billo, thank you for your reply as to why you reject my claim that the paper
that I presented does meet your stated criteria of: "You can prove me wrong
by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to
show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed."

H. Kuska reply: I would of preferred that you use my suggested logic
diagrams in your reply as that formal approach would of allowed a much more
precise discussion, but I will go along with your choice of style.

To make the discussion easier to follow for the thread readers, I will now
divide your criteria into sections. They a You can prove me wrong by
providing a 1) scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that 2) claims
to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans 3) when used as directed."

Section 1. -"scientific article in a peer reviewed journal".

The thread readers can decide whether I have met this criteria by going to
the National Institute of Health link http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ which
states:

"Welcome to ehponline, the website of Environmental Health Perspectives
(EHP), a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the discussion of the effect of
the environment on human health. EHP comprises 17 issues annually with
monthly sections devoted to children's health and environmental medicine, a
toxicogenomics research section published with toxicogenomics news in
separate quarterly issues, and an annual review issue. We also publish a
quarterly Chinese-Language Edition and occasional special issues.
Publications of the National Toxicology Program including the Report on
Carcinogens are also available on ehponline."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2. - "claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans".

A little background may be required here. If one is bit by a West Nile virus
carrying mosquito, there is a certain increased risk that one could die over
the background average risk of death during the same time period for all
people living at that moment. ( i.e. science cannot tell the person bitten
with 100% certainty that he will or will not die.) We can describe some
events in nature by the terms yes or no; other events are too complex for
mortal man so we have developed the use of "odds ratio" (OR) and "confidence
interval" CI. Is this the best way to describe complex science, possibly
not; but this the accepted way at present. Since billo stated he wants
information in a peer reviewed journal, he should be willing to accept the
standard form of presenting that information. If a reader of this thread is
not familiar with the above terms, please go to
http://www.cmh.edu/stats/definitions/or.htm for an explanation.

The pertinent part of the abstract that H. Kuska presented is: "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"
(they use glyphosate rather than Round-Up, I, H. Kuska assume that this is
because glyphosate herbicides have a number of different brand names). Billo
points out that in the manuscript the following appears ""Finally, of the 14
pesticides identified by class (Table 5), only phosphine and glyphosphate
showed a significant correlation with excess adverse birth and
neurodevelopmental effects. Whether these observations were chance
associations remains a concern. Further detailed neurodevelopmental studies
are required to resolve these issues."

Returning to H. Kuska comments: Note that the descriptor used is
"significant", for the readers of this thread - the wording in a peer
reviewed scientific publication has to be approved by the authors, editor,
and reviewers.

The meanings of "significant" are (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=significant ):

"1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.

2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive: a significant glance.
See Synonyms at expressive.

3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important: a significant change
in the tax laws.

4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no
significant opposition.

5. Statistics. Of or relating to observations or occurrences that are too
closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicate a
systematic relationship."

Returning to H. Kuska comments: the paper then states: "Whether these
observations were chance associations remains a concern. Further detailed
neurodevelopmental studies are required to resolve these issues." This
statement is an example of "good science". In a recent review paper (
http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/rose%20...d%20pollen.htm ) I stated
something similar: "As is typical of scientific caution (or at least should
be), he points out that finding the virus in the seedlings is not a
definitive proof of transmission through the rose seed."

Back to the paper under discussion, science has limitations, scientists
cannot examine an infinite number of data points or possible correlations.
Those not examined are what collectively is listed as "chance" (if there
actually is order to nature). You can also see this in the use of a 95%
Confidence Interval - a 100% confidence limit is beyond our current ability.
What trained scientists do is test for correlations that they feel may be
potential contributors. I will here use an example that I used to use in my
courses: if someone felt that the actual correlation with an observed
phenomena was the age of the grandmothers of the people being studied, that
information could be put into the computer program. If the correlation
coefficient came out near zero, the research group knows that the age of the
grandmothers was not a contributor. This is a powerful method but it is
always possible that a contributing factor was missed. The editor and
reviewers can require that the authors look at additional possible
contributors if they feel the paper is deficient. This paper as it was
published was approved.

If billo wants to limit his criteria in his future posts to papers that
claim 100% certainty he can do so. I feel that such a restriction makes his
quest meaningless.

NEXT SECTION

Billo's statement: "But Henry, what is that odds ratio compared to -- what
is the referent population? The referent is to compare the pesticide
applicators against those who apply herbicides only.

Oops.

In other words, the article states that pesticide applicators who apply
glyphosate in addition to all the other stuff they apply have an increased
odds ratio compared to using herbicides (such as glyphosate) alone. That's
why, by the way, the article is about *pesticide" applicators and not
*herbicide* applicators."

H. Kuska reply: ?????? I am sorry but I cannot follow. Your statement seems
to be assuming that pesticide and herbicide are independent terms. A
herbicide is a sub set of what scientists define as a pesticide. I feel that
they made the obvious and best choice for the referent population. If they
had selected, say as an example, a referent group of pregnant typists in
Ohio; they would have been correctly criticised for opening the door to all
kinds of possible missed correlations such as the glyphosate group may have
been exposed to xxxxxx effects in that area of Minnesota that were not
present in Ohio. The chosen referent group was made up of pregnant wives of
all pesticide applicators from the same area. The editor and the reviewers
accepted this. They are in the field. If you feel that there is something
critically incorrect about this, you can submit your viewpoint to be
considered for publication. You asked for reviewed papers, yet you are
unwilling to accept the results of that review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3) - "when used as directed."

H. Kuska comment: I provided you with links to the labels and a MSDS. There
is no warning about not using if the applicator or the spouse is pregnant.

Your comment: "It is not surprising that people who have an occupational
exposure to a soup of various chemicals will have an increased odds ratio of
one thing or another. Occupational exposure is almost always higher than
general use, and should not be confused with the exposure that general users
get. The classical example, of course, was squamous cell carcinoma of the
scrotum in chimney sweeps due to exposure to soot. That does not meant that
every male who has a fire in a fireplace need worry about his balls falling
off. That distinction is extraordinarily difficult for hysterics, but it is
real."

H. Kuska reply: your criteria did not exclude applicators and their
families. This is the main group that uses a herbicide! In the future, if
you want to revise your criteria to some meaningless sub group of the human
race that is your privilege.

---------------------------------------------------------------

H. Kuska summary: I submit to the readers of this thread that billow's
criteria have been met. It is your individual decision to evaluate his and
my points. I am willing to answer any questions if there is something that
you feel needs clarification.

Thank you for your patience in reading this.

Henry Kuska