In article , Bill Oliver wrote:
In article , Bill Oliver wrote:

The paradigm for glyphosate is the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma example, which
is also association with the development of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in
which univariate analysis showed a weak association between glyphosate

should read

The paradigm for glyphosate is the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma example, in
[delete line]
which univariate analysis showed a weak association between glyphosate

Cut and paste error




My bad. I was commenting on the *other* article you posted the abstract
for -- the Minnesota one, not the Ontario one. So here's the comment
on the Ontario one. Since I went on at length about the Minnesota
one, I'll just let the authors provide the caveats for the the
Ontario one:


"Although this study is one of the first to collect and analyze
detailed information on the timing and types of pesticides used on
farms and reproductive outcomes, several limitations suggest that our
findings be interpreted with caution. Because dose information was not
available, misclassification of exposure is likely. Many factors
including the pesticide formulation, application conditions, handling
practices, and interindividual differences in absorption,
distribution, metabolism, and excretion of the products or metabolites
will lead to variability in the degree of exposure. Because the
farmers used many different pesticides during the study and our sample
size was limited, findings may be unreliable, particularly for
multiple pesticide interactions. Because pesticide products were
reported primarily by the farm applicator or husband, differential
recall of pesticide exposure by the mother is not likely to be a
problem in this study; however, some nondifferential recall of
pesticides and spontaneous abortions is likely. Because the analyses
were designed to generate, not to test, hypotheses, and multiple
comparisons were conducted, results should be interpreted with care
and tested in other studies."

So, aside from the problem that the kind of exposure might be
wrong, the dosage might be wrong, the interactions might be
unknown, and the actual association between the use of
the pesticide and the abortion might be wrong, and that
the study doesn't actually test what you claim it proves,
it's rock solid.

Sometimes it does pay to read the articles, eh?

billo

billo, thank you for your reply as to why you reject my claim that the paper
that I presented does meet your stated criteria of: "You can prove me wrong
by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to
show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed."

H. Kuska reply: I would of preferred that you use my suggested logic
diagrams in your reply as that formal approach would of allowed a much more
precise discussion, but I will go along with your choice of style.

To make the discussion easier to follow for the thread readers, I will now
divide your criteria into sections. They a You can prove me wrong by
providing a 1) scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that 2) claims
to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans 3) when used as directed."

Section 1. -"scientific article in a peer reviewed journal".

The thread readers can decide whether I have met this criteria by going to
the National Institute of Health link http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ which
states:

"Welcome to ehponline, the website of Environmental Health Perspectives
(EHP), a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the discussion of the effect of
the environment on human health. EHP comprises 17 issues annually with
monthly sections devoted to children's health and environmental medicine, a
toxicogenomics research section published with toxicogenomics news in
separate quarterly issues, and an annual review issue. We also publish a
quarterly Chinese-Language Edition and occasional special issues.
Publications of the National Toxicology Program including the Report on
Carcinogens are also available on ehponline."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2. - "claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans".

A little background may be required here. If one is bit by a West Nile virus
carrying mosquito, there is a certain increased risk that one could die over
the background average risk of death during the same time period for all
people living at that moment. ( i.e. science cannot tell the person bitten
with 100% certainty that he will or will not die.) We can describe some
events in nature by the terms yes or no; other events are too complex for
mortal man so we have developed the use of "odds ratio" (OR) and "confidence
interval" CI. Is this the best way to describe complex science, possibly
not; but this the accepted way at present. Since billo stated he wants
information in a peer reviewed journal, he should be willing to accept the
standard form of presenting that information. If a reader of this thread is
not familiar with the above terms, please go to
http://www.cmh.edu/stats/definitions/or.htm for an explanation.

The pertinent part of the abstract that H. Kuska presented is: "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"
(they use glyphosate rather than Round-Up, I, H. Kuska assume that this is
because glyphosate herbicides have a number of different brand names). Billo
points out that in the manuscript the following appears ""Finally, of the 14
pesticides identified by class (Table 5), only phosphine and glyphosphate
showed a significant correlation with excess adverse birth and
neurodevelopmental effects. Whether these observations were chance
associations remains a concern. Further detailed neurodevelopmental studies
are required to resolve these issues."

Returning to H. Kuska comments: Note that the descriptor used is
"significant", for the readers of this thread - the wording in a peer
reviewed scientific publication has to be approved by the authors, editor,
and reviewers.

The meanings of "significant" are (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=significant ):

"1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.

2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive: a significant glance.
See Synonyms at expressive.

3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important: a significant change
in the tax laws.

4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no
significant opposition.

5. Statistics. Of or relating to observations or occurrences that are too
closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicate a
systematic relationship."

Returning to H. Kuska comments: the paper then states: "Whether these
observations were chance associations remains a concern. Further detailed
neurodevelopmental studies are required to resolve these issues." This
statement is an example of "good science". In a recent review paper (
http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/rose%20...d%20pollen.htm ) I stated
something similar: "As is typical of scientific caution (or at least should
be), he points out that finding the virus in the seedlings is not a
definitive proof of transmission through the rose seed."

Back to the paper under discussion, science has limitations, scientists
cannot examine an infinite number of data points or possible correlations.
Those not examined are what collectively is listed as "chance" (if there
actually is order to nature). You can also see this in the use of a 95%
Confidence Interval - a 100% confidence limit is beyond our current ability.
What trained scientists do is test for correlations that they feel may be
potential contributors. I will here use an example that I used to use in my
courses: if someone felt that the actual correlation with an observed
phenomena was the age of the grandmothers of the people being studied, that
information could be put into the computer program. If the correlation
coefficient came out near zero, the research group knows that the age of the
grandmothers was not a contributor. This is a powerful method but it is
always possible that a contributing factor was missed. The editor and
reviewers can require that the authors look at additional possible
contributors if they feel the paper is deficient. This paper as it was
published was approved.

If billo wants to limit his criteria in his future posts to papers that
claim 100% certainty he can do so. I feel that such a restriction makes his
quest meaningless.

NEXT SECTION

Billo's statement: "But Henry, what is that odds ratio compared to -- what
is the referent population? The referent is to compare the pesticide
applicators against those who apply herbicides only.

Oops.

In other words, the article states that pesticide applicators who apply
glyphosate in addition to all the other stuff they apply have an increased
odds ratio compared to using herbicides (such as glyphosate) alone. That's
why, by the way, the article is about *pesticide" applicators and not
*herbicide* applicators."

H. Kuska reply: ?????? I am sorry but I cannot follow. Your statement seems
to be assuming that pesticide and herbicide are independent terms. A
herbicide is a sub set of what scientists define as a pesticide. I feel that
they made the obvious and best choice for the referent population. If they
had selected, say as an example, a referent group of pregnant typists in
Ohio; they would have been correctly criticised for opening the door to all
kinds of possible missed correlations such as the glyphosate group may have
been exposed to xxxxxx effects in that area of Minnesota that were not
present in Ohio. The chosen referent group was made up of pregnant wives of
all pesticide applicators from the same area. The editor and the reviewers
accepted this. They are in the field. If you feel that there is something
critically incorrect about this, you can submit your viewpoint to be
considered for publication. You asked for reviewed papers, yet you are
unwilling to accept the results of that review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3) - "when used as directed."

H. Kuska comment: I provided you with links to the labels and a MSDS. There
is no warning about not using if the applicator or the spouse is pregnant.

Your comment: "It is not surprising that people who have an occupational
exposure to a soup of various chemicals will have an increased odds ratio of
one thing or another. Occupational exposure is almost always higher than
general use, and should not be confused with the exposure that general users
get. The classical example, of course, was squamous cell carcinoma of the
scrotum in chimney sweeps due to exposure to soot. That does not meant that
every male who has a fire in a fireplace need worry about his balls falling
off. That distinction is extraordinarily difficult for hysterics, but it is
real."

H. Kuska reply: your criteria did not exclude applicators and their
families. This is the main group that uses a herbicide! In the future, if
you want to revise your criteria to some meaningless sub group of the human
race that is your privilege.

---------------------------------------------------------------

H. Kuska summary: I submit to the readers of this thread that billow's
criteria have been met. It is your individual decision to evaluate his and
my points. I am willing to answer any questions if there is something that
you feel needs clarification.

Thank you for your patience in reading this.

Henry Kuska

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

Billo's statement: "But Henry, what is that odds ratio compared to -- what
is the referent population? The referent is to compare the pesticide
applicators against those who apply herbicides only.

Oops.

In other words, the article states that pesticide applicators who apply
glyphosate in addition to all the other stuff they apply have an increased
odds ratio compared to using herbicides (such as glyphosate) alone. That's
why, by the way, the article is about *pesticide" applicators and not
*herbicide* applicators."

H. Kuska reply: ?????? I am sorry but I cannot follow. Your statement seems
to be assuming that pesticide and herbicide are independent terms. A
herbicide is a sub set of what scientists define as a pesticide. I feel that
they made the obvious and best choice for the referent population. If they
had selected, say as an example, a referent group of pregnant typists in
Ohio; they would have been correctly criticised for opening the door to all
kinds of possible missed correlations such as the glyphosate group may have
been exposed to xxxxxx effects in that area of Minnesota that were not
present in Ohio. The chosen referent group was made up of pregnant wives of
all pesticide applicators from the same area. The editor and the reviewers
accepted this. They are in the field. If you feel that there is something
critically incorrect about this, you can submit your viewpoint to be
considered for publication. You asked for reviewed papers, yet you are
unwilling to accept the results of that review.


Oh, please. Let's try this slowly.


Group A:

high exposure to Pesticide + Glyphosate


Group B:

high exposure to Glyphosate.


Group A has more problems compared to Group B. You claim that this shows
that glyphosate is dangerous. It does not. It shows that high doses
of *other pesticides* when added to glyphosate is dangerous.

If you want to show that glyphosate is dangerous, you should
try:

Group A:

Glyphosate


Group B:

No glyphosate.


See the difference?


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

If billo wants to limit his criteria in his future posts to papers that
claim 100% certainty he can do so. I feel that such a restriction makes his
quest meaningless.




No, Henry. I simply accept what authors state. The association, in
the words of the authors, is "tentative." You may think they're lying,
but I believe them. And, since it compares glyphosate+pesticide to
glyphosate, to draw the conclusion that this means that glyphosate
alone is dangerous is drawing a conclusion that was simply not
tested.

If you want to test the toxicity of using glyphosate, then
test it against *not* using glyphosate.

If you test eating red beans + arsenic against eating
red beans alone, and the people who eat red beans and arsenic get
sick, that's not an indictment of the beans. Yet you
claim it is.



billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Since billo stated he wants
information in a peer reviewed journal, he should be willing to accept the
standard form of presenting that information. If a reader of this thread is
not familiar with the above terms, please go to



I am quite willing to accept what these paper say. I just
don't like people pretending the papers say things they
*don't* say or pretending they make claims they *don't*
make.

You keep acting like I am criticizing the papers. I am
not. They are great papers in the sense that they
are careful in their claims. Unfortunately, the people
who tout them are not as careful; they are whom I
criticize. My problem is with you, not with the
authors or the journal.

You really should stop misstating my position in order
to argue straw men. That doesn't say much for the
rest of your argument.

In this particular article, in which other pesticides
+ glyphosate had a higher risk than glyphosate alone,
the finding is not surprising. There are many pesticides
for which the acceptable exposure rate depends on
incomplete absorption. Roundup contains substances that
enhance absorption. Many other studies have shown that
toxic effects are either greatly enhanced or due primarily
to surfactants.

Thus, the author's findings that Roundup+pesticide is
more dangerous than Roundup alone is in line with
previous findings. Your claim that this is an
indictment against Roundup alone, however, is
simply not supported by the paper. It was not
*tested* by the authors. This is not a criticism
of the paper; it is a criticism of your claims about it.

billo

billo, said: " My bad. I was commenting on the *other* article you posted
the abstract for -- the Minnesota one, not the Ontario one.

H. Kuska reply: I wondered last night if you were mixing the 2 articles, but
this morning when I replied, I forgot about that doubt.

REVISED REPLY to Billo's Minnesota comments.

billo, thank you for your reply as to why you reject my claim that the paper

that I presented does meet your stated criteria of: "You can prove me wrong

by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to

show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed."

Note, this reply is for: "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."


H. Kuska reply: I would of preferred that you use my suggested logic

diagrams in your reply as that formal approach would of allowed a much more

precise discussion, but I will go along with your choice of style.

To make the discussion easier to follow for the thread readers, I will now

divide your criteria into sections. They a You can prove me wrong by

providing a 1) scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that 2) claims

to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans 3) when used as directed."

-----------------------------------------------

Section 1. -"scientific article in a peer reviewed journal".

The thread readers can decide whether I have met this criteria by going to

the National Institute of Health link http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ which

states:

"Welcome to ehponline, the website of Environmental Health Perspectives

(EHP), a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the discussion of the effect of

the environment on human health. EHP comprises 17 issues annually with

monthly sections devoted to children's health and environmental medicine, a

toxicogenomics research section published with toxicogenomics news in

separate quarterly issues, and an annual review issue. We also publish a

quarterly Chinese-Language Edition and occasional special issues.

Publications of the National Toxicology Program including the Report on

Carcinogens are also available on ehponline."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2. - "claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans".

A little background may be required here. If one is bit by a West Nile virus

carrying mosquito, there is a certain increased risk that one could die over

the background average risk of death during the same time period for all

people living at that moment. ( i.e. science cannot tell the person bitten

with 100% certainty that he will or will not die.) We can describe some

events in nature by the terms yes or no; other events are too complex for

mortal man so we have developed the use of "odds ratio" (OR) and "confidence

interval" CI. Is this the best way to describe complex science, possibly

not; but this the accepted way at present. Since billo stated he wants

information in a peer reviewed journal, he should be willing to accept the

standard form of presenting that information. If a reader of this thread is

not familiar with the above terms, please go to

http://www.cmh.edu/stats/definitions/or.htm for an explanation.

The pertinent part of the Minnesota abstract that H. Kuska presented is:
""Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the
neurobehavioral category."

(they use glyphosate rather than Round-Up, I, H. Kuska assume that this is
because glyphosate herbicides have a number of different brand names). Billo
points out that in the manuscript the following appears ""Finally, of the 14
pesticides identified by class (Table 5), only phosphine and glyphosphate
showed a significant correlation with excess adverse birth and
neurodevelopmental effects. Whether these observations were chance
associations remains a concern. Further detailed neurodevelopmental studies
are required to resolve these issues."

Returning to H. Kuska comments: Note that the descriptor used is
"significant", for the readers of this thread - the wording in a peer
reviewed scientific publication has to be approved by the authors, editor,
and reviewers.

The meanings of "significant" are (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=significant ):

"1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.

2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive: a significant glance.

See Synonyms at expressive.

3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important: a significant change

in the tax laws.

4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no

significant opposition.

5. Statistics. Of or relating to observations or occurrences that are too

closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicate a

systematic relationship."

----------------------------------------

Returning to H. Kuska comments: the paper then states: "Whether these

observations were chance associations remains a concern. Further detailed

neurodevelopmental studies are required to resolve these issues." This

statement is an example of "good science". In a recent review paper (

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/rose%20...d%20pollen.htm ) I stated

something similar: "As is typical of scientific caution (or at least should

be), he points out that finding the virus in the seedlings is not a

definitive proof of transmission through the rose seed."

Back to the paper under discussion, science has limitations, scientists

cannot examine an infinite number of data points or possible correlations.

Those not examined are what collectively is listed as "chance" (if there

actually is order to nature). You can also see this in the use of a 95%

Confidence Interval - a 100% confidence limit is beyond our current ability.

What trained scientists do is test for correlations that they feel may be

potential contributors. I will here use an example that I used to use in my

courses: if someone felt that the actual correlation with an observed

phenomena was the age of the grandmothers of the people being studied, that

information could be put into the computer program. If the correlation

coefficient came out near zero, the research group knows that the age of the

grandmothers was not a contributor. This is a powerful method but it is

always possible that a contributing factor was missed. The editor and

reviewers can require that the authors look at additional possible

contributors if they feel the paper is deficient. This paper as it was

published was approved.

If billo wants to limit his criteria in his future posts to papers that

claim 100% certainty he can do so. I feel that such a restriction makes his

quest meaningless.

NEXT SECTION

Billo's statement: "But Henry, what is that odds ratio compared to -- what

is the referent population? The referent is to compare the pesticide

applicators against those who apply herbicides only.

Oops.

In other words, the article states that pesticide applicators who apply

glyphosate in addition to all the other stuff they apply have an increased

odds ratio compared to using herbicides (such as glyphosate) alone. That's

why, by the way, the article is about *pesticide" applicators and not

*herbicide* applicators."

H. Kuska reply: ?????? You are citing the correct paper but the wrong
information. The quote you give is for the data in Tables 5 and 6. Please
note that in the footnotes below Table 6, they mention further analysis in
the text for phosphine. When you go to this text information (page 445) you
will find that they do do a separate analysis for phosphine and then
continue with a separate analysis for Round-Up type herbicides. The exact
quote is:

"Similarly, use of the phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Round-Up) was
overrepresented in the adverse birth and developmental effect group.
Forty-three percent of the children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported
ADD/ADHD used phosophonamino herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.3-9.65). No other
commonly used pesticide compared by major organ and/or functional system was
uniquely associated with adverse birth or develomental effects."

The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are considered
experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically
incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint
to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed paper,
this is a reviewed paper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3) - "when used as directed."

H. Kuska comment: I provided you with links to the labels and a MSDS. There

is no warning about not using if the applicator or the spouse is pregnant.

Your comment: "It is not surprising that people who have an occupational

exposure to a soup of various chemicals will have an increased odds ratio of

one thing or another. Occupational exposure is almost always higher than

general use, and should not be confused with the exposure that general users

get. The classical example, of course, was squamous cell carcinoma of the

scrotum in chimney sweeps due to exposure to soot. That does not meant that

every male who has a fire in a fireplace need worry about his balls falling

off. That distinction is extraordinarily difficult for hysterics, but it is

real."

H. Kuska reply: your criteria did not exclude applicators and their

families. This is the main group that uses a herbicide! In the future, if

you want to revise your criteria to some meaningless sub group of the human

race that is your privilege.

---------------------------------------------------------------

H. Kuska summary: I submit to the readers of this thread that billo's

criteria have been met. It is your individual decision to evaluate his and

my points. I am willing to answer any questions if there is something that

you feel needs clarification.

Thank you for your patience in reading this.

Henry Kuska




--
Henry Kuska, retired

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

In article , "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

billo, thank you for your reply as to why you reject my claim that the paper
that I presented does meet your stated criteria of: "You can prove me wrong
by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to
show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed."

H. Kuska reply: I would of preferred that you use my suggested logic
diagrams in your reply as that formal approach would of allowed a much more
precise discussion, but I will go along with your choice of style.

Logic is NOT within Shillo's capacity. When shown that RoundUp used as
directed harms the environment profoundly, his irrational response is
about how doesn't hurt PEOPLE if used as directed, because in his world,
an environment laid waste "as directed" is nothing harmful to people, even
though LOGIC (not to mention reality) dictates that when we injure our
environment, we injure ourselves as part of that environment. Or when
shown the EPA classifies one ingredient as a Class C carcinogen (meaning
"possibly" cancer causing to humans on basis of animal models; plus four
other ingredients and decay chemicals in RoundUp are definitive
carcinogens) he only sees that glyphosate per se is not categorized as a
definitive carcinogen therefore it's perfectly safe, 100%, no need to be
concerned -- a most irrational view. Just not a logic oriented sort of
guy. He's more like a serial killer convinced the whores he kills wanted
it & begged for it & he did nothing wrong. The perspective is very
personal & inward & bares no relationship whatsoever to the physical
world, & logic it never is.

-sweet ratty

--
"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/

I think it's time for rec.gardens.roundup.

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

H. Kuska reply: ?????? You are citing the correct paper but the wrong
information. The quote you give is for the data in Tables 5 and 6. Please
note that in the footnotes below Table 6, they mention further analysis in
the text for phosphine. When you go to this text information (page 445) you
will find that they do do a separate analysis for phosphine and then
continue with a separate analysis for Round-Up type herbicides. The exact
quote is:

"Similarly, use of the phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Round-Up) was
overrepresented in the adverse birth and developmental effect group.
Forty-three percent of the children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported
ADD/ADHD used phosophonamino herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.3-9.65). No other
commonly used pesticide compared by major organ and/or functional system was
uniquely associated with adverse birth or develomental effects."




Dude, read the paper. What is the referent group for this OR calculation?
It is the Herbicide applicator group! That's my point. ORs do not
exist in a vacuum. An odds ratio means that one group's odds are
greater than another group's odds. In this article, the group of
pesticide applicators who included glyphosate have an increased
odds ratio compared to herbicide applicators who include
glyphosate. In other words, the paper states that people who
apply pesticides+herbicides+fungicides are at greater risk
than those who apply herbicides alone.

It does not address those who apply herbicides alone compared
to people who do not use herbicides, and that is how you
are interpreting it.

If you have a quote that shows that they are using a different
referent group than the one they say they are using, trot it
out.

As I stated, it's not surprising that the addition of Roundup to an
overall exposure of numerous other pesticides may result in increased
morbidity. That kind of syndergism is pretty common, and there
is a decent biological explanation. However, the referent group
in this study *also* used glyphosate, and any conlcusion from it
that glyphosate alone is toxic when used as directed is not
supported by this study.

If you have one sentence that states that the referent group
for the OR calculation you quote is not the herbicide group,
I'd love to see it.

The paper does not show what you claim it shows.


H. Kuska reply: your criteria did not exclude applicators and their

families. This is the main group that uses a herbicide! In the future, if

you want to revise your criteria to some meaningless sub group of the human

race that is your privilege.



It's not *my* criteria -- it's the criteria of the authors. Remember, those
guys who wrote the paper. *They* used herbicide applicators as their
referent group.




H. Kuska summary: I submit to the readers of this thread that billo's

criteria have been met. It is your individual decision to evaluate his and

my points. I am willing to answer any questions if there is something that

you feel needs clarification.


Indeed when comparing one group that eats red beans and arsenic and
with a group that eats red beans, and the first group has an increased
death rate, Henry is convinced that means that red beans are poisonous.

billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:

Logic is NOT within Shillo's capacity. When shown that RoundUp used as
directed harms the environment profoundly, his irrational response is
about how doesn't hurt PEOPLE if used as directed, because in his world,
an environment laid waste "as directed" is nothing harmful to people...


No, paghat. I simply don't believe that it's OK to lie about
what articles state and pretend to science that doesn't exist.
In your world, apparently, it's OK to make any claim at all
about Roundup, as long as it's bad. The truth of the claim
is unimportant.

You want to argue that Roundup is doing bad things in general,
feel free. Just don't lie about its effects on humans.



Or when
shown the EPA classifies one ingredient as a Class C carcinogen (meaning
"possibly" cancer causing to humans on basis of animal models; plus four
other ingredients and decay chemicals in RoundUp are definitive
carcinogens) he only sees that glyphosate per se is not categorized as a
definitive carcinogen therefore it's perfectly safe, 100%, no need to be
concerned -- a most irrational view.


Please, paghat, show me where the EPA says that Roundup is not
safe to use as directed. You cannot. You dance around it,
but you simply cannot.


Just not a logic oriented sort of
guy.

Yeah, how dare I ask that people stop lying about what the
literature says. What a heretic.


He's more like a serial killer convinced the whores he kills wanted
it & begged for it & he did nothing wrong. The perspective is very
personal & inward & bares no relationship whatsoever to the physical
world, & logic it never is.

Here's some logic. If you claim that the EPA says that Roundup
is dangerous to humans when used as directed, it is logical that
you can provide that statement from the EPA. What is that
reference?

billo

look everyone, this is a classic example of pseudoscience. He already has his
conclusion that Roundup is completely safe and he will find fault with any science
that says otherwise. Look at the creationists... they do the same. Just quit trying
to deal with him logically, this isnt about facts, it was never about facts.
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.

billo said: " Dude, read the paper. What is the referent group for this
OR calculation?
It is the Herbicide applicator group! That's my point. ORs do not
exist in a vacuum. An odds ratio means that one group's odds are
greater than another group's odds. In this article, the group of
pesticide applicators who included glyphosate have an increased
odds ratio compared to herbicide applicators who include
glyphosate. In other words, the paper states that people who
apply pesticides+herbicides+fungicides are at greater risk
than those who apply herbicides alone.

It does not address those who apply herbicides alone compared
to people who do not use herbicides, and that is how you
are interpreting it.

If you have a quote that shows that they are using a different
referent group than the one they say they are using, trot it
out.

As I stated, it's not surprising that the addition of Roundup to an
overall exposure of numerous other pesticides may result in increased
morbidity. That kind of syndergism is pretty common, and there
is a decent biological explanation. However, the referent group
in this study *also* used glyphosate, and any conlcusion from it
that glyphosate alone is toxic when used as directed is not
supported by this study.

If you have one sentence that states that the referent group
for the OR calculation you quote is not the herbicide group,
I'd love to see it.

The paper does not show what you claim it shows."

H. Kuska reply: Billo, please go back to table 6, that is where the referent
herbicide group (that you refer to) was utilized (8 out of 118). The
authors do not have to state what referent group they are using for each
Odds Ratio calculated, it is defined by definition. If you are unwilling to
accept this by trusting the authors, do the calculation yourself for the
similar phosphine case (see below).

Readers of this thread can check the calculation themselves by using the
following program:
http://www.ahp.niu.edu/oleckno/Sampl...OddsRatio.html

The raw information on page 445 is:

"Altogether 3.8% of children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of
those who did not use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or
neurobehavioral sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22-5.05). Similarly, use of the
phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) was overrepresented in the
adverse birth and development effect group. Forty-three percent of the
children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported ADD/ADHD used phosphonamino
herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35 - 9.65)."

The above is the odds ratio data that appears in the abstract for
glyphosate. Unfortunately for this discussion, they do not give sufficient
raw data in the body of the paper to check this number; but they do for the
parallel phosphine case which they treat in detail (for the readers of this
thread, it is common in articles, to save space, to only treat in detail one
case if the others are similar).

For phosphine the calculated OR was reported as 2.48 with a CI of 1.2-5.1.
Unfortunately, the raw data is given on page 445 as percent. To use the
above program per cent has to be changed to whole numbers. This will have a
significant effect on the CI and also possibly lead to small round off
errors in the OR but will give you a ballpark figure to show that they used
the correct referent group.

a = 3.8% which when converted to whole numbers is 38.
b = 100% - a = 96.2% which converted is 962.
c = 1.5 % which when converted to whole numbers is 15
d = 100% - c = 98.5% which converted is 985

The calculated OR is 2.59 and the 95% CI is 1.42-4.75.

Please let me know if there are any points that you need clarified.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

wrote in message ...
look everyone, this is a classic example of pseudoscience. He already has his
conclusion that Roundup is completely safe and he will find fault with any science
that says otherwise. Look at the creationists... they do the same. Just quit trying
to deal with him logically, this isnt about facts, it was never about facts.
Ingrid

Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is
100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either
scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other
people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.

Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing
Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever
he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment
results.

I am a newcomer of rec.gardens and I don't think I should say this as
if I am an old timer, but I think people spent too much effort in
threads about Roundup, trying to convince others Roundup is safe or
Roundup is dangerous. It is not necessary. Didn't one netter suggest
the newsgroup to be renamed rec.gardens.roundup?

The key is the other silent lurkers, reading the messages in
rec.gardens without posting, and even a larger group of people who do
not read rec.gardens and they think of the solution to eradicate weeds
and buy Roundup in Home Depot. These are the target population.

I suggest people stop arguing and debating with Bill Oliver. It is
time wasting. Try to read messages by other netters. If they suggest
using Roundup, telling them why it is not good. If they face a
radical situation and they cannot help but use Roundup, ask them to
use it very sparingly, and recommend the alternatives, which might
take more money, more time, more sweat, but being more friendly with
the earth.

Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it
in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced
and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.

Thanks, Siberian Husky, for a very civilized post at the end of a very long
thread. There are so many things in our lives that we take for granted which
are damaging the environment that none of us really has the right to point
fingers of blame. (The image of someone driving a gas-hog SUV somewhere to
protest a nuclear power plant springs to mind, for instance). If our first
baby steps are merely to reduce usage of those things, and persuade others
to do likewise, we're still accomplishing something, and if over time, we
learn more ways to minimize our individual footprints on the earth, who
could argue that that's not a good thing? It's clear that round up is NOT
mother's milk, but it is also clear that the casual gardener who still has
3/4 of a gallon sitting in his garage after 5 gardening years is not
responsible for the deaths of millions, and might even live to zap another
weed. However, we all need to educate ourselves about the chemicals that
are used in the tens of millions of gallons to assure us of unlimited cheap
food, and ask whether we're willing to pay a little more for crops that
haven't been achieved by dousing the soil (and ultimately the ground water)
with chemicals whose properties and long-term effects are poorly understood
at best.
"Siberian Husky" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
look everyone, this is a classic example of pseudoscience. He already
has his
conclusion that Roundup is completely safe and he will find fault with
any science
that says otherwise. Look at the creationists... they do the same.
Just quit trying
to deal with him logically, this isnt about facts, it was never about
facts.
Ingrid

Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is
100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either
scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other
people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.

Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing
Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever
he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment
results.

I am a newcomer of rec.gardens and I don't think I should say this as
if I am an old timer, but I think people spent too much effort in
threads about Roundup, trying to convince others Roundup is safe or
Roundup is dangerous. It is not necessary. Didn't one netter suggest
the newsgroup to be renamed rec.gardens.roundup?

The key is the other silent lurkers, reading the messages in
rec.gardens without posting, and even a larger group of people who do
not read rec.gardens and they think of the solution to eradicate weeds
and buy Roundup in Home Depot. These are the target population.

I suggest people stop arguing and debating with Bill Oliver. It is
time wasting. Try to read messages by other netters. If they suggest
using Roundup, telling them why it is not good. If they face a
radical situation and they cannot help but use Roundup, ask them to
use it very sparingly, and recommend the alternatives, which might
take more money, more time, more sweat, but being more friendly with
the earth.

Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it
in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced
and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.

billo said: " The paradigm for glyphosate is the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma
example, which
is also association with the development of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in
which univariate analysis showed a weak association between glyphosate
and NHL. (Hardell L, Eriksson M. A Case-control study of non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and exposure to pesticides. Cancer 1999; 85: 1353-60.) Paghat
and her ilk touted this as the definitive study, in spite of the fact
that the authors also cautioned against such hyperbole. And, of
course, when the final study came out two years later, the association
between Roundup and NHL disappeared under multivariate analysis. It
turned out that overexposure to a cocktail *multiple* pesticides and
herbicides acting together, not Roundup, increased the risk. (Hardell,
L, Eriksson, M., Nordstrom M. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor
for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of
two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma. 2002
May;43(5):1043-9.) Of course, at that point Eriksson, et al. all
suddenly became shills for Monsanto instead of the paradigms of truth
that they were just months before. My how the mighty have fallen.

VERY RECENT (September 2003) NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF
NEBRASKA, KANSAS UNIVERSITY, AND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA JOINT PAPER.

Title: Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men.

Authors: De Roos A J; Zahm S H; Cantor K P; Weisenburger D D; Holmes F F;
Burmeister L F; Blair

Authors affiliation: A Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics,
National Cancer Institute, USA. University of Nebraska Medical Center,
Omaha, NE, USA. Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA,

Published in: USA OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (2003 Sep),
volumn 60(9), E11. (it is not yet up on their website, their most recent
issue is the August issue).

Abstract: "BACKGROUND: An increased rate of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has
been repeatedly observed among farmers, but identification of specific
exposures that explain this observation has proven difficult. METHODS:
During the 1980s, the National Cancer Institute conducted three case-control
studies of NHL in the midwestern United States. These pooled data were used
to examine pesticide exposures in farming as risk factors for NHL in men.
The large sample size (n = 3417) allowed analysis of 47 pesticides
simultaneously, controlling for potential confounding by other pesticides in
the model, and adjusting the estimates based on a prespecified variance to
make them more stable. RESULTS: Reported use of several individual
pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including
organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides
chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine,
glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially
carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to
increasing numbers. CONCLUSION: Consideration of multiple exposures is
important in accurately estimating specific effects and in evaluating
realistic exposure scenarios."

Henry Kuska, retired

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