11-09-2003, 05:02 PM
|
|
|
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?
Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything.
No, science is not the solution of everything. I did not
challenge the anti-Roundup hystterics because they didn't
like it on religious principles, matters of faith, aesthetics,
whatever. I called them on their pretense that their statements
of faith were based on science -- and that they lied about
what the science said in order to do it. That is what
I object to.
Don't forget science is done by humans. Human beings can twist facts
(emphasizing the parts they like and playing down on those they don't
want), and so can they twist facts. It is like the polls. By
"designing" the questions in a certain way, you can move people's
comments in the direction you like to see. The same thing can be said
on scientific experiments on Roundup or any pesticide safety.
So talking about Roundup safety. The anti-Roundup people can
emphasize its effect on salmon, pets, and monarch butterflies and stay
shy of human beings (IF, it is indeed safe for humans). The
pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if
used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which
eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry
out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human
beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they
would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more
conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto,
might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable"
results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they
won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.
How to draw the conclusion and interpret the results is up to each
individual, each gardener and each farmer. Unfortunately, not
everyone is a scientist.
|