On 3 Sep 2003 17:37:35 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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
All Hail shillo billo!!!

On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

when confronted, turn to bald-faced
lies to attempt personal destruction.

Any fool with a modicum of internet skills can find that your UNC
professors have worked as consultants for Monsanto. Your own
leadership in your current position have consulted with and worked for
Monsanto. Circumstantial? Perhaps, but your fervor clearly provides
your identity as billo the Monsanto shillo....

another nip at billo the shillo's ankles

In article , newsgroup wrote:

On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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

LOL so the second coming has happened and I missed it!!!

ALL HAIL PRINCE OF SCIENCE!!!

Well, at least he's only making claims for "his side," which is not the
environment's side quite clearly! If his side really is to harm the
environment then science & truth supports that he does so when using
RoundUp! Extinction of two frog speces so far; loss of century-old hedges
in England to glyphosate drift; stunting of plants seeded into areas
treated with glyphosate MONTHS before seeding; weakening of winter
tolerance in shrubs & trees & greater susceptibility to fungal diseases
all caused by RoundUp when "used as directed." And even if someone in his
family DOES come down with nonhodgson's lymphoma, who's to say it wasn't
Shillo's brand of table salt after all, rather than the Roundup
contaminating the foodchain.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:

ALL HAIL PRINCE OF SCIENCE!!!

Hey, I'm not the prince of science, I just don't choose to
ignore it because it conflicts with my cult.

billo

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:
On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

when confronted, turn to bald-faced
lies to attempt personal destruction.

Any fool with a modicum of internet skills can find that your UNC
professors have worked as consultants for Monsanto. Your own
leadership in your current position have consulted with and worked for
Monsanto. Circumstantial? Perhaps, but your fervor clearly provides
your identity as billo the Monsanto shillo....

another nip at billo the shillo's ankles


Oh, dear! Someone at the University of North Carolina might have
once worked as a consultant to Monsanto!! Now *everybody* who ever
went to UNC is a Monsanto shill. Christ. You're worse than a
Stalinist. Line up all 25,000 students against the wall and
give them a loyalty test to the ecofundamentalist cult.

I love this. You can't find any dirt on *me* so now you
try to brush all 500,000 people who ever walked through
the halls of UNC.

Tell me, hypocrite, who do *you* work for? How much
money to *you* make touting your anti-science agenda?

Oh, I know, you don't dare answer.

Pathetic.

billo

as I said before, if the journal is authentic and if I am not intending to repeat the
experiment, I dont read the article in its entirety. There are quite a few journals
out there publishing junk science, pseudoscience, etc.

The referees in authentic journals are the people most competent to determine if
proper scientific methodology has been followed. They are putting their seal of
approval that the procedures, the statistical analysis, even the quality of the lab
itself is up to the standards for publication in that journal. and that includes
that the abstract accurately reflects what the researchers found. Scientists in the
main are only competent in a very small area of research, that is competent to make
judgements about another labs work. In real science labs this review starts within
the lab itself among colleagues, within the department. It is only when it has been
vetted internally (including opening the raw data lab books for viewing) that it is
passed onto external review by submission. We must all rely on the competence of the
scientists involved, and the journal to select appropriate referees for each
submitted article. For that reason I assess the value of the journal first.
without that, the whole article is untrustworthy. after that, I look carefully at
who is doing the funding for the research. it speaks volumes about the possible bias
of the researchers. Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

this is just plain silly. you are making the rules up as you go along.
Ingrid

(Bill Oliver) wrote:
AND
" Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going
to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion."
AND
" "As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to
cite articles I have not bothered to read."


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


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..

and they continue to claim that it is safe as used directly.


longer repeating that it is not a carcinogen, leaving that open due to the
most recent evidence.


Uh huh. Please provide the EPA document that states that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

You (like Monsanto) may LOVE what WHO said ten years
ago, but have to overlook what they've said since.


OK. Provide the document where the EPA says that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.


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.


They are not calling Roundup a dangerous neurotoxin. Provide
a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans
when used as directed. You cannot.



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.

Fine. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is
not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.



But oh yes, the National Cancer Institute -- I notice you don't say
National Cancer Society which is independent of Monsanto.

Ah, yes. The NCI -- another Monsanto shill as far as you're
concerned.



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.


No science, once again. Just cult ranting. Provide a single
article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims that
Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. One.
Just one.

billo

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.

None of which purport to show any side effects in humans from
Roundup when used as directed.



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."



Please prove that pink bunnies with purple antlers don't exist in
the wild. After all, just because you can't find them no matter
how hard you look doesn't mean that you should infer they aren't
there, right? There is not *one* scientific article in a
peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that there is
any danger to humans from Roundup when used as directed.

You can believe in an unproven, unfounded, undocumented
speculation-based "danger" all you want. Just like you
can believe that there really is a big purple monster
under your bed at night that disappears whenever you
look. Just don't pretend your speculations are based
on science.



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.


Yes, stay away from that evil oxygen and water.


billo

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:
On 3 Sep 2003 17:37:35 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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
All Hail shillo billo!!!

Welcome to your fan club, Henry. Abandon science and
enjoy the cult.

billo

In article , newsgroup wrote:

On 3 Sep 2003 13:49:07 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

when confronted, turn to bald-faced
lies to attempt personal destruction.

Any fool with a modicum of internet skills can find that your UNC
professors have worked as consultants for Monsanto. Your own
leadership in your current position have consulted with and worked for
Monsanto. Circumstantial? Perhaps, but your fervor clearly provides
your identity as billo the Monsanto shillo....

another nip at billo the shillo's ankles

The paranoia manifest in a belief that you have undertaken the goal of
Shillo's "personal destruction" is a pretty fascinating addition to the
character of the Shillo -- a fear of his own alliances & friendships being
known -- wh8ich doesn't speak well of his opinion of his own associates!
Really those alliances were made manifest by his own irrational & rather
fetishistic love for All Things Monsanto -- no one needed to see your
mention of his workplace associates to tell he had vested interests of
some sort. So if any destruction is occuring it's his own self-destruction
by his endlessly lopsided nutty reasoning of Monsanto (& himself) as
purveyors of godlike truths & the rest of the world just conspiracy
theoriests & (horror of horrors) ordinary reasonable people concerned for
a cleaner environment.

The weird thing is, if he killfiled a couple threads & never bothered to
read any of this stuff, he'd never know it existed, no one in his sphere
of influence (supposing he has such a sphere) would ever know about any of
it, he wouldn't likely hear even the vaguest rumor of having been laughed
at on UseNet. That he DOES know how few of his fellow usenetters hold him
in the highest possible esteem is something he volunteered to find out.
This stuff couldn't possibly have any impact on his daily life if he
didn't personally let it in the door & mull it over until he gets himself
in a paranoid stew convincing himself he's been destroyed.

Is there really any way these activities that he wastes his own idle hours
upon could lead to his "personal destruction" merely because we found out
his affiliations & vested interests???

Well, maybe, but only if he's madder'na hatter.

-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/

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 17:29:35 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

The weird thing is, if he killfiled a couple threads & never bothered to
read any of this stuff, he'd never know it existed,

Pobably good advise. As rare as it is, this clowns not worth it,
I've trashed the thread.

Pretty kewl to find out how many here (scientists included) see the
shill for what it is.

Billo, as an additional example of the acceptance of abstracts in the
scientific community, I am familiar with authors' using as a reference in a
published paper an abstract of a paper.
I have given you links to what an abstract contains.

Billo said: " 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?"

My reply: The poster that you are replying to said the following: "You can
read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the
specifics are going to be meaningless." She did not say that the overall
article as described in the abstract was meaningless.

This is what you said: "This is particularly true in a scientific discussion
where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."
Notice, you are now not referring to a "specific". Also, please note your
use of the word "them" following "articles", I interpret "them" as referring
to "articles". I interpret "one" (as used twice) as referring to the person
who cited the article (abstract) feeling that the article (abstract) was
meaningful.

If I put that paragraph into context and include the paragraph before that
one, the quote becomes:
""As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite
articles I have not bothered to read.
(Note a blank line appeared here in your post)
This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing
articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."

Continuing my reply (H. Kuska): there is a world of difference between a
"specific" in a paper and the paper itself.

The "This is particularly true" contains the word "This" - which I interpret
as the being the paragraph before (not the earlier discussion of a specific
section of an actual paper). You may have meant something else; but as you
actually wrote it, you are not referring to the comments made by the person
that you originally started to reply to (which you now call "the reader")
but to the poster of abstracts ("scientific discussion where one is citing
articles "). I do not find the abstracts that I post meaningless to me - I
feel that I understant the important points.

You have indicated in your comments concerning the "Title: The teratogenic
potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in Wistar rats." abstract
that to study high dosages is ..... lots of words that indicate (to me)
that you feel the study was meaningless..... How can one say that a
published study is meaningless (in so many words) and not also be saying
something about the authors, editor, and reviewers? i.e. I took your
statement concerning meaningless in the context of what you have been saying
in this thread.

Yes, you started discussing the post with a third party but you broadened
your discussion. In the next set of paragraphs you also indicate that you
are no longer just talking to the poster that you started to reply to (for
example: " But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing
articles......". Note the appearance of "you all").
..
Henry Kuska, retired

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

Preliminary studies have indicated glyphosate may cause non-hodgson's
lymphoma. But of course RoundUp consists of many more chemical ingredients
& admixtures than just glyphosate, & some of these chemicals or their
break-down components (including formeldehyde) are definitely
carcinogenic. And it is now proven that a key component of RoundUp,
Acrylonitrile, are definitively carcinogenic on the basis of completed
animal models. There is no REASONABLE reason to suppose this
animal-modelled carcinogenicity does not apply to humans. But expect
shills for Monsanto to reply to the known fact that RoundUp is a
carcinogen to be fed back as "The EPA has not agreed that glyphosate is a
carcinogen." True enough they're waiting for further studies to prove that
one definitively, but ROUNDUP as formulated is already a known carcinogen
thanks to the anti-drift additive Acrylonitrile.

EPA has categorized this chemical as a "probable human carcinogen." Expect
Monsanto to rely continuously on the word "probable" bent to their meaning
"not proven" therefore "not a fact." Monsanto is playing many word-games
behind the scenes with EPA which can only regulate Acrylonitrile through
the Clean Air and Clean Water acts -- Monsanto claims the presence of the
very thickening agents that break down into carcinogenic chemicals keep
RoundUp from "drift" so that it is not covered by Clean Water Act, & that
their label says not to use it near water so it is not covered by Clean
Water Act, & therefore Monsanto can poison us as much as it wants & EPA
can't do a ****ing thing about it, neener neener against EPA. Monsanto
concocts label instructiosn that have nothing at all to do with safe usage
& everything to do with legal language & evasions of criminal liability.
When people like Shillo pretend this means it is safely used "as directed"
this can only be understood (like the warnings on cigarette packages) as
evasions of criminal liability within the law, & not in the least an
indication of actual safety. Until the LAW defines it as unsafe, reality
doesn't matter, Monsanto expected to avoid class action suits no matter
how many cancer deaths they cause. Right now it is known that RoundUp
ingredients that are carcinogenic are stored in tubors like potatoes, but
there is no Clean Potatos Act, & EPA is helpless to act unless a
Republican Congress turns its back on big cash bonuses from Monsanto
coffers, & biting the hand that feeds Congress permits EPA and FDA to
actually protect the public.

In animal models this component of RoundUp caused forestomach squamous
cell papillomas, central nervous system microgliomas, mammary gland
carcinomas, Zymbal gland carcinomas --- in rats of both sexes. Even mere
inhalation caused Zymbal gland carcinomas, forestomach papillomas &
acanthomas, & central nervous system neoplasms in rats of both sexes.

There is no reason on earth not to expect the same range of cancerous
effects in humans from RoundUp. Because it is a proven carcinogen, & has
been known to be so for quite a long while. A twenty year study of humans
exposed to Acrylonitrile found increased incidents of prostrate cancers,
& cancers of the colon, lungs, stomach & brain. Shorter studies of workers
in a dozen plants that exposed workers to Acrylonitrile found increases in
lung & lymphatic cancers.

There are many sources among factory & chemical workers, or people who
live near chemical & artificial fibre factors, for Acrylonitrile exposure.
But for people outside the range of the chemical factories themselves, the
primary source of exposure is RoundUp. It is absorbed through the skin &
through the lungs.

The price on the open market for Acrylonitrile collapsed due to its
dangerousness, & it is used less & less in factory settings. But Monsanto
knew a deal when it saw one & has more than picked up the slack for
guaranteeing human exposure to this cancerous agent.

A further toxin which damages the neurological system is Acrylamide which
derives secondarily from RoundUp decay in the environment, & is stored
very readily in starchy & tubrous foods such as potatoes, to be released
during normal cooking. An article in Science, July 5, 2002, addresses this
threat to the human foodchain as a severe threat to the human foodchain, &
the World Health Organization has called it "Urgent" to pursue further
data. The Swedish researchers said they were "shocked" to find Acrylamide
pervasive in the foodchain. Peter Spencer, a neurotoxicologist at the
Oregon Health ^ Science at the University in Portland, holds that
Acrylamide is carcinogenic in humans because of DNA damage & tumor
mutations secondary to Acrylamide exposure. Epect Monsanto flacks & shills
to focus on the concept "secondary" to mean not actually caused by
RoundUp.

Monsanto persists in their PR that these cancer causing agents in RoundUp
are "inert" & therefore harmless, & in any event exempt from EPA
regulation if not recommended for use near water & for aerial dispersion
(though in fact used near water & aerially dispersed with off-label
instructions), & besides that, their exact formulation being proprietary
is exempted by law from further scrutiny.

-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/

H. Kuska original statement: 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's answer:
None of which purport to show any side effects in humans from
Roundup when used as directed.



H. Kuska original statement: 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."

(Note, I also provided the information that he would need if they had
"directed" pregnant women to not use it):
My additional original statement:
"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 "

Billo's answer:
Please prove that pink bunnies with purple antlers don't exist in
the wild. After all, just because you can't find them no matter
how hard you look doesn't mean that you should infer they aren't
there, right? There is not *one* scientific article in a
peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that there is
any danger to humans from Roundup when used as directed.

You can believe in an unproven, unfounded, undocumented
speculation-based "danger" all you want. Just like you
can believe that there really is a big purple monster
under your bed at night that disappears whenever you
look. Just don't pretend your speculations are based
on science.



H. Kuska's original statement: 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.

Billo's answer:
Yes, stay away from that evil oxygen and water.


billo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
H. Kuska's summary: WOW!
--
Henry Kuska, retired

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