| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
03-09-2003, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Roundup Unready
In article ,
paghat wrote: 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. No paghat, I didn't "discount" it. I merely noted what it actually claimed. Unfortunately for you and the rest of the ecofundamentalist cultists, there are some people you can't baffle with bullshit. Simply throwing a wordy abstract and pretending it says what it doesn't say just doesn't do the trick. billo |
|
#63
03-09-2003, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article ,
paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: 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/ See Henry, wha'd I tell ya. His favorite article from Ian Munro, a hired gun who has been caught in the past promoting studies known to have been fraudulant... Yeah, and the stupid World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, National Cancer Institute, etc. All part of that great Monsanto Conspiracy. billo |
|
#64
03-09-2003, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
billo, each reader can judge for him/her self what information the abstract
provides; he/she can then decide whether they want to look at the full paper and/or whether the abstract is sufficient for their purpose. In making that decision I expect that they will take into consideration that the scientists involved, the editor, and the reviewers have mutually agreed that the paper was worth publishing and that the abstract represented what is in the paper. I would also expect that they will take into consideration the reputation of the journal and the authors' affiliations. If you feel that the editor and reviewers were in error in approving the wording/publication, you are entitled to submit your own analysis of any paper for publication. It will be sent to reviewers, and then the editor will review their comments and make a decision on whether your comments/interpretation are worth publishing. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
|
#65
03-09-2003, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo, each reader can judge for him/her self what information the abstract provides; he/she can then decide whether they want to look at the full paper and/or whether the abstract is sufficient for their purpose. The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is that it does. In making that decision I expect that they will take into consideration that the scientists involved, the editor, and the reviewers have mutually agreed that the paper was worth publishing and that the abstract represented what is in the paper. I never claimed that it was a bad paper. I simply note that it does not claim what you imply. It is a good paper that does not claim that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is what I object to. If you feel that the editor and reviewers were in error in approving the wording/publication, you are entitled to submit your own analysis of any paper for publication. I don't have to. I have no quarrel with what the paper actually *says.* I have a quarrel with your implication that it claims something it does not claim. In particular, it does not pretend to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. In fact, the authors are careful *not* to make that claim. I applaud the authors. I take issue with your attempt to pretend the authors claim something they do not claim. billo |
|
#66
03-09-2003, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
Biiio, states:
" More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't read as evidence it says what it does not say." H. Kuska comment: it is interesting how you can come up with "rules" of "practice", I have tried to point out to you (with documentation) what the procedures are for writing abstracts and that the editor and reviewers have decided whether what is in the abstract accurately reflects what is in the paper. AND " Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion." H. Kuska comment: again one of your "rules" (see below for applicable comment). AND " "As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite articles I have not bothered to read." H. Kuska comment: first, you have not given any indication that you are a scientist, second, I have been communicating on the internet in scientific discussions since the internet was first available for scientific discussions (that was the original purpose of the internet). Most scientific libraries are not wealthy enough to purchase each and every journal, plus there are articles in many different languages. Apparently, the scientists that I have been communicating with feel very confident in discussing a paper based on its abstract. If you are a scientist and refuse to partake in such discussions that is your decision. AND " This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless." H. Kuska comment: if the editor and reviewers did not consider the paper "meaningless" I find your conclusion that it is meaningless, well, shall I say "interesting". AND " 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." H. Kuska comment: wow! Is this the writing of someone who was trained to be a professional scientist?????? Maybe you can set up logic diagrams to show us how you reached such conclusions. AND " 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." H. Kuska comment: The complete abstract was given. The editor and reviewers decided it represented the paper. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
|
#67
03-09-2003, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
Billo states: " The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is that it does." H. Kuska reply: the topic of this thread is not determined by you, it is determined by the original August 26 post: ------------------------------------------- "Mindfully.org note: Roundup Unready just barely touches on the problems with Roundup. Its target genetically engineered crops are commingling with weedy relatives, thus creating super weeds. This is indeed a major problem for commercial farmers around the world. In his article on Jan. 14, 2003, Andrew Pollack wrote that Roundup-tolerant crops are now found in "Delaware, Maryland, California, western Tennessee and at the edges of the Corn Belt in Ohio and Indiana." Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser says superweeds are ubiquitous throughout Canada. But I'd like to broaden the scope of discussion here by including the human and animal health effects of Roundup. It is both a carcinogen (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and an endocrine disruptor (inhibits steroidogenesis). The testing that revealed those two points looked at glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, by itself. The complete formulation is even more toxic. One of the premises for Roundup and genetically engineered crops was that they would reduce the use of toxic pesticides. And Roundup was billed as being "as safe as table salt," until the Attorney General of the State of NY won a suit against Monsanto for such lies. Some farmers have had to use as much as 6 times the recommended amount of Roundup to come close to killing some of those super weeds. To sidestep the lost efficacy, Monsanto is mixing the good 'ol standard pesticides into Roundup that it was supposed to safely replace as well as tweaking the concentration of glyphosate in the mix. The result is that more toxic chemicals are used in spite of the "official" reports of lowered quantities. The Roundup story is also political, but that can wait for another day." ------------------------------------------------------------ H. Kuska reply, continued: your key word seems to be based on the word "imply", See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imply for a definition. Notice the "To involve by logical necessity;". I am sorry but your use of logic escapes me. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
|
#68
03-09-2003, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: Billo states: " The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is that it does." H. Kuska reply: the topic of this thread is not determined by you, it is determined by the original August 26 post: However, you posted in response to my challenge. I wrote a challenge to show a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that purported to show that Roundup was dangerous to humans when used as directed. I gather then, that when you posted in reply to that challenge, you were actually *not* posting in reply to that challenge, but merely posting non-responsive things that had nothing to do with the claim that Roundup is or is not dangerous to humans when used as directed. Good. I'm glad we've cleared up that your article posts have nothing to do with the question of whether or not Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, and we agree that these articles do not do that. Next time, when I challenge people to provide an article showing that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, and you post a reference as a follow-up, please point out that you are not responding to that challenge, but instead that you are responding to some other, unrelated post. That will clear up any confusion as to whether or not you are actually pretending that your posts are responsive. billo |
|
#69
03-09-2003, 10:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: Biiio, states: " More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't read as evidence it says what it does not say." H. Kuska comment: it is interesting how you can come up with "rules" of "practice", I have tried to point out to you (with documentation) what the procedures are for writing abstracts and that the editor and reviewers have decided whether what is in the abstract accurately reflects what is in the paper. Yeah. Here's a "rule." If you want to pretend you know what an article says, read it. Don't fake it. AND " Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion." H. Kuska comment: again one of your "rules" (see below for applicable comment). AND " "As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite articles I have not bothered to read." H. Kuska comment: first, you have not given any indication that you are a scientist, second, I have been communicating on the internet in scientific discussions since the internet was first available for scientific discussions (that was the original purpose of the internet). Most scientific libraries are not wealthy enough to purchase each and every journal, plus there are articles in many different languages. Apparently, the scientists that I have been communicating with feel very confident in discussing a paper based on its abstract. If you are a scientist and refuse to partake in such discussions that is your decision. Blah blah blah. Yeah, I have been communicating on the internet in scientific discussions since the internet was first available for scientific discussions, too. And I don't care if you can or cannot read a foreign language. If you don't bother to read an article, don't pretend to know what it says. And the bottom line is that it's even *sillier* to ignore what is *in* the article because it isn't in the abstract. The fact is that the authors of these articles do *not* make the claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed -- in the abstract *or* in the article. The difference is that in the article they go into details as to why the cannot make that claim. Since you can't bring yourself to read the articles, you miss that little bit. AND " This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless." H. Kuska comment: if the editor and reviewers did not consider the paper "meaningless" I find your conclusion that it is meaningless, well, shall I say "interesting". Read the context, buddy. Go back and see where "meaningless" was used and how it was used in the sentence I was replying to. It referred to the *reader* finding the article meaningless because he or she was not competent to understand the article. It did not refer to anything about the authors. Surely you are not that silly; why are you trying to willfully misstate my position? Your attempt to make my reply say something that I clearly did not mean doesn't say much for your skill at divining information from scientific articles without reading them. " 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." H. Kuska comment: wow! Is this the writing of someone who was trained to be a professional scientist?????? Maybe you can set up logic diagrams to show us how you reached such conclusions. AND " 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." H. Kuska comment: The complete abstract was given. The editor and reviewers decided it represented the paper. Yawn. Here's a clue. There's a reason journals contain whole articles and not just abstracts. It's because important stuff is in the *articles.* The idea that one can read a two paragraph abstract and get everything that's in a 20-page article is just silly. billo |
|
#70
03-09-2003, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: 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/ See Henry, wha'd I tell ya. His favorite article from Ian Munro, a hired gun who has been caught in the past promoting studies known to have been fraudulant... Yeah, and the stupid World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, National Cancer Institute, etc. All part of that great Monsanto Conspiracy. billo Touchy touchy. When you make a decision to be as wrong as you enjoy being, you should just keep repeating the same three or four basic lies you're so enamored of, & keep citing & re-citing Monsanto's man Ian Munro as the only "good" science. But when you reduce yourself to calling your betters "stupid" over statements you yourself cooked up from scratch, well, you'll barely even convince your personal choir if you keep that up. You list in your alleged "conspiracy" FOR Monsanto some of the same organizations you've previously deplored for releasing non-peer-reviewed warnings against Monsanto products, but now suddenly you dream up new positions for all of them! Although Monsanto still distributes a 1994 W.H.O. statement that glyphosate is not a proven carcinogenic, WHO has published warnings against RoundUp for other reasons, & are not even any longer repeating that it is not a carcinogen, leaving that open due to the most recent evidence. You (like Monsanto) may LOVE what WHO said ten years ago, but have to overlook what they've said since. And what WHO presently says is that acrylamide & polyacrylamide neurotoxic pollution of the food chain is already a very real health hazard (Weis, Science 27, 2002). These pollutants are reaching the environment almost exclusively from additives in RoundUp that are supposed to reduce the also-serious problem of "drift" (such as has killed century-old hedges along the English countryside). These pollutants are finding their way into tubrous vegatables & in fruits, further assisted by the RoundUp surficant in penetrating plant cells [Smith, Ecotoxicol. Env.35, 1996; 37, 1997; Leonard, J. Chromatographic Sci 37, 1999]. Now it is true that WHO in their first published article felt it political expedient to not mention Monsanto by name when warning against the Monsanto chemicals in RoundUp, & this "oversight" was spun out into a scandal by people annoyed that they skipped that chance to point the finger in the only direction feasible. It remains, WHO is now spreading warnings against the use of chemicals dispersed into the environment in the Monsanto product, & they are calling it a dangerous neurotoxin. RoundUp additives as deadly neurotoxins in the foodchain pretty much outweighs WHO's studies that showed nothing more than this: if people & animals eat a lot of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops, they won't drop dead -- that's what Monsanto likes to hear, but it's not much of an endorsement. What WHO is saying more clearly about RoundUp Ready crops is that they do indeed result in super-weeds, & almost every month WHO's profound scepticism about RoundUp Ready crops increases over the bases of neurotoxic additives reaching the foodchain & weeds becoming superweeds. WHO have furthermore blasted Monsanto very confrontationally about the milk-modifying products -- both for Monsanto lying about the amount of hormone still in the milk, & the beef & milk being in general unsafe. WHO has even implicated Monsanto's rBGH in Mad Cow Disease because of hormone injections increasing cattle susceptibility. In the very near future the USA may be the ONLY country left that does not warn consumers about rBGH contaminating beef & milk -- & WHO is really ****ing off Monsanto for having come down on the right side of this issue. So while WHO has done a few things that got them a bit of backlash & embarrassment for walking "too carefully" around Monsanto's justly hurt feelings, overall, no, WHO is NOT your personal Monsanto-lovin' buddy. And EPA's in on your alleged conspiracy to assist Monsanto? Their recurring investigations & chastisements of Monsanto for inventing statistics & fabricating studies doesn't make EPA Monsanto's best buddy either, though hiring people out of EPA into giant-salery jobs, & buying off Congress to restrict EPA from action, doesn't make EPA quite the watchdog they should be until we get out from under the current Republican big-corporation preferences. So again, you may selectively find EPA letting Monsanto get away with murder (literally) here & there, but in total, many at the EPA deplore the harm Monsanto persists in doing, & do not trust Monsanto to provide research findings that isn't phony. But oh yes, the National Cancer Institute -- I notice you don't say National Cancer Society which is independent of Monsanto. I still think your allegation of "Conspiracy" doesn't apply when Monsanto is so proud & publicity-happy about their take-over of the NCI. They built NCI's City of Hope institute then placed it under the control their own Monsanto employee, Michael Friedman (senior Vice President of Clinical Affairs for Monsanto, as well as National Cancer Institute chief of clinical investigation), assisted by another Monsanto vice-president, Philip Needleman -- all to make sure NCI research remains "Monsanto-appropriate" So yes, you can find NCI claiming the decaying byproduct of RoundUp, formeldehyde, does not cause cancer no matter how great the evidence that it is, & other Monsanto-serving nonsense generated in a Monsanto-built lab run by Monsanto-appointed researchers & officers. Oh yes, Friedman is a piece of work, & you're quite right to charge him with serving exclusively Monsanto/Searl/Merkh/Dupont interests, but it's not a Conspiracy because that implies secrecity, & NCI is very up-front about serving Monsanto & Merkh foremost. But what happened back when it was NCI that first publicized the fact that Monsanto is directly responsible for the increase of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in America? Oh right, that was before Monsanto built the new lab & put their own man in charge -- back when NCI told Congress that non-Hodgson lymphoma was six times higher in Anniston than nationally, thanks entirely to Monsanto, which has done nothng to this day to correct the Anniston problem except tell the people not to go outside in their own yards. Even now though, we can look to the National Cancer SOCIETY for a bit more independence. NCS has been warning against glyphosate-contaminated chicken, cattle, hog, & goat meats, plus eggs & soybean products, since 1996. They have warned since 1992 that Monsanto pesticide & herbicide (including trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosate) has been implicated in non-Hodgson's lymphoma. You can call the facts a "conspiracy theory" until the cows come home, but the truth is the truth. Glyphosate & other Monsanto products get a clean bill of health when Monsanto pays for or personally orchestrates the study -- that's self-interest, not conspiracy. Studies independent of Monsanto, devoid of self-interest, provide a much more mixed picture, one that generally warns of sundry dangers ranging from probable to definite. And what they have to say about Monsanto's milk-contaminating hormones really ain't pritty. So keep on bleeting "Ecofundies!" and "Conspiracy theories!" -- that may indeed, in the end, be your only possible tactic, having by now run your favorite Ian Munro bullshit "science" further than it ever reached. -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/ |
|
#71
03-09-2003, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , Henry Kuska wrote: billo, each reader can judge for him/her self what information the abstract provides; he/she can then decide whether they want to look at the full paper and/or whether the abstract is sufficient for their purpose. The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is that it does. There he goes again, Henry, the Bleeting Billo Shillo! He well knows THERE IS NO SAFE WAY TO USE ROUNDUP. He has yet again given as truth his own redundancies (his mere bleeting "when used as directed, bleet bleet"). Using deadly toxins "as directed" is a labeling procedure that achieves a minimal level of legality only. As it turns out, it is even based on falsified data. It is also based on some bits of real data derived from decay periods that occur ONLY in controlled laboratory conditions & do not apply to gardens or crops. These "directions" overlook temperature variance, overlook bonding with other chemicals in the environment, overlook actual soil conditions that can in many instances permit glyphosate to remain active for months to over a year depending on percentage of organic content & numbers of microorganisms, overlooks even the fact that it is a MIX of chemicals squirted all over the place & not the individidual chemicals given limited testing in laboratory conditions, overlooks the chemicals which this mix of toxins breaks down into some of which are known to be increasingly toxic & carcinogenic, overlooks the untested chemicals & chemical combinations since there's a lot more in a jug of RoundUp than is on the label, overlooks the dioxane & other contaminants inevitably in RoundUp, even overlooks the fact that the surficant alone increases the toxicity of glyphosate & its ability to enter cells -- all that before evne getting to the sad fact that tons of it are NOT used as directed, though Monsanto sells it for off-label uses all the time, even for use directly in watersheds, & applied directly on RoundUp Ready crops so as to toxify basic food products. The "as directed" instructions are fraudulant to begin with, these instructions are based on phantasmagoric invention, then it is sold for off-label use anyway. Which is why independent non-Monsanto studies have found RoundUp to be risky for people even with minute exposures, & most assuredly harmful to the environment in HUGE ways, even when used "as directed" since there really is no way to use it safely. I know Billo Shillo will retell the same old couple of lies again & again, though, cuz that's all he's got left. -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/ |
|
#72
03-09-2003, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
billo said: " I gather then, that when you posted in reply to that
challenge, you were actually *not* posting in reply to that challenge, but merely posting non-responsive things that had nothing to do with the claim that Roundup is or is not dangerous to humans when used as directed." H. Kuska reply: again your logic?????? I have posted a number of literature references that have to do with side effects due to the utilization of Round-up. The first abstract that I posted was on August 27 in the subthread started by: "Message 20 in thread From: Stephen Sassman ) Subject: Roundup Unready View this article only Newsgroups: rec.gardens Date: 2003-08-27 11:00:16 PST I should not, and I did not. Perhaps you are confusing my post with something that someone else has posted. My point was that just because this chemical does not cause this specific kind of cancer does not mean that it doesn't cause other cancers or have some detrimental affect on the endocrine system. It is wrong to say that a chemical is safe or not safe unless you take many factors into account (acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental fate, endocrine disruption, etc.). Even if thorough research has been conducted, there is the chance that some unexpected problem will rear its ugly head 20 or 30 years down the road (remember DDT)."----------------------------------------------I posted an abstract which was titled "Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population" (published in 2001).A key section was: "For late abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9), thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated risks."You "commented" (I did not consider a rebuttal) on this abstract on August 31. On September 1 I posted an abstract titled "Title: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA." )published in 2002).A key sentence in this abstract is: "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category." Now please show me your logic diagram that excludes effects during pregnancy from the universe that you include in the logic circle of "not dangerous to humans when used as directed." Concerning the "as directed" I have included the label information for one product http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_..._atz/label.pdf , you may want to start by using the PDF search function for the base word preg to see if it tells pregnant workers not to use the material. I did not look at all the labels, if you are interested go to: http://www.cdms.net/manuf/mprod.asp?mp=23&lc=0 You can also look at the MSDS: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp23P011.pdf Apparently you do not think it is important to know that there is an "elevated risk". That is your choice, if your wife agrees with you; she can continue to apply Round-up when she is pregnant. Others may ellect to apply the Precautionary Principle. Henry Kuska |
|
#73
03-09-2003, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
Yes, I did read the article. The authors did not say how the exposure rate
compares with the exposure of people who use as directed. Have you done the calculations to get the answer to this question? Is that why you are so positive that it is not at normal exposure levels? Seems like it wouldn't make much sense to do research with exposure levels that are not relevent to real life. The article simply states that the active ingredient had no affect while Roundup formulation decreased spermatogenesis. I believe the exposure levels are listed. Of course too much of anything can be toxic. Would you rather injest 1kg of water or 1kg of Roundup? Bill Oliver wrote: 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 -- Stephen Sassman Analytical Chemist Purdue University, Department of Agronomy Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences 915 W. State Street, Lilly Hall West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054 Phone: (765) 471-9135 |
|
#74
03-09-2003, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
In article , "Henry Kuska"
wrote: billo said: " I gather then, that when you posted in reply to that challenge, you were actually *not* posting in reply to that challenge, but merely posting non-responsive things that had nothing to do with the claim that Roundup is or is not dangerous to humans when used as directed." H. Kuska reply: again your logic?????? I have posted a number of literature references that have to do with side effects due to the utilization of Round-up. Billo Shillo is a bundle of "tactics" but is not in the least interested in the logical. He'll wear you down eventually by his completely moronic repetitious bleetings for "cites!" when you just gave seven cites, then claim he beat you at a ****ing match he was playing with himself, aiming it into his own mouth very effectively. No matter how well & correctly he is answered, & no matter how many times, he will pretend were never answered at all, or that your answer stinks, then he'll eventually get round to re-posting his most preferred citation (from a known fraud) while pretending he's read everything & you've not, always pretending his "everything" couldn't be found in a single PR piece generated by Monsanto. Apparently you do not think it is important to know that there is an "elevated risk". That is your choice, if your wife agrees with you; she can continue to apply Round-up when she is pregnant. Others may ellect to apply the Precautionary Principle. If he knew for a certainty his whole family would drop dead within the week he wouldn't change his position, because his position was never based on rationality. His trust in Monsanto is like a guy who fired a rifle at three of his four kids, killing each in turn with the Agent Orange bullet, the PCBs bullet, & the beef hormones bullet, & yet still willing to try the round-up-bullet next & kill the fourth kid too, because the manufacturer insisted THIS time the latest bullet really will safely bounce off a child's noodle. -paghat the ratgirl Henry Kuska -- "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/ |
|
#75
03-09-2003, 11:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roundup Unready
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| roundup-application | Lawns | |||
| The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer. | United Kingdom | |||
| Horsetails and Roundup | United Kingdom | |||
| How Soon To Plant After Using Roundup? | Gardening | |||
| weedkiller, roundup, knockdown | Gardening | |||
Linear Mode
