In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
dangerous because MS lied in the past.

She says that she thinks RU is unsafe and that all the evidence against
that statement are unreliable because they are largely sponsored by MS
themselves and (as we all know!) they lied in the past.


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.

She says, in analogy, she thinks german cars are unsafe and that the
only ones denying that fact are the germans who are not to be trusted
because etc... (only an analogy, lets not get into a fight about that
:-) ).


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.



My question was the same that I asked Paghat a while ago: how can you be
so sure you're right when there is such a strong force operating in the
background to cloud our vision.


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.


Surely you must be worried about this
too; it has happened in the past so why not now again. I'm a bit amazed
how you ignore this point.

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