| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#16
12-08-2003, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma" in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, March 15, 1999. A conservative assessment of these studies would indicate further study is needed to be sure the indicators, at this point being ALL against glyphosate, can always be substantiated; but the studies could be done fifty times with the same outcome & it would still be unproven by Monsanto's standard of lying & propogandizing. Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly poison. In one recent study, in order get teratogenic effects, rats were fed 1000 mg/kg of Roundup, which is the LD50. Sure enough, 50% died, and those that did not die had funny-looking babies. (Dallegrave E, Mantese FD, Coelho RS, Pereira JD, Dalsenter PR, Langeloh A. The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett. 2003 Apr 30;142(1-2):45-52.) This is consistent with multiple studies over the past two decades. But then, even Monsanto doesn't suggest that you eat 1000 mg/kg/day of the stuff. And, of course, the lymphocyte studies you mention use the single worse criteria for genetic damage -- sister chromatid exchange -- which can be caused by osmotic effects as easily as the test substrate. The study you mention by Vigfusson in 1980 used such high doses that most cells died outright. The results were not dose-related and were not internally consistent (i.e. cells from the same donor showed a response in one run and no response in another). The authors themselves wrote that their dose was so high that cytotoxicity was a confounding factor. Even were the results positive, the meaning of sister chromatid exchange is not known. If one looks at the myriad *other* mutagenicity studies that have been done, the picture is very different. Roundup is nonmutagenic at reasonable doses in repeated studies involving bacterial mutation assays, HGPRT locus studies, chromosome breakage studies, and others. There is one chromosome breakage study that found positive results at levels 70 times lower than most others, but used an unaccepted method, including incubating the cells in the substrate for 72 hours (where the OECD and EEC accepted method is 4 and 20 hours). Further, cytologic morphologic evaluation showed cytotoxicity, again making the results questionable. Killing cells always results in chromosome breaks. This study was also inconsistent in that it found breaks in human cells but none in bovine cells. The bottom line is that the studies that show effects are invariably those that are done in conditions where most of the cells are dying anyway -- from such a high dose, from osmotic stress, etc. Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. In fact, studies which look at real criteria repeatedly have found that it is safe when used properly. For instance, a more recent analysis from the Department of Pathology, New York Medical College (Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC, Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65. ) found: The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA... Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans. When one begins to accumulate peer-reviewed studies, it soon becomes obvious that the vast majority indict RoundUp's allegedly "safe as salt" key ingredient as a threat to the environment & to human health. Quite the opposite. Repeated studies have shown that it is very safe. The presence of toxicity at very, very high doses in rats does not contradict this. In Australia it is already banned for use near wetlands. Litigation is not science. Political agendas are not a substitute for real science. When one finds "positive" studies they turn out not to be peer reviewed, & were either done at Monsanto labs, written by Monsanto propogandists, were Monsanto-funded studies & did not qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals. This is, of course, circular. Anybody who writes an article that shows the safety of Roundup is dismissed as a "Monsanto propagandist." billo |
|
#17
12-08-2003, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:24:53 -0400, brojack wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning" wrote: (brojack) wrote: What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has never tested showing any chemicals. We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any clay in the soil. It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O. That's what prompted the question. The Eros have turned into rabid, precautionary chemophobes. They have banned common-place garden chemicals used for decades. You even have to turn into the authorities any unused products. I guess it will get dumped on top of all the old fridges! Europe will soon turn into a Amish-like technogolgy-deprived backwater. The eastern countries are stupid to want to trade in their new-found freedom for the regulator's paradise of Europe. Jack |
|
#19
12-08-2003, 05:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ringmay.com,
Tim Miller wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:24:53 -0400, brojack wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning" wrote: (brojack) wrote: What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has never tested showing any chemicals. We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any clay in the soil. It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O. That's what prompted the question. The Eros have turned into rabid, precautionary chemophobes. They have banned common-place garden chemicals used for decades. You even have to turn into the authorities any unused products. I guess it will get dumped on top of all the old fridges! Europe will soon turn into a Amish-like technogolgy-deprived backwater. The eastern countries are stupid to want to trade in their new-found freedom for the regulator's paradise of Europe. Rather, Monsanto gives bags & bags of money to Congressional campaigns, promises jobs for Americans (certainly plenty of jobs for their lobbyists), & in general have the political might to stop EPA dead in its tracks when they were moving to restrict glophosate a few years ago. Apparently the Danes weren't as easily for sale. What induced the Danish response was the discovery that glyphosate had made it into the drinking water at a level five times that which is regarded as safe (make that potentially safe). The finding was that of the Denmark && Greenland Geological Research Institution. Again, they weren't looking to cause Monsanto harm. They merely discovered that two products in particular, Roundup & Touchdown, were ALREADY in groundwater used for drinking purposes at unexpectedly high levels. As when this was discovered to be true in Australia, Monsanto is arguing it's a regional effect and in reality glyphosate breaks down so rapidly it can't possibly be in drinking water. Which is to say, when they are caught out in a lie, they repeat the lie more loudly. The Geological Resarch Institute was IN NO WAY invested in promoting false findings; the findings are real; the Danish response is minimal, since glyphosate will still be legal in some contexts, and fact is, it should be entirely banned. The Institute has said it point-blank, and the Danish Environmental Ministry has repeated it point-blank: Monsanto's claims that glyphosate is rapidly broken down by bacteria in the environment is false. False. What is true is that this claim has never been supported by any research other than was bought & paid for or conducted by Monsanto. The Institute for Environment & Resources at Denmark's Technical University concluded that regional wells in Roskilde and Storstroms cannot be safely used for TEN YEARS. Meanwhile an INDEPENDENT Norwegian study not paid for by Monsanto (for a change) has found that claims of rapid degradation in the environment are untrue. The break-down of glyphosate is unpredictable and extremely varied, but only in rare and ideal conditions as rapid as Monsanto has promulgated for years. A Finish study likewise found that glyphosate lingers at toxic levels for long periods, with an average half-life of 249 days (as opposed to the maximum 60 day halflife claimed by Monsanto). A half dozen studies on glyphosate's long-term destruction of beneficial funguses in the soil credit the possibility that glyphosate usage can render soils entirely incapable of supporting plant life for many years, once the mycorrhizal webs are interupted. Make no mistake. Glyphosate is dangerous stuff. If you and I were the only two dumbass shitheads using it, then it'd be okay, but tons and tons and tons are being dumped everywhere, and Monsanto is developing glyphosate-tolerant crops so that they can sell three, four, TEN times the amount of glyphosate to be dumped on the planet. Monsanto's future hinges on their ability to sell lots of glyphosate to use on glyophosate-resistant crops -- expect them to continue to fight with every weapon they can to keep governments from responding rationally to a very large threat, and to keep the public too confused by Monsanto misinformation to be sure of anything. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
|
#21
12-08-2003, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , paghat wrote: N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly poison. ... . Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. [billo's cut-&-paste job deleted for space] Nice that you're steeped in the Monsanto party line, which you tidily paraphrase from Monsanto's official response to peer-reviewed independent studies that showed a connection between glyphosate & lymphoma. No, I actually paraphrased it from a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal. It appears that you believed Monsanto rather than checking the studies, because the Hardell & Ericksson study BY NO MEANS subjected anyone to lethal doses of anything. So you repeated the lie that cancer or cell death was caused by near-lethal doses, and anything less is safe as salt. Wrong again. Perhaps you should read all the studies, not just the ones you like. If, by "the Hardell and Ericksson" study you mean Hardell L, Eriksson M, Nordstrom M. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9., then you are wrong again. In fact, they did not find an increased risk for cancer with Roundup. Try again. While there was a slightly increased univariate association between exposure to Roundup and a rare form of lymphoma, the risk *disappeared* when subjected to multivariate analysis. As the authors state: Among herbicides, significant associations were found for glyphosate (OR 3.04, CI 95% 1.08-8.52) and 4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) (OR 2.62, CI 95% 1.40-4.88). For several categories of pesticides the highest risk was found for exposure during the latest decades before diagnosis. However, in multivariate analyses the only significantly increased risk was for a heterogeneous category of other herbicides than above. Simple logic would indicate nobody induced lymphic cancer in humans by feeding them lethal doses of glyphosate, yet that's what you're claiming yourself to believe. In reality, the 404 lymphoma victims in the Swedish study were individuals who presented at a cancer center because they had cancer, they were not volunteers given lethal doses of glyphosate. And how many of those lymphoma victims had been exposed to glyphosate, eh? If you are quoting the 1999 study, the answer is *three*. What, paghat, is the statistical power of that. You are waxing poetic about a study of three cases and four controls, not 404 cases and a thousand or so controls. Be honest. And the 2002 study showed no increased risk for cancer with glyphosate when other factors were taken into account. Thank you very much. It is very common to find associations between things that are not causal. That's why we do multivariate statistics. Let's say that I found a study saying that people who drive pick-ups have a higher risk of lung cancer. That does not imply that pick-ups cause lung cancer; it may be that more smokers drive pick-ups and *smoking* causes lung cancer. That's why the finding that "in multivariate analysis the only significantly increased risk was for ... other herbicides than above" is important. The study they became part of sought to find lifestyle associations for ordinary lymphoma patients, and included assessments of diet, smoking, drinking, weight, workplace, hobbies, and environment, in a large enough group to find statistical significance. They were not looking to prove Monsanto gave these people cancer, it just surfaced as statistically significant. It was found that the actual incidents of lymphoma encountered in the normal course of medical practice in a cancer clinic could be corrolated to exposure to glyphosate products, and the significance increased dramatically when use of these products was continued for ten or more years. The control group was twice the size the lymphoma sufferers, and there was no similar connection found for healthy people. THAT is the finding of the Hardell & Ericksson study, and they smashed nobody over the head with lethal doses of glyphosate, salt, or ballpeen hammers. What part of "However, in multivariate analyses the only significantly increased risk was for a heterogeneous category of other herbicides than above." do you not understand? The univariate findings disappeared when other factors were taken into account. I having trouble believing you intentionally lied, but also having trouble believing you're dumb enough to believe what you paraphrased about the lymphoma connection being true only with lethal doses, as that was simply irrational. Which is not what I stated, of course. And the study you quote does not support your position. What is certain is Monsanto intentionally lied, and what you paragraphased from Monsanto literature is not founded in fact. No, I paraphrased from the peer-reviewed article I cited. The lymphoma connection has yet to be refuted by any peer-reviewed research. The lymphoma connection was refuted by the authors you cite. It was was never *established* in any peer-reviewed research. [When environmentalists] their clear agenda cite Hardell & Ericksson, they may have a propogandistic purpose, but they don't have to lie because the facts really are against Monsanto. Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. billo |
|
#22
12-08-2003, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Respectfully, this is a terrible thing to do. Please, always apply
glyphosate at the recommended strength. There are other chemicals one can use to paint stumps rather than the foliage sprouts that will kill a tree just fine. Dave "dstvns" wrote in message ... On 10 Aug 2003 05:42:47 -0700, ) wrote: Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack I dont know, but it's as expensive as platinum. A tiny bottle of extra concentrated 50% glyphosate is $70 locally. It is the only thing I know that will kill Norway maple trees. If you chop the tree at the base in springtime, you will have over a dozen 3-foot tall sprouts by fall. A "painted" application of concentrated roundup on the newly-cut stump is extremely effective (coming back to older stumps and painting is not as effective). Pulling a 6-inch stump out of the rocky ground is not an option. I hated the option of using chemicals, but I refused to have my backyard turned into a sanctuary for exotic invasives introduced to this continent and allowed to naturalize and wipe out all other trees and especially native undergrowth.. Dan nw NJ |
|
#23
12-08-2003, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
|
|
#24
12-08-2003, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
Major Ursa wrote: (Bill Oliver) wrote in : Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. Bill, do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. No. Monsanto is not lying. The scientists who do the studies that show the safety of the product are not lying. The envirofundamentalists who misrepresent the findings and peddle hysteria are the ones who are lying whilst knowing the facts. billo |
|
#26
12-08-2003, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
Major Ursa wrote: (Bill Oliver) wrote in : No. Monsanto is not lying. The scientists who do the studies that show the safety of the product are not lying. The envirofundamentalists who misrepresent the findings and peddle hysteria are the ones who are lying whilst knowing the facts. Allright, and what does paghat the ratgirl think about it? Ursa.. Read the thread. billo |
|
#27
12-08-2003, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible hicks. They were sued for this fraud & lost because it was discovered their "expert" assessment of the chemical spill dangers was incorrect on the following counts: 1. Lung cancer deaths should have been reported 143% higher than Monsanto claimed. 2. Genitourinary cancer deaths, 108% higher than Monsanto claimed. 3. Bladder cancer death rate, 809% higher than Monsanto claimed. 4. Lymphatic cancer death rate, 92% higher than Monsanto claimed. 5. Death from heart disease, 37% higher than Monsanto claimed. Sworn testimony during the trial proceedings, which had been moved to Illinois, showed that for a period of 30 years Monsanto Chemical Company manipulated, falsified & concealed study results on deaths & cancers associated with their chemical products. If they'd lie for 30 years about that, how long will they also lie about RoundUp? Another 30 years? Forty? Forever? As long as they exist, no doubt. As for business risk, Monsanto's entire future hinges on the INCREASING marketability of RoundUp in tandem with glyphosate-resistant crops no one but themselves can provide. From their point of view they are "far too businesslike" to ever tell the truth, since the goal is to increase sales of a product that shouldn't be sold at all. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
|
#28
12-08-2003, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible hicks. As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs. You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort to quoting torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line is that class action torts are not a test for truth in any sense of the word. Junk science is much more often introduced by plaintiffs than defendants in torts, and the courts are incapable of telling the difference. In federal courts, the admissibility of "scientific testimony" rests on the whim of the judge. While the judges are supposed to use certain criteria (called Daubert criteria for federal cases), most judges are largely illiterate when it comes those criteria. One recent study showed, for instance, that only 6% of judges understood the concept of "falsifiability," only 4% understood what "error rate" meant, and only 71% knew what "peer review" meant. (Gatowski, et al. "Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a Post-Daubert World." Law and Human Behavior, Vol 25, 433-458, 2001). As I have noted, what gets in as "scientific testimony" has little to do with science (Oliver, WR, "Truth and Beauty in Forensic Medicine." ACM SIGGRAPH Special Session "Truth Before Beauty: Guiding Principles for Scientific and Medical Visualization." 2003). When it comes to scientific arguments, arguing that something is "understated" by X% because of a *tort finding* is ludicrous. It's like malpractice suits in medicine and the actual presence of negligent care -- there is no relation. Most malpractice suits are made in the absense of negligent care (e.g. most suits are baseless, regardless of the finding), and most people who receive negligent care do not sue. Put a sick kid on the stand and somebody will be putting out money -- regardless of the merits of the case, and regardless of whether it's a malpractice suit or suit against a corporation. And, as far as the *science* goes, Monsanto is not lying about RoundUp. The studies paghat dismisses are not Monsanto studies, and they are published in peer-reviewed journals. billo |
|
#29
12-08-2003, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
|
|
#30
12-08-2003, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
On 12 Aug 2003 14:11:48 GMT, Major Ursa wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in : Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. Bill, do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. Apparently you have not kept up. Monsanto is on an endless loop of lawsuits being posed upon them, for any number of reasons. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| [Fwd: Herbicide `Roundup' may boost toxic fungi] | sci.agriculture | |||
| Goats Are West's Latest Weed Whackers | sci.agriculture | |||
| OT Latest bulletin | Gardening | |||
| when's the latest for (re-)planting 'snowdrops in the green'? | United Kingdom | |||
| latest issue of Distant Thunder, by the Forest Steward's Guild | alt.forestry | |||
Linear Mode
