Roy wrote:
songbird wrote:
....
a short term study with rats isn't going to
reveal long term effects. some effects may not
appear for more years than you'll be alive.
who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all
those acres you spray stuff on, what happens
if it is shown to be contaminated and the
food you grow is no longer acceptable for
animal or human consumption?

do you think those companies that sell you
that stuff are going to have deep enough
pockets to make things right? to decontaminate
the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you
and/or your decendants might need as a result?

what about people you might be poisoning
downwind? groundwater? or people who buy
your food? an insurance company can only
cover so much before they go under.


here is an example of what is actually going on:


http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316


a clear sign that poisons do not work
in a sustainable manner. this process has
been demonstrated over and over again in
many ways yet here we have yet another
poison and plants being modified so that
such poisons can be used to spray fields.


i'm really glad i'll have more poison
to breath in coming from the fields around
me, going into the water, etc.

I doubt that you and Billy will ever believe ANYTHING that ANY
Authority publishes.

well as it appears that many authorities can
be bought and sold and their research is flawed
why would people believe them?

i've actually worked at a university for many
years. i know how a lot of research is done
and how it is funded and how the research can
be skewed to not upset the research sponsor.

does a scientist do the public any good by
ignoring evidence?

for the education i paid for and accomplished
i'll certainly not accept shoddy work or pure
BS from others.

if my criticisms are invalid then please state
where i'm wrong. i've left it in above so you
can actually answer my questions instead of
ignoring them.


The NPIC has issued some pretty good investigative studies on
a plethora of pesticides and I would not hesitate in trusting
their literature as a guide for usage.

that's fine for you. i haven't read all their
studies and can't say much about them, but the
one you quoted in part said something about
rats and those are not long lived creatures.


They also know how to use "Capital Letters" when they begin
sentences.

you are very good at ignoring simple questions
and always have to reach for stuff that has little
to do with the topic at hand.

did you look at the wiki page for glyphosate?

did you look at the article i linked to above?

did you notice the admission of failure and the
desire to step up to using yet another herbicide
to deal with glyphosate resistant weeds? did you
notice that this new herbicide is likely to be
more toxic than glyphosate?

notice that they say nothing about Monsanto
being responsible for the creation of these
weeds and the damage that this is doing to
farms? sure Monsanto will sue anyone who uses
those genes in crops without license, but once
a plant comes up with those genes that they
can't profit from they run away with their
heads up their kiesters and say "we're not
responsible!"

that's their answer when something else goes
wrong too in the future... you can bet on it.


songbird