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.
billo
H. Kuska reply: If someone is interested in reading about the purpose of
abstracts in the scientific literature, I have 2 suggestions:
1) a Google search. These are mainly of use to the beginning student
scientist. The following are just a few hits of such a search:
http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/cours...s/abstract.pdf
http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/cl.../abstract.html
http://science.widener.edu/svb/essay/writing.pdf

2) Look at the instructions to authors of the individual scientific
journals.
http://www.e-journals.org/
For example in the journal Environmental Science and Technology
https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/Show...authguide.pdf:
the following appears: "Abstract. An abstract must accompany each
manuscript. Use between 150 and 200 words to give purpose, methods or
procedures, significant new results, and conclusions. Define any
abbreviations used in the abstract. Write for literature searchers as well
as journal readers. Include major quantitative data if they can be stated
briefly, but do not include background material."

I have provided the abstract of articles (without personal interpretation)
that I feel are related to this discussion. Anyone who is interested in
reading further can go to a University Library and look at the journal or
have the library obtain a copy of the journal article through Interlibrary
Loan (or in some cases purchase it through the Internet). You can follow
the scientific comments concerning an article (i.e. see what other
scientists have to say about it) by looking in Science Citation Indexes.
There will normally be about a one year time delay before an article is
cited.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

"billo" said: "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

Sorry, I cannot follow the logic of your "in other words" unless you are
trying to use a strict reading that this was done on rats so it has no
meaning for humans (I doubt that the scientists who did the research were
worried about the health of rats only, I also doubt that the reviewers and
the editor would have accepted the paper for publication if they agreed with
your "interpretation".

As you stated they said: "results shows that the commercial formulation
poses an increased potential risk for the rat skeletal system." If you
decide not to utilize the Precautionary Principle after reading this, that
is your choice.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

billo said: 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

H. Kuska reply: Please provide the references

Henry Kuska, retired

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

On 2 Sep 2003 23:51:14 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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
So you take being called a Monsanto shill a personal attack...some
would simply view your religious fervor to defend your benefactor pure
and simple shill!!

Recent (March 2002) research specifically concerning Roundup:

Title: Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of
CDK1/cyclin B activation.

Authors: Marc, Julie; Mulner-Lorillon, Odile; Boulben, Sandrine; Hureau,
Dorothee; Durand, Gael; Belle, Robert

I am including the Author Address's so that one does not assume that this
was published by a fringe group:

Station Biologique de Roscoff, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie (UFR 937),
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, UMR 7127), 29682,
Roscoff Cedex, FranceStation Biologique de Roscoff, Universite Pierre et
Marie Curie (UFR 937), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS,
UMR 7127), 29682, Roscoff Cedex,

Published in: Chemical Research in Toxicology, volumn 15, pages 326-331,
(March 2002).

Abstract: "To assess human health risk from environmental chemicals, we have
studied the effect on cell cycle regulation of the widely used
glyphosate-containing pesticide Roundup. As a model system we have used sea
urchin embryonic first divisions following fertilization, which are
appropriate for the study of universal cell cycle regulation without
interference with transcription. We show that 0.8% Roundup (containing 8 mM
glyphosate) induces a delay in the kinetic of the first cell cleavage of sea
urchin embryos. The delay is dependent on the concentration of Roundup. The
delay in the cell cycle could be induced using increasing glyphosate
concentrations (1-10 mM) in the presence of a subthreshold concentration of
Roundup 0.2%, while glyphosate alone was ineffective, thus indicating
synergy between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products. The effect of
Roundup was not lethal and involved a delay in entry into M-phase of the
cell cycle, as judged cytologically. Since CDK1/cyclin B regulates
universally the M-phase of the cell cycle, we analyzed CDK1/cyclin B
activation during the first division of early development. Roundup delayed
the activation of CDK1/cyclin B in vivo. Roundup inhibited also the global
protein synthetic rate without preventing the accumulation of cyclin B. In
summary, Roundup affects cell cycle regulation by delaying activation of the
CDK1/cyclin B complex, by synergic effect of glyphosate and formulation
products. Considering the universality among species of the CDK1/cyclin B
regulator, our results question the safety of glyphosate and Roundup on
human health."
-----------------------------------------------------------

H. Kuska comment: I would like to remind the reader that the wording had to
be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a scientific
journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and the referees
are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the field.



Henry Kuska, retired

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

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
snip
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
Have you read Al Franken latest book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell
Them"? I'm in the middle of reading it and a "truth" that comes through
loudly is that whenever a lie is repeated or spun often enough it becomes a
truth.

Something to think about....

John

For some inexplicable reasons, "B & J"
wrote:


:Have you read Al Franken latest book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell
:Them"? I'm in the middle of reading it and a "truth" that comes through
:loudly is that whenever a lie is repeated or spun often enough it becomes a
:truth.
:
:Something to think about....
:

You needed Al Franken's book to tell you that?


--
Wendy Chatley Green

As a scientist I read abstract when they are outside my immediate research area. The
abstract is like a picture of a building, the rest of the article is like the
instructions and sequence for constructing the building. Most people even architects
are not interested in the building instructions unless they are planning to build the
same building. That is not to say the rest isnt important in certain circumstances,
such as when one is not sure how rigorous the publishing journal is. For example,
the introduction and references illuminate how current and widely read the authors
are. But in general, those not in the field are not going to glean very much out of
the paper. You can read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the
specifics are going to be meaningless. It is impossible to assess if their
procedures are normal practice in that field.
What is more illuminating is to see who is quoting a particular article and if they
are agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions.
Ingrid


(Bill Oliver) wrote:

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



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:
So you take being called a Monsanto shill a personal attack...some
would simply view your religious fervor to defend your benefactor pure
and simple shill!!

The lies from you just keep coming, don't they, Tom? It's
unfortunate that the ecofundamentalists have to rely on
nonexistent science and, when confronted, turn to bald-faced
lies to attempt personal destruction.

In contrast to me -- who has both science and truth on his
side.

Tell me, Tom, who do *you* work for? How much money do
*you* make every year promoting the anti-science agenda?

Now, run away, hypocrite.

billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

Sorry, I cannot follow the logic of your "in other words" unless you are
trying to use a strict reading that this was done on rats so it has no
meaning for humans (I doubt that the scientists who did the research were
worried about the health of rats only, I also doubt that the reviewers and
the editor would have accepted the paper for publication if they agreed with
your "interpretation".

As you stated they said: "results shows that the commercial formulation
poses an increased potential risk for the rat skeletal system." If you
decide not to utilize the Precautionary Principle after reading this, that
is your choice.



The results showed that Roundup is toxic at levels never expected
to be encountered by humans. Virtually *all* things are toxic
at levels not expected to be encountered by humans. You never
answered my question -- do you apply "the Precautionary Principle"
and avoid all contact with water and oxygen?

The bottom line is that *everything* has risks. The question
is what that risk is. No study has shown Roundup to be
dangerous to humans when used as directed.

You like to play games with the "Precautionary Principle," eh?
Do you avoid all foods? After all, over 90% of the pesticides
you encounter are *natural* pesticides which are *demonstrated*
causes of human cancer -- in contrast to Roundup.

But since you convert any risk whatsoever to a mouse to equate
to a cause of concern at any exposure, no matter how low, to
humans, let's see what you must avoid:

anise, apples, bananas, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage,
cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa,
grapefruit juice, honey-dew melons, horseradish, kale, mushrooms,
mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parseley, parsnips, peaches,
pineapples, radishes, tarragon, and turnips. (Garfield, E. "Man-made
and natural carcinogens -- putting the risks in perspective."
Veterinary and Human Toxicology 31:589-90, 1989)

And, of course, the number of deaths attributable to the carcinogens
in coffee and tea are in the thousands. God only knows what's
in that herbal tea you are sipping.

Once you have eliminated all of these exposures, and the rest
of the real carcinogens that flood your food, then get back to me
about Roundup.


For a nice list, see:

potency.berkeley.edu/text/science.table3.html


If you really want to opine about what giving rats near-fatal
doses of stuff and extrapolating to humans, you might want
to read what Ames has to say -- you know, the "Ames test"
Ames.

Try:

Gold, Slone, Manley, and Ames "Misconceptions about the Causes
of Cancer."


potency.berkeley.edu/text/Gold_Misconceptions.pdf

Read "Misconception 6"

In fact, this should be required reading for anybody
who wants to ply the hysteria trade.


billo

In article ,
wrote:
As a scientist I read abstract when they are outside my immediate research area.


Fine. However, don't pretend you know what the article actually says.

More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't
read as evidence it says what it does not say.


You can read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the
specifics are going to be meaningless. It is impossible to assess if their
procedures are normal practice in that field.


Well, no. If you are knowledgeable about the area it will not be
meaningless. You don't have to be doing research in the field,
you merely have to know what the procedures are.

Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going
to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion.

"As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to
cite articles I have not bothered to read.

This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one
is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless.

But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles
in areas of which you are profoundly ignorant, you don't know what
the articles actually mean, and that you are not competent to
understand the articles had you actually bothered to read them.

If that's the claim you want to make, run with it. Otherwise,
read the articles and don't pretend they say what they don't
say.


billo

In article , "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

Recent (March 2002) research specifically concerning Roundup:

Title: Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of
CDK1/cyclin B activation.

Authors: Marc, Julie; Mulner-Lorillon, Odile; Boulben, Sandrine; Hureau,
Dorothee; Durand, Gael; Belle, Robert

I am including the Author Address's so that one does not assume that this
was published by a fringe group:

Station Biologique de Roscoff, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie (UFR 937),
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, UMR 7127), 29682,
Roscoff Cedex, FranceStation Biologique de Roscoff, Universite Pierre et
Marie Curie (UFR 937), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS,
UMR 7127), 29682, Roscoff Cedex,

Published in: Chemical Research in Toxicology, volumn 15, pages 326-331,
(March 2002).

Abstract: "To assess human health risk from environmental chemicals, we have
studied the effect on cell cycle regulation of the widely used
glyphosate-containing pesticide Roundup. As a model system we have used sea
urchin embryonic first divisions following fertilization, which are
appropriate for the study of universal cell cycle regulation without
interference with transcription. We show that 0.8% Roundup (containing 8 mM
glyphosate) induces a delay in the kinetic of the first cell cleavage of sea
urchin embryos. The delay is dependent on the concentration of Roundup. The
delay in the cell cycle could be induced using increasing glyphosate
concentrations (1-10 mM) in the presence of a subthreshold concentration of
Roundup 0.2%, while glyphosate alone was ineffective, thus indicating
synergy between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products. The effect of
Roundup was not lethal and involved a delay in entry into M-phase of the
cell cycle, as judged cytologically. Since CDK1/cyclin B regulates
universally the M-phase of the cell cycle, we analyzed CDK1/cyclin B
activation during the first division of early development. Roundup delayed
the activation of CDK1/cyclin B in vivo. Roundup inhibited also the global
protein synthetic rate without preventing the accumulation of cyclin B. In
summary, Roundup affects cell cycle regulation by delaying activation of the
CDK1/cyclin B complex, by synergic effect of glyphosate and formulation
products. Considering the universality among species of the CDK1/cyclin B
regulator, our results question the safety of glyphosate and Roundup on
human health."
-----------------------------------------------------------

H. Kuska comment: I would like to remind the reader that the wording had to
be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a scientific
journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and the referees
are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the field.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

Henry: Billo Shillo already discounted this one, along with every other
citation except one he personally liked which was generated by an avowed
Monsanto propogandist who was formerly a leader among Philip Morris
propoganda scientists.

-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 ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: 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

H. Kuska reply: Please provide the references

Henry Kuska, retired

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



Sure, no problem.

Try:


Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. "Safety evaluation and risk
assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient,
glyphosate, for humans." Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2000
31:117-165.


The danger of Roundup is so small that it is difficult to
provide any study that will show any excess mortality.
Attempts to do so have failed. However, it is possible
to calculate the excess mortality of all pesticides/herbicides
put together (of which Roundup is among the most safe).

Thus, lumping Roundup in with known carcinogens and
bad actors, you can get some data about the real
environmental risk in terms of excess cancer mortality.

On average, there are 20 excess deaths per year in
the US due environmental exposure to all pesticides
and herbicides combined, out of a total of around
560,000 total cancer deaths in 1999.

In 1981, Doll and Peto's epidemiologic estimates of
quatitative cancer risk found pesticide/herbicide
exposure to be negligible (Doll R. Peto R. "The causes
of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks
of cancer in the United States today" J. Natl. Cancer
Institute. 1981 1191-1308.).

This study was confirmed in 1987 by the EPA (Gough, M.
"Estimating cancer mortality: epidemiological and
toxicological methods produce similar assessments." Environ
Science and Technology 23:925-930).

This was again confirmed in 1996 by the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
who found that "the great majority of individual
naturaly-occuring and synthetic chemicals in the
diet appear to be present at levels below which
any significant adverse biologic effect is
likely, and so low that they are unlikely
to pose an appreciable cancer risk." (NRC,
1996 "Carcinogens and anticarcinogens in
the human diet: A comparison of naturally
occurring and synthetic substances. National
Research Council. Washington, DC. National
Academy Press.

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309053919/html/index.html
http://stills.nap.edu/html/diet/summary.html

This was again confirmed in 1996 a
consortium including the
World Cancer Research Fund, American
Institute of Cancer Research, World
Health Organization, National Cancer
Institute, and the International
Agency for Research on Cancer. Their
metanalysis revealed that food
contamination with pesticides posed
any significant cancer risk. In fact,
they note that the use of pesticides
may *reduce* the rate of cancer worldwide
by making foods with cancer-preventative
substances more available.

In particular they note that "there is
no direct evidence that herbicide residues,
when regulated and monitored, significantly
affect human cancer risk." (Chapter 7,
Section 7.1.2 "Herbicides.")

World Cancer Research Fund. "Food,
Nutrition, and the Prevention of
Cancer: A Global Perspective." New
York: American Institute for Cancer
Research. ISBN 1899533052 670 pp

http://www.wcrf.org/report/

This was again confirmed in 1997 with
the Canadian Cancer Society report on
pesticides, which affirmed Doll and
Peto's conclusion. "The Panel
concluded that it was not aware of any
definitive evidence to suggest that
synthetic pesticides contribute
significantly to overall cancer mortality."

"8. The Panel did not find any exising
evidence that crop protection chemicals
and lawn and garden products are likely
to be a major cause of cancer."

(Ritter, L., Clark, H. Kaegi, E.,
Morrison, H., Sieber, S. "Report
of a panel on the relationship
between public exposure to pesticides
and cancer." Cancer 80:2019-2033,1997)


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

I have provided the abstract of articles (without personal interpretation)
that I feel are related to this discussion.


.... and not *one* of them makes the claim to show that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. Not one.


billo

In article ,
Mike Simpson wrote:


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

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

ms



It's not that uncommon. There's a psychiatric disorder called
polydipsia in which people drink too much water. See:

Lightenberg, JJM, et al. "A lethal complication of
psychogenic polydipsia: cerebral edema and herniation"
Intensive Care Medicine 1998 24:644-645

Clearly, we must ban water.


billo