JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"yourname" wrote in message
news:uoayg.10723$nh1.4307@trndny07...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...


Doncha just love fear mongering?


Read this again:

"There were no effects on fertility or
reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with
glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive
tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic
and/or subchronic studies."

Would you like to know why this is nonsense? You'd have to have been
reading things like this since the mid-1970s to understand. Interested?


Well, that is a meaningless response. I use such chemicals as rarely as
possible, but nonetheless, I have little confidence in greenpeace as an
arbiter of safety for garden chemicals. Were it up to them, we would all
be grouching around in the mud living off earthworms. Really. An I used to
give them money.


Try explaining yourself, not merely casting doubt on [purported] research.
I personally would like to know if there is a real reason not ot buy
roundup, or just a greenpeace reason

Greenpeace has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about history.

Ever since I began following these issues, both sides of the chemical debate
have used animal testing to prove their points. When environmental groups
say they see carcinogenic effects in rats, the chemical manufacturers claim
that because rats react differently than humans, these tests are not valid.
Then, the opposite happens. When chemical companies claim they find no ill
effects in animal tests, environmental groups say the tests are meaningless
for the same reasons the chemical companies say it.

There is NO way to test properly for human health problems, because you (and
nobody you know) would willingly agree to be dosed with pesticides as part
of an experiment. They cannot be tested in the same way as pharmaceuticals.
Therefore, you cannot assume they are safe or unsafe based on real evidence.
You choose based on what's convenient for you personally.

To add to the confusion, several scientists have pointed out that even if
you could get human volunteers, there'd be no way to determine what OTHER
toxins they were exposed to, via drinking water, food, occupational
exposure, etc. So, no controlled study is possible.

Take your pick. If you're among the meat heads who think a lawn that's 3%
weeds is the end of the world, use the chemicals.

I only had to read who did the OP's study to know where the body of the
text would go. Gee, whodathunk that that outfit woulf find problems
with it.

As for testing on rats, etc: Those who find the problems, I will bet,
are using it in doses way over real world application. I have seen a
lot of reports over the years where 'substance x is cancer causing when
tested on rats' Then you read the report and find that Yep, it causes
cancer but probably would have killed them from obesity at the rates
they were fed it. I put no trust at all in studies done by outfits with
an ax to grind.

Harry K