In article ,
paghat wrote:
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using
glyphosate as table salt...


This is, of course, untrue. You would be more convincing,
paghat, if you did not start off your screeds with an untruth,
and go downhill from there.

My claim was, and is, that Roundup is safe if used as
directed. You have not been able to provide a peer-reviewed
scientific article that even claims this is untrue. You have
instead misstated what the articles you *did* reference
said.

I await a peer-reviewed scientific article that states that
Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Go for it.


billo

In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
"Dave Gower" "Nature-Hating Republican Liar" wrote in message
...
"Bill Oliver" wrote

... 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.

I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical
dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business.

Nature-Hating Republican Liar:


Ah, yes. If you can't argue the science, argue the person. Please
feel free to provide a single peer-reviewed published scientific
article that states that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.

Trotting out articles that show that Roundup is toxic at very
high doses doesn't mean squat. The same thing is true of almost
all substances known to man.

Please provide a single article in a peer-reviewed journal
that claims that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.


billo

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

In article ,
Dave Gower wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote

... 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.

I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical
dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business.


Indeed. If paghat applied her rationale to everything, she could
not eat anything.

Aha! So you're STILL advocating the "safe as salt" idea that glyphosate
should be EATEN.


Paghat, you do not do your cause any good when you state obvious
untruth. I have stated over and over again that my position is
that Roundup is safe when used as directed. That you try to
pretend I claim what I do not claim is an indication of the
weakness of your position, not mine.


billo

In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
(Bill Oliver) "Nature-hating Republican Liar" wrote in message
...
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

Nature-hating Republican Liar:



Ah, yes. When you don't have the facts, try attacking the
writer and covering with bullshit.

What lie is that? Certainly not that you cannot provide a single
peer-reviewed article that claims that Roundup is dangerous when
used as directed. None of the peer-reviewed articles you cite
makes that claim. If Roundup is so easily shown to be dangerous
when used as directed, you should have no problem providing
*one single peer-reviewed article* that claims to show it.

You cannot. And cutting-and-pasting a list of articles that
do *not* show it doesn't do the trick.

Sorry, but religious fanaticism is unattractive -- even with
ecofundamentalists.

Please, provide a single peer-reviewed article that claims
that Roundup is toxic when used as directed. If Roundup
is as dangerous as you claim, that should be *easy.*

billo

In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
(Bill Oliver) "Nature-Hating Republican Liar" wrote in message
...
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

Nature-Hating Republican Liar:


Sigh. See my other replies to you. My challenge
stands.

Please provide a single peer-reviewed published scientific
journal article that purports to show that Roundup is
dangerous to humans when used as directed.

You cannot, and all the advocacy press you want to post
doesn't change that.

billo

In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
(Bill Oliver) "Nature-hating republican liar" wrote in message
...
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

Nature-hating republican liar:


Please see my other replies to you. My challenge stands.

Please provide a single peer-reviewed scientific journal
article that purports to show that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed.


You cannot.


And it really burns you that you can't, doesn't it :-)

billo

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:08:08 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

. As you deny being the same Bill Oliver who services
Monsanto through the American Chemical Society,

Check out some of the staff at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Billo's employer. Lots of Monsanto links there. Nothing
like defending your buddies and their interests.

( oh oh Ashcroft's bullies are probably reading this)

An analysis by PHR Environmental Consultants Inc., conducted in 1999
for the purpose of a federally mandated cleanup, identified 12 zones
of extreme contamination in the area located close to the Mississippi
River opposite the city of St. Louis. Until 1967, Sauget was known as
the Village of Monsanto, after the largest industrial company
operating within its bounds.

"Contaminants identified to date in the subject area include: PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls), heavy metals including arsenic, barium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc; volatile organic compounds,
including chloroform, benzene, 111-trichloethene, tetrachloroethene,
chlorobenzene, toluene and xylenes; semi-volatile organic compounds
such as phenol, naphthalene and pentachlorophenol; pesticides; the
breakdown products of chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents have also been
detected in the ground water," the report said.

Exposure to many of these compounds, especially PCBs, dioxins and
benzene, is known to cause cancer in humans and animals.

The PHR report states that pollution of Dead Creek began in 1918 when
St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. began manufacturing chemicals there. As
early as 1923, six local landowners sued Monsanto for damages to their
agricultural land caused by the release of chemical wastes into Dead
Creek.

Over the years, dozens of companies contributed to the problem. Some
are no longer in business; some have been acquired by other companies.
Monsanto itself has spun off its Sauget plant to a subsidiary, Solutia
Inc.

Solutia has taken responsibility for cleaning up the site and spent
around $17 million trying to do so. Solutia bought the Batson's house
for $40,000 last year and demolished it.

But the company, which last April settled a similar case of PCB
contamination in Alabama for $40 million, is fighting the lawsuit.
Solutia has petitioned to have the case transferred from an Illinois
county court to federal court, arguing much of the pollution stemmed
from a period during World War Two when the company was producing
poisoned gas for the military.

"We believe the U.S. government will be a defendant and therefore it
should be heard in federal court," said Solutia spokesman Glenn
Ruskin.

Additionally, Ruskin stated: "I have not heard of any medical
knowledge or studies that the form of leukemia Mr. Batson has is
associated with exposure to chemicals."

Chemical engineer Melvyn Kopstein, an expert retained by Batson's
lawyer Bill Gavin, said in an affidavit: "Benzene has long been known
to cause myelogenous leukemia in humans."

Gavin believes Solutia's attempt to shift the case to federal court
is aimed at avoiding disclosure of documents. "The federal court
system has strict restrictions on the kind of discovery that can be
conducted," he said.

The federal judge has told plaintiffs they can only send 50
interrogatories, or questions, to each defendant and 20 requests for
production of documents.

"That severely limits my ability to shake information out of them,"
Gavin said.

* * *

Copyright 2001, Reuters All Rights Reserved
Copyright (C) 2001 Environmental News Network Inc.



In article ,
Jerry Kindall wrote:
In article ,
(Andrew Kelly) wrote:

Is it maybe that because I've got that lovely little .de at the
end of my address that nobody thinks I'm worth spamming?

There it is. More likely, the people who create the mailing lists just
search on US top-level domains (.com, .net, .edu, .etc) and haven't yet
started searching on country TLDs.



My strategy is to change my email address every few years.
That's why I'm instead of .
My junk email at has dropped dramatically, and
the stuff at saltmine has risen only slowly. In another couple
of years, I'll switch to another place or back to UNC. So far,
there'w been no real need for a pseudonym.

billo


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Oliver
Degree: M.S.
E-mail:
Comments: Doing the old Forensic Pathology and 3D visualization in
Quantitative Anatomic Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets,
but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.
To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet;
one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules,
any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"

Aldo Leopold

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:08:08 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

. As you deny being the same Bill Oliver who services
Monsanto through the American Chemical Society,

Check out some of the staff at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Billo's employer. Lots of Monsanto links there. Nothing
like defending your buddies and their interests.

( oh oh Ashcroft's bullies are probably reading this)


Pretty pathetic, this. A *complete* loss of any attempt
to provide a *single* peer reviewed scientific journal
article demonstrating that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

Instead, you slide to a pure campaign of personal
attack and cyberstalking. The ecofundamentalist
inquisitors are certainly out tonight.

But, since you have decided to drag my employer
into this, my views are my own and do not necessarily
reflect those of the United States Government,
the Department of Defense, the Armed Forces
Instituted of Pathology, or any entity
other than myself.


And my challenge stands.


billo

"paghat" wrote in message
news
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using
glyphosate as table salt,

You do realize that after a sentence like that, the rest of your post
is completely worthless.

Shampoo is also as safe as table salt, but I don't see you advocating
that folks should using shampoo as table salt. There are thousands of
items just as safe, or safer, than table salt that probably wouldn't
work too well in place of salt.

I'm also pretty sure that "Billo" never advocating using ANYTHING in
place of table salt.

In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using
glyphosate as table salt...


This is, of course, untrue. You would be more convincing,
paghat, if you did not start off your screeds with an untruth,
and go downhill from there.

Better go back & read your own posts. It was your FIRST shot out the gate
repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard. It's what happens when
you take your perspective solely from Monsanto -- you end up repeating
their stupidist tacts.

I've tried not to regard you as a liar but only as confused and
self-deluded, but as you descend into this sort of thing, I may have to
rethink the respect I've tried to hold for you even while thinking you
wildly silly in your devotion to Monsanto. But when you call others liars
who are being truthful, I must rethink much of what you've been pulling.
Now I'm thinking that when posted early in this thread that glyphosate was
perfectly safe except at levels that would make even table salt a danger,
your statement was not unintentionally stupid beyond belief, but
intentional fabrication, & when it came off as silly as it was, you now
claim I lied to even notice.

Anyone who wishes to do a groups.google.com search using the terms
Glyphosate plus Salt will find the "no more dangerous than table salt"
made scores of times by people getting the entirety of their perspective
from Monsanto's PR efforts. And the most recent to repeat that hoary fable
will come back Billo -- who I'm sorry to see has resorted to flaming over
arguing. Billo riddling his commentaries with ad hominum can be creative,
but less soin projecting his worst faults onto someone who doesn't
actually share that Monsanto -- &now apparently Billo -- legacy of
fabrication

-paggers

--
"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 , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
"Dave Gower" "Nature-Hating Republican Liar"
wrote in message
...
"Bill Oliver" wrote

... 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.

I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical
dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business.

Nature-Hating Republican Liar:


Ah, yes. If you can't argue the science, argue the person.

Yes yes, you keep telling us how you trust first and formost the same
researcher who "proved" tobacco was harmless and who Monsanto hired away
from Philip Morris to work for yet another company that cooks the stats &
lies outright to journal editors, as Monsanto was recently SO caught doing
through JAMA for meaningful example. And my point still stands: Your
trusting criminals to tell you the truth is as insane as trusting a known
child molestor to babysit your children. Character does matter. It being
shown time and again that stats paid for or concocted by Monsanto were
intentionally fabricated does matter. To you honesty doesn't matter as
long as the resulting science appears in even the most marginal way to be
on Monsanto's side. But you know what, honesty does matter. And Monsanto
researchers have very little of that required trait. If their mouths are
moving, they're lying.

The science has been sufficiently argued & will be argued again by others
I've no doubt. You held your own a bit, but were not finally convincing to
anyone who has read about Monsanto. That you couldn't convince by citing
cooked statistics is why you're now resorting to more & more ad hominum
attack since your poorly selected choice of which science scores best was
so unconvincing. Melchizedek posted useful information everyone can judge
for themselves -- so you "argue" with the same non-argument you tried on
me. It would be more honest, if no less ridiculous, if you'd just keep
reposting the cooked statistics instead of repeating the ad hominums.

-paggers

--
"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 , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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

In article ,
Dave Gower wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote

... 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.

I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical
dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business.


Indeed. If paghat applied her rationale to everything, she could
not eat anything.

Aha! So you're STILL advocating the "safe as salt" idea that glyphosate
should be EATEN.


Paghat, you do not do your cause any good when you state obvious
untruth. I have stated over and over again that my position is
that Roundup is safe when used as directed. That you try to
pretend I claim what I do not claim is an indication of the
weakness of your position, not mine.


billo

If you want to finally retract one of your stupid statements, do so, but
don't call me the liar while you lie your ass off saying you didn't psot
what you posted. Perhaps you did too many cut & pastes to even realize
what gibberish you put your name to, but you did put your name under it.
Your position STARTED very clearly that unless great huge gobs of
glyphosate were injested, it was no more dangerous than table salt. That
was YOUR statement on August 11. Not a very original statement I grant
you -- nothing you've said has been that -- but you posted it with your
name on it & the only liar here is you to keep denying it. Yes, it was
stupid beyond belief, but so has been much else you posted. So live with
it.

-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 , Tom Jaszewski
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:08:08 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

. As you deny being the same Bill Oliver who services
Monsanto through the American Chemical Society,

Check out some of the staff at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Billo's employer. Lots of Monsanto links there. Nothing
like defending your buddies and their interests.

Thanks Tom. It was the one query he most kept avoiding, though I asked
quite nicely a couple of times -- what his emotional investment was in
loving Monsanto so wholeheartedly & not caring one whit about their proven
track record of causing extravagant harm. I'm sorry the answer was only
what was to be expected, but it's good to know nobody without ulterior
motive could possibly be dumb enough to make those sorts of arguments
about truth not mattering, admissions under oath that data was fabricated
didn't matter, nothing matters but that glyphosate is no more dangerous
than table salt -- which argument I'm liking so much better now that even
Billo quite rightly wants everyone to forget he repeated THAT particular
page out of Monsanto's falacio-for-glyphosate instructional manual.

-paghat the ratgirl

( oh oh Ashcroft's bullies are probably reading this)

An analysis by PHR Environmental Consultants Inc., conducted in 1999
for the purpose of a federally mandated cleanup, identified 12 zones
of extreme contamination in the area located close to the Mississippi
River opposite the city of St. Louis. Until 1967, Sauget was known as
the Village of Monsanto, after the largest industrial company
operating within its bounds.

"Contaminants identified to date in the subject area include: PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls), heavy metals including arsenic, barium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc; volatile organic compounds,
including chloroform, benzene, 111-trichloethene, tetrachloroethene,
chlorobenzene, toluene and xylenes; semi-volatile organic compounds
such as phenol, naphthalene and pentachlorophenol; pesticides; the
breakdown products of chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents have also been
detected in the ground water," the report said.

Exposure to many of these compounds, especially PCBs, dioxins and
benzene, is known to cause cancer in humans and animals.

The PHR report states that pollution of Dead Creek began in 1918 when
St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. began manufacturing chemicals there. As
early as 1923, six local landowners sued Monsanto for damages to their
agricultural land caused by the release of chemical wastes into Dead
Creek.

Over the years, dozens of companies contributed to the problem. Some
are no longer in business; some have been acquired by other companies.
Monsanto itself has spun off its Sauget plant to a subsidiary, Solutia
Inc.

Solutia has taken responsibility for cleaning up the site and spent
around $17 million trying to do so. Solutia bought the Batson's house
for $40,000 last year and demolished it.

But the company, which last April settled a similar case of PCB
contamination in Alabama for $40 million, is fighting the lawsuit.
Solutia has petitioned to have the case transferred from an Illinois
county court to federal court, arguing much of the pollution stemmed
from a period during World War Two when the company was producing
poisoned gas for the military.

"We believe the U.S. government will be a defendant and therefore it
should be heard in federal court," said Solutia spokesman Glenn
Ruskin.

Additionally, Ruskin stated: "I have not heard of any medical
knowledge or studies that the form of leukemia Mr. Batson has is
associated with exposure to chemicals."

Chemical engineer Melvyn Kopstein, an expert retained by Batson's
lawyer Bill Gavin, said in an affidavit: "Benzene has long been known
to cause myelogenous leukemia in humans."

Gavin believes Solutia's attempt to shift the case to federal court
is aimed at avoiding disclosure of documents. "The federal court
system has strict restrictions on the kind of discovery that can be
conducted," he said.

The federal judge has told plaintiffs they can only send 50
interrogatories, or questions, to each defendant and 20 requests for
production of documents.

"That severely limits my ability to shake information out of them,"
Gavin said.

* * *

Copyright 2001, Reuters All Rights Reserved
Copyright (C) 2001 Environmental News Network Inc.

--
"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 , "Phrederik"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using
glyphosate as table salt,

You do realize that after a sentence like that, the rest of your post
is completely worthless.

Shampoo is also as safe as table salt, but I don't see you advocating
that folks should using shampoo as table salt. There are thousands of
items just as safe, or safer, than table salt that probably wouldn't
work too well in place of salt.

I'm also pretty sure that "Billo" never advocating using ANYTHING in
place of table salt.

Okay, what Billo said precisely that unless "lethal doses" of glyphosate
were used, it is no more dangerous than table salt. He said it. Nothing
less than a lethal dose. Otherwise it's "Table" Salt. His specific choice.
Is it fairly lampooned as "Billo advocates using glyphosate as table
salt"? In reality it's pretty hard to take the "no more dangerous than
table salt" reference any other way -- since table salt is not used in any
other way than but eating it. If he hadn't meant that implication, he
WOULD have said shampoo, as you advised, but Monsanto wouldn't like that
as much, they WANT people to believe it is safely eaten, which is why the
New York Attorney General banned them from advertising in New York for two
years.

So too Billo didn't say it was no more dangerous than a bar of soap (which
by the way glyphosate isn't) or that it's safe as salt strewn on a highway
to melt ice. He didn't even just say "salt." He said TABLE salt.
Glyphosate and TABLE salt. Billo said it. Parity. Both are equally safe
except at lethal doses. It was a pig-ignorant thing to claim, sure, but he
posted it, & he said it because EVERYthing he's said has been taken from
the how-to-defend-Monsanto bible, right down to the same scant few
citations Monsanto generated and approves of, and which by peer review
(such as Billo pretends to value) were found to be biased in their
conclusions with assumptions not provable by the raw data within his
favorite article (the one authored in part by Ian Munro, Monsanto's
favorite hatchetman hired away from Philip Morris).

And why does Monsanto so badly want glyphosate associated with the TABLE &
the things we eat? Because they're feeding it to us, & have every
intention of feeding us increasing amounts in the future. They don't want
us thinking its safe merely on our hair, like shampoo, or in our
watersheds, but also on our tables. Not like salt generally, but like
TABLE salt. Monsanto is developing glyphosate resistant crops so that
more & more glyphosate can be sprayed on more & more of the food we eat,
which amounts increase more & more each year by year as weeds increasingly
become resistant as well (something Monsanto also denies but which is
absolutely the truth -- and are already formulating, and selling,
increasingly hrich mixtures.. They don't want us thinking the increasing
amounts of glyphosate in crops engineered by Monsanto is a bad idea.
Without TABLE salt, which has iodine added, many of us would have gout
like elderly Jews who were kosher their whole lives -- who knows what
sinister ailment we would suffer if not protected by the glyphosate in
Monsanto's genetically altered glyphosate-tolerant crops.

THAT association is the sole purpose of Monsanto wishing that people WOULD
think glyphosate was safe as table salt, while out of the other side of
their lying two faces they claim "that wasn't a use as directed" when
people actually do drink it down in suicide attempts (& successes).

Shampoo is not eaten, that's why Monsanto, & Billo, prefer to say Table
salt when making their "no more dangerous than" argument. Monsanto
specifically advertised that RoundUp was "safe as table salt" and this got
them into CRIMINAL trouble with the New York Attorney General. Yet
Monsanto's criminal argument is still made in numerous ways, because "safe
as shampoo" doesn't have the same impact of having people think of it in
terms of something edible. The statement is still in much of their PR
stuff which tells people like Billo exactly how & which articles he must
read & quote in order to be a good company man. And Billo stupidly
repeated it because he put his head way too far into Monsanto propoganda &
completely forgot that argument scored them some criminal charges.

So if you're serious about your claim that truth followed by more truth is
"worthless," well, that is certainly a stance you'll have to hold onto for
a very long time if you're seriously going to believe Monsanto is your
friend.

-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 , "Ian St. John"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using
glyphosate as table salt, nor nearly as apt to believe safety statistics
generated by people hired away from Philip Morris to whitewash glyphosate
as tidily as they previously whitewashed cigarettes

I'm not sure it really matters. At the rate that resistance in weeds is
increasing the use of glypohosate may become meaningless in the near future.
http://www.discover.com/sep_03/breaknumbers.html ( see graph )
"Since genetic engineers devised herbicide-resistant crops in the mid-1990s,
weed killers such as Roundup have become the wonder drugs of the farming
industry, clearing out pest plants while leaving corn and soybeans intact.
But weeds are developing resistance as well. Weed specialist Ian Heap and
his colleagues at the International Survey for Herbicide Resistant Weeds in
Corvallis, Oregon, have found that more than 50 species of
herbicide-tolerant weeds have popped up just since 1995-a trend fueled by
the 2 billion pounds of herbicide farmers dump on their crops every year.
"We're very concerned, because so many soy and corn farmers rely solely on
Roundup for weed control," he says. He is urging farmers to use different
herbicides each year and to invest in old-fashioned methods of weed control,
such as tilling the soil. "

Yep. Eventually glyphosate will be banned. But not until Monsanto has made
BILLIONS selling increasingly toxic mixes of RoundUp to spray on
genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops. And the permanent
after-effect will be new generations of glyphosate-resistant weeds. But
imagine glyphosate's told-you-so arguments when they cook up more dubiouis
statistics: "Weeds were less trouble back when RoundUp was legal!" "But
that's because your glyphosate-resistant crops bled resistant into the
weed population." "You can't prove that! No you can't!" Hell, Monsanto
would like to bring back Agent Orange, & Monsanto "scientists" are still
producing "proof" that dioxins (one of the most toxic substances known) is
100% safe at much higher parts per million than allowed by the government
today. And why after all these years would Monsanto STILL be making the
same Agent Orange arguments? Because glyphosate is generally contaminated
with dioxins! And so the same lies are needed by Monsanto for its currant
products.

They never do give up -- because their profits from lying vastly outpace
their PR and legal costs every time they're caught. And the clean-up costs
are picked up by the taxpayers. Some people predict Monsanto will fall
entirely. I'm afraid more likely they'll pay off Congress to get them
completely off the hook for all costs of the vast harm they're doing right
now, then introduce a BRAND NEW chemical brew that'll give them ANOTHER
twenty to forty years of profits in the high billions before the cost in
human welfare is too extravagant to keep covering up.

-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/