In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:

And let me also tell you "my strategy". In general, if a message is
longer than 48 lines (two pages in my terminal), I in general lose
interest in reading further.


Then don't read.

Now my question for you after listening to three stories from you is,
do you think the current scientific studies on the safety/toxicity of
Roundup is conclusive? For instance, when Roundup is used as directed
on grapes, N days before the harvest, no danger is found. When
Roundup is used on roses, M days before going to the florist shop, no
danger is found.....

Is it possible that one day the scientists realize Roundup combines
with a certain ingredient in pumpkins (or change it to some other
agricultural product if you like) and it forms a highly poisonous
compound, or a dangerous carcinogen?

To sum up, how can we determine something to be "conclusive"? Please
forgive me if I sound naive, because I am no chemist, no biochemist,
no medicine major, and no environmental science background. I am an
average gardener.



There is nothing that says that some day it will be found
that growing one crop next to another will cause both
crops to be poisonous. It has never happened, to my knowledge,
but one cannot rule out everything. Does that mean that
you should never plant crops?

The only think you know is that after all this looking,
the kind of thing you are talking about has not happened.
That suggests that unless you are doing something novel,
it will not happen. If you believe that one should live
one's life believing that things for which there is no
evidence are about to happen, go ahead. However, most
people look for evidence before drawing conclusions.



Okay. But so far I do not think my question is answered, about how
you Bill Oliver decide something is safe or something is not in your
garden. Please note that I myself do not support legislation against
Roundup (so far), and I do not remember anyone in this newsgroup
proposing it. Sure, you have said my memory is flawed, and I told you
I lose interest in reading some certain posts.

I decide that something is safe by looking at the available evidence.
The evidence is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed.
Even if the untested hypotheses that certain groups with high exposure
to multiple pesticides and herbicides may be at a slightly higher risk
for rare problems were nor found to be a false lead from noisy
statistics, I would ask if I fall in that group.

It's because the truth is secondary to the agenda.

And I am evil because I bother to ask them to stop
lying in order to advance that agenda. I am bad
because I ask them to admit that early and inconclusive
studies are early and inconclusive. I am outrageous
because I challenge them to show that the studies they
tout actually say what they claim they say.

If you swear you would not participate in a class action lawsuit
against Monsanto about Roundup 15 or 20 years later (God forbids),
your being evil, bad, and outrageous will all be forgiven.


What does this have to do with my statement?



So the issue boils down to whether you want to err on the safe side or
the dangerous side. Using Roundup or other insecticide is fine for
you if you believe they are safe. Not using Roundup is fine for John
Smith if he believes it is dangerous. Advocating the safety of
Roundup is your freedom of speech, and arguing how bad Roundup can do
to the earth is John's.



That's fine. You can advocate whatever you like on the basis of
taste, aesthetics, religion, or whim. I won't argue with you,
and I won't criticize you.

Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science.


billo