billo said: "That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive
studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it
is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies.
It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they
were definitive do it because they have an agenda."

H. Kuska comment: billo again appears to be using a modified criteria: (this
is the original one - "come up with a single scientific article that claims
to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed") to one
where the scientific study must be "definitive". Unfortunately in science
"definitive" is almost an impossible goal (in non simple yes/no situations).
It is also a relative concept. What one group may consider for all
practical purposes as "definitive" another group may not. For example,
there is still a group that argues against the banning of DDT. You may have
noticed that we use " 95 % Confidence Intervals". This means stasticially
that the number can be thought of as being within that range with a 95 %
confidence limit.

A large study is being done: "An ongoing study funded jointly by the
National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health and
the EPA is tracking 90,000 herbicide applicators and their spouses to look
for possible health effects of pesticides." (quote from the following July
2003 article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562737.shtml
).

If you would like to read additional information about chemicals and birth
defects you can do a Google search. A recommended site is the March of
Dimes site: http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439.asp
A specific page on that site of interest is:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/681_9146.asp . The pertanent
information is:

"Can pesticides harm an unborn baby?
Pregnant women should avoid pesticides, whenever possible. There is no proof
that exposure to pest-control products at levels commonly used at home pose
a risk to the fetus. However, all insecticides are to some extent poisonous
and some studies have suggested that high levels of exposure to pesticides
may contribute to miscarriage, preterm delivery and birth defects. Certain
pesticides and other chemicals, including PCBs, have weak, estrogen-like
qualities called endocrine disrupters that some scientists suspect may
affect development of the fetus's reproductive system.

A pregnant woman can reduce her exposure to pesticides by controlling pest
problems with less toxic products such as boric acid (use the blue form
available at hardware stores). If she must have her home or property treated
with pesticides, a pregnant woman should:
a.. Have someone else apply the chemicals and leave the area for the
amount of time indicated on the package instructions.
b.. Remove food, dishes and utensils from the area before the pesticide is
applied. Afterwards, have someone open the windows and wash off all surfaces
on which food is prepared.
c.. Close all windows and turn off air conditioning, when pesticides are
used outdoors, so fumes aren't drawn into the house.
d.. Wear rubber gloves when gardening to prevent skin contact with
pesticides."
MedLine is the source of the latest scientific information for doctors. I
post abstracts from it on general public internet boards. My policy has
been to post them without comment. If the reader does not have the
background to understand the abstract; and if is potentially applicable to
their lifestyle (in this case pregnancy), I would hope that she would bring
the abstract to the attention of their doctor.

The Minnesota study states "about 3.7 % of children born on an average day
in the United States are said to have a birth defect". I do not know about
your family, but in my family the pregnant woman have practiced the
Precautionary Principle with regard to potential birth defect agents. If a
pregnant woman decides to use Round-Up, according to the most recent
information available (the 2002 Minnesota paper under consideration here -
"Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the
neurobehavioral category."); she is increasing the odds of having of baby
with a neurobehavioral birth defect. If she wants to waits for a
"definitive" study, that is her choice; but according to the knowledge now
available, she is running an increased risk. This is not simply an
increased risk of a one time and it is over event, this is an increased risk
of having brought into this world a child who may have a lifetime birth
defect and a possible potential of being able to pass it along to future
generations! About 15 years ago I read a very interesting book about birth
defects and chemical exposure. Unfortunately I do not remember the title,
only the subtitle - "Blame it all on Mother". After reading that book, I
included information from it in my lectures about chemical safety - One of
my favorate quotes went something like the following: it is a horrible thing
when a war kills such and such many people, it is also horrible when a
plague kills such and such many; but the real, "super" horrible event is if
we somehow introduce something that ruins the gene pool or otherwise has an
effect over multgenerations. A little background may be in order:
Historically, we started out with brute force poisons. As our understanding
of biology/botany increased, we were able to develop more specific poisons,
i.e. ones that we "thought" would only affect a certain biological pathway;
for example, one that only an insect had. Unfortunately, nature did not
decide to make all fungi silicon based life forms and all insects calcium
based life forms. Instead, we are finding out that many biological pathways
are similar in different life forms. That said, I will now make what
appears to be a very cold statement. Similar to what I just said about
normal natural disasters, the poisons of the past could kill, say, a hundred
people, or a thousand people, or even a million people; as far as the big
picture is concerned - so what? These are just numbers in one dimension.
With our new more sophisticated "poisons" we have to be concerned about
affecting the gene pool. This is a two dimensional poison - today and future
generations. A comparison more familiar to the public is to compare a
biodegradable poison spill with a radioactive spill.
Hopefully, the above will help the reader understand why some feel that it
is even more important to be cautious with the newer chemicals than it was
with the older "less sophisticated" ones - particularly when birth defects
are involved. This is why many scientists (including myself) advocate the
utilization of the "Precautionary Principle" for suspected birth defect
chemicals. If you are not familar with this principle, please see:
http://www.biotech-info.net/precautionary.html .


Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/