Mooshie peas writes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:54:49 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:00:59 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
Of course, but it is a well known mechanism of resistance development,
sub-lethal doses that leave the partially susceptible mutants still
alive. Antibiotic treatments are a case in point. The importance of
finishing the full course prescribed, and not stopping when you feel
better.

1) A reminder that bacteria are much simpler than insects, and with a
higher breeding rate.

Of course. But their biochemistry is quite similar, save for the speed
of generation change.

The plant genome is immense by comparison.

Yep, but the biochemistry is surprisingly similar.

No. A small subset is similar.

2) No farmer applies pesticides in the above mentioned manner anyway.
It varies from typically one to three applications per season.

Of course, again, economics plays a strong role. Antibiotics are taken
on the assumption that reinfection will not occur, whereas pests are
constantly returning.

Indeed. The aim is to prevent significant damage, not to eradicate the
pest for the season (except perhaps weeds).

Sure, the aim is to get as much crop for as little expense as
possible. With farsightedness, a smaller profit might be accepted for
a likely increased profit over the next decade. The aim with pests
might be to eradicate them forever but being pragmatic....

I know of no pests that have ever been eradicated, even in the heady
days when DDT worked very well.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Why do you think the NZ
Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing GM
crops?

The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied
to them with phony evidence.

No she didn't.

And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not be
insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the GM
seed.

Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for
the pests?

So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones
to reduce overall resistance.

With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a problem.
In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant
genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the next
application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Mooshie peas writes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:54:49 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:00:59 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
Of course, but it is a well known mechanism of resistance
development,
sub-lethal doses that leave the partially susceptible mutants still
alive. Antibiotic treatments are a case in point. The importance of
finishing the full course prescribed, and not stopping when you feel
better.

1) A reminder that bacteria are much simpler than insects, and with a
higher breeding rate.

Of course. But their biochemistry is quite similar, save for the speed
of generation change.

The plant genome is immense by comparison.

Yep, but the biochemistry is surprisingly similar.

No. A small subset is similar.

2) No farmer applies pesticides in the above mentioned manner anyway.
It varies from typically one to three applications per season.

Of course, again, economics plays a strong role. Antibiotics are taken
on the assumption that reinfection will not occur, whereas pests are
constantly returning.

Indeed. The aim is to prevent significant damage, not to eradicate the
pest for the season (except perhaps weeds).

Sure, the aim is to get as much crop for as little expense as
possible. With farsightedness, a smaller profit might be accepted for
a likely increased profit over the next decade. The aim with pests
might be to eradicate them forever but being pragmatic....

I know of no pests that have ever been eradicated, even in the heady
days when DDT worked very well.


The new worm screw worm fly has been pushed back from forays into Kansas to
the Panama canal using sterail male fly resases in large numbres. Females
only breed once. The have been errdicated from north america.

They lay the egg on a open wound and the maggog eats living flesh. Naval
cords are the wrost place for and infection. Somtimes one infestation will
kill a calf and two always will. Occasional some one will get in a fight and
the screw worm fly will lay eggs on a bloody nose. If the don't seek medical
help befeor the worms eat through to the brain they die very bad death.

The program started right after WWII the last out break that reach Oklahoma
was in 1972 and we have been pushing the as far away as we can get them into
the narrow isthmus of Panama to reduce costs.

Gordon

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:58:29 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:54:49 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:00:59 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
Of course, but it is a well known mechanism of resistance development,
sub-lethal doses that leave the partially susceptible mutants still
alive. Antibiotic treatments are a case in point. The importance of
finishing the full course prescribed, and not stopping when you feel
better.

1) A reminder that bacteria are much simpler than insects, and with a
higher breeding rate.

Of course. But their biochemistry is quite similar, save for the speed
of generation change.

The plant genome is immense by comparison.

Yep, but the biochemistry is surprisingly similar.

No. A small subset is similar.

Well most of the basic pathways IIRC. Sure bacteria don't do some of
the sophistcated stuff that multicelled orgs do, so they don't need
some of the enzymes used there.

2) No farmer applies pesticides in the above mentioned manner anyway.
It varies from typically one to three applications per season.

Of course, again, economics plays a strong role. Antibiotics are taken
on the assumption that reinfection will not occur, whereas pests are
constantly returning.

Indeed. The aim is to prevent significant damage, not to eradicate the
pest for the season (except perhaps weeds).

Sure, the aim is to get as much crop for as little expense as
possible. With farsightedness, a smaller profit might be accepted for
a likely increased profit over the next decade. The aim with pests
might be to eradicate them forever but being pragmatic....

I know of no pests that have ever been eradicated, even in the heady
days when DDT worked very well.

And the aim is to be perfectly good, yet I don't know one person who
is. Doesn't detract from the aim. About the only thing that has been
eliminated is a virus or two, theoretically. Is smallpox still kicking
around?

On 20 Aug 2003 06:11:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Why do you think the NZ
Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing GM
crops?

The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied
to them with phony evidence.

No she didn't.

Yes she did.

And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not be
insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the GM
seed.

Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for
the pests?

So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones
to reduce overall resistance.

With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a problem.
In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant
genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the next
application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again.

So what if intervening years have heavy pest predation too? You
continue with the up and down levels of pesticide?
The organic folk spray it all the time, they haven't anything else.
Don't tell them that it is GM

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 20 Aug 2003 06:11:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Why do you think the NZ
Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing GM
crops?

The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied
to them with phony evidence.

No she didn't.

Yes she did.

She worked in the subject, and understands it. As you showed on
sci.med.nutrition you even thought fish oil capsules are mainly
peanut oil.

And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not be
insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the GM
seed.

Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for
the pests?

So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones
to reduce overall resistance.

With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a problem.
In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant
genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the next
application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again.

So what if intervening years have heavy pest predation too? You
continue with the up and down levels of pesticide?
The organic folk spray it all the time,

It is an important spray for them when significant pests are
present, it is not used all the time.

they haven't anything else.

Organic farming is going big commercial so some very good practices
such as companion planting and using other plants to discourage
pests are not getting propoer attention.

Don't tell them that it is GM

That is a bit of a worry. Quite a few microbiological productive
processes are using GM bacteria. Note what happened with the
tryptophan produced by GM. I think such purifiaction as it was
getting has always been sufficient with the non-GM approach.

However in New Zealand the public were assured the moth spray does
not have GM. I presume that is the Btk as well as the soy and corn
medium it grows in when sprayed.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Mooshie peas wrote:
On 20 Aug 2003 06:11:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Why do you think the NZ
Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing
GM
crops?

The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied
to them with phony evidence.

No she didn't.

Yes she did.

She worked in the subject, and understands it. As you showed on
sci.med.nutrition you even thought fish oil capsules are mainly
peanut oil.

And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not
be
insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the
GM
seed.

Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for
the pests?

So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones
to reduce overall resistance.

With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a
problem.
In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant
genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the
next
application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again.

So what if intervening years have heavy pest predation too? You
continue with the up and down levels of pesticide?
The organic folk spray it all the time,

It is an important spray for them when significant pests are
present, it is not used all the time.

they haven't anything else.

Organic farming is going big commercial so some very good practices
such as companion planting and using other plants to discourage
pests are not getting propoer attention.

Don't tell them that it is GM

That is a bit of a worry. Quite a few microbiological productive
processes are using GM bacteria. Note what happened with the
tryptophan produced by GM. I think such purifiaction as it was
getting has always been sufficient with the non-GM approach.

However in New Zealand the public were assured the moth spray does
not have GM. I presume that is the Btk as well as the soy and corn
medium it grows in when sprayed.

She claimed association with Oregon State University. She actually had guest
privileges to use one professors lab and a library card. I called and asked
the department she was claiming association with. She had failed to make
tenure in two departments at OSU.

She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published it
claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials and data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in the paper.
The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

Gordon

In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

She claimed association with Oregon State University.

With your spelling, Gordon, maybe Open University, where she has
been in charge of a dept rather than Oregen University.

That is if it is who I think it is. How about some refs for this
serious charge so we can patch up if necess.

She actually had guest
privileges to use one professors lab and a library card. I called and asked
the department she was claiming association with. She had failed to make
tenure in two departments at OSU.

She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published it
claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials

So far so good, how many subjects per trial?

and data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in the paper.

That doesn't sound likely to be done. There could be other reasons
for rejecting the data, maybe incompleteness.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

Did she write the questionable paper or just quote it? If it has
been found lacking following publishing has she been asked for
comment? And why didn't the peer reviewers pick it up?

On 24 Aug 2003 03:23:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 20 Aug 2003 06:11:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Why do you think the NZ
Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing GM
crops?

The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied
to them with phony evidence.

No she didn't.

Yes she did.

She worked in the subject, and understands it.

And lied about results she claimed to a Royal Commission.
I wonder why someone who was so understanding of the subject needed to
do this.

As you showed on
sci.med.nutrition you even thought fish oil capsules are mainly
peanut oil.

No, I suggsted that the balance of oils in an oil capsule would be the
cheapst available, and peanut oil is a very common pharmaceutical
vehicle. The poster was asking what the balance would be from the
labelled ingredients. I still don't know that it is all fish oil, as
if it makes any difference. What has this to do with lying about
scientific evidence to a Royal Commission?

And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not be
insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the GM
seed.

Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for
the pests?

So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones
to reduce overall resistance.

With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a problem.
In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant
genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the next
application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again.

So what if intervening years have heavy pest predation too? You
continue with the up and down levels of pesticide?
The organic folk spray it all the time,

It is an important spray for them when significant pests are
present, it is not used all the time.

No, when the pests are doing damage. (IPM)
And the BT expressed is not causing resistance if no pests are
present.

they haven't anything else.

Organic farming is going big commercial so some very good practices
such as companion planting

Doesn't work, sorry.

and using other plants to discourage
pests are not getting propoer attention.

What evidence have you got for this claim. Last I heard there was
nothing in it. Wishful thinking.

Don't tell them that it is GM

That is a bit of a worry.

Why? Its a very useful manufacturing technique.

Quite a few microbiological productive
processes are using GM bacteria. Note what happened with the
tryptophan produced by GM.

Nothing out of the ususal, except the factory took a short cut on
quality control, and let a toxic byproduct through and poisoned some
people with a well known poison.

I think such purifiaction as it was
getting has always been sufficient with the non-GM approach.

Are you claiming there has never been any similar failures of quality
control with bacterial production processes?

However in New Zealand the public were assured the moth spray does
not have GM.

What does that mean? Does protein "A", produced by naturally occurring
bacteria, and protein "A" produced by GM bacteria have any
differences?

I presume that is the Btk as well as the soy and corn
medium it grows in when sprayed.

What? Has NO connection with any GM process?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

She claimed association with Oregon State University.

With your spelling, Gordon, maybe Open University, where she has
been in charge of a dept rather than Oregen University.

That is if it is who I think it is. How about some refs for this
serious charge so we can patch up if necess.

She actually had guest
privileges to use one professors lab and a library card. I called and
asked
the department she was claiming association with. She had failed to make
tenure in two departments at OSU.

She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published it
claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials

So far so good, how many subjects per trial?

and data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in the
paper.

That doesn't sound likely to be done. There could be other reasons
for rejecting the data, maybe incompleteness.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

Did she write the questionable paper or just quote it? If it has
been found lacking following publishing has she been asked for
comment? And why didn't the peer reviewers pick it up?

It was an EPA paper no peer review.
Gordon

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

She claimed association with Oregon State University.

With your spelling, Gordon, maybe Open University, where she has
been in charge of a dept rather than Oregen University.

Or Origen I think you spelt it.

She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published it
claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials

So far so good, how many subjects per trial?

No comment?


and data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in the
paper.

That doesn't sound likely to be done. There could be other reasons
for rejecting the data, maybe incompleteness.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

Did she write the questionable paper or just quote it? If it has
been found lacking following publishing has she been asked for
comment? And why didn't the peer reviewers pick it up?

It was an EPA paper no peer review.

If it is Mae-Wan Ho of Open University you write of, who did come to
NZ to address the Commission, she quotes many papers. What was this
one so we can see for ourselves how faulty it may have been?

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:
On 24 Aug 2003 03:23:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 20 Aug 2003 06:11:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Why do you think the NZ
Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing GM
crops?

The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied
to them with phony evidence.

No she didn't.

Yes she did.

She worked in the subject, and understands it.

And lied about results she claimed to a Royal Commission.

Both you and Gordon are claiming that and not backing it up.

I wonder why someone who was so understanding of the subject needed to
do this.

As you showed on
sci.med.nutrition you even thought fish oil capsules are mainly
peanut oil.

No, I suggsted that the balance of oils in an oil capsule would be the
cheapst available, and peanut oil is a very common pharmaceutical
vehicle. The poster was asking what the balance would be from the
labelled ingredients. I still don't know that it is all fish oil, as
if it makes any difference. What has this to do with lying about
scientific evidence to a Royal Commission?

It has to do with how confused you are and so how you might be confused in
other ways.

And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not be
insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the GM
seed.

Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for
the pests?

So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones
to reduce overall resistance.

With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a problem.
In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant
genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the next
application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again.

So what if intervening years have heavy pest predation too? You
continue with the up and down levels of pesticide?
The organic folk spray it all the time,

It is an important spray for them when significant pests are
present, it is not used all the time.

No, when the pests are doing damage. (IPM)
And the BT expressed is not causing resistance if no pests are
present.

The Bt gradually reduces strength as the plant ages. Pests are still
there. Organophosphate sprays have to be used to protect the cotton late
stage. So you have both pests and low strength Bt, ideal conditions for
resistance to be selected.

they haven't anything else.

Organic farming is going big commercial so some very good practices
such as companion planting

Doesn't work, sorry.

It may not produce totally unblemished crop, but where you can planting
pyrethrum will dsicourage some pests &c.

and using other plants to discourage
pests are not getting propoer attention.

What evidence have you got for this claim. Last I heard there was
nothing in it. Wishful thinking.

Don't tell them that it is GM

That is a bit of a worry.

Why? Its a very useful manufacturing technique.

Do we have GM yeasts in our bread?

Quite a few microbiological productive
processes are using GM bacteria. Note what happened with the
tryptophan produced by GM.

Nothing out of the ususal, except the factory took a short cut on
quality control, and let a toxic byproduct through and poisoned some
people with a well known poison.

We don't know that till the company releases its data.

I think such purifiaction as it was
getting has always been sufficient with the non-GM approach.

Are you claiming there has never been any similar failures of quality
control with bacterial production processes?

What maiming and deaths have been made public?

However in New Zealand the public were assured the moth spray does
not have GM.

What does that mean? Does protein "A", produced by naturally occurring
bacteria, and protein "A" produced by GM bacteria have any
differences?

I suppose it depends to some extent on purification.

It's no use claming something is 99% pure when it has a poison which has
effects at 0.01%.

I presume that is the Btk as well as the soy and corn
medium it grows in when sprayed.

What? Has NO connection with any GM process?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

She claimed association with Oregon State University.

With your spelling, Gordon, maybe Open University, where she has
been in charge of a dept rather than Oregen University.

Or Origen I think you spelt it.

She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published
it
claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials

So far so good, how many subjects per trial?

No comment?

I don't know she discarded data.


and data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in the
paper.

That doesn't sound likely to be done. There could be other reasons
for rejecting the data, maybe incompleteness.

The comment was. "out liers were discarded". That means inconsistant data
was tossed out. Since it was sprouting of wheat seeds it makes one wonder.
The conventional metod for discarding data is to leave it in the plot and
mark it so people can see what you did.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

Did she write the questionable paper or just quote it? If it has
been found lacking following publishing has she been asked for
comment? And why didn't the peer reviewers pick it up?

It was an EPA paper no peer review.

If it is Mae-Wan Ho of Open University you write of, who did come to
NZ to address the Commission, she quotes many papers. What was this
one so we can see for ourselves how faulty it may have been?

It was Elaine Ingham and she was one of the authors of the paper that
handn't been published. http://www.biotech-info.net/green_lobby.html Many
bacteria applied to the soil and wheat planted that soon after them will
die.

Gordon

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:14:02 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
Gordon Couger wrote:
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

She claimed association with Oregon State University.
She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published
it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials and data that didn't agree
with the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in
the paper.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

It was an EPA paper no peer review.

.. she discarded data.
The comment was. "out liers were discarded". That means inconsistant data
was tossed out. Since it was sprouting of wheat seeds it makes one wonder.
The conventional metod for discarding data is to leave it in the plot and
mark it so people can see what you did.

It was Elaine Ingham and she was one of the authors of the paper that
handn't been published. snip

well, thanks for naming the researcher you are referring to.

That means we can more precisely relate to your accusations:

a) "She claimed association with Oregon State University."

That's perhaps innuendo. If meant to be read with the implication that
she claimed that deceitfully. Elaine Ingham has a long standing
association with the Oregon State University.

b) "She referenced a paper that didn't exist."

That's a false claim. In the evidence given by Elaine Ingham to the NZ
Royal Commission in 2001 she referred to a paper that existed, and had
been published two years before her appearance. She referenced the
paper in Applied Soil Ecology 11 (1999) p. 67-78. Unfortunately, in
the written evidence to the commission the reference to the paper
appeared as Applied Soil Ecology 3 (1999) 394-399.

c) "When it was later published"

That's innuendo based on false claim. See b) above. The paper was
published two years before she referenced it.

d) "it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials"

That's false. The paper did not claim any such thing.

e) "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded with out
being included an marked in the paper."

That's baseless. There's no indication in the paper that data was
discarded on the basis of them not agreeing with the findings of the
paper.

f) "The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from."

That's highly dubious. The paper was published in Applied Soil
Ecology, a peer reviewed journal. Additionally peer reviewed by the US
EPA, and approved for publication as an EPA document.

g) "The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth."

But, curiously Gordon -- in your efforts to back that up you
produced evidence only to indicate that YOU take a great deal
of liberty with the truth :-)

Seriously, I think you owe Elaine Ingham an apology.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:14:02 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
Gordon Couger wrote:
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger
wrote:

She claimed association with Oregon State University.
She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later
published
it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials and data that didn't
agree
with the findings was discarded with out being included an marked
in
the paper.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

It was an EPA paper no peer review.

.. she discarded data.
The comment was. "out liers were discarded". That means inconsistant data
was tossed out. Since it was sprouting of wheat seeds it makes one
wonder.
The conventional metod for discarding data is to leave it in the plot and
mark it so people can see what you did.

It was Elaine Ingham and she was one of the authors of the paper that
handn't been published. snip

well, thanks for naming the researcher you are referring to.

That means we can more precisely relate to your accusations:

a) "She claimed association with Oregon State University."

That's perhaps innuendo. If meant to be read with the implication that
she claimed that deceitfully. Elaine Ingham has a long standing
association with the Oregon State University.

b) "She referenced a paper that didn't exist."

That's a false claim. In the evidence given by Elaine Ingham to the NZ
Royal Commission in 2001 she referred to a paper that existed, and had
been published two years before her appearance. She referenced the
paper in Applied Soil Ecology 11 (1999) p. 67-78. Unfortunately, in
the written evidence to the commission the reference to the paper
appeared as Applied Soil Ecology 3 (1999) 394-399.

c) "When it was later published"

That's innuendo based on false claim. See b) above. The paper was
published two years before she referenced it.

d) "it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials"

That's false. The paper did not claim any such thing.

e) "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded with out
being included an marked in the paper."

That's baseless. There's no indication in the paper that data was
discarded on the basis of them not agreeing with the findings of the
paper.

f) "The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from."

That's highly dubious. The paper was published in Applied Soil
Ecology, a peer reviewed journal. Additionally peer reviewed by the US
EPA, and approved for publication as an EPA document.

g) "The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth."

But, curiously Gordon -- in your efforts to back that up you
produced evidence only to indicate that YOU take a great deal
of liberty with the truth :-)

Seriously, I think you owe Elaine Ingham an apology.

Elaine has no connation with Oregon State University other than a courtesy
card giving her library privileges and one professor allows her to use his
equipment, her paper was not published until after the fact, what the EPA
calls peer review does not meet the standards of any other peer reviewed
journal and the results claimed by statistics used in the paper were not
supported by the data in the paper according to 3 professors that teach
statistics.

Gordon