On 21 Aug 2003 15:00:19 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Oliver) opined:
Used as directed being the key phrase. It's not used as directed in most cases,
and that misuse is indeed harmful to humans. Maybe you need to think outside
the box a little.
I never deceived you. If I have, you didn't quote it here. I merely said that
RoundUp is not safe for humans. Prove to me it is safe. Prove to me humans use
it correctly. Prove to me RoundUp Ready Soy and Corn is safe to consume. Tell
me how the world is better off having it than not having it. All thoughts which
go well outside the tiny corridor within which you make your scientific claims.
What religious fanaticism? What the hell are you talking about?
I wouldn't know. I actually don't really care, either.
What's in this for you? Must be something. I can't wrap myself around this
silly notion that because a label says something, you actually believe people
read it and follow it.
That is silly.
Incorrect. What it is doing is creating an emotional alienation such
that people who ought to be smart enough to read for themselves are
willing (and admitting) to permit their sense to be clouded by their
"credence" comes from the facts. Billo did not say "Glyphosate is as
safe as table salt."
I have quoted what he did, in fact, say. Irrespective of your
personal distaste for Billo's persistance, the facts stand by
On 20 Aug 2003 11:05:05 GMT, email@example.com (Bill Oliver) opined:
I thought I cleared this one up about a hundred posts ago! I was the one who
said Monsanto's ad campaign where they say, "Roundup, safe as table salt..." was
pulled by a New York court and was being sued for a number of things. I don't
ever recall YOU saying the phrase. I do think maybe some poor editing in posts
may have made it look like you said it, and you may have. I know for sure that
I said it. Hope that clears things up.
Many people have "cleared this one up." Paghat doesn't care.
She knows it's a lie. She prefers the lie -- like pretending
to scientific data that doesn't exist, and pretending to
dangers that do not exist.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Oliver) wrote in
That may be true and we should try to avoid that as well. But people are
irrational, period. That is why they could be deceived by Monsanto and
that is why they keep distrusting them after that, maybe longer than
needed, but still...
If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it
again. I did not say that.
I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational ones.
If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will never be
heard. Fact of life.
Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their trust.
They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational) doubts.
And me :-). Btw. I'm not accusing you of conflict of interest; I just
asked you to acknowledge that such things exist and to give us your
opinion on it. Since you so intensely ignore that issue it is as if you
I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.
Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought and an unacceptable form
of doing business, yes. We do not have to agree on that. However, if the
sheer amount of historic lies by Monsanto does not even make you doubt the
evidence, then you can not expect ppl to take you serious. This is just an
observation I make, trying to explain why you didn't win any hearts.
I don't think Monsanto needs any demonizing by me, they are doing a rather
good job themselves.
I'm really concerned. Monsanto is trying to use still underresearched GM-
technology to get an edge that will pay out 10000-fold during the coming
century. Of course they will use any means to get to that goal. They have
en enormous apparatus in place to misinform all the officials and they
don't even deny it. They have about the worst track-record possible
regarding environmental issues.
In this game, with huge, huge interests at stake, Roundup plays a central
role. It would seem only logical that because of that alone there would be
hardly any trustworthy evidence around.
If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us to
take your position seriously. To me this thread was an interesting attempt
to get some more insight in this difficult issue. In weighing the evidence
I tried to get a hold on the thought-processes behind them. I think the
picture is complete by now.
Thanks anyway for the lively debate,
That's great as a religious statement. Your belief may be *about*
rationality, but it is itself irrational, as I will discuss below.
And here is where your irrationality manifests. The studies that
fail to show any danger from Roundup are *not* Monsanto studies.
Certainly, Monsanto data threw down the claim, but there have
been tens of studies trying to disprove the claim. They have
*all* failed. Independent government studies have confirmed
that Roundup is safe to humans when used as directed.
But all you can think of is "Monsanto." You cannot even
*think* of Roundup independent of your ideologic opposition
And in doing so, you not only have to dismiss the Monsanto
data, you have to dismiss *all* verified data.
That is where you become irrational. From the perspective
you promulgate, *all* science, *all* governments, *all*
organizations (other, of course, anti-Roundup advocacy groups)
are tainted by Monsanto. The judge of whether or not
a study is corrupt is *not* in how it was done, *not*
in its methods, *not* in its inherent quality. The judge
of whether or not a study is to believed relies solely
in its *results.* If it shows Roundup is bad, it must
be a good study. If it fails to show that Roundup is
bad, it must be tainted by Monsanto.
I have addressed the issue. There are no studies that show
any danger of Roundup to humans when used as directed. There
exist independent studies that show that Roundup is safe
when used as directed.
You ask the impossible. No matter *what* Monsanto does, it will
not be enough. There is no "much better job" that can be done
when nothing Monsanto says is believed.
It has been. All those studies trying to knock down Monsanto's claims
that failed. What do you think they were doing? All those independent
government studies. What do you think they were doing?
Exactly. Regardless of the biology, Roundup is thought crime. It
has nothing to do with science *or* rationality.
The fact is that controlled studies have been done to induce
toxic effects. These invariably require high doses and/or
long incubations that do not represent any reasonable condition
of normal use. There is no more that *can* be done. The way
you show something is safe is to expose test tissue/organisms/etc.
to the substance and see how much it takes to cause problems.
That has been done. *Every* study shows that toxic effects
require high doses and/or long incubations, *no* studies show
toxic effects at exposures related to use as directed. What
more, exactly, do you want?
And there will never be enough, because any facts you don't like
you will dismiss as being thought-crime.
That's right. If the Germans hadn't shown remorse, all their cars
would thus have bad brakes, no matter what any performance tests,
mechanical evaluations, or engineering studies showed. That's
what you call rational.
On 21 Aug 2003 19:02:07 GMT, email@example.com (Bill Oliver) opined:
No, I pretty much meant quite literally, little man, as in tiny, short, needle
dick, short, baby hands, maybe even high heeled cowboy booted, too.
Wiggle out of what? And the term okay is not spelled, "OK," for future
reference. Yeah, why not. I pulled it out.
Huh? I don't know how aware you are, nor do I know you from this or any other
newsgroup, but Tom and I were constant bickering fighters on this newsgroup for
years. Then I think we realized we are on the same side and spoke at length and
he gave me very good information which now has my garden much healthier and I
notice a certain deficit of most noxious weeds as a result of very healthy,
overflowing with biota; soil.
I would never pretend to be Snow White. I wouldn't know how. I assure you that
though I'm 47 years old I'd never to date seen the Disney torture film, Snow
White. I mean, I am white. But I really don't like snow.
You're annoying at best, but if this is YOUR sacred cow, so be it. When will
you be spraying. Maybe you can share you RoundUp forays with the rest of us.
Tell us all about how you use it in the garden.
Pretty pathetic, Tom. Not only do you run and hide when
I ask the same questions of you that you cyberstalked
to get from me. Now you try to hide behind a sock puppet.
It takes a special kind of person to try to hide behind an
anonymous ID to engage in personal attacks.
And you, obviously, are that kind of special person.
By the way, you don't do it very well. A stalker
*and* a coward.
Your hypocrisy is even worse than I thought.
Who do you work for, Tom? Remember, Tom,
*you* are the one who thinks this is
important -- when you're not hiding behind
a sock puppet, that is.
How much money do you make every year pushing
your anti-science agenda?
What are *your* credentials?
And, of course, my scientific challenge stands -- one
single article that shows that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed. Just one.
Yes it is. Your hypocrisy, your commercial interests in
anti-roundup hysteria, your attempt to hide your identity,
your lack of any scientific basis, and your pathetic attempt
at personal attack are pretty plain.
The jig *is* up.
The "hunting down" was not done by me. It was done by those who,
lacking any scientific basis, decided to try to dig up dirt
on me -- and, failing that, made things up.
Then you have not been reading this thread.
First, *no* experiment can show *anything* to be "safe" to your
definition. If you apply that standard, the *everything* is
life-threatening. In fact, all studies have shown that toxic
effects require very high doses or very long incubations. What
kind of study, for example, would you require?
Second, the studies were not all done by Monsanto.
Third, if it were "just" that they don't like Monsanto,
it would not be necessary to engage in the attempts
at personal destruction that paghat, animaux, Tom,
and their ilk specialize in. This is not just a matter
of them disagreeing with the scientific literature, this
thier attempt at witch-burning.
Your memory is faulty. If you read the thread you will notice
that the personal attacks started from *day one* with paghat,
et al. accusing me of being in the pay of Monsanto, attacking
my integrity, etc. There was no "subconscious" misreading here.
Maybe you should be counselling paghat, animaux, Tom, et al.
On 26 Aug 2003 11:44:22 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Oliver) wrote:
now and then. But I am a retired ironworker, and several years
back worked at a plant locally that made 'roundup'. It is a chemical
that has to be respected. One of the workers got it on his arm, and
by the time he "knew it" he was burned very bad. Like I said, I was a
consturction worker there, we were making revisions. I still don't
know the makeup of roundup, but if I am around it I'm very careful.
Just my two cents, C. L.
email@example.com wrote in message
(Bill Oliver) wrote:
Putting Roundup on our arms is not "used as directed" so Roundup is
not considered toxic at all according to Bill Oliver's insisting on
"used as directed" condition :)
(That means sulfuric acid H2SO4 and hydrofluoric acid HF are pretty
safe if we use them "as directed")
Anyway, if you can provide more information about the case in the
plant, including dates, locations, and else, others might find more
about the safety of Roundup. It is not documented in a scientific
journal as Bill demanded, but that provides something the gardeners
are looking for.
Roundup is sprayed in such a manner that it is entirely probable that it will
into contact with skin, it does get inhaled. Humans and animals are very likely
come into contact with sprayed plants as well and get transfer contact.
Neither sulfuric nor HF are sprayed in that manner, it is not directed to be
The safety of products is tested not just for the majority of people, but the
majority and for children, who are often much more sensitive. And products must
be safe only for occasional use, but must be safe for those who are using it all
time. A reason many pesticides can only be used by people licensed to do so.
who's work is applying these pesticides are at the highest risk and why shouldnt
be protected from high and cumulative toxic effects? The only way to assess
toxicity is in animals who are given high and cumulative doses. There is very
scientific reasons for the methodology. Past experience with toxins that have
slipped thru lesser testing methods has been a painful lesson to the science
community. DDT and thalidomide and DES and PCBs not to mention HRT and the long
effect on women. The tests have to get more stringent, not less. But what is
sprayed and dumped into the environment has a much greater likely hood of getting
into the water supply, a much greater likely hood of persistence and poisoning
generations compared to pills taken by some individuals. This is the poisoning
earth just so a few companies can make some humongous short term profits.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Siberian Husky) 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.
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.