On 13/06/2013 10:53, Emery Davis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:44:57 +0100, mogga wrote:

90% in Malta,
45% elsewhere? What sort of mirror are they using?

The analysis appears to be good down to around LOQ 100ppt and they have
detected levels around 1ppb in a fair proportion of people. I would
hazard a guess that most of them have self exposed at that level. That
is they have used glyphosate and not washed their hands afterwards.

Why didn't the lab also test drinking water samples? I would be very
wary of reading too much into it without first having confirmed that
there isn't a systematic high bias introduced by the messy chemistry of
real urine samples. FOE would have us all starving and living in caves!

Modern analytical chemistry has become so good that these days we can
detected traces of anything in almost everything. There is for example
usually about 2ppb of Uranium in everything you eat. WHO presently sets
the safe limit for Uranium in drinking water at 15ppb.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_...nium290605.pdf

(skip to last section for summary results and recommendations)

A sample space of 10 is too small to be statistically significant. Still
it's interesting in an anecdotal kind of way, and I'd hope it might spur
someone to do a real study.

The mayor of our village was just disciplined for using glyphosate to
kill some weeds and grass in front of the cemetery and in the village
square. Apparently it's no longer authorised, you're meant to do it with
a blow torch.

That is just silly. Glyphosate is far less environmentally damaging than
the blow torch which will cause the production of dioxins in any plant
material that is actually burnt by the flame.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown