You tell em billbo...Yeah! after all what could some analytical
chemist know about detrimental effects...end sarcasm


On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:55:10 -0500, Stephen Sassman
wrote:

I should not, and I did not. Perhaps you are confusing my post with something that
someone else has posted. My point was that just because this chemical does not
cause this specific kind of cancer does not mean that it doesn't cause other
cancers or have some detrimental affect on the endocrine system. It is wrong to say
that a chemical is safe or not safe unless you take many factors into account
(acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental fate, endocrine
disruption, etc.). Even if thorough research has been conducted, there is the
chance that some unexpected problem will rear its ugly head 20 or 30 years down the
road (remember DDT).

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
So if the government says its OK, we can dump thousands of tons of it onto our
crops? They also said that DDT was completely safe. Just because it doesn't
cause cancer doesn't mean that it is safe. You don't mention the possibility
of endocrine disruption.

So, if the authors of the article state that there is not an
association between Roundup and non-Hodgkins lymphoma under
multivariate analysis, you should not claim that they say
there is one.

billo