Yes, I did read the article. The authors did not say how the exposure rate
compares with the exposure of people who use as directed. Have you done the
calculations to get the answer to this question? Is that why you are so
positive that it is not at normal exposure levels? Seems like it wouldn't
make much sense to do research with exposure levels that are not relevent to
real life. The article simply states that the active ingredient had no affect
while Roundup formulation decreased spermatogenesis. I believe the exposure
levels are listed. Of course too much of anything can be toxic. Would you
rather injest 1kg of water or 1kg of Roundup?

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
Under further investigation, Roundup APPEARS to be fairly safe. But then
as I mentioned, so did DDT. I don't know about "when used as directed",
but Roundup does have negative effects on the reproductive system at
some level...


"At some level..." Indeed, if you give an animal enough of
anyting -- including water -- you will cause pathology.
Did you read the article? Tell me, what did the
authors say about the dosage and exposure compared
to what people who use it as directed are exposed
to?

I'll give you a hint -- it was not at normal
exposure levels.

Tell me, do you consider water to be a poison?

Do the authors make the claim that this shows that
Roundup is dangerous when usd as directed? No, they
do not -- because that's not what it shows.

billo

--
Stephen Sassman
Analytical Chemist
Purdue University, Department of Agronomy
Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences
915 W. State Street, Lilly Hall
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054
Phone: (765) 471-9135