In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
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



I am quite willing to accept what these paper say. I just
don't like people pretending the papers say things they
*don't* say or pretending they make claims they *don't*
make.

You keep acting like I am criticizing the papers. I am
not. They are great papers in the sense that they
are careful in their claims. Unfortunately, the people
who tout them are not as careful; they are whom I
criticize. My problem is with you, not with the
authors or the journal.

You really should stop misstating my position in order
to argue straw men. That doesn't say much for the
rest of your argument.

In this particular article, in which other pesticides
+ glyphosate had a higher risk than glyphosate alone,
the finding is not surprising. There are many pesticides
for which the acceptable exposure rate depends on
incomplete absorption. Roundup contains substances that
enhance absorption. Many other studies have shown that
toxic effects are either greatly enhanced or due primarily
to surfactants.

Thus, the author's findings that Roundup+pesticide is
more dangerous than Roundup alone is in line with
previous findings. Your claim that this is an
indictment against Roundup alone, however, is
simply not supported by the paper. It was not
*tested* by the authors. This is not a criticism
of the paper; it is a criticism of your claims about it.

billo