true, but only some plants produce a "gall" that houses the bacteria that fix
nitrogen. These bacteria are anaerobic, oxygen kills them. so the idea would be to
give other crop plants the genetics to make the galls. since 74% of the air is
nitrogen, it is an infinite source of fertilizer if the plants can utilize it.
Ingrid

Tom Jaszewski wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:31:14 GMT, wrote:

I would even think developing crops that fix nitrogen like
legumes would be a great advance. Ingrid


Using compost tea can introduce the biology to put nitrogen fixing
bacteria fungi and protazoa in the soil!



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on
the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population

And where does this article make the claim? Have you actually
bothered to read the article, or just downloaded the abstract?

billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in
Wistar rats.


Yes, yes. If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will
poison it. Go back and read the article, instead of just
downloading the abstract. Tell me, Henry, *how much*
did it take to cause problems compared to exposure associated
with use as directed?

billo

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
Under further investigation, Roundup APPEARS to be fairly safe. But then
as I mentioned, so did DDT. I don't know about "when used as directed",
but Roundup does have negative effects on the reproductive system at
some level...


"At some level..." Indeed, if you give an animal enough of
anyting -- including water -- you will cause pathology.
Did you read the article? Tell me, what did the
authors say about the dosage and exposure compared
to what people who use it as directed are exposed
to?

I'll give you a hint -- it was not at normal
exposure levels.

Tell me, do you consider water to be a poison?

Do the authors make the claim that this shows that
Roundup is dangerous when usd as directed? No, they
do not -- because that's not what it shows.

billo

In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
wrote in
:

Nobody thought to ask these questions. Scientists have learned
lessons from this, the question is do they get to apply what they
learned to current pesticides or even GMO and the answer is "no". It
takes a lot of money to ask these kind of questions and nobody wants
to foot the bill. Ingrid

Excellent post(s), dr-solo. Very informative and good analysis.

And content-free. Let's ignore science because our religion dictates
they must be wrong. It is the equivalent of Creationism.

billo

it is your response that is content free. skip the question and move right to an
attack on the motives of the writer. motives are unknowable and mere speculation.
However, knowing the background of the chemical company is a very good predictor of
current behavior. Very interesting 60 minutes last night ... Monsanto in Alabama has
contaminated an entire town with PCBs. They have known about its effect on the
people there for more than 30 years and have done nothing. They have already paid
out in lawsuits. But when the courts were getting ready to hand down a ruling making
Monsanto clean up the toxin the EPA quickly made a secret deal with Monsanto to
extend the period of "study" of the problem another 2 years. So much for the EPA
"protecting the environment" or the people in that town.
Monsanto has a horrendous track record. I dont know why the citizens of the US
cannot be better protected from all such predatory companies. Ingrid

(Bill Oliver) wrote:
And content-free. Let's ignore science because our religion dictates
they must be wrong. It is the equivalent of Creationism.

billo



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with
the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory
sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of
the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web page
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/

Abstracts are a very important part of a publication as that is all
most scientists will ever read. Thus, the authors, referees, and editor
make every effort to make sure that it accurately reflects what is in the
paper.
Authors: Garry VF, Harkins ME, Erickson LL, Long-Simpson LK, Holland
SE, Burroughs BL.

Affiliation: Environmental Medicine and Pathology Laboratory, 1st
Floor Stone Laboratory 1, University of Minnesota, 421 29th Avenue SE,
Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA.

Published in: Environ Health Perspect ;110 Suppl 3ages 441-9,(2002
Jun).


Title: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born
to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA.

Abstract: "We previously demonstrated that the frequency of birth
defects among children of residents of the Red River Valley (RRV),
Minnesota, USA, was significantly higher than in other major agricultural
regions of the state during the years 1989-1991, with children born to male
pesticide applicators having the highest risk. The present, smaller
cross-sectional study of 695 families and 1,532 children, conducted during
1997-1998, provides a more detailed examination of reproductive health
outcomes in farm families ascertained from parent-reported birth defects. In
the present study, in the first year of life, the birth defect rate was 31.3
births per 1,000, with 83% of the total reported birth defects confirmed by
medical records. Inclusion of children identified with birth or
developmental disorders within the first 3 years of life and later led to a
rate of 47.0 per 1,000 (72 children from 1,532 live births). Conceptions in
spring resulted in significantly more children with birth defects than found
in any other season (7.6 vs. 3.7%). Twelve families had more than one child
with a birth defect (n = 28 children). Forty-two percent of the children
from families with recurrent birth defects were conceived in spring, a
significantly higher rate than that for any other season. Three families in
the kinships defined contributed a first-degree relative other than a
sibling with the same or similar birth defect, consistent with a Mendelian
inheritance pattern. The remaining nine families did not follow a Mendelian
inheritance pattern. The sex ratio of children with birth defects born to
applicator families shows a male predominance (1.75 to 1) across specific
pesticide class use and exposure categories exclusive of fungicides. In the
fungicide exposure category, normal female births significantly exceed male
births (1.25 to 1). Similarly, the proportion of male to female children
with birth defects is significantly lower (0.57 to 1; p = 0.02). Adverse
neurologic and neurobehavioral developmental effects clustered among the
children born to applicators of the fumigant phosphine (odds ratio [OR] =
2.48; confidence interval [CI], 1.2-5.1). Use of the herbicide glyphosate
yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category. Finally,
these studies point out that (a) herbicides applied in the spring may be a
factor in the birth defects observed and (b) fungicides can be a significant
factor in the determination of sex of the children of the families of the
RRV. Thus, two distinct classes of pesticides seem to have adverse effects
on different reproductive outcomes. Biologically based confirmatory studies
are needed."



--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

Scientists undertake a research project for a reason (i.e. they are trained
to know what type of experiments will produce meaningful data). They then
submit their results to a refereed journal which is edited by someone well
respected in the field. If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that
the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it
gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their
own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points".

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R)
in
Wistar rats.


Yes, yes. If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will
poison it. Go back and read the article, instead of just
downloading the abstract. Tell me, Henry, *how much*
did it take to cause problems compared to exposure associated
with use as directed?

billo

Biilo puked

If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will
poison it.

we've had enough of you will we die?

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Scientists undertake a research project for a reason (i.e. they are trained
to know what type of experiments will produce meaningful data). They then
submit their results to a refereed journal which is edited by someone well
respected in the field. If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that
the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it
gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their
own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points".

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.


Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt.
After all, if one gives a short term exposure to enough water, it is
deadly. I also suppose you are actively working to remove oxygen
from the atmosphere, since oxygen is an tremendously deadly poison
at high doses.

In fact, the authors of your papers do not make the claim you pretend.
Were you to actually read the articles, you will note that *they* do
not claim that their article shows that Roundup is dangerous when used
as directed.

For those not familiar with scientific methods, and wonder if "Henry"
has a point, it turns out that *everything* is toxic when given in
high enough doses. The fact that something is toxic when given in
high enough doses, such as water or oxygen, does not imply that
it is deadly with chronic exposure. In fact, there are protocols
for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols,
Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.


billo

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:247441

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:
Biilo puked

If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will
poison it.

we've had enough of you will we die?


Oh, the secretive little anklebiter is still here. Still no
science, and you still only have personal attacks.

billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with
the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory
sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of
the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web page
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/

If you are unfamiliar with the structure of scientific articles, you may
be surprised to learn that not all of the information in the
article is present in the abstract. In fact, it is a common misconception
among the scientifically naieve that one can comprehend an article from
the abstract. The purpose of the abstract is to provide information to
let one know whether or not he or she should read the article; it is
not a substitute for reading the article.

And, in fact, the article does not make the claim to show that
Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.


billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Scientists undertake a research project for a reason (i.e. they are trained
to know what type of experiments will produce meaningful data). They then
submit their results to a refereed journal which is edited by someone well
respected in the field. If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that
the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it
gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their
own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points".

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.


Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt.
After all, if one gives a short term exposure to enough water, it is
deadly. I also suppose you are actively working to remove oxygen
from the atmosphere, since oxygen is an tremendously deadly poison
at high doses.

In fact, the authors of your papers do not make the claim you pretend.
Were you to actually read the articles, you will note that *they* do
not claim that their article shows that Roundup is dangerous when used
as directed.

For those not familiar with scientific methods, and wonder if "Henry"
has a point, it turns out that *everything* is toxic when given in
high enough doses. The fact that something is toxic when given in
high enough doses, such as water or oxygen, does not imply that
it is deadly with chronic exposure. In fact, there are protocols
for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols,
Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.


billo

Overdose on water.........

http://www.ananova.com/entertainment...814.html?menu=

ms

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.


Since I know you will not actually bother to read the articles
you pretend to know about, lets see what the authors say about
the human interpretation of the data:

"Despite the fact that the doses used in this study would never expected to
correspond to human exposure levels under normal circumstances, as reported by
Williams et al. (2000) for glyphosate and polyoxyethyleneamine in adults or children
(margins of EXPOSURE=5420, 3370 and 461577, respectively), this results shows that the
commercial formulation poses an increased potential risk for the rat skeletal system."

In other words, the dosage required for this does *not* translate into
danger to humans. Of course, I am sure that you know *much* better
than those silly scientists know.

billo

In article ,
wrote:
it is your response that is content free. skip the question and move right to an
attack on the motives of the writer.


On the contrary. When you get a scientific article in a peer-reviewed
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when
used as directed, get back to me.

The rest is religious ranting. The ecofundamentalists simply can't
abide a heretic.

billo