I really, really, REALLY dislike the anti-intellectual climate in this
country ...
BUT (and science is my business, livelihood, love, entertainment by the by)
Just because something is not yet known does not mean that it proves a null
hypothesis.
I grew up in a decade when cigarettes were advertised as "Good for your well
being", when kids rode their bicycles behind DDT trucks because the DDT
smelled good, when women regularly had hysterectomies because all their
problems stemmed from "bad uteruses/female problems"....

Round up may or may not be a serious health hazard. I don't know what
evidence there is out there for it or against it. I do know to think twice
about ANY information coming out of a company that benefits from my buying
their product. I do know that if it does not do good things to the plant
then I should wonder about what it is doing to me. I do believe that every
individual has the right to endanger their own life and it is no ones
business if they do but that they do not have the right to do so to others.

My 2 cents. DKat


"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...

Uh huh. Please provide the EPA document that states that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

OK. Provide the document where the EPA says that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

They are not calling Roundup a dangerous neurotoxin. Provide
a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans
when used as directed. You cannot.

Fine. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is
not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.
Ah, yes. The NCI -- another Monsanto shill as far as you're
concerned.

No science, once again. Just cult ranting. Provide a single
article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims that
Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. One.
Just one.

billo