On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:13:09 -0700, Tom Jaszewski opined:

On 19 Aug 2003 13:37:17 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Since you and your friends have made
a point of where I work, then you know I work in the department
of Cellular Pathology, as well as being a Medical Examiner. I
am published in the areas of Computer Science, Psychiatry,
Quantitative Cytolopathology, General Pathology, and Forensic
Pathology.


And don't know shit about gardening.

Boy, why didn't I think of that very perfectest answer!

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:08:06 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

No, plenty came up on that tommy, including the EPA's published finding that
cca treated lumber is safe.

Davey

Thanks for proving my point davey.....

In article ,
animaux wrote:
Give it up Bill. I never mentioned where you work, nor do I care, nor do I
necessarily believe because you have published papers, have different degrees
and can cut open a human down the middle that, you are necessarily more
qualified than any of us to determine that glyphosate is unhealthy or not.

I am not keeping Tom's work place secret, I happen to know where he works.
That's all I said. I still have no idea, nor do I care where you work.


It's a little late in the game to pretend you haven't read the
thread. But little deceits is what you three are made of, so
I'm not surprised.

billo

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 13:40:21 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:



Oooo, a scientific question. No such thing as perfect science. Again and again
I will tell you that the agchem industry has many of their facts eliminated
altogether from their *scientific, peer reviewed data* and I don't trust it.
Not for a long, long time.



Yeah, I know. You don't need no steenkin' science. Fine. Just
don't pretend that you have any rational or scientific basis for
your position.


billo

MOMMY!!! Look what "Paul E. Lehmann" left in
the bathroom sink:


Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your
side of the story.

Incorrect. What it is doing is creating an emotional alienation such
that people who ought to be smart enough to read for themselves are
willing (and admitting) to permit their sense to be clouded by their
emotions.

"credence" comes from the facts. Billo did not say "Glyphosate is as
safe as table salt."

I have quoted what he did, in fact, say. Irrespective of your
personal distaste for Billo's persistance, the facts stand by
themselves.



--
gekko

Sic biscuitus disintegrat

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
Thanks for proving my point davey.....

No problem tommy...

Dave

" EPA is reviewing CCA under two different tracks which will result in the
most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide...
It is important to note.. that EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood
poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing structures made with
CCA-treated wood."

Testimony of Jack E. Housenger, Associate Director, Antimicrobials Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Before the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Hearing on Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood
March 17, 2003

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsh...testimony1.htm

"paghat" wrote

That you suppose it is shows how little you think. The same sorts of
gullible dolts who'd trust murderers as their personal bodyguards, rapists
to babysit their kids, or thieves to guard their money WOULD trust that
the same people who lied about agent orange for 40 years are tellin' ya
the truth now about glyphosate.

I could be wrong, but it appears that Bill's contention it's irrelevant what
Monsanto says or doesn't say; that the research doesn't support the notion
that glyphosate is dangerous stuff. Whether that's the case or not I dunno.

Jason

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:13:09 -0700, Tom Jaszewski opined:

On 19 Aug 2003 13:37:17 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Since you and your friends have made
a point of where I work, then you know I work in the department
of Cellular Pathology, as well as being a Medical Examiner. I
am published in the areas of Computer Science, Psychiatry,
Quantitative Cytolopathology, General Pathology, and Forensic
Pathology.


And don't know shit about gardening.

Boy, why didn't I think of that very perfectest answer!

How's this then. You don't know shit about human pathology.

The questions is not whether or not Roundup is bad for roses.

The question is whether or not Roundup is dangerous to humans
when used as directed.

That's a pathology/toxicology question.


billo

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:26:20 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

" EPA is reviewing CCA under two different tracks which will result in the
most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide...
It is important to note.. that EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood
poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing structures made with
CCA-treated wood."



Effective December 31, 2003, the use of CCA-treated wood will be
limited to certain industrial and commercial applications. This change
reflects increased concerns in the marketplace about the safety of
treated wood containing arsenate and chromium, particularly in
applications such as playground equipment. Residential applications
affected by the change include play structures, decks, picnic tables,
landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios, and
walkways/boardwalks. CCA-treated wood has been the overwhelmingly
dominant preservative-treated wood in the United States, particularly
in residential applications. The applications affected by the CCA
settlement are the major markets for treated wood and major markets
for the Southern Pine industry. Some applications not affected by the
settlement include highway construction, marine (sal****er)
applications, utility poles, pilings, and selected engineered wood
products.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:26:20 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

Hearing on Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood
March 17, 2003


FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003

EPA FINALIZES VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION OF VIRTUALLY
ALL RESIDENTIAL USES OF CCA-TREATED WOOD

David Deegan



On March 17, EPA granted the voluntary cancellation and use
termination requests affecting virtually all residential uses of
chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood. Under this action,
affected CCA products cannot be used after Dec. 30, 2003 to treat
lumber intended for use in most residential settings. This transition
affects virtually all residential uses of wood treated with CCA,
including play structures, decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers,
residential fencing, patios and walkways/boardwalks. This action was
proposed in February 2002 by the registrants of CCA-pesticide products
used to treat wood. Phase-out of the residential uses will reduce the
potential exposure risks to arsenic, a known human carcinogen, thereby
protecting human health, especially children's health and the
environment.

In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:

I believe that there is no rational basis for believing that Roundup is
no danger to humans when used correctly.


That's great as a religious statement. Your belief may be *about*
rationality, but it is itself irrational, as I will discuss below.



OK. Go with God.

Just don't *pretend* that you have a rational or scientific
basis for your belief.

Scientific no, rational yes. It would be the first time EVER that
Monsanto spoke the truth; hardly believable. And besides, the best
decisions are hardly ever made purely rational.


And here is where your irrationality manifests. The studies that
fail to show any danger from Roundup are *not* Monsanto studies.
Certainly, Monsanto data threw down the claim, but there have
been tens of studies trying to disprove the claim. They have
*all* failed. Independent government studies have confirmed
that Roundup is safe to humans when used as directed.

But all you can think of is "Monsanto." You cannot even
*think* of Roundup independent of your ideologic opposition
to Monsanto.

And in doing so, you not only have to dismiss the Monsanto
data, you have to dismiss *all* verified data.

That is where you become irrational. From the perspective
you promulgate, *all* science, *all* governments, *all*
organizations (other, of course, anti-Roundup advocacy groups)
are tainted by Monsanto. The judge of whether or not
a study is corrupt is *not* in how it was done, *not*
in its methods, *not* in its inherent quality. The judge
of whether or not a study is to believed relies solely
in its *results.* If it shows Roundup is bad, it must
be a good study. If it fails to show that Roundup is
bad, it must be tainted by Monsanto.


Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their
trust. They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational)
doubts.

And by "ignore" you mean "fail to pander to." As in

"Oh, yes, there is absolutely no rational basis for
it, but let's pretend that Roundup is dangerous because
it makes us feel better."

No, I don't mean that. Just adress the issue and show that you have the
same doubts about a companies trackrecord. It only shows your human..


I have addressed the issue. There are no studies that show
any danger of Roundup to humans when used as directed. There
exist independent studies that show that Roundup is safe
when used as directed.



Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.


On the contrary. That is exactly what you accuse Monsanto of. You
may have not joined the lynch mob around *me,* but you somehow decline
to use the same criteria when evaluating the critics of Roundup as you
do when evaluating the claims of Monsanto.

As I said, I believe that Monsanto should do a much better job in
proving their claims.

You ask the impossible. No matter *what* Monsanto does, it will
not be enough. There is no "much better job" that can be done
when nothing Monsanto says is believed.



It should be proven above and beyond all doubt,
easily verifiable for everyone and without any connections between the
researchers and the company. This should do a ridiculous amount of
proving; that is the price they pay for past behavior.



It has been. All those studies trying to knock down Monsanto's claims
that failed. What do you think they were doing? All those independent
government studies. What do you think they were doing?



Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought...


I didn't say "Monsanto." I said "Roundup."

Hmmm. Roundup and its linkage to GM-tech represents Monsanto's way of
thinking.



Exactly. Regardless of the biology, Roundup is thought crime. It
has nothing to do with science *or* rationality.




I think that simply saying that there is no evidence showing Roudup is
dangerous in not enough. The absence does not prove anything. There
could be a lot of reasons why that evidence is not available.



The fact is that controlled studies have been done to induce
toxic effects. These invariably require high doses and/or
long incubations that do not represent any reasonable condition
of normal use. There is no more that *can* be done. The way
you show something is safe is to expose test tissue/organisms/etc.
to the substance and see how much it takes to cause problems.
That has been done. *Every* study shows that toxic effects
require high doses and/or long incubations, *no* studies show
toxic effects at exposures related to use as directed. What
more, exactly, do you want?



Your argument boils down to the fact that your dislike for Monsanto
means that you don't care about the facts about Roundup.

Because of the reasons why I dislike MS I want more facts, more, more.

And there will never be enough, because any facts you don't like
you will dismiss as being thought-crime.


I think my behavior is rational. As in an analogy you brought up
earlier; if the Germans hadn't shown remorse about their crimes in WWII
we would still not trust anything they do and there wouldn't be a united
Germany now. And if Churchill had based his decisions purely on the
scientific data at that time, the Germans would not have been beaten.

That's right. If the Germans hadn't shown remorse, all their cars
would thus have bad brakes, no matter what any performance tests,
mechanical evaluations, or engineering studies showed. That's
what you call rational.


billo

On 20 Aug 2003 11:05:05 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
paghat wrote:

Billo (plagiarizing a Monsanto Funny Fact) sez: Glyphosate is as safe as
table salt.


This continues to be a lie that paghat requires for her screeds.

I thought I cleared this one up about a hundred posts ago! I was the one who
said Monsanto's ad campaign where they say, "Roundup, safe as table salt..." was
pulled by a New York court and was being sued for a number of things. I don't
ever recall YOU saying the phrase. I do think maybe some poor editing in posts
may have made it look like you said it, and you may have. I know for sure that
I said it. Hope that clears things up.

Victoria


My challenges stand:

I challenge you to produce this quote, or publish a retraction.
You do not have the quote, so you cannot do the former. And
you clearly have no integrity since you continue to publish
this falsehood knowing it is false.

You do not do your case any good by publishing falsehoods
that anybody using deja.com can see is a lie. If you cannot
be trusted to tell the truth in this simple thing, how can
anyone believe the rest of your screeds?

And, of course, my scientific challenge stands. Please
provide *one* single article in a scientific, peer-reviewed
journal claiming to show that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

You cannot. That is why your claims have mutated from
the false claim that there is scientific proof that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
to your (slightly more honest) rejection of science
altogether.

And, of course, since you and your friends make such a great
deal out of who *I* work for and what *my* credentials are,
why do you run and hide when I ask the same qustions of
you?

Who do *you* work for, paghat?


What are *your* credentials?


Why do you run away when the disclosure and honesty you
find so important is asked of you?


billo

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 20 Aug 2003 11:05:05 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
paghat wrote:

Billo (plagiarizing a Monsanto Funny Fact) sez: Glyphosate is as safe as
table salt.


This continues to be a lie that paghat requires for her screeds.

I thought I cleared this one up about a hundred posts ago!

Many people have "cleared this one up." Paghat doesn't care.
She knows it's a lie. She prefers the lie -- like pretending
to scientific data that doesn't exist, and pretending to
dangers that do not exist.


billo

On 20 Aug 2003 11:55:19 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


Shut me up, then. Provide the reference.

Funny. You don't find that the antics of the anti-science
crowd detracts from their credence, but asking for a
reference *does.*


billo

I'm not trying to shut you up. I did a very fast search on Ask Jeeves and this
is what I came up with.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a...id%3d342448f62
42448f62%26qid%3dEB57E8940D442947B244FDB6104BA14A% 26io%3d0%26sv%3dza5cb0dbf%26ask%3dglyphosate%2bsaf e%2bas%2btable%2bsalt%253f%26uip%3d42448f62%26en%3 dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dRoundUp%2band%2bCholinesterase%2bInhibi tion%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%
3a%2f%2fwww.oneearth.faithweb.com%2froundup%2fpage 6.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.oneearth.faithweb.c om%2froundup%2fpage6.html


You will probably have to cut and paste this URL.

If you can't reach this site, try this:

http://www.ask.com/

Type in this:

glyphosate safe as table salt?

One of the huge problems with pesticides in general is that, most people do not
use them correctly, do not read the labels, do not heed the warnings and the
environment suffers.

In Austin, Texas we have the great privilege to have a natural pool called
Barton Springs Pool. It's open year round with crisp, clear, cool water which
is constantly moving. Many millions of gallons daily. The chemical they find
the most of, during any one testing period is atrazine. It's the common
pre-emergent found in most weed and feed products. Not glyphosate, but I use it
to illustrate how overuse of pesticides will eventually become part of the
aquifers.

I point this out not to be contrary, or to add to your frustration on the
glyphosate issue, but to illustrate how a lot of the toxicity they do research
on does not include in the sample the huge amount of assholes who do not read
labels or follow them implicitly. So, while you may say, "if used properly..."
I am saying that people do not use pesticides properly. Far more than not, use
it in excess and never read a label. In this regard, the *science* behind most
of the blind studies do not include these goobers. It only includes people who
use it properly...whoever and wherever they exist.

So, while I can easily find peer reviewed proof that RoundUp is safe if used
properly, I've seen with my own two eyes how people use this indiscriminately
and weeks later fine huge trees, or large stands of shrubbery which had been in
place for decades, dead. The drift is incredible and the surfactant they use in
RoundUp or any glyphosate product is indeed, by itself toxic at best. I do
believe it is synergistic, as well.

I don't have all the answers, Bill, but there are so many alternate ways to get
around the abuse of these awful compounds I find it hard to believe anyone would
still be using the synthetic method. I have found all along that the agchem
industry is thriving because people are lazy and don't realize the words " to
garden" is reference to a verb. An action requiring one move their ass off the
couch and away from the idiot tube for a day to pull weeds.

I am also quite afraid of RoundUp "ready" crops being grown. Fortunately, in
this life I will be long gone by the time human consumption is ever realized.

Maybe I will not have to repeat and maybe then I can find the simple emptiness I
so desire. (Sorry for the philosophical diversion.)

Victoria

paghat wrote:

...

One of the books I was contracted for, which I turned in, was paid for it
& spent the money, but which has been pending now for YEARS, was a guide
to miniature vegetable gardening in finite innercity spaces -- it was such
a cute book with tiny pictures of tiny veggies growing in tiny gardens, I
just loved working on that project. It got to the point of galleys, &
proof flats for the cover illustration -- then illness struck the
publisher & they went from ten books a year to less than one a year. Every
time I think about that little book I wish I could get the rights back as
it would be so easy to sell again. But alas it was work for hire & I
cannot just withdraw it from that publisher, even if they never do finish
the project.

Must have been a huge disappointment for you. And it sounds like a great
book -- are you sure there's no way you can resurrect it? Since the
publisher, in effect, defaulted on your agreement, it would seem that
you'd have some options of getting it published. It's such a shame to
just let the project die.

...

A regular here, Valkyrie, went from big gardens to patio gardening, & her
experiences shared in this group have many times gotten me thinking about
whether I would get depressed about scaling down or just maximize the
experience of smaller space & get just as much pleasure. People do adjust
to much tougher things.

I sometimes miss having a big yard where I can plant huge perennial
gardens ... but frankly, I don't miss the work involved. (Does that make
me a gardening misfit?) But I do get so much enjoyment out of all the
flowers I'm raising in planters and pots. Hey, wanna peek? He

http://www.pjparks.com/citygarden.htm

PJ