billo said: " I gather then, that when you posted in reply to that
challenge, you were actually *not* posting in reply to that challenge, but
merely posting non-responsive things that had nothing to do with the claim
that Roundup is or is not dangerous to humans when used as directed."

H. Kuska reply: again your logic?????? I have posted a number of
literature references that have to do with side effects due to the
utilization of Round-up.
The first abstract that I posted was on August 27 in the subthread started
by: "Message 20 in thread
From: Stephen Sassman )
Subject: Roundup Unready


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Date: 2003-08-27 11:00:16 PST


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)."----------------------------------------------I posted
an abstract which was titled "Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect
of Pesticide Exposure on
the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population" (published
in 2001).A key section was: "For late abortions, preconception exposure to
glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9), thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI,
1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of
pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated
risks."You "commented" (I did not consider a rebuttal) on this abstract on
August 31. On September 1 I posted an abstract titled "Title: Birth
defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide
applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA." )published in
2002).A key sentence in this abstract is: "Use of the herbicide glyphosate
yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."

Now please show me your logic diagram that excludes effects during pregnancy
from the universe that you include in the logic circle of "not dangerous to
humans when used as directed."

Concerning the "as directed" I have included the label information for one
product
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_..._atz/label.pdf ,
you may want to start by using the PDF search function for the base word
preg to see if it tells pregnant workers not to use the material. I did not
look at all the labels, if you are interested go to:
http://www.cdms.net/manuf/mprod.asp?mp=23&lc=0

You can also look at the MSDS: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp23P011.pdf

Apparently you do not think it is important to know that there is an
"elevated risk". That is your choice, if your wife agrees with you; she
can continue to apply Round-up when she is pregnant. Others may ellect to
apply the Precautionary Principle.


Henry Kuska