In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 14:52:24 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

Well, since we are in such a sharing mood, and since the
bunch here is such a fan of open disclosure, why don't
you tell us who *you* work for and what *your* qualifications
are?

Who do *you* work for?

I work for me, my husband, our pet parrot, the Tibetan People in exile in India,
Tibetan Nuns and volunteer work.

What are *your* qualifications?

Qualifications for what? For everything?

Narrowing it down, my qualifications
are as follows: I will not, nor do I ever intend to cause any harm to, or death
of anything with the use of a pesticide.

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.


And, of course, my challenge stands. One article. One.


billo

Your challenge is denied. How about you provide an article which says
glysophate is safe. Not relatively safe, but safe.


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