| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
|
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote: I do care but I am not a chemist nor a biochemist, and I do not know how to test Roundup and see whether it affects sperm production -- for instance, even if Roundup is proved to affect sperm production in salmons or dogs, it does not prove its effects on Homo sapiens. We know its effect only when one day, say, Mr. William Olive accidentally got Roundup on his body and the medical results show us Roundup effect on humans. How about your strategy? You emphasize only the part you support, that no peer scientific journals have found Roundup dangerous, and you disregard the part not in line with your view. Let me tell you a few stories. Not too many years ago, there were lots of people who loved to quote incomplete and inconclusive anecdotal research as evidence that giving postmenopausal women estrogens protected them from heart disease. Then, after a controlled large study was done, it was demonstrated that the opposite was true. Lots of women who took estrogen in the belief they were protecting themselves from heart disease were instead *increasing* their risk of heart disease. Until a few months ago, there was a religious conviction that passive exposure to smoke caused coronary heart disease and lung cancer. An entire political agenda has been devoted to this, and health nazis have made great hay waxing hysterical on it. Legislation has been built around it, to the point that in my county the County board passed a bill that made it illegal to smoke in your own home if a neighbor found it offensive. It was only vetoed because the County Executive decided it would be nothing more than a tool for bickering neighbors. Now, of course, a large definitive study *has* been done that concludes that there is no causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. But do you think the smoking nazis are changing the way they want to enforce their views? Of course not. That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies. It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they were definitive do it because they have an agenda. The bottom line is that people use these studies to create legislation, to force people to act in certain ways, and to impose their world view and their agenda. That's why these people are so insistent that articles state things they do not state. That's why they trot out articles that they claim show that Roundup causes infertility -- even when the author says the article doesn't address it. That's why they trot out articles that they claim shows that Roundup causes abortions in Ontario -- even though the authors state they aren't even *testing* it. It's because the truth is secondary to the agenda. And I am evil because I bother to ask them to stop lying in order to advance that agenda. I am bad because I ask them to admit that early and inconclusive studies are early and inconclusive. I am outrageous because I challenge them to show that the studies they tout actually say what they claim they say. So while you again and again emphasize how safe Roundup is, may I ask you when did scientists find DDT dangerous since it was made? Thalidomide? When they had evidence. I gather it is your belief that *everything* should be considered dangerous until proven safe? Or just *certain* things? If so, then you had better start clearing out your home -- and forget about your garden. Better correct "a lie" into "an unproven claim". At least, I myself as of now never claimed anything about Roundup based on a lie. If you have problems with lies, deal with them, but don't deal with me :P No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states. I do not care what they claim. Exactly. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
|
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:38:30 GMT, Rick wrote:
the dumb ones will starve off first eh? if thats the case we'll surely miss you and your snipping skills.... |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 9 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:30:21 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.108.40.241 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: fed1read04 1063070884 68.108.40.241 (Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:28:04 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:28:04 EDT Organization: Cox Communications Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!priapus.visi.co m!news-out.visi.com!green.readfreenews.net!news.readfreen ews.net!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!p01!fed1read04.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: kermit rec.gardens:248755 On 8 Sep 2003 09:44:23 -0700, (Siberian Husky) wrote: if Roundup is proved to affect sperm production in salmons or dogs, it does not prove its effects on Homo sapiens. Sometimes I wonder, based on the humaity around me, if reduced fertility might not be so bad for Homo sapiens.... |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
billo said: "That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive
studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies. It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they were definitive do it because they have an agenda." H. Kuska comment: billo again appears to be using a modified criteria: (this is the original one - "come up with a single scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed") to one where the scientific study must be "definitive". Unfortunately in science "definitive" is almost an impossible goal (in non simple yes/no situations). It is also a relative concept. What one group may consider for all practical purposes as "definitive" another group may not. For example, there is still a group that argues against the banning of DDT. You may have noticed that we use " 95 % Confidence Intervals". This means stasticially that the number can be thought of as being within that range with a 95 % confidence limit. A large study is being done: "An ongoing study funded jointly by the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health and the EPA is tracking 90,000 herbicide applicators and their spouses to look for possible health effects of pesticides." (quote from the following July 2003 article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562737.shtml ). If you would like to read additional information about chemicals and birth defects you can do a Google search. A recommended site is the March of Dimes site: http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439.asp A specific page on that site of interest is: http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/681_9146.asp . The pertanent information is: "Can pesticides harm an unborn baby? Pregnant women should avoid pesticides, whenever possible. There is no proof that exposure to pest-control products at levels commonly used at home pose a risk to the fetus. However, all insecticides are to some extent poisonous and some studies have suggested that high levels of exposure to pesticides may contribute to miscarriage, preterm delivery and birth defects. Certain pesticides and other chemicals, including PCBs, have weak, estrogen-like qualities called endocrine disrupters that some scientists suspect may affect development of the fetus's reproductive system. A pregnant woman can reduce her exposure to pesticides by controlling pest problems with less toxic products such as boric acid (use the blue form available at hardware stores). If she must have her home or property treated with pesticides, a pregnant woman should: a.. Have someone else apply the chemicals and leave the area for the amount of time indicated on the package instructions. b.. Remove food, dishes and utensils from the area before the pesticide is applied. Afterwards, have someone open the windows and wash off all surfaces on which food is prepared. c.. Close all windows and turn off air conditioning, when pesticides are used outdoors, so fumes aren't drawn into the house. d.. Wear rubber gloves when gardening to prevent skin contact with pesticides." MedLine is the source of the latest scientific information for doctors. I post abstracts from it on general public internet boards. My policy has been to post them without comment. If the reader does not have the background to understand the abstract; and if is potentially applicable to their lifestyle (in this case pregnancy), I would hope that she would bring the abstract to the attention of their doctor. The Minnesota study states "about 3.7 % of children born on an average day in the United States are said to have a birth defect". I do not know about your family, but in my family the pregnant woman have practiced the Precautionary Principle with regard to potential birth defect agents. If a pregnant woman decides to use Round-Up, according to the most recent information available (the 2002 Minnesota paper under consideration here - "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."); she is increasing the odds of having of baby with a neurobehavioral birth defect. If she wants to waits for a "definitive" study, that is her choice; but according to the knowledge now available, she is running an increased risk. This is not simply an increased risk of a one time and it is over event, this is an increased risk of having brought into this world a child who may have a lifetime birth defect and a possible potential of being able to pass it along to future generations! About 15 years ago I read a very interesting book about birth defects and chemical exposure. Unfortunately I do not remember the title, only the subtitle - "Blame it all on Mother". After reading that book, I included information from it in my lectures about chemical safety - One of my favorate quotes went something like the following: it is a horrible thing when a war kills such and such many people, it is also horrible when a plague kills such and such many; but the real, "super" horrible event is if we somehow introduce something that ruins the gene pool or otherwise has an effect over multgenerations. A little background may be in order: Historically, we started out with brute force poisons. As our understanding of biology/botany increased, we were able to develop more specific poisons, i.e. ones that we "thought" would only affect a certain biological pathway; for example, one that only an insect had. Unfortunately, nature did not decide to make all fungi silicon based life forms and all insects calcium based life forms. Instead, we are finding out that many biological pathways are similar in different life forms. That said, I will now make what appears to be a very cold statement. Similar to what I just said about normal natural disasters, the poisons of the past could kill, say, a hundred people, or a thousand people, or even a million people; as far as the big picture is concerned - so what? These are just numbers in one dimension. With our new more sophisticated "poisons" we have to be concerned about affecting the gene pool. This is a two dimensional poison - today and future generations. A comparison more familiar to the public is to compare a biodegradable poison spill with a radioactive spill. Hopefully, the above will help the reader understand why some feel that it is even more important to be cautious with the newer chemicals than it was with the older "less sophisticated" ones - particularly when birth defects are involved. This is why many scientists (including myself) advocate the utilization of the "Precautionary Principle" for suspected birth defect chemicals. If you are not familar with this principle, please see: http://www.biotech-info.net/precautionary.html . Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo said: "That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies. It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they were definitive do it because they have an agenda." H. Kuska comment: billo again appears to be using a modified criteria: (this is the original one - "come up with a single scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed") to one where the scientific study must be "definitive". No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with you. In fact, my challenge still stands. None of the articles you have posted deal with use as directed. In fact, that is one of the stated limitations in the large population studies. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Kindly cite that study about second hand smoke.
And, please cite all the studies that contradict it. "Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Siberian Husky wrote: I do care but I am not a chemist nor a biochemist, and I do not know how to test Roundup and see whether it affects sperm production -- for instance, even if Roundup is proved to affect sperm production in salmons or dogs, it does not prove its effects on Homo sapiens. We know its effect only when one day, say, Mr. William Olive accidentally got Roundup on his body and the medical results show us Roundup effect on humans. How about your strategy? You emphasize only the part you support, that no peer scientific journals have found Roundup dangerous, and you disregard the part not in line with your view. Let me tell you a few stories. Not too many years ago, there were lots of people who loved to quote incomplete and inconclusive anecdotal research as evidence that giving postmenopausal women estrogens protected them from heart disease. Then, after a controlled large study was done, it was demonstrated that the opposite was true. Lots of women who took estrogen in the belief they were protecting themselves from heart disease were instead *increasing* their risk of heart disease. Until a few months ago, there was a religious conviction that passive exposure to smoke caused coronary heart disease and lung cancer. An entire political agenda has been devoted to this, and health nazis have made great hay waxing hysterical on it. Legislation has been built around it, to the point that in my county the County board passed a bill that made it illegal to smoke in your own home if a neighbor found it offensive. It was only vetoed because the County Executive decided it would be nothing more than a tool for bickering neighbors. Now, of course, a large definitive study *has* been done that concludes that there is no causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. But do you think the smoking nazis are changing the way they want to enforce their views? Of course not. That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies. It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they were definitive do it because they have an agenda. The bottom line is that people use these studies to create legislation, to force people to act in certain ways, and to impose their world view and their agenda. That's why these people are so insistent that articles state things they do not state. That's why they trot out articles that they claim show that Roundup causes infertility -- even when the author says the article doesn't address it. That's why they trot out articles that they claim shows that Roundup causes abortions in Ontario -- even though the authors state they aren't even *testing* it. It's because the truth is secondary to the agenda. And I am evil because I bother to ask them to stop lying in order to advance that agenda. I am bad because I ask them to admit that early and inconclusive studies are early and inconclusive. I am outrageous because I challenge them to show that the studies they tout actually say what they claim they say. So while you again and again emphasize how safe Roundup is, may I ask you when did scientists find DDT dangerous since it was made? Thalidomide? When they had evidence. I gather it is your belief that *everything* should be considered dangerous until proven safe? Or just *certain* things? If so, then you had better start clearing out your home -- and forget about your garden. Better correct "a lie" into "an unproven claim". At least, I myself as of now never claimed anything about Roundup based on a lie. If you have problems with lies, deal with them, but don't deal with me :P No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states. I do not care what they claim. Exactly. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Billo said: No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with
you. In fact, my challenge still stands. None of the articles you have posted deal with use as directed. In fact, that is one of the stated limitations in the large population studies. H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination. Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)". If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples .. Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes the statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Tom Jaszewski wrote in message . ..
On 8 Sep 2003 09:44:23 -0700, (Siberian Husky) wrote: if Roundup is proved to affect sperm production in salmons or dogs, it does not prove its effects on Homo sapiens. Sometimes I wonder, based on the humaity around me, if reduced fertility might not be so bad for Homo sapiens.... I think for most people, reduced fertility has the only advantage of savings over Trojan and Durex (if you use them for contraception purposes). In the tense discussion about Roundup, let me share a joke with netters to calm down. A car's license plate shows SAVE THE EARTH 001-ABC COMMIT SUICIDE |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
|
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: Billo said: No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with you. In fact, my challenge still stands. None of the articles you have posted deal with use as directed. In fact, that is one of the stated limitations in the large population studies. H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination. Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)". If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples . Hmmm. Let's see, can we think of any certified people who don't act exactly as directed. Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines. All those reports of malpractice and practice errors by physicians, nurses, and medical technologists in hospitals must be lies, eh, Henry? After all, if going through an orientation session immunizes people from this kind of thing, then years of training and multiple rigorous exams must make it impossible! And lawyers, they never cut corners either, do they? Or plumbers. Or carpenters. Or welders. Or funeral homes. Or restauranteurs. At least not licensed ones. And god knows that there are no licensed drivers that ever break the law. Henry, a good part of my living is investigating the messes caused by trained and licensed people who ignore the rules. There's nobody better than a trained and licensed Ordnance Disposal Expert to be found blowing up himself and his kids welding on a full propane tank. Familiarity breeds contempt, and "experts" are some of the worst at cutting corners -- because they are good enough that they *can* often cut corners and get away with it. My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed. Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes the statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed. It was not a subject of the paper. Since it was not addressed, a scientist would not make unwarranted assumptions one way or the other. Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested. This is another paper who's purpose was to generate hypotheses, not test them, and you tout this as a paper that tests the hypotheses. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote: And let me also tell you "my strategy". In general, if a message is longer than 48 lines (two pages in my terminal), I in general lose interest in reading further. Then don't read. Now my question for you after listening to three stories from you is, do you think the current scientific studies on the safety/toxicity of Roundup is conclusive? For instance, when Roundup is used as directed on grapes, N days before the harvest, no danger is found. When Roundup is used on roses, M days before going to the florist shop, no danger is found..... Is it possible that one day the scientists realize Roundup combines with a certain ingredient in pumpkins (or change it to some other agricultural product if you like) and it forms a highly poisonous compound, or a dangerous carcinogen? To sum up, how can we determine something to be "conclusive"? Please forgive me if I sound naive, because I am no chemist, no biochemist, no medicine major, and no environmental science background. I am an average gardener. There is nothing that says that some day it will be found that growing one crop next to another will cause both crops to be poisonous. It has never happened, to my knowledge, but one cannot rule out everything. Does that mean that you should never plant crops? The only think you know is that after all this looking, the kind of thing you are talking about has not happened. That suggests that unless you are doing something novel, it will not happen. If you believe that one should live one's life believing that things for which there is no evidence are about to happen, go ahead. However, most people look for evidence before drawing conclusions. Okay. But so far I do not think my question is answered, about how you Bill Oliver decide something is safe or something is not in your garden. Please note that I myself do not support legislation against Roundup (so far), and I do not remember anyone in this newsgroup proposing it. Sure, you have said my memory is flawed, and I told you I lose interest in reading some certain posts. I decide that something is safe by looking at the available evidence. The evidence is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed. Even if the untested hypotheses that certain groups with high exposure to multiple pesticides and herbicides may be at a slightly higher risk for rare problems were nor found to be a false lead from noisy statistics, I would ask if I fall in that group. It's because the truth is secondary to the agenda. And I am evil because I bother to ask them to stop lying in order to advance that agenda. I am bad because I ask them to admit that early and inconclusive studies are early and inconclusive. I am outrageous because I challenge them to show that the studies they tout actually say what they claim they say. If you swear you would not participate in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto about Roundup 15 or 20 years later (God forbids), your being evil, bad, and outrageous will all be forgiven. :) What does this have to do with my statement? So the issue boils down to whether you want to err on the safe side or the dangerous side. Using Roundup or other insecticide is fine for you if you believe they are safe. Not using Roundup is fine for John Smith if he believes it is dangerous. Advocating the safety of Roundup is your freedom of speech, and arguing how bad Roundup can do to the earth is John's. That's fine. You can advocate whatever you like on the basis of taste, aesthetics, religion, or whim. I won't argue with you, and I won't criticize you. Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article , Betsy -0 wrote:
Kindly cite that study about second hand smoke. No problem. Enstron, JE, Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98. BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):1057. It is a study of 35,561 never-smokers with a smoking spouse. The full text can be found online through pubmed, or directly from BMJ: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 And, please cite all the studies that contradict it. Read the many comments that the BMJ put online. I will quote from two. Perhaps the best was an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which addresses the general habit of obsessing about extremely small risk factors: _______ Polemic and public health, CMAJ 169 (3): 181 (2003) (begin excerpt) [snip] The problem with the data on passive smoking (and many other potential environmental hazards) is that the estimated risks are so close to zero. The study published in BMJ showed that the risks of heart disease, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among never-smokers living with a smoker compared to never-smokers living with a nonsmoker were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85?1.05), 0.75 (95% CI 0.42?1.35) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.78?2.08) respectively, all statistically insignificant and none very large. Fifty-three years ago BMJ published research by Doll and Hill on 649 men who had lung cancer and compared their smoking habits with a group of 649 comparable men who did not have lung cancer.3 The risk (odds ratio) of lung cancer among smokers compared to nonsmokers was 14.0, meaning that smokers were 14 times more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmokers. This result is interesting for 3 reasons. First, it is instructive that this huge increase in risk was not apparent from casual observation: because most men smoked, the effects of this behaviour were inapparent. Second, although even these astonishingly high risks were disputed, this study (and others that followed) marked the start of a long but steady decline in smoking among men, followed decades later by a decline in deaths from lung cancer. Third, from the perspective of almost all current research on environmental hazards, in which odds ratios of 1.2 (or an increase of risk of 20%) are considered sufficient to prompt action by public health advocates (or social hygienists?), perhaps we should ask if we are sometimes overzealous in our attempts to publicize and regulate small hazards. It is impossible to control completely for confounding variables in observational studies. The smaller the risk estimate, the greater the chance that confounding factors will distort it and invalidate it. This is not to say that observational studies should be abandoned. Faced with the results of the recent study we can, as individuals, elect to change our behaviours and possibly our risk exposures. But, when interpreting the results and then championing public policy and legislation to regulate exposure, we must be doubly wary of tailoring statistics to fit the current fashion. We must be open with our doubts, honest in our interpretations and cautious in our recommendations. Exaggerated claims of risk will only erode the credibility and effectiveness of public health. (end excerpt) The second provides an off-the-cuff metanalysis: Gian L. Turci "What killer? Let's call things with their name." BMJ Rapid Responses, 19 May 2003 http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32320 The situation on passive smoke is quite simple. The heterogeneity of the studies militates against a formal meta-analysis, and the general and admitted weakness of results rather favors a simple eyeball appraisal. Out of a total of 123 studies (excluding this last one) 16 have shown a risk elevation for cancer, 30 have shown a benefit from exposure, all the rest failed to demonstrate either way. Out of the 16 studies mentioned above, NONE showed an elevation of risk greater than 20 percent. We all know that in this kind of epidemiology, it takes an odds ratio elevation of 200% or more just to demonstrate that a correlation EXISTS. The US National Cancer Institute affirms that "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other causes] that are sometimes not evident"- and this is just an example. Thus, the 16 studies could not even demonstrate unequivocally the existence of a correlation. The evidence for other diseases attributed to passive smoking is even weaker. What killer? Propaganda and instigation of hysteria (whether done by public institutions or otherwise) do not constitute proof or evidence -- unless, of course, we want to tell the truth and use the real names: intolerance and prohibitionism; but please do not call it scientific demonstration, for that insults science and intelligence! billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Another joke that I enjoyed:
"I took an aptitude test to see how I could best contribute to humanity. The results came back "organ donor". Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless
since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world groups. I then asked you in another way (" If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples") so as to cover the logic of both exclude and include and you reply " My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed". Which of course is no answer, and can be interpreted that you cannot think of one real word group yourself. (If you feel that that is an answer, please look up the definition of what was requested "example" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=example . Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ "Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Henry Kuska wrote: Billo said: No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with you. In fact, my challenge still stands. None of the articles you have posted deal with use as directed. In fact, that is one of the stated limitations in the large population studies. H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination. Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)". If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples . Hmmm. Let's see, can we think of any certified people who don't act exactly as directed. Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines. All those reports of malpractice and practice errors by physicians, nurses, and medical technologists in hospitals must be lies, eh, Henry? After all, if going through an orientation session immunizes people from this kind of thing, then years of training and multiple rigorous exams must make it impossible! And lawyers, they never cut corners either, do they? Or plumbers. Or carpenters. Or welders. Or funeral homes. Or restauranteurs. At least not licensed ones. And god knows that there are no licensed drivers that ever break the law. Henry, a good part of my living is investigating the messes caused by trained and licensed people who ignore the rules. There's nobody better than a trained and licensed Ordnance Disposal Expert to be found blowing up himself and his kids welding on a full propane tank. Familiarity breeds contempt, and "experts" are some of the worst at cutting corners -- because they are good enough that they *can* often cut corners and get away with it. My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed. Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes the statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed. It was not a subject of the paper. Since it was not addressed, a scientist would not make unwarranted assumptions one way or the other. Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested. This is another paper who's purpose was to generate hypotheses, not test them, and you tout this as a paper that tests the hypotheses. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world groups. I then asked you in another way (" If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples") so as to cover the logic of both exclude and include and you reply " My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed". Which of course is no answer, and can be interpreted that you cannot think of one real word group yourself. (If you feel that that is an answer, please look up the definition of what was requested "example" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=example . No, Henry. If you want to make a statement about whether or not something is being used as directed, you study whether or not something is being used as directed. This is not meaningless. And it is not hard. What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not. It would not be hard to test whether or not something is being used as directed. One might start with asking the quesition and finding out whether or not the respondents even claim that it is being used as directed. The second thing one might do is find out whether or not the respondents even actually *know* what the criteria are. The third is to physically look and see if the criteria are being met -- in the case of professional applicators, one can look in the barn and see if things are actually being stored correctly, look at the equipment and see if it is calibrated, look at residual levels in the workplace and see if spillages are correctly handled. As an example of the second, consider the use of Daubert criteria in the courts. A few years ago, the Supreme Court changed the way scientific evidence was admitted into court. They set up some specific criteria and stated that the judges were to be the gatekeepers of what was and was not legally considered "science." Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results, one would believe that federal and state judges, who have passed the boards, have massive experience, and have specific training would understand and correctly apply these criteria. However, when people actually set down and asked that question, the results were not what you would expect. In a questionnaire of judges, it turned out, for instance, while 88% agreed that "falsifiability" was an important criteria and that they used it regularly, only 6% knew what it meant; 91% felt that a known error rate was important, but only 4% knew what it meant; only 71% understood the concept of peer review. If you want to know if someone is actually following a protocol or instructions, you test for it. You don't just assume it. It's not hard, Henry. It's done in medicine *all the time,* and the results of such studies show that it is important to test for it. And it's not a meaningless question to ask. Ipse dixit died years ago, perhaps not before you retired, but in today's world of inquiry it is by no means meaningless to actually ask if people are doing things as directed. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: Another joke that I enjoyed: "I took an aptitude test to see how I could best contribute to humanity. The results came back "organ donor". Heh. That's a lot like an old Medical Examiner joke: Q) What do Medical Examiners call motorcyclists? A) Organ donors. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world groups. Here are two examples of how it should be done. The first study was a large randomized study of the Atkin's Diet, which found that the Atkins Diet resulted in good weight loss for those who stayed on it, but had a very high level of attrition. In other words, if one stayed with the original group it didn't work -- because few people stayed on the diet. It is important to actually test whether people "on the diet" actually are doing what they are supposed to do: Foster, et al. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity NEJM 348:2082-2090, 2003. (begin excerpt) A total of 49 subjects completed 3 months of the study (28 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 21 on the conventional diet), 42 subjects completed 6 months (24 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 18 on the conventional diet), and 37 subjects completed 12 months (20 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 17 on the conventional diet). The percentage of subjects who had dropped out of the study at 3, 6, and 12 months was higher in the group following the conventional diet (30, 40, and 43 percent, respectively) than in the group following the low-carbohydrate diet (15, 27, and 39 percent, respectively), but these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, 59 percent of subjects completed the study, and 88 percent of those who completed the six-month assessment completed the full study. When the analysis included data on subjects who completed the study and data obtained at the time of the last follow-up visit for those who did not complete the study, the pattern of weight loss was similar to that obtained when the base-line values were carried forward in the case of missing data. Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight than the subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (P=0.002) and 6 months (P=0.03), but the difference in weight loss was not statistically significant at 12 months (P=0.27) (end excerpt) See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and compare those who do and do not follow directions. In this study, compliance was measured for studying the efficacy of a birth control pill: F. D. Anderson, H Hait. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception Volume 68, Issue 2 , August 2003, Pages 89-96 (begin excerpt) 3.2. Compliance There were two measurements of compliance, which were evaluated by assessing patient diary data as to whether or not a patient took her OC pill every day. Pill compliance within each extended or conventional cycle was determined by observing if the patient missed 2 consecutive days of pill-taking and, if so, the patient was considered to be noncompliant for that cycle. Overall, study compliance was determined by counting the percentage of total days in the 1-year study when the patient took the designated pill for a given day. Overall compliance of 80% would exclude a patient altogether from the Pearl Index calculation. Otherwise, noncompliance within a particular cycle would exclude that cycle only from the Pearl Index. For the life-table calculation, only the overall compliance criterion was used to exclude "noncompliant" patients from the cumulative pregnancy rate calculation, since exclusion of individual cycles from the patient's total would lead to a noncontinuous, intermittently truncated time frame. The overall treatment compliance rate in each of the study groups was very high with 95.4% of extended cycle regimen patients and 93.4% of conventional regimen patients assessed as compliant. A total of 22 (4.8%) extended cycle regimen patients and nine (4.0%) conventional regimen patients were discontinued from the study due to noncompliance. The number of clinically significant protocol deviations was minimal and no protocol deviations were used to exclude any patients from the analysis of efficacy or safety. Most protocol deviations were related to inclusion/exclusion criteria at study enrollment and were not observed during the active study interval. (end excerpt) Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless," but when studying the effects of therapy -- or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as directed. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
H. Kuska reply: billo, thank you for your specific examples. Your examples
definitely should clarify to the thread readers how restricted your criteria is. billo's statement: "or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as directed." and " See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and compare those who do and do not follow directions." H. Kuska's comment: First I would like to point out that "periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination." Note the "and examination". Your suggested additional checks are impractical in the "real world". Even observing and / or asking is not going to give 100 % assurance that a product is going to be used "as directed" when the inspector is not present. Remember there would be a risk of losing a license I again submit that this group is as close as one can come to "real world" assurance that the product is being used as directed. We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 % utilization observation). This is impractical so animal studies are substituted: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Title: Effect of the herbicide glyphosate on enzymatic activity in pregnant rats and their fetuses. Authors: Daruich, Jorgelina; Zirulnik, Fanny; Sofia Gimenez, Maria. Authors affiliation: Catedra de Bioquimica Molecular, Area Quimica Biologica, Facultad de Quimica, Bioquimica y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional de San Luis, San Luis, Argent. Published in: Environmental Research (2001), 85(3), 226-231. Abstract: To prevent health risk from environmental chems., particularly for progeny, the authors studied the effects of the herbicide glyphosate on several enzymes of pregnant rats. The authors studied 3 cytosolic enzymes; isocitrate dehydrogenase-NADP dependent, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, and malic dehydrogenase in liver, heart, and brain of pregnant Wistar rats. The treatment was administered during the 21 days of pregnancy, with 1 wk as an acclimation period. The results suggest that maternal exposure to agrochems. during pregnancy induces a variety of functional abnormalities in the specific activity of the enzymes in the studied organs of the pregnant rats and their fetuses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- But this does not meet your very restricted "criteria" since we are now not looking at "humans". I still submit that your stated criteria as you have restricted it is worthless. I am interested in how safe the product is in real world usage (the intended use, not considering suicide, chemical warfare, or other utilizations that the manufacture obviously cannot be held accountable for). An example would be Teddy Bears with removable glass eyes. A strict interpretation would be that they are safe when used as intended, but practically they are unsafe in real world use. The Minnesota paper gives me the type of information I am interested in; and the reading that I have done suggests, to me, that obstetricians would base their "real world" advice to pregnant mothers on studies of how dangerous the product is in the "real world". I have already presented the March of Dimes information. Here is another: "Avoid working with chemicals, solvents, fumes and radiation." from http://www.sogc.org/healthybeginnings/tips.htm home page is http://sogc.medical.org/index.html These two recommendations are "real world" recommendations. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Second hand smoke - this is another topic which would be more appropriate
for another discussion group; but for those interested, here is the MedLine search for the keywords "second hand smoke" (to find all articles related to this subject, a number of different sets of keywords would have to be used in separate searches): http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/...on&rankin g=1 Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: Second hand smoke - this is another topic which would be more appropriate for another discussion group; but for those interested, here is the MedLine search for the keywords "second hand smoke" (to find all articles related to this subject, a number of different sets of keywords would have to be used in separate searches): http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/...on&rankin g=1 Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ A more profitable search would be to use the term "passive" rather than "second hand" and to use MEDLINE. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
|
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
It seems to me that the article referred by Mr. Kuska noted an increased
risk of birth defects when glycophospate was used in combination with other pesticides and there has been some debate about how common this is in the real world, (whatever the real world is). However, most pesticides are persistent in the environment and end up being stored in the fat of animals higher up on the food chain, including humans. Most, if not all, of us are still carrying residues of DDT used long ago in North America, (and still being used in South America) - as well as residues of pesticides currently approved. So none of us on the planet are "pesticide free" - although it would be hard to say whether the amounts present in our blood stream (released whenever fat is burned for energy) would be at a level sufficient to activate the increased risk from glycophospate found in this study of agricultural workers. I guess my point is that "safe when used as directed" is not quite as straightforward a statement as it might appear, because we are living in a complex world now of chemical interactions not conceived of even 100 years ago, when plants were either poisonous or not, or water was either potable or not........ One need only look at the literature on prescription drug interactions, as well as drug/food, drug/herb interactions, to realize that life is seldom as simple as those statements that appear on labels. On balance, I'd say that many of the chemicals and drugs discoverd in the past century have vastly improved our lives, but that's not the same as saying that they are risk-free - and some which were miracles in their time have created nightmares later, as in the supermicrobes now resisitant to practically everything in the medical arsenal. I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is wise to place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the history of the past century has not borne out that trust. |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
"gregpresley" wrote in
: I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is wise to place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the history of the past century has not borne out that trust. Exactly right, and distrusting anyone who _is_ that faithfull. Ursa.. -- ================================== Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.239.58.11 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1063201931 12.239.58.11 (Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:52:11 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:52:11 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:52:11 GMT Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!small1.nntp.aus 1.giganews.com!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.19 8.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: kermit rec.gardens:248982 In article 4cf8dc14.0309092251.75c94d86 @posting.google.com, says... :) In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as :) directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans :) completed the food chain. You've been "drawin" DDT out lately as if it was a six shooter :) It's sort of comparing apples to oranges. The pesticide industry is the second most regulated/tested industry there is, pharmaceuticals is number one. The days of pre market testing was nothing when it came out as compared to todays products. One of DDT's sister pesticides that was also pulled for environmental issues (chlordane) actually has gone through the testing after it was pulled and could technically be put back into the market as a restricted use product (don't worry, I doubt that would ever happen). :) Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There :) are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not :) yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am :) not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not :) be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot :) explain how they fly. :) Think that was the bumblebee. -- http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/bludf2.jpg Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!! |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Regarding the articles concerning second hand smoke that billo refered to:
I have started a new thread (with links) on an environmental forum for those who are interested: http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/l...0012079.html?1 Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ "Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Betsy -0 wrote: Kindly cite that study about second hand smoke. No problem. Enstron, JE, Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98. BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):1057. It is a study of 35,561 never-smokers with a smoking spouse. The full text can be found online through pubmed, or directly from BMJ: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 And, please cite all the studies that contradict it. Read the many comments that the BMJ put online. I will quote from two. Perhaps the best was an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which addresses the general habit of obsessing about extremely small risk factors: _______ Polemic and public health, CMAJ 169 (3): 181 (2003) (begin excerpt) [snip] The problem with the data on passive smoking (and many other potential environmental hazards) is that the estimated risks are so close to zero. The study published in BMJ showed that the risks of heart disease, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among never-smokers living with a smoker compared to never-smokers living with a nonsmoker were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85?1.05), 0.75 (95% CI 0.42?1.35) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.78?2.08) respectively, all statistically insignificant and none very large. Fifty-three years ago BMJ published research by Doll and Hill on 649 men who had lung cancer and compared their smoking habits with a group of 649 comparable men who did not have lung cancer.3 The risk (odds ratio) of lung cancer among smokers compared to nonsmokers was 14.0, meaning that smokers were 14 times more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmokers. This result is interesting for 3 reasons. First, it is instructive that this huge increase in risk was not apparent from casual observation: because most men smoked, the effects of this behaviour were inapparent. Second, although even these astonishingly high risks were disputed, this study (and others that followed) marked the start of a long but steady decline in smoking among men, followed decades later by a decline in deaths from lung cancer. Third, from the perspective of almost all current research on environmental hazards, in which odds ratios of 1.2 (or an increase of risk of 20%) are considered sufficient to prompt action by public health advocates (or social hygienists?), perhaps we should ask if we are sometimes overzealous in our attempts to publicize and regulate small hazards. It is impossible to control completely for confounding variables in observational studies. The smaller the risk estimate, the greater the chance that confounding factors will distort it and invalidate it. This is not to say that observational studies should be abandoned. Faced with the results of the recent study we can, as individuals, elect to change our behaviours and possibly our risk exposures. But, when interpreting the results and then championing public policy and legislation to regulate exposure, we must be doubly wary of tailoring statistics to fit the current fashion. We must be open with our doubts, honest in our interpretations and cautious in our recommendations. Exaggerated claims of risk will only erode the credibility and effectiveness of public health. (end excerpt) The second provides an off-the-cuff metanalysis: Gian L. Turci "What killer? Let's call things with their name." BMJ Rapid Responses, 19 May 2003 http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32320 The situation on passive smoke is quite simple. The heterogeneity of the studies militates against a formal meta-analysis, and the general and admitted weakness of results rather favors a simple eyeball appraisal. Out of a total of 123 studies (excluding this last one) 16 have shown a risk elevation for cancer, 30 have shown a benefit from exposure, all the rest failed to demonstrate either way. Out of the 16 studies mentioned above, NONE showed an elevation of risk greater than 20 percent. We all know that in this kind of epidemiology, it takes an odds ratio elevation of 200% or more just to demonstrate that a correlation EXISTS. The US National Cancer Institute affirms that "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other causes] that are sometimes not evident"- and this is just an example. Thus, the 16 studies could not even demonstrate unequivocally the existence of a correlation. The evidence for other diseases attributed to passive smoking is even weaker. What killer? Propaganda and instigation of hysteria (whether done by public institutions or otherwise) do not constitute proof or evidence -- unless, of course, we want to tell the truth and use the real names: intolerance and prohibitionism; but please do not call it scientific demonstration, for that insults science and intelligence! billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote: Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science. Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science? Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. No, science is not the solution of everything. I did not challenge the anti-Roundup hystterics because they didn't like it on religious principles, matters of faith, aesthetics, whatever. I called them on their pretense that their statements of faith were based on science -- and that they lied about what the science said in order to do it. That is what I object to. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Lar wrote: In article 4cf8dc14.0309092251.75c94d86 , says... :) Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There :) are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not :) yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am :) not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not :) be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot :) explain how they fly. :) Think that was the bumblebee. .... and a documented urban legend. It is untrue both in the more common claim that scientists "proved" that bumblebees can't fly and in the second claim that aerodynamics engineers cannot explain how they fly. See: http://tinyurl.com/mvnb billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article , Henry Kuska wrote: H. Kuska reply: billo, thank you for your specific examples. Your examples definitely should clarify to the thread readers how restricted your criteria is. billo's statement: "or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as directed." and " See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and compare those who do and do not follow directions." H. Kuska's comment: First I would like to point out that "periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination." Note the "and examination". Your suggested additional checks are impractical in the "real world". No, it is not impractical in the real world. It is standard of practice in medicine, epidemiology, and allied health fields. Even observing and / or asking is not going to give 100 % assurance that a product is going to be used "as directed" when the inspector is not present. Remember there would be a risk of losing a license As you have stated many times, 100% of anything is impossible to achieve. That, however, is not a reason to abandon all attempts at rigor. In fact, it is both possible and practical to measure compliance. Your claim of "risk" of losing a license is a red herring; such problems arise commonly in population-based observational studies -- particularly those involving illegal drug use and other risky behaviors. It turns out that people are pretty responsive in blinded studies when the methods are explained. Certainly any interview-based method will *underestimate* the degree of noncompliance, but an interview- or visit- based study that measures compliance and finds low compliance will be more meaningful because of that underestimation. In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant has *no* basis in the "real world," as demonstrated by *all* studies that do look at compliance. I again submit that this group is as close as one can come to "real world" assurance that the product is being used as directed. You can speculate all you want. However, until you test a hypothesis, it remains speculation. We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 % utilization observation). This is impractical so animal studies are substituted: Ah, once again, the Psychic Science Network strikes again. [Wistar rat study deleted] But this does not meet your very restricted "criteria" since we are now not looking at "humans". No, it does not meet *many* criteria for making the cognitive leap that this demonstrates any kind of threat to humans by Roundup when used as directed. Indeed, if you drink 1% glyphosate as your sole source of fluids for a long enough period of time, I would expect *you* to have some enzymatic abnormalities. You never did read that Ames chapter, did you? I didn't think you would. I'm sorry there's not an abstract, but you might just pass your hands over it; you might catch some vibes. The Minnesota paper gives me the type of information I am interested in; and the reading that I have done suggests, to me, that obstetricians would base their "real world" advice to pregnant mothers on studies of how dangerous the product is in the "real world". In the "real world" of medicine, Henry, an obstetrician who based his or her advice on the basis of a single observational study that had low statistical power and did not address the cohort to which the patient belonged would be committing malpractice. It's that kind kind of reasoning that pushed estrogens on menopausal women in order to "protect" them from heart disease. Studies designed to generate hypotheses and studies designed to test hypotheses are different. The studies you have mentioned are descriptive studies. In evidence-based medicine, these are the lowest class of studies (Class III in some taxonomies and class IV in others) and should not be used for modifying practice. They are, instead, used to generate hypotheses that in turn are tested by higher class studies that involve randomization, blinding, and controlling for things like compliance. That's why the Ontario study you trotted out as claiming to demonstrate that Roundup was dangerous to humans when used as directed was explicit in the kind of study it was: "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 pesticide and spontaneous abortion is likely. Because the analyses were designed to generate, not test, hypotheses, and multiple comparisons were conducted, results should be interpreted with care and tested in other studies." I know you didn't read this because you believe that you only need to read abstracts and what the authors say in the actual article is unimportant, but this *is* important. The authors aren't saying "we did a bad study." The authors are saying "we did a class IV study, and a Class II or Class I study should be done to see if this means anything." I have already presented the March of Dimes information. Here is another: "Avoid working with chemicals, solvents, fumes and radiation." from http://www.sogc.org/healthybeginnings/tips.htm home page is http://sogc.medical.org/index.html These two recommendations are "real world" recommendations. A "real world" recommendation to avoid all chemicals and all "fumes" is not all that practical, nor is it based on real science. There is a difference between saying "assume everything is bad and stay away from everything when you're pregnant," which is a standard, though pretty useless, admonition, and claiming that "Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed." It is probably true that there are specific cohorts for whom Roundup, like virtually everything from peanuts to chocolate, poses a risk, that does not generalize to humans in general, though. If and when that cohort is identified, and the risk demonstrated, then that cohort should stay away from hanging around crop dusters filled with Roundup. That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
billo said " In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always*
compliant" H. Kuska reply: I made no such assumption. I have emphasized "real world". How can you come to that conclusion when I later in the same reply stated: "We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 % utilization observation)."? billo said: " It is probably true that there are specific cohorts for whom Roundup, like virtually everything from peanuts to chocolate, poses a risk, that does not generalize to humans in general, though. If and when that cohort is identified, and the risk demonstrated, then that cohort should stay away from hanging around crop dusters filled with Roundup. That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort." H. Kuska reply: note that billow said: "That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort." H.Kuska reply: Thank you. I agree with you that a study of birth defects does not apply to those that it does not apply to (i.e. men and non-pregnant woman). The reported facts a "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category." Earlier you have commented on the possibile ambiguity of an O.R. below 2. This is 3.6! My point is that "Stastically" it does apply to the group being studied. It appears that your original criteria needs another modification something along the line that you are asking people to produce a study that applies to everybody except any sugroup of anybody where it is dangerous. That sounds like a very safe challenge to make. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo said " In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant" H. Kuska reply: I made no such assumption. I have emphasized "real world". How can you come to that conclusion when I later in the same reply stated: "We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 % utilization observation)."? You stated that one cannot do better than just assuming the group to be compliant without even asking if they are. Further you assume that the group meets my criteria of "used as directed." That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant. Sure, you don't claim 100% but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%? billo said: " It is probably true that there are specific cohorts for whom Roundup, like virtually everything from peanuts to chocolate, poses a risk, that does not generalize to humans in general, though. If and when that cohort is identified, and the risk demonstrated, then that cohort should stay away from hanging around crop dusters filled with Roundup. That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort." H. Kuska reply: note that billow said: "That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort." H.Kuska reply: Thank you. I agree with you that a study of birth defects does not apply to those that it does not apply to (i.e. men and non-pregnant woman). The reported facts a "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category." You really don't understand the difference between an observational study to create hypotheses and a study that tests hypotheses, do you? billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
billo, you are wasting my time. Your own answers contradict your own
statements. This is what you previously said: "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant has". Now you attempt to "change the goal posts" by stating ": "That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant." Notice first the use of "*all*" and then "essentially all" - I did not say either statement as you then admit when you then say: " Sure, you don't claim 100% but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%?" H. Kuska reply: the reader can easilly use his/her browsers "find" command to search where I state that: "*assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. you ". You then say: "Tell me Henry......." - I explained to you that this was a "real world" study that indicates the risk in the real world. One does not *assume* any particular number as it has no bearing on a "real world" situation. --------------------------------------- billo then states: "You really don't understand the difference between an observational study to create hypotheses and a study that tests hypotheses, do you?" H. Kuska reply: the introduction tells us what the study is about. It concludes with: "The present cross-sectional study was undertaken to provide more detailed information regarding the reproductive health of pesticide applicators and their families." Notice the "more detailed", this is a follow up study to one discussed earlier in the introduction. I feel that I have said enough about my understanding/experience that conclusions in complicated matters in science are almost always tentative (i.e. hypotheses). I am sorry that your understanding/experience does not allow you to accept this statement. ----------------------------------------- From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypotheses 2 entries found for hypotheses. hy·poth·e·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pth-ss) n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz) A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. The antecedent of a conditional statement. ----------------------------------------- Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo, you are wasting my time. Your own answers contradict your own statements. This is what you previously said: "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant has". Now you attempt to "change the goal posts" by stating ": "That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant." Notice first the use of "*all*" and then "essentially all" - I did not say either statement as you then admit when you then say: " Sure, you don't claim 100% but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%?" H. Kuska reply: the reader can easilly use his/her browsers "find" command to search where I state that: "*assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. you ". You then say: "Tell me Henry......." - I explained to you that this was a "real world" study that indicates the risk in the real world. One does not *assume* any particular number as it has no bearing on a "real world" situation. Henry, you cannot have it both ways. You argue that this cohort should be considered compliant because they are licensed. You state that actually attempting to determine compliance cannot be done in the "real world," in spite of the fact that it is done all the time. When I ask how compliant you think people you should assume they are you then change your tune and claim that you do *not* believe they should be considered compliant. Fine. If they should not be assumed to be compliant, then they do not meet my criteria of "used as directed." If they should be assumed to be compliant, then my question of *how* compliant you think they should be assumed to be is appropriate. Which is it, Henry? Do you assume they are compliant? If not, then we agree that they cannot be assumed to be compliant, and do not meet the criteria. And your repeated assertion that one cannot test for compliance in "the real world" is simply wrong. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you
state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt"; "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."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying"; "And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading."; " No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states."; "Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines"; "Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things at a formal professional level. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote: billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. You can ask for the moon, for all I care. I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals : I love this. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh? I'll tell you what, Henry, you stop acting like a supercilious ass and I'll start treating you like a "professional." Here's a clue, Henry, you don't start a conversation with a professional by telling him he doesn't know what a scientist is. You don't put in that bullshit like "if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory sentence and the final conclusion sentences" and "If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points"," when I explicity stated I didn't have a problem with what the authors wrote, "I would like to remind the reader that the wording had to be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a scientific journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and the referees are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the field." Well, doh. Thanks for the lecture, dude. I happen to be on one of those editorial boards. "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." Which, of course completely ignores the point I was making in order to act in a haughty, supercilious manner. Not to mention your purposeful mischaracterization of my statement about "meaningless" when you wrote: "if the editor and reviewers did not consider the paper "meaningless" I find your conclusion that it is meaningless, well, shall I say "interesting"." Your little posting of dictionary definitions was also amusing, and arrogant, and presumptuous. You want people to treat you like a professional? Then don't write down to people and act like a supercilious ass. But let's go down each of your complaints: "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt"; This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion from your statement that: For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter term exposure to a larger amount. In what way does this not apply to water? Is not water toxic if there is short term dosage to a large amount? I was merely expecting you to be consistent. By the way, did you read the Ames chapter I pointed you to on this subject? No, I didn't think so. Funny, you want a "professional" discussion, but when I point you to a chapter showing why your generalization is wrong, written by one of the people who developed one of the foundational methods in the area, you ignore it. I was pointing out, and still point out, that a dogmatic and blind adherence to the idea that if something is toxic at high doses it must also be toxic a low doses is simply wrong. And it is. Water is a counterexample to your proposition. So, Henry, hows that anti-water campaign coming? "You may think they're lying,"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying"; This is me merely parroting your shitty little snide suggestion that "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." Funny, it's OK when *you* do it, but Oh, it's just not "professional" when people return the favor. "I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles"; "And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading." Well, Henry, what else can I conclude since you insist that reading an article is not necessary to understand it? " No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states."; This is explicitly true. The Ontario paper is an example. You trotted this out an example of an article that claimed that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, when the authors noted that this was exactly *not* their claim. "Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines"; Well, Henry, it is your contention that the applicator group meets my criteria of "used as directed." Why do you claim that? You claim you do not assume they do, and that in the "real world" scientists would never attempt to find out. You can't have it both ways, Henry. You can't claim that they use it as directed without measuring compliance, yet at the same time claim that you are not assuming they use it as directed. If you don't measure it, you are assuming. "Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested."; Once again, the Ontario paper is a case in point. "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; Sorry, Henry, when you pretend to know what an article says without bothering to read the article, I can only assume that you are using your paranormal abilities to discern the details. "Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; This is in direct response to you, Henry, when I stated that one should compar compliant versus noncompliant groups: "billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world groups." That's what *you* said, Henry -- that attempting to compare compliant versus noncompliant groups was "meaningless." "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I could go on, but I have other things to do. I could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things at a formal professional level. Henry, try bullshitting someone else. You want people to treat *you* like a professional, try treating *them* like one. Now answer the question. I'll add the quotes you demand, so you feel like you can bear to answer: Henry, you cannot have it both ways. You argue that this cohort should be considered compliant because they are licensed. ["If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to."] You state that actually attempting to determine compliance cannot be done in the "real world," in spite of the fact that it is done all the time. [ Your suggested additional checks are impractical in the "real world".] When I ask how compliant you think people you should assume they are you then change your tune and claim that you do *not* believe they should be considered compliant. ["I made no such assumption. I have emphasized "real world". How can you come to that conclusion when I later in the same reply stated: "We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 % utilization observation)."? ] Fine. If they should not be assumed to be compliant, then they do not meet my criteria of "used as directed." If they should be assumed to be compliant, then my question of *how* compliant you think they should be assumed to be is appropriate. Which is it, Henry? Do you assume they are compliant? If not, then we agree that they cannot be assumed to be compliant, and do not meet the criteria. And your repeated assertion that one cannot test for compliance in "the real world" is simply wrong. billo |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
Why bother Henry, Dr. Shill will continue without ever understanding. He
is best enjoyed in your kill file..... "Henry Kuska" wrote in message ... billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt"; "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."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying"; "And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading."; " No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states."; "Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines"; "Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things at a formal professional level. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/ |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
H. Kuska reply to billo. So you continue with statements like: "Henry, you
stop acting like a supercilious ass" - (coupon 1 used up) and terms like "bullshit", - (coupon 2 used up - you cannot say that I did not make it clear that: "I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals ". H. Kuska comment to billo concerning the second part of hisr reply: things that you quote as being said to you were actually stated to the general reader. Lets start with the first one that you cite. This is what you just said: "Henry, you don't start a conversation with a professional by telling him he doesn't know what a scientist is. You don't put in that bullshit like "if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific abstracts". H. Kuska reply: I did a browser find to see where it occured. This is the start of the actual post: " --------------------------------------------------------------- Message 103 in thread From: Henry Kuska ) Subject: Roundup Unready View this article only Newsgroups: rec.gardens Date: 2003-09-01 09:08:05 PST Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web page...."-------------------------------------------H. Kuska comment: Nothing in this post states that this post was addressed to someone named "BILLO".---------------------------------------------- H. Kuska comment: Then you state as your second example: "If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points"," when I explicity stated I didn't have a problem with what the authors wrote, "I would like to remind the reader that the wording had to be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a scientific journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and the referees are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the field."------------------------------------------------- H. Kuska comments: Note the use of "If anyone" and "I would like to remind the reader"Again no mention of "billo". I have tried to make it very clear when I was replying to you, billo.I do not have time to track and respond to stuff this this - coupon 3 used up.I am sorry but you have used up your "coupons".Good by.Henry Kuska, |
Roundup Safety and Toxicity
In article 9nR7b.24740$n94.17204@fed1read04, "Just another fan"
wrote: Why bother Henry, Dr. Shill will continue without ever understanding. He is best enjoyed in your kill file..... If you killfile him you'll miss him on other topics for which he's not loony. Besides, even the loony stuff can be amusing. Personally I only read about one in ten of his posts on this topic (after the first week) because he got too trolly & redundant & stopped even trying to make sense, but do see a bit more than I bother to open & read when he gets quoted by others whose responses I read more wholeheartedly. I wouldn't go so far as to killfile because in other threads he can be totally of interest. -paghat the ratgirl "Henry Kuska" wrote in message ... billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt"; "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."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying"; "And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading."; " No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states."; "Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines"; "Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things at a formal professional level. Henry Kuska, retired http://home.neo.rr.com/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/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter