You've attacked Bill Oliver, his profession, colleagues and his employer. None of this is appropriate for a science newsgroup. Why don't you discuss the data?
Long diatribes regarding the corporate misbehaviour of one of the manufacturers of glyphosate also aren't appropriate in a science newsgroup.
Andrew Taylor
In article , snipped-for-privacy@nonya.biz says... :) Number of physicians in the US = 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by :) physicians per year = 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 :) (U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services) :) :) Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun :) deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun :) owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms) :) :) Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than :) gun owners. :) :) So in other words you are stating with math that if you have a tablespoon (14150 mg) of table salt with an LD50 of 3300, and since it takes just over 1/4 table spoon to kill 50% of test animals that weigh 2.2 lbs (1kg) we are to believe that since Roundup has a LD50 of 4900 it would take just under 1/3 of a tablespoon to do the same, that roundup is actually less toxic than salt?
No, it's worse than that. Not only does she not believe the evidence that is published, she also believes in evidence that does not exist.
Worse. She says, by analogy, that the brakes are bad even though the brake tests show they are OK because she believes in nonexistent brake tests that show they are bad.
It's simple. There have been lots of studies done. *None* of them show that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. In order to show damage, the tests must involve very high doses, very long incubations, etc.
I don't ignore it. There have been lots of non-Monsanto studies done. None of them show ill effects under conditions of normal use. In order to stretch this anti-Monsanto paranoia to its limit, it is also necessary to ignore and misrepresent *all* studies. That is what paghat and her friends are doing. Go back and read how paghat misrepresented the Marc sea urchin study. Go back and read how paghat misrepresented the Erikkson study. In both, she misstated the findings. In the latter she claimed a finding in direct contradiction to that of the authors.
If you go back and look at the studies that do show damage, they all occur at exposure higher than would be found in directed use. I have already shown this in the sea urchin study that paghat dragged out. It is true in the others as well. For instance, on of the posters threw out a Wistar rat study that showed, once again, that Roundup is toxic, but only at very high doses. As the authors state: "the doses used in this study would never expected to correspond to human exposure levels under normal circumstances." (Dallegrave, E. et al. The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats Toxicology Letters 2003 142:45-52)
One would think that after all these studies, there would be *one* that shows that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, if this were in fact the case.
Such a study does not exist.
billo
Actually, my primary interest at the moment is in the use of computer vision and image analysis to medicolegal questions. I am a consultant in visualization to the FBI, chairman of the Image Analysis subcommittee on the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies (SWGIT) developing national standards for forensic image acquisition, am a consultant to the National Library of Medicine in the development of the Insight Toolkit for the analysis of Visible Human data(1), and am developing a protocol for the use of magnetic resonance microscopy for the evaluation of retinal hemorrhage in shaken baby syndrome (2). I was chosen one of Federal Computer Week's 100 most influential federal IT professionals in 1997, and was a Berry Prize finalist for excellence in Military Medicine.
Certainly I do autopsies. I was involved in the investigation of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, and on other cases in the current conflicts. I am quite proud of the calling of Forensic Pathology.
Oh, and by the way.
Who is *your* employer?
What are *your* credentials?
billo
(1)
(2) Oliver, WR, Potter, K, McLean, I, Fowler D, Downs J. Mapping Retinal Hemorrhages with Magnetic Resonance Microscopy. Proc Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 2003 11:880.
Funny thing. You are all hot to engage in personal attacks based on my profession, my person, etc. And you are hot to dig up all that stuff.
Well, not that funny, since you have no science to back up your claims.
But, oddly enough, you don't seem to have the guts to tell us about your own employer and your own credentials.
What are you hiding, Tom? What are you afraid of?
Since you brought it up, don't you think what's good for the goose is good for the gander?
Who do *you* work for?
What are *your* credentials?
billo
Gosh paghat, you were all so hot to discuss who people worked for and what credentials they have, but you seem to be afraid to tell us about your own.
What are you hiding?
Who do you work for?
What are *your* credentials?
billo
Hey, you clipped the data on doctor's killing. But I didn't post that stuff, so don't blame me for your inability to follow a fun discussion. I only pointed out his specialty is cutting up corpses so he's not contributing to those killer stats, he's just carving up people other doctors killed. If you hate the stats about the profession, go back to the original post & yell at Tom for telling it straight, not me.
Yes, Billo already stated that "scientists" don't care if the research is trumped up by dishonest people. That may not be true of all scientists; I'm not as cynical as you & Billo on that score, having worked in a research hospital long enough to have seen the good & the bad.
But I'll try to watch for the crossposts & delete as you wish. Wasn't me who added them, didn't think it should be me who removes, but if it's in your charter that rampant scientific dishonesty at companies like Monsanto is a taboo subject, so be it. Head in sand syndrome is your choice.
-paghat the ratgirl
Yeah sure David sorta like nothing came up on using arsenic treated lumber for planters and greenhouses!!!
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
Aldo Leopold
In other words yolu don't need no stinkin' science. Let's all sing Cumbia.
You are one of those organic fools.
Ah but genius you are crossposting to a agrdening newsgroup!
That awareness doesn't require an MS
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
Aldo Leopold
Meaning you're one of the ACTUAL fools who view organic gardening as so fantastically foolish you'd rather eat slime mold off an illegal chemical dump than suffer the horrors of organic produce. So be it Timster; you're welcome to your diet. Allow me equal access to mine. Help stop Monsanto's anti-free-speech campaign to prevent honest labeling thus denying me my choice.
-paghat the ratgirl
If you don't cut up corpses for a living, you're toast.
-paghat the ratgirl
Only an ecofundamentalist would consider an ideologic catechism a qualification for a scientific discussion.
What are your qualifications that would make anybody think you can read the scientific literature critically? What are your qualifications in toxicology? In cellular biology? In molecular and clinical pathology?
After all, you, paghat, and Tom make a great deal of who people are and what their qualifications are. Try to do better than religious statements.
Of course you can't.
I can easily provide a reference in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that says that Roundup is safe when used as directed:
Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., and Munro, I. C. (2000) Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 31, 117-165
See how easy that was?
Your turn.
billo
That's not an answer. *Who* do you work for?
Oh, don't sell yourself short. Please, go ahead and list your scientific credentials.
billo
No, plenty came up on that tommy, including the EPA's published finding that cca treated lumber is safe.
Dave
BWAHAHAHA, which is why they finally banned it outright. -paghat the ratgirl
'They' meaning the EPA? No, the EPA didn't ban cca treated lumber paghat.
Dave
I'm one of them! Rick Defray. There! I've revealed my *true* identity on the internet. Where's me $50,000?
Why do you keep running away, paghat? C'mon, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Who do *you* work for?
What are *your* scientific credentials?
Oh, and of course my challenge stands.
One, just one, scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Just one. One teeny itsy bitsy article.
All the personal attacks in the world can't change the fact that you can't come up with a single article.
billo
Hey Billo believe it or not the rest of the world somehow manages to stumble it's way through life without a Phd and even make reasonable decisions. After all you continue this discusion all the while remaining clueless.
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
Aldo Leopold
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.