So it isn't a triple-dark-fudge brownie with a scoop of vanilla bean icecream on top, but Phrederik did write something interesting in :

"paghat" wrote in message
news
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repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard.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.

Again... you are shooting yourself in the foot...

"Safe as table salt" is NOT the same as "using glyphosate as table
salt".

At this point, you are the only one stating that people should be
using this stuff instead of salt.

The quote wasn't even "safe as table salt". And, Dr. Oliver
could have used "purified water" for the purposes of the
argument he used and still have been accurate.

Here is the quote paghat is referencing:

Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce
mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly
poison. -- Bill Oliver Message-ID:

See also: http://tinyurl.com/kdgn

Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying
"safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said
in order to support her statements.

--
gekko

A person who smiles in the face of adversity... probably has a scapegoat.

(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:

I may be a bit filosophical and it may even be OT to discuss the
morality issue here, but I'm sincerely interested in your views on
that; it might help me to put your other statements in context. Thanks
for the lively debate anyway,



It is a different debate. It is one thing to claim that one should
not buy German cars because they all used to collaborate with
Nazis in the 1930s.

It is *another* to claim that all German cars have bad brakes
because they all used to collaborate with Nazis in the 1930s.

For the first, you can use all the philosophical arguments you
want. For the latter, you test the cars.

That is clear, thank you. I agree with that.

However, it is a nice analogy, but to be honest, I think neither
replicates the argument Paghat is making. She does not say we should not
buy RU because MS lied in the past. And she also does not say RU is
dangerous because MS lied in the past.

She says that she thinks RU is unsafe and that all the evidence against
that statement are unreliable because they are largely sponsored by MS
themselves and (as we all know!) they lied in the past.

She says, in analogy, she thinks german cars are unsafe and that the
only ones denying that fact are the germans who are not to be trusted
because etc... (only an analogy, lets not get into a fight about that
:-) ).

Feel free to argue that one should not use a Monsanto product
because you don't like the company. I have no opinion on that.
That does not, however, say anything at all about Roundup.

Agreed, but again, that is not the position here. No one says we
shouldn't buy RU because of bad MS. The question is, how can one be sure
that the info requiered to make sound judgement is not tampered with,
when it is well known from the past that the company involved has no
problem whatsoever with tampering?

My question was the same that I asked Paghat a while ago: how can you be
so sure you're right when there is such a strong force operating in the
background to cloud our vision. Surely you must be worried about this
too; it has happened in the past so why not now again. I'm a bit amazed
how you ignore this point. (Again, I'm not asking for a moral judgement
on MS, just a practical thing: Historically they pulled our leg several
times; how do you know they do not so again (in the light of the
enormous consequenses that our current political desicions will have for
the future)).

Ursa..

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

On 18 Aug 2003 14:52:24 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

Well, since we are in such a sharing mood, and since the
bunch here is such a fan of open disclosure, why don't
you tell us who *you* work for and what *your* qualifications
are?

Who do *you* work for?

I work for me, my husband, our pet parrot, the Tibetan People in exile in India,
Tibetan Nuns and volunteer work.

What are *your* qualifications?

Qualifications for what? For everything? Narrowing it down, my qualifications
are as follows: I will not, nor do I ever intend to cause any harm to, or death
of anything with the use of a pesticide. I am a qualified organic gardener and
qualified to be a home maker and retired from the horticulture industry where I
worked as a grower for both types of operations. My first job was grower of
bedding plants for one of the largest greenhouse operations in the nation (a
million square feet under glass with six head houses and sixty tractor trailer
loads going out daily from March till June, daily), on Long Island. Second job
in the industry was for a smaller grower, 70,000 square feet under glass where I
learned to grow organically. I'm not a qualified scientist, but I know when
someone is full of shit and Monsanto is full of shit. Period.

And, of course, my challenge stands. One article. One.


billo

Your challenge is denied. How about you provide an article which says
glysophate is safe. Not relatively safe, but safe.

On 18 Aug 2003 17:02:57 GMT, gekko opined:


Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying
"safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said
in order to support her statements.

She didn't make the quote. It was Monsanto's ad campaign that did. "Roundup,
Safe as Table Salt..." It was mandated by the court to be removed immediately
from their ad. New York State vs Monsanto.

Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with
nothing.

Ditto New York State v Monsanto

New York vs Monsanto

New York v Monsanto

NY vs Monsanto

NY v Monsanto


"animaux" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 17:02:57 GMT, gekko
opined:


Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying
"safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said
in order to support her statements.

She didn't make the quote. It was Monsanto's ad campaign that did.
"Roundup,
Safe as Table Salt..." It was mandated by the court to be removed
immediately
from their ad. New York State vs Monsanto.

On 18 Aug 2003 15:05:52 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology,
molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology,
clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what,
why don't we match publication by publication.


Gosh Billy, I guess you're living proof a licensed physician can be
pretty well blinded by the light of selfish self interests....HUH?


Number of physicians in the US = 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by
physicians per year = 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun
deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun
owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms)

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.


"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 , "David J Bockman"
wrote:

Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with
nothing.

Ditto New York State v Monsanto

New York vs Monsanto

New York v Monsanto

NY vs Monsanto

NY v Monsanto

Perhaps you need to take lessons. Send me your Visa info & I'll charge you
a hundred smackeroos if you need some very elementary instruction. For
when I tried it, I got HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of hits. Here's just the
first couple items from the first page alone:
Monsanto fined, agrees to change their labeling & stop lying in their ads:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monad.html
but of coruse two years later they were sued again by NY Attorney General.
Here's an eye-popping criminal record for Monsanto:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/p...iminaltext.htm
including but by no means restricted to the successful NY Attorney General
first successful action, but it needs updating, Monsanto's most recent
criminal record has doubled since this page was prepared -- they're
getting worse as time goes by!
Presently there's a similar yet another suit (filed by NY this past April)
against Dow which exactly like Monsanto reneged on their earlier
settlement in which they agreed not to lie so agregiously to the public
about pesticides. You might have to use news.google to find some of those
stories, but I don't want to give away too much of the lesson for free.

-paghat the ratgirl

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 17:02:57 GMT, gekko
opined:


Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying
"safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said
in order to support her statements.

She didn't make the quote. It was Monsanto's ad campaign that did.
"Roundup,
Safe as Table Salt..." It was mandated by the court to be removed
immediately
from their ad. New York State vs Monsanto.

--
"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 18 Aug 2003 15:05:52 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology,
molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology,
clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what,
why don't we match publication by publication.


Gosh Billy, I guess you're living proof a licensed physician can be
pretty well blinded by the light of selfish self interests....HUH?

Apparently his sole paying gig is doing autopsies. Even a lowly medical
examiner can tell when they're already dead. Keeps him from personally
killing anyone at least.

-paghat the ratgirl

Number of physicians in the US = 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by
physicians per year = 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun
deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun
owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms)

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.


--
"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/

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:

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...

Well, since we are so open nowadays, let's hear from you.

Who is your employer?

What are your qualifications?

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology,
molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology,
clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I can spell psthology..pathorlogy..pahtology....
Ok. Maybe I can't.



I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what,
why don't we match publication by publication.

You first.

billo

PLAYBOY! The 25th Anniversery Issue.
Well, I didn't actually publish there, but I bought one!
And are magazines underlined or in quotes? Dang!
I never figured I'd need that stuff after English class.
I do remember that " ibid" wasn't that Playwright fellow nor a frog
croaking...It's some kind of Bird in Egypt. I think it lives on the Nile
and sits on Crocodiles.
Although how that pertained to English class, I never did figure out...

In article ,
says...
Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with
nothing.

Ditto New York State v Monsanto
New York vs Monsanto
New York v Monsanto
NY vs Monsanto
NY v Monsanto

In the late 80's early 90's most states adopted in
their governing bodies of Pest control services/products
that the wording in advertising or solicitation, even if
true, can not contain wording that gives the suggestion
of pesticides being benign products. Part of Texas' is

(5) a statement directly or indirectly implying that a
pesticide or device is recommended or endorsed by any
agency of the state or federal government, such as "EPA
Registered" or "EPA Approved";
(6) a true statement used in such a way as to give a
false or misleading impression to the consumer;
(7) disclaimers or claims which negate or detract from
labeling statements on the product label;
(8) claims as to the safety of a pesticide or its
ingredients, including statements such as "free from
risk or harm", "safe", "non-injurious", "harmless", or
"non-toxic to humans and pets", with or without such a
qualifying phrase as "when used as directed";
(9) claims that the pesticides and other substances
the licensee applies, the application of such
pesticides, or any other use of them are comparatively
safe or free from risk or harm;
(10) claims that the pesticides and other substances
the licensee applies, the applications of such
pesticides, or any other use of them, are
"environmentally friendly", "environmentally sound",
environmentally aware", environmentally responsible",
pollution approved", "contain all natural ingredients",
"organic", or are "among the least toxic chemicals
known"; and
(11) claims regarding its goods and services for which
the licensee does not have substantiation at the time
such claim is made.

I have never seen the New York suit but I believe it was
not directed at Monsanto alone, but Monsanto was part of
the group the listed in the suit. I have heard the
"gotcha" part of the suit was the equivalent to #11. No
long term environmental study of table salt has been
done in the environment, so how could they know if long
term it was safer?

--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/owl1.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

Hi (paghat)! If I remember
correctly, you wrote in
news

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.

No. He indicated that table salt is *also* lethal when given in high
enough doses.

Technically, everything is "safe" unless taken in lethal doses. The
lethal dose for some things is such a small amount that often even a
mere whiff of it can kill. The lethal dose of other things is so
large that it is unlikely that a person will reasonably ingest that
quantity -- water is one such.

The lethal dosage of glysophate is not the dosage that is recommended
on the label, so if used properly, glysophate is not lethal.

Unless, of course, you have found peer-reviewed documentation that
says that the amount of glphyosate to be used per the instructions
is, in fact, lethal. Have you found that?


--
gekko

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.

In article ,
says...
Number of physicians in the US = 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by
physicians per year = 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun
deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun
owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms)

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.


So in other words you are stating with math that if you
have a tablespoon (14150 mg) of table salt with an LD50
of 3300, and since it takes just over 1/4 table spoon to
kill 50% of test animals that weigh 2.2 lbs (1kg) we are
to believe that since Roundup has a LD50 of 4900 it
would take just under 1/3 of a tablespoon to do the
same, that roundup is actually less toxic than salt?
--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/owl1.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
dangerous because MS lied in the past.

She says that she thinks RU is unsafe and that all the evidence against
that statement are unreliable because they are largely sponsored by MS
themselves and (as we all know!) they lied in the past.


No, it's worse than that. Not only does she not believe the
evidence that is published, she also believes in evidence that
does not exist.

She says, in analogy, she thinks german cars are unsafe and that the
only ones denying that fact are the germans who are not to be trusted
because etc... (only an analogy, lets not get into a fight about that
:-) ).


Worse. She says, by analogy, that the brakes are bad even though
the brake tests show they are OK because she believes in nonexistent
brake tests that show they are bad.



My question was the same that I asked Paghat a while ago: how can you be
so sure you're right when there is such a strong force operating in the
background to cloud our vision.


It's simple. There have been lots of studies done. *None* of them
show that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. In order
to show damage, the tests must involve very high doses, very
long incubations, etc.


Surely you must be worried about this
too; it has happened in the past so why not now again. I'm a bit amazed
how you ignore this point.

I don't ignore it. There have been lots of non-Monsanto studies done.
None of them show ill effects under conditions of normal use. In
order to stretch this anti-Monsanto paranoia to its limit, it is
also necessary to ignore and misrepresent *all* studies. That
is what paghat and her friends are doing. Go back and read how
paghat misrepresented the Marc sea urchin study. Go back and
read how paghat misrepresented the Erikkson study. In both, she
misstated the findings. In the latter she claimed a finding
in direct contradiction to that of the authors.

If you go back and look at the studies that do show damage, they all
occur at exposure higher than would be found in directed use. I
have already shown this in the sea urchin study that paghat dragged
out. It is true in the others as well. For instance, on of the
posters threw out a Wistar rat study that showed, once again,
that Roundup is toxic, but only at very high doses. As the
authors state: "the doses used in this study would never
expected to correspond to human exposure levels under
normal circumstances." (Dallegrave, E. et al. The teratogenic
potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats
Toxicology Letters 2003 142:45-52)

One would think that after all these studies, there would
be *one* that shows that Roundup is dangerous to humans when
used as directed, if this were in fact the case.

Such a study does not exist.


billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:
Apparently his sole paying gig is doing autopsies. Even a lowly medical
examiner can tell when they're already dead. Keeps him from personally
killing anyone at least.

You've attacked Bill Oliver, his profession, colleagues and his employer.
None of this is appropriate for a science newsgroup. Why don't you
discuss the data?

Long diatribes regarding the corporate misbehaviour of one of the
manufacturers of glyphosate also aren't appropriate in a science
newsgroup.

Andrew Taylor

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , Tom Jaszewski
wrote:

On 18 Aug 2003 15:05:52 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology,
molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology,
clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what,
why don't we match publication by publication.


Gosh Billy, I guess you're living proof a licensed physician can be
pretty well blinded by the light of selfish self interests....HUH?

Apparently his sole paying gig is doing autopsies. Even a lowly medical
examiner can tell when they're already dead. Keeps him from personally
killing anyone at least.

-paghat the ratgirl

Actually, my primary interest at the moment is in the use of
computer vision and image analysis to medicolegal questions.
I am a consultant in visualization to the FBI, chairman of
the Image Analysis subcommittee on the Scientific Working
Group on Imaging Technologies (SWGIT) developing national
standards for forensic image acquisition, am a consultant
to the National Library of Medicine in the development
of the Insight Toolkit for the analysis of Visible Human
data(1), and am developing a protocol for the use of magnetic
resonance microscopy for the evaluation of retinal
hemorrhage in shaken baby syndrome (2). I was chosen one
of Federal Computer Week's 100 most influential federal
IT professionals in 1997, and was a Berry Prize finalist
for excellence in Military Medicine.

Certainly I do autopsies. I was involved in the investigation
of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, and on other
cases in the current conflicts. I am quite proud
of the calling of Forensic Pathology.


Oh, and by the way.


Who is *your* employer?


What are *your* credentials?


billo

(1) www.itk.org

(2) Oliver, WR, Potter, K, McLean, I, Fowler D, Downs J. Mapping
Retinal Hemorrhages with Magnetic Resonance Microscopy.
Proc Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 2003 11:880.