In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Scientists undertake a research project for a reason (i.e. they are trained
to know what type of experiments will produce meaningful data). They then
submit their results to a refereed journal which is edited by someone well
respected in the field. If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that
the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it
gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their
own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points".

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.


Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt.
After all, if one gives a short term exposure to enough water, it is
deadly. I also suppose you are actively working to remove oxygen
from the atmosphere, since oxygen is an tremendously deadly poison
at high doses.

In fact, the authors of your papers do not make the claim you pretend.
Were you to actually read the articles, you will note that *they* do
not claim that their article shows that Roundup is dangerous when used
as directed.

For those not familiar with scientific methods, and wonder if "Henry"
has a point, it turns out that *everything* is toxic when given in
high enough doses. The fact that something is toxic when given in
high enough doses, such as water or oxygen, does not imply that
it is deadly with chronic exposure. In fact, there are protocols
for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols,
Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.


billo