"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news In article ,
"W K" wrote:

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news In article ,
"W K" wrote:

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing
to
any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious
effects
on
humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect
on
human
health.
I am not.

Then state the things you think are bad about it or shut up.


Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms
of
LD50.

Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above
that
effects on human health were not what you were hinting at.

There was no argument when I started off.
It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human
health.

Since you did
not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the
LD50s
does
not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either.

OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can
do.
Great.
A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here.
You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all
about
human
health.

There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes.

Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do
with
effects
similar to those we already see with increased intensification
of
farming.

Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or
maybe
you cannot actually substatiate that claim?

I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion
without
knowing much of the basic concept.

Odd.

Where are those links, man?

You are a waste of time and an idiot.
Two seconds on google will get you loads of links.

"The RSPB are particularly concerned that the introduction of GM crops
could
exacerbate the serious declines in farmland wildlife and have a major
impact
on biodiversity. This is because the use of GM crops could radically
change
agricultural practice, and in the past the use of pesticides and the
use
of
new types of crops have led to damaging impacts on wildlife."

Those are all suppositions. They might be right and they might be wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed professional
journals?

By the way, agricultural practice has been changed radically on countless
occasions for the past 30 or 40 centuries, as a result of genetic
modifications introduced by natural mutations or by selective breeding
practiced by humans.


Indeed and what proportion of those changes were proceeded by peer reviewed
scientific publications describing well conducted scientific study?

It's not just agriculture that has generally taken the informal route from
lab to reality either. The motor car, mobile phone, natural gas central
heating, synthetic fabrics, jet aircraft, political movements, etc. and
indeed much of the advances of the modern age except for pharmaceuticals
are not studied for likely long term effects on individuals or societies.

Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the
body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society.
Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance.

The public should not expect to be protected from harm by scientific peer
review, and scientists shouldn't claim that they can achieve such an effect
by that means.

Michael Saunby