Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:02 PM
Siberian Husky
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roundup Safety and Toxicity

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
Bill, Bill, Bill. I do not care what others argue with you regarding
Roundup safety and toxicity. The fact is, all others will now turn
their attention to educate other gardeners why Roundup is bad. Maybe
they are using facts, maybe they are using lies, maybe they are using
their own experiences.


And that's the difference. You don't care if it's truth or lies.
I do.


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.

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?

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. I do not team with them or anyone
else. :P Now Bill, tell us the definition you use to determine
something to be "safe" in your garden. Forget about the definition
used by other scientific journals, French environmental protection
agency or American consumer groups. Just use your definition --
though you can say your definition coinside with these agency
definitions.

In the meantime let me remind you again, what matters if whether your
theory is more convincing, or whether those by Henry, Paghat, et al,
are more convincing for other fellow gardeners. Note that ordinary
gardeners do not read scientific journals as the way you do.
  #2   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 01:02 AM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #3   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 01:42 AM
Rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roundup Safety and Toxicity

On 8 Sep 2003 21:11:30 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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


A whole lot of us use Roundup. We know the folks you are engaging
post a lot of lies to support their non scientific conclusions. We
don't really care what they have to say on the subject. They always
spout the same old crap, and will continue to do so as long as the
term "genetically nodified" strikes terror in their hearts. Why care?
If they manage to legislate against GM and useful chemicals
fertilizers etc, the dumb ones will starve off first eh?
  #4   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 03:22 AM
Tom Jaszewski
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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....

  #6   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 04:02 AM
Henry Kuska
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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/



  #7   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 04:23 AM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #8   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 06:15 AM
Betsy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #9   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 06:15 AM
Henry Kuska
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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/


  #12   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 08:02 AM
Siberian Husky
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roundup Safety and Toxicity

(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.


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.

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.


Okay.

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.


Okay.

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.


Okay.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.


Everyone has his or her own criterion. In general, people tend to
believe things coming out naturally are safe, and things synthesized
are not. Please note -- I am not saying this is the truth. I am
saying most people tend to believe it, even if it is false.

In most cases in general, it seems to be true and valid. It is like
the instinct that "something sweet is fine, and something bitter is
dangerous or poisonous". You can find probably 100 exceptions to this
rule, but in general, in the wild, in your garden, this simple rule
might be true. When you are stranded in the wild after a car
accident, this rule might save you.

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.

But human beings made mistakes on DDT and thalidomide. For Roundup,
so far it is not found dangerous (according to your scientific
criterion). Do we know for sure, with conclusive results if they are
made already, that 10 years from now on we will not find something
with Roundup being similar to DDT and thalidomide?

I do not care what they claim.


Exactly.


Here "they" include you too. :P I think I told you I do not team up
with anyone.
  #13   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 02:02 PM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #14   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 02:12 PM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #15   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2003, 03:02 PM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rhododendron and toxicity to honey via bees??? Tim Watts[_3_] United Kingdom 19 10-05-2014 11:38 AM
Sevin and toxicity? Unique Too Roses 11 20-04-2011 07:58 PM
Toxicity of soapy water and "Arbrex seal and heal" Michael Bell United Kingdom 12 28-06-2010 01:50 PM
NO3 toxicity and it's application to planted tank dosing via KNO3 [email protected] Freshwater Aquaria Plants 5 02-08-2007 09:05 AM
NO3 and NH4 toxicity [email protected] Freshwater Aquaria Plants 1 29-03-2007 09:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017