On 13 Aug 2003 16:16:29 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 02:28:51 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:


Please, since it's so non-toxic, have a nice cool drink of it.

As I noted, when you don't have science behind your claims,
you attack the person. It's the ecofundamentalist way.

The *science* does not back up the claims of toxicity made
by the hysterics. Of course one would not "have a nice cool
drink of it." That is not how it is properly used. As properly
used, the science shows no ill effect.

billo

Yeahbut, please, have a nice tall glass of it, anyway. Save your other blather
for use elsewhere. Your "science" is not correct. It's head in the sand,
science.

In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:


You actually cited very little, but what you did cite..

And you, I see, cite nothing in this screed.

cut & pasted from the web, by Elaine Dallegrave et al, indicted herbicides
& pesticides including glyphosate -- your point is you didn't find
peer-reviewed independent science credible when they used large doses, &
you pretended there were no studies not about large doses didn't exist.

Then then you cut & paste another abstract from the web by
Williams/Kroes/Munro who did research with Monsanto funding implicitly to
prove safety rather than assess risk.

blah blah blah.

When you can't argue the science, argue the people. Forget about
this peer-reviewed articles in peer-reviewed journal stuff; everybody
who disagrees with you is a "Monsanto flack."


billo

You project too much with that. YOU only consider the source when it fails
to support Monsanto. YOU dismiss horrifying testimony even by
whistleblowing Monsanto employees under oath as courtroom shinanigans
unrelated to the science the whistleblowers admit they fabricated. YOU
dismiss all credible peer-reviewed science from ecologists as biased but
profit-motivated Monsanto science you believe, even when it is proven to
have been intentionally fabricated. YOU even said that fabricating data &
lying about it doesn't effect the value of the science just so long as it
is supportive of Monsanto. YOU lied saying you had cited non-Monsanto
science when in fact you cited one of the biggest Monsanto hired guns of
all time, so the point is you misrepresented a Monsanto flack as
independent research, & that the guy got hired by Monsanto because of his
previous great work promoting smoking as completely safe doesn't phase you
a bit, because you're not running on reason, & how curious that is.

I on the other hand freely admit that SOME independent science
(especially that which avoids assessing risk directly) has some good
things to say about glyphosate; when science is BOTH peer-reviewed and not
conducted by or funded by Monsanto, the picture becomes much muddier than
when relying, as you rely, on Monsanto flacks.

On balance the INDEPENDENT research is against it; it definitely kills
frogs; it definitely harms the environment; it definitely effects
reproductive rates of mammals; it is PROBABLY carcinogenic but Monsanto's
doing what it can to insure further research on that goes unfunded; &amp
it's definitely something that should not be used in gardens. The most
strident "favorable" commentaries are all but invariably not
peer-reviewed, are not in peer-reviewed journals unless in letter columns
with Monsanto weighing in, or most easily accessed web-wise not by MedLine
but by Monsanto-financed ExToxNet, & much of the favorableness is not even
to be found studies but in editorials posing as studies. There are
exceptions, but you failed to find any (I refuse to cite them for you;
your citation of pro-tobacco pro-glyphosate pro-GM Dr. Munro assuredly
doesn't count).

I see the full range of commentaries; you have failed to do so to a
fantastic degree. I see what Monsanto leaves out, & pays others to leave
out. You're clearly blinded -- so my only remaining curiosity about it is
why you would be so purblind when on so many topics you are clearly an
intelligent fellow. As you deny being the same Bill Oliver who services
Monsanto through the American Chemical Society, & I'm willing to believe
that since I've long known you (if only thru UseNet) as someone interested
in writerliness rather than chemistry. So it's puzzling. It may only be
your guilt over not being able to give up your own gardening herbicide
addiction, but you do sound like someone with family or personal
connections to Monsanto. Monsanto has instructed employees to undertake
just this kind of muddying argument on UseNet & bulletin boards, &
rec.gardens in fact had a Monsanto flack spend about three years talking
about nothing else ever. I don't categorize you as same, but you make the
same noises.

-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/

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:


You project too much with that. YOU only consider the source when it fails
to support Monsanto.


No, I consider the science. I don't criticize the sister chromatid
exchange study because the author is a "wild eyed environmental
fascist" or somesuch. I criticize it on the basis of the science.
*You* on the other hand, dismiss scientific articles published in
peer-reviewed journals by attacking the authors.


YOU dismiss horrifying testimony even by
whistleblowing Monsanto employees under oath as courtroom shinanigans
unrelated to the science the whistleblowers admit they fabricated.


No, I make the distinction between courtroom testimony and peer-reviewed
science. The courtroom is theater. Conflating the two is a mistake.


YOU
dismiss all credible peer-reviewed science from ecologists as biased but
profit-motivated Monsanto science you believe, even when it is proven to
have been intentionally fabricated.


On the contrary. Of the two articles you showed that "proved" the
danger of RoundUp, in one the authors themselves stated that
the association disappeared under multivariate analysis and in
the other the authors admitted that their findings were inconclusive
because of the high dosage and cytotoxic effect. If the *authors*
of the article agree with me, who am I to complain?


YOU even said that fabricating data &
lying about it doesn't effect the value of the science just so long as it
is supportive of Monsanto.


No. I said that I was not relying on Monsanto claims, but instead on
scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Because I am not relying
on Monsanto's claims, whatever they say is irrelevant to my conclusion.



YOU lied saying you had cited non-Monsanto
science when in fact you cited one of the biggest Monsanto hired guns of
all time, so the point is you misrepresented a Monsanto flack as
independent research, & that the guy got hired by Monsanto because of his
previous great work promoting smoking as completely safe doesn't phase you
a bit, because you're not running on reason, & how curious that is.

And here it is. You are such a big fan of scientific research in
peer-reviewed journals -- unless, of course, that scientific research
in peer-reviewed journals disagrees with your presumption. In that case,
you can't argue the science, so you attack the authors. Classic.

billo

In article ,
animaux wrote:

Yeahbut, please, have a nice tall glass of it, anyway. Save your other blather
for use elsewhere. Your "science" is not correct. It's head in the sand,
science.

Yes, yes. "Head in the sand science" meaning, of course, science that
disagrees with your ecofundamentalist irrationality.


billo

On 13 Aug 2003 21:16:52 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
animaux wrote:

Yeahbut, please, have a nice tall glass of it, anyway. Save your other blather
for use elsewhere. Your "science" is not correct. It's head in the sand,
science.

Yes, yes. "Head in the sand science" meaning, of course, science that
disagrees with your ecofundamentalist irrationality.


billo

Hardly ecofundamentalist. Hardly ANYfundamentalist. Quite the contrary.
However, I've seen the reports. I have no doubt I could pull up as much and
more than what paghat pulled up. I'm rather certain you would still have your
own version of what you blame others of having, attacking the person, not the
findings. I suppose calling anything I say "ecofundamentalist irrationality" is
a compliment? Hmmm. Damn. I'm doing it all wrong.

Don't forget it is Monsanto who is one of the largest producers of Round Up
Ready Soy on the planet. Some pretty serious shit you're cheerleading for. I
hope you really know what you're saying you know, but it sounds as if you don't.

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver)
wrote:


You project too much with that. YOU only consider the source when it
fails
to support Monsanto.


No, I consider the science. I don't criticize the sister chromatid
exchange study because the author is a "wild eyed environmental
fascist" or somesuch. I criticize it on the basis of the science.
*You* on the other hand, dismiss scientific articles published in
peer-reviewed journals by attacking the authors.


YOU dismiss horrifying testimony even by
whistleblowing Monsanto employees under oath as courtroom shinanigans
unrelated to the science the whistleblowers admit they fabricated.


No, I make the distinction between courtroom testimony and peer-reviewed
science. The courtroom is theater. Conflating the two is a mistake.


YOU
dismiss all credible peer-reviewed science from ecologists as biased but
profit-motivated Monsanto science you believe, even when it is proven to
have been intentionally fabricated.


On the contrary. Of the two articles you showed that "proved" the
danger of RoundUp, in one the authors themselves stated that
the association disappeared under multivariate analysis and in
the other the authors admitted that their findings were inconclusive
because of the high dosage and cytotoxic effect. If the *authors*
of the article agree with me, who am I to complain?


YOU even said that fabricating data &
lying about it doesn't effect the value of the science just so long as it
is supportive of Monsanto.


No. I said that I was not relying on Monsanto claims, but instead on
scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Because I am not relying
on Monsanto's claims, whatever they say is irrelevant to my conclusion.



YOU lied saying you had cited non-Monsanto
science when in fact you cited one of the biggest Monsanto hired guns of
all time, so the point is you misrepresented a Monsanto flack as
independent research, & that the guy got hired by Monsanto because of his
previous great work promoting smoking as completely safe doesn't phase
you
a bit, because you're not running on reason, & how curious that is.

And here it is. You are such a big fan of scientific research in
peer-reviewed journals -- unless, of course, that scientific research
in peer-reviewed journals disagrees with your presumption. In that case,
you can't argue the science, so you attack the authors. Classic.

billo

Why don't you just do it the ole fashion way and pull up the damn weeds by
hand.
Are you afraid of a little work and sweat?

In article ,
animaux wrote:


Hardly ecofundamentalist. Hardly ANYfundamentalist. Quite the contrary.
However, I've seen the reports. I have no doubt I could pull up as much and
more than what paghat pulled up... I'm rather certain you would still have your
own version of what you blame others of having, attacking the person, not the
findings. I suppose calling anything I say "ecofundamentalist irrationality" is
a compliment? Hmmm. Damn. I'm doing it all wrong.


No, you cannot. And that's rather the point. All you have is posturing.
I have posted abstracts from peer-reviewed journals that show that RoundUp
is no danger when used as directed.

Since it would be *so* easy for you to provide a scientific study
in a peer-reviewed journal that shows that RoundUp is a danger when
used as directed, please feel free to trot it out.


billo

In article ,
Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

Why don't you just do it the ole fashion way and pull up the damn weeds by
hand.
Are you afraid of a little work and sweat?


Often I do. However, whatever your feelings about my work ethic,
attacking me does not show that RoundUp is a danger.

billo

In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
animaux wrote:


Hardly ecofundamentalist. Hardly ANYfundamentalist. Quite the contrary.
However, I've seen the reports. I have no doubt I could pull up as much and
more than what paghat pulled up... I'm rather certain you would still
have your
own version of what you blame others of having, attacking the person, not the
findings. I suppose calling anything I say "ecofundamentalist
irrationality" is
a compliment? Hmmm. Damn. I'm doing it all wrong.


No, you cannot. And that's rather the point. All you have is posturing.
I have posted abstracts from peer-reviewed journals that show that RoundUp
is no danger when used as directed.

Peer reviews of the data noted that there was no basis within the data to
explain the assumed exposure rates. Turns out the data was based on
ASSUMPTIONS, according to the peer reviews, and was not based on
substantiated data .

Turns out, as in the Columbia case, RoundUp was formulated 100 times
stronger than the tiny exposures assumed for your vaunted article, &
entire regions were defoliated just as with Agent Orange. So IF the data
you like hadn't been largely based on assumptions rather than evidence, &
concocted by the most notorious promoter of faked data Monsanto has paid
for (Munro having a history of promoting data even after it has been
revealedto have been fraudulant), the final issue "when used as directed"
would be ALL the data tried to indicate, but then Monsanto sells mixtures
of the chemical that are impossible to use safely as directed.

Williams/Kroes/Munro published their data in Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology in 2000

Since it would be *so* easy for you to provide a scientific study
in a peer-reviewed journal that shows that RoundUp is a danger when
used as directed, please feel free to trot it out.

How about Julie Marc et al in Chemical Res. Toxicol., March 2003, looking
for further evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, & causes reproductive
disorders. Although the data (as most honest data) is inconclusive, it
shows again that elements Monsanto intentionally never studies. Marc
points out the "best case" conclusions that you credit (not caring that
one of the investigators has been caught promoting known faked data
before, & Monsanto got yet another batch of faked data into JAMA by
outright lying). According to the peer reviews, the Munro/Monsanto team's
data is based on ASSUMPTIONS not in evidence: 1) that exposures are
momentary & never chronic, 2) that momentary exposures are always minimal
hence all the data is built on that assumption of very slight exposure, 3)
that the product is always used as instructed, 4) that aereal drift does
not occur but 5) if it did occur it wouldn't matter, 6) that some
undeniable health problems associated with the product were solely the
cause of the surficant so could be removed from the data when assessing
glyphosate alone, 7) there need be no assessment or follow-up for fetal
development so that too may be left out of all data in order to conclude
"safe!"

All of the assumptions are either unproven, unlikely, known to be false,
and not supported in the Munro data itself. With the widespread use of
herbicides & pesticides, exposure rates ARE chronic, but to Monsanto's
hired team, "that doesn't count," because that wouldn't be glyphosate all
by itself. Also the product is not always used as directed -- of course
"that doesn't count," and it still doesn't count even when Monsanto
provides a chemical mix 100 times more concentrated that are impossible to
"use as directed," & this impossible-to-use-as-directed formulation was
what tMonsanto provided to Columbia to spray on villages & on people, &
which defoliated entire countrysides just as Monsanto did with agent
orange, completely destroyoing biodiversity. Obviously the health &
economy of a region completely defoliated destroys human lives, but to
Monsanto, well, "that doesn't count." This has been your only method of
reasoning as well, Billo, in your desire to evade the criteria for
credible science: Peer reviewed AND independent of Monsanto. The
resaerchers known to have lied? "That doesn't count." The researchers
previously provided similar data showing cigarettes are harmless? "That
doesn't count." The peer reviews stating the data is not reliable? "That
doesn't count." Researchers admitting under oath they faked data? "That
doesn't count." To you all that counts is you found bad data that agrees
with what you already wanted to believe.

So by peer review, the data you laud was next to worthless, the glowy
conclusions were not even in sync with that assumption-based data. And
that's your best shot! Peer reviewed and shown wonting! Even a Monsanto GM
researcher Dr Felsot at Washington State U. found the Munro data faulty &
assumption-based, though being a Monsanto man the WSU researcher still
believes the products used correctly are safe and mainly regretted Munro
again provided fodder that damages Monsanto credibility, since Felsot
personally believes a good case can be made for glyphosate without
resorting to what Munro himself calls "tactics" rather than science.

Marc concludes more fairly, without exaggerated declarations of the
Monsanto variety, that 1) glyphosate effects on human cell cycle mutation,
mitosis, & cytokinesis requires further investigation. From animal models:
2) Abnormal cell development occurs in developing embryos with as little
as ten minutes exposure to .08% glyphosate; with persisting abnormal cell
development after the exposure. 3) "Therefore we conclude the formulation
products of Roundup are directly responsible for the cell cycle
dysfunction." Whether the dysfunction goes as far as cancer is as yet
unproven, but opens that door so even farther open than was already the
case.

Further, while Monsanto data claims glyphosate is poorly absorbed by the
body, the independent Marc team proved conclusively that as formulated and
used -- i.e., when used "as diredted" in a legally formulated quantity --
the formulation product carries directly into all cells. Glyphosate by
itself would be more difficult to absorb, but in formulation (as actually
used) it is easily absorbed. So your Munro data compares apples & oranges
-- claiming something is safe if used as directed, but testing only a
component never actually used outside of a formulation. Hence: "It is
likely that the formulation products favor the penetration of glyphosate
in the embryos that were already reported to be impermeable to some
compounds." Monsanto data: Can't be absorbed. Reality: Absorbed.

Marc et al conclude definitively that glyphosate interfers with early cell
development, a finding is lends further credence to the possibility cancer
risk. Furthermore, glyphosate hindered protein synthesis associated with
fertilization, a finding that lends credence to the possibility of lowered
fertility rates of fauna.

Marc et al concluded categorically that Monsanto's claims that the
surficant is more toxic than glyphosate is false. It is the glyphosate
itself that is toxic & hinders cell development & fertility cycles. But
the presence of the surficant is required in order for the glyphosate to
penetrate the cells.

So as usual, Monsanto develops a slender slice of data that applies to
nothing, fudges even that slender slice, then applies it to everything in
order to say "safe if used as directed." It is now known that glyphosate
changes & interfers with cell development. Period. The remaining question
is whether or not the damage will or will not lead inevitably to increased
cancer cases. This will be hard to prove because RoundUp has no reliable
biomarkers, and all estimates of exposure rates are guesses and
assumptions. Monsanto will rely on this as long as they can to keep
RoundUp off the official lists of carcenogens -- & they have Billo's
favorite researcher, Ian Munro, to help them in this, just as he
previously helped cover up cancer risk in tabaccos when he was still the
hired gun for Philip Morris.

-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/

paghat wrote:

Rather, Monsanto gives bags & bags of money to Congressional campaigns,

They do?
Hey, Everybody! I'm running for Congress!!
Well, ok. I'm *walking* for Congress. It's kinda hot outside...
Well, ok. I'm not actually walking. I'm gonna sit here and let Congress come to
me.
But I'm still accepting money.
It's the Patriotic thing to do...
And probably Religous, too. Since money is Evil.
So, I'll collect all that Evil Money and put in in a safe unevil place. Like a
Bank. That way, it's locked up and can't hurt anyone...
OH! And since it's evil, I promise to spend it on purely frivolous things so
that it won't hurt anything that really matters...
'cause that's the kind of guy I am.
So REMEMBER...
VOTE GILRICK for Congress.
The Frivolous Spender Candidate.
After all, it's YOUR money I'm wasting.
Shouldn't it be wasted wisely?

In article , wrote:

Hey, Everybody! I'm running for Congress!!
Well, ok. I'm *walking* for Congress. It's kinda hot outside...
Well, ok. I'm not actually walking. I'm gonna sit here and let Congress
come to
me.
But I'm still accepting money.
It's the Patriotic thing to do...
And probably Religous, too. Since money is Evil.
So, I'll collect all that Evil Money and put in in a safe unevil
place. Like a
Bank. That way, it's locked up and can't hurt anyone...
OH! And since it's evil, I promise to spend it on purely frivolous things so
that it won't hurt anything that really matters...
'cause that's the kind of guy I am.
So REMEMBER...
VOTE GILRICK for Congress.
The Frivolous Spender Candidate.
After all, it's YOUR money I'm wasting.
Shouldn't it be wasted wisely?

If you ran on the Thompson Machine Gun ticket promising to mow down
Congress on your first day, you just might win.

-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/

paghat wrote:

In article , wrote:

Hey, Everybody! I'm running for Congress!!
Well, ok. I'm *walking* for Congress. It's kinda hot outside...
Well, ok. I'm not actually walking. I'm gonna sit here and let Congress
come to
me.
But I'm still accepting money.
It's the Patriotic thing to do...
And probably Religous, too. Since money is Evil.
So, I'll collect all that Evil Money and put in in a safe unevil
place. Like a
Bank. That way, it's locked up and can't hurt anyone...
OH! And since it's evil, I promise to spend it on purely frivolous things so
that it won't hurt anything that really matters...
'cause that's the kind of guy I am.
So REMEMBER...
VOTE GILRICK for Congress.
The Frivolous Spender Candidate.
After all, it's YOUR money I'm wasting.
Shouldn't it be wasted wisely?

If you ran on the Thompson Machine Gun ticket promising to mow down
Congress on your first day, you just might win.

-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/

Why bother? They shot themselves in the foot just about everyday....

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:10:06 GMT, (dstvns) wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:05 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

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.

Roundup at the normal levels is ineffective. I tried it and it was
like water, instead of 20 sprouts there would still be 3 or 4. In
woods with hudreds of stumps re-application every 2 to 3 weeks is a
massive waste of time.

Dan


That's strange. I removed a Norway Maple last July (no chemicals), layered
4+ iches of top soil, and planted grass. No evidence of the tree exists,
except for the firewood pile.

sparkie

(Bill Oliver) wrote in :

As far as RoundUp is concerned, they are not lying, and you
have not shown that they are. Dredging up accusations from
two decades ago doesn't change that simple fact.


Well, you must admit he has a point; you might have written the same thing
about agent orange 40 years ago.

It bothers me a company with such bad behaviour is allowed to continue at
all. Human consience and responsibility has a lot to do with the 'what-
if' question of having to answer afterwards about current decisions. If we
are not able to punish companies _because_ they lied about known facts
(not just for the facts themselves), than we are indeed in serious
trouble.

The ways in which MS protects its turf by using refined marketing
techniques reminds me a lot of the other MS, the one from Redmond. The way
in which the latter was able to penetrate out society with faulty software
will make us regret that we didn't stop them a few years ago. If indeed
Monsanto is using the Round-up vehicle as a first foot in the door to get
the world addicted to their gentech products, than we are in a much much
graver danger.

Bill, maybe you're right that the fear-and-doubt strategy of the opponents
is dishonest and not based on facts. But is it not Monsanto's own fault
that we doubt everything they say; is this not the punishment for
irresponsible behaviour in the past that I meant? Somehow the capitalist
system has to allow for a check on this kind of behavior. And wouldn't it
be easy enough for them to admit to their mistakes in the past and start
talking to the ppl?

Ursa..

--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

In article ,
paghat wrote:
used as directed, please feel free to trot it out.

How about Julie Marc et al in Chemical Res. Toxicol., March 2003, looking
for further evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, & causes reproductive
disorders. Although the data (as most honest data) is inconclusive...

You mean Marc et al. Chem Res Toxicol, March 2002. OK, let's
take a look at that. As you state, your "proof" that
RoundUp is harmful is at best "inconclusive." In fact,
it's less that that -- it's the same pattern all over
again.

Let's actually *look* at your "proof."

As the authors note, "In normal usage and chronic exposure [in
contrast to your claims, paghat], several regulatory agencies
and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that
there is no indication of any human health concern with
glyphosate and Roundup."

Quite an indictment from the scientific community, that.

But hope springs eternal in the ecofundamentalist breast.
In this article the authors decide to poison sea urchins.

And what did they find? Indeed, if you use enough Roundup
to almost kill the cells, their cellular mechanism starts to
have problems. As the authors note "The concentration of
Roundup that causes cell cycle dysfunction appears to largely
exceed the recommended usage concentration of the herbicide."

The amount required to cause cell cycle dysfunction was, in
fact, 1 million times higher than is found in soil residual.

In fact, the authors don't even go so far as to claim
"inconclusive." They come out with the convoluted:

"Our results question whether human health could be
affected by Roundup."

Not "our results suggest human health is affected by
Roundup."

Not "Our results suggest that human health *may* be
affected by Roundup."

No, it's "Our results *question* whether human health
*could* be affected by Roundup."

That's science-ese for "we didn't get any meaningful
results, but we're putting the best face on it."

Yes, Virginia, if you give cells a high enough dose
of anything, they will experience dysfunction.

Whoop de doo.


Marc et al conclude definitively that glyphosate interfers with early cell
development, a finding is lends further credence to the possibility cancer
risk. Furthermore, glyphosate hindered protein synthesis associated with
fertilization, a finding that lends credence to the possibility of lowered
fertility rates of fauna.

Mark et al. show that it is possible to poison a sea urchin cell
if you get the dosage high enough, or as the authors state "largely
exceed recommended usage concentration." What a surprise.

Further, while the authors speculate on the applicability of their
studies to humans, they do not actually know. Did you know that
you will kill a dog if you feed it onions? Cats are even more
susceptible. Does that mean that onions are poisonous to humans?


Marc et al concluded categorically that Monsanto's claims that the
surficant is more toxic than glyphosate is false. It is the glyphosate
itself that is toxic & hinders cell development & fertility cycles. But
the presence of the surficant is required in order for the glyphosate to
penetrate the cells.


Well, not really. They did not test the effect of surfactant
alone, so they cannot and did not address the toxicity of
surfactant. Your first claim is thus false.

Instead they noted that glyphosate alone was
almost totally nontoxic but when added to other formulation
products, it was possible to poison a cell at high enough
concentrations. From that they conclude synergism.
However, in order to address how much was due to non-glyphosate
formulation components, they would, well, have to do that
test. They did not. Thus, their conclusion is not
supported by their data -- it was a half-experiment.



According to the peer reviews, the Munro/Monsanto team's
data is based on ASSUMPTIONS not in evidence: 1) that exposures are
momentary & never chronic,


This is, of course, untrue. The study I quoted specifically
looked at chronic exposure studies in the mouse, in the rat,
and in humans, including EPA and WHO studies. But you know
that evil WHO -- they're just shills for the Great Monsanto
Conspiracy.




2) that momentary exposures are always minimal
hence all the data is built on that assumption of very slight
exposure,

This is also untrue. In fact, were you actually
read the article, you will note that, as I stated before,
bad effects are dose related. From these one can calculate
*safe* dosages. The fact that drinking 50 gallons of
water at once will kill you doesn't mean that drinking
1 glass of water will kill you.

3)
that the product is always used as instructed,


This is also untrue. The determination of a
NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level) implies
that above that level there are, well, adverse
effects. Nobody has argued that if you overdose
you will not be harmed. The ability to overdoes
does not, however, imply that it is dangerous when
used as directed.


4) that aereal drift does
not occur but 5) if it did occur it wouldn't matter,

This is also untrue. Quite the opposite. The article
I quoted notes:

"Aerial droplets maximize drift because the droplets are
released at a higher altitude. For preliminary risk
assessment, the EPA has assumed that spray drift could
be 5% of the aerial application rate..." and goes on
to describe how drift is calculated.



6) that some
undeniable health problems associated with the product were solely the
cause of the surficant so could be removed from the data when assessing
glyphosate alone,

Once again, this is untrue. In fact, no such health problems have
been demonstrated. The only finding has been that the NOAEL for
the surfactant and the glyphosate are higher apart than together.


7) there need be no assessment or follow-up for fetal
development so that too may be left out of all data in order to conclude
"safe!"

Once again, this is untrue. Certainly fetal rat studies are
documented across generations. No such claim was present.


billo