In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Billo said: No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with
you.

In fact, my challenge still stands. None of the articles you
have posted deal with use as directed. In fact, that is one of
the stated limitations in the large population studies.

H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and
population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides
commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic
recertification by completion of a program of education and examination.
Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides
(herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)".

If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet
your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that
your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples
.


Hmmm. Let's see, can we think of any certified people who don't
act exactly as directed. Boy, you must be right. A person who
goes through a quick training program and certification must
never act in a way contrary to those guidelines.

All those reports of malpractice and practice errors by physicians,
nurses, and medical technologists in hospitals must be lies, eh,
Henry? After all, if going through an orientation session immunizes
people from this kind of thing, then years of training and multiple
rigorous exams must make it impossible!

And lawyers, they never cut corners either, do they? Or plumbers.
Or carpenters. Or welders. Or funeral homes. Or restauranteurs. At
least not licensed ones.

And god knows that there are no licensed drivers that ever break
the law.

Henry, a good part of my living is investigating the messes caused
by trained and licensed people who ignore the rules. There's nobody
better than a trained and licensed Ordnance Disposal Expert to be
found blowing up himself and his kids welding on a full propane
tank.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and "experts" are some of the worst
at cutting corners -- because they are good enough that they
*can* often cut corners and get away with it.


My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed.



Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes the
statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed.


It was not a subject of the paper. Since it was not addressed, a
scientist would not make unwarranted assumptions one way or the
other. Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a
paper that was not tested.

This is another paper who's purpose was to generate hypotheses,
not test them, and you tout this as a paper that tests the
hypotheses.


billo