GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

12-09-2003, 07:33 AM

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...

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.

Well, no. First, you assume that someone is either "pro-Roundup"
or "anti-Roundup." Many people are neither.

Today John Smith discusses the performance of New York Yankee and
Boston Red Sox with you, and you claim John Smith thinks there are
only two baseball teams in MLB?

This observation is wrong on your part. I only stated what
pro-Roundup people will likely do and what anti-Roundup people will
likely do. This does not imply I believe no one fits in the "neither
pro-Roundup nor anti-Roundup" category.

Second, particularly
for academia and government, if someone funds a large study, there
better damn well be a publication at the end of the tunnel or there
won't be any more funding. Nobody is going to spike a large
multicenter study on Roundup because of the results.

That is right. I think someone else has already pointed out this
issue, and I do not remember anyone objecting to that view.

And unfortunately, the organizations/corporations/individuals who are
likely to fund such studies are also those which tend to have a
prejudice on either "Roundup is safe" or "Roundup is dangerous". The
organizations/corporations/individuals who are more impartial might
take less interest to fund such studies -- they might see farther
about *ALL* pesticides.

Third, I
have no problem with people "emphasizing" one thing or another.
I have a problem with people saying that articles say things they
don't say. I have problems with people saying a study proves
ill effects in humans when the authors explicitly state they
aren't even testing it. I have a problem with people trotting
out studies on cells and claiming that proves a danger when the
authors themselves note that such an inference cannot be made.
That's not "emphasizing." That's deceit.

I am not "pro-Roundup." I am anti-deceit.

In that case, next time when you write "up to now Roundup is not found
dangerous for human beings when used as directed", please add a
comment about the other domestic and wild animals, and anything which
could eventually go into human bodies through the food chain (unless
Roundup is expected to decompose well before that stage), otherwise
you are emphasizing the human part and playing down on the effect on
other plants and animals. You should write "up to now Roundup is not
found dangerous for human beings, plants (except weeds) and wild
animals when used as directed", or "up to now Roundup is not found
dangerous for human beings when used as directed, as for wildlife we
do not have conclusive results yet".

And you might want to address the situation when Roundup is used with
other fertilizers or pesticides, say, you applied Sluggo here and then
you immediately apply Roundup. "Used as directed" might not include
this scenario, but gardeners might likely do this and the scientific
researches should also test this. It is like plastic bags for
toddlers. You cannot say they are safe for toddlers when used as
directed. You also have to test some scenarios which are NOT as
directed by ordinary users might do.

And finally when several people argue with you that Roundup is bad,
you should not treat them into a team and believe they are the same
thing, that if Mr. A applies to deceit then you claim all others do
too. Please try to treat each other individually.