GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

10-09-2003, 08:02 AM

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
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.

I didn't, or actually I seldom. If others' messages cannot express
their keypoint in the first 48 lines at least, I would not be able to
grasp their points. For scientifc journal papers, this is why
abstracts exist.

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?

No, but again, people made mistakes in invented chemicals before.
DDT, Thalidomide, ozone-depleting carbon fluorides, you name them.
Compared to mistakes of growing some plant beside another and created
a monster or a poisonous fruit, the latter is few and far between --
not what I can think of.

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.

We are human beings, not computer programs. Therefore there are
situations where people do not look for evidence before drawing
conclusions, and therefore there are religions in the world.

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.

Is it safe for non-humans? Of course, Roundup is toxic and should be
toxic for the weeds it is supposed to suppress, but how about the
other plants, pets, honey bees, and your children playing in the yard?

In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as
directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans
completed the food chain.

Please be aware I am not refuting your criterion in judging the safety
of Roundup or any other xxxx-cide. You do what you believe. You
benefit from the ease of using Roundup to kill weeds, and you suffer
(if there is such an effect) from Roundup if your criterion is later
found wrong.

But by similar arguments, others can also use their own criteria.

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?

If you choose to eat a Big Mac in every meal, I do not think you
should sue McDonald afterwards for your obesity. If you smoke 6 packs
of cigars every day, I do not think you should sue tobacco companies
15 years later. If you believe in Roundup, support it rigorously and
refute others' opposite views, I do not think you should sue Monsanto
later for Roundup -- if later there is a class-action lawsuit.

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.

Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?

Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There
are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not
yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am
not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not
be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot
explain how they fly.