"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
John Bachman wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:59:14 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

You can't research these products. There is no data. In order to test
things like this, you need hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer
to be dosed with chemicals. Now, think hard. If Monsanto or Dow somehow
came up with that many volunteers, what kinds of people do you think
they might be, and how would that affect the research?


A reference that one of you (Bill, I think) gave yesterday said,
"Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a cup can
be lethal."

Were they just pulling numbers out of their ass? (actually, I think they
were, but I'm not the one who posted it)

That's why I like old fashion chemicals that have been around for 40
years rather than the brand new exotic pesticides that Bayer makes.
There's enough anecdotal data to actually mean something. ;-)

Roundup was invented in 1970. Is 37 years enough anecdotal evidence
for you?

John


Sure. My point was that one can't say there is no data and then quote
toxicity statistics. If there is no data, then there's no basis for the
toxicity claims. Since this is absurd, apparently there *is* useful
anecdotal evidence.

I'm not trying to defend the use of synthetic chemicals so much as poke
holes in the sanctimonious pontifications of the intellectually dishonest.
Self-righteousness and dishonesty is a combination that ****es me off on
any topic.

(and I don't trust Bayer)

Bob

To simplify this, I will call all research on animals "rumors", because both
the chemical companies and their loudest critics have said that animals
react differently to toxins than we do. Although the results of animal
research are tabulated as "data", it does not necessarily qualify as useful
data to predict human sensitivity to toxicity.

Since we now agree that there is no data, we can see that it is foolish to
assume garden chemicals are safe. You can also say it's foolish to assume
they are unsafe, and we will agree to differ in that regard.