill with a radioactive spill. Hopefully, the above will help the reader understand why some feel that it is even more important to be cautious with the newer chemicals than it was with the older "less sophisticated" ones - particularly when birth defects are involved. This is why many scientists (including myself) advocate the utilization of the "Precautionary Principle" for suspected birth defect chemicals. If you are not familar with this principle, please see:

formatting link
.

Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com

formatting link

Reply to
Henry Kuska

Billo said: > No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with you.

H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination. Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)".

If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples . Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes the statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed.

Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com

formatting link

Reply to
Henry Kuska

Hmmm. Let's see, can we think of any certified people who don't act exactly as directed. Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines.

All those reports of malpractice and practice errors by physicians, nurses, and medical technologists in hospitals must be lies, eh, Henry? After all, if going through an orientation session immunizes people from this kind of thing, then years of training and multiple rigorous exams must make it impossible!

And lawyers, they never cut corners either, do they? Or plumbers. Or carpenters. Or welders. Or funeral homes. Or restauranteurs. At least not licensed ones.

And god knows that there are no licensed drivers that ever break the law.

Henry, a good part of my living is investigating the messes caused by trained and licensed people who ignore the rules. There's nobody better than a trained and licensed Ordnance Disposal Expert to be found blowing up himself and his kids welding on a full propane tank.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and "experts" are some of the worst at cutting corners -- because they are good enough that they

*can* often cut corners and get away with it.

My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed.

It was not a subject of the paper. Since it was not addressed, a scientist would not make unwarranted assumptions one way or the other. Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested.

This is another paper who's purpose was to generate hypotheses, not test them, and you tout this as a paper that tests the hypotheses.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Then don't read.

There is nothing that says that some day it will be found that growing one crop next to another will cause both crops to be poisonous. It has never happened, to my knowledge, but one cannot rule out everything. Does that mean that you should never plant crops?

The only think you know is that after all this looking, the kind of thing you are talking about has not happened. That suggests that unless you are doing something novel, it will not happen. If you believe that one should live one's life believing that things for which there is no evidence are about to happen, go ahead. However, most people look for evidence before drawing conclusions.

I decide that something is safe by looking at the available evidence. The evidence is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed. Even if the untested hypotheses that certain groups with high exposure to multiple pesticides and herbicides may be at a slightly higher risk for rare problems were nor found to be a false lead from noisy statistics, I would ask if I fall in that group.

What does this have to do with my statement?

That's fine. You can advocate whatever you like on the basis of taste, aesthetics, religion, or whim. I won't argue with you, and I won't criticize you.

Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

No, Henry. If you want to make a statement about whether or not something is being used as directed, you study whether or not something is being used as directed. This is not meaningless. And it is not hard. What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not.

It would not be hard to test whether or not something is being used as directed. One might start with asking the quesition and finding out whether or not the respondents even claim that it is being used as directed. The second thing one might do is find out whether or not the respondents even actually

*know* what the criteria are. The third is to physically look and see if the criteria are being met -- in the case of professional applicators, one can look in the barn and see if things are actually being stored correctly, look at the equipment and see if it is calibrated, look at residual levels in the workplace and see if spillages are correctly handled.

As an example of the second, consider the use of Daubert criteria in the courts. A few years ago, the Supreme Court changed the way scientific evidence was admitted into court. They set up some specific criteria and stated that the judges were to be the gatekeepers of what was and was not legally considered "science."

Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results, one would believe that federal and state judges, who have passed the boards, have massive experience, and have specific training would understand and correctly apply these criteria. However, when people actually set down and asked that question, the results were not what you would expect. In a questionnaire of judges, it turned out, for instance, while 88% agreed that "falsifiability" was an important criteria and that they used it regularly, only 6% knew what it meant; 91% felt that a known error rate was important, but only 4% knew what it meant; only 71% understood the concept of peer review.

If you want to know if someone is actually following a protocol or instructions, you test for it. You don't just assume it. It's not hard, Henry. It's done in medicine *all the time,* and the results of such studies show that it is important to test for it. And it's not a meaningless question to ask. Ipse dixit died years ago, perhaps not before you retired, but in today's world of inquiry it is by no means meaningless to actually ask if people are doing things as directed.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

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.