On Sep 13, 1:07*am, "JimT" wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 9/12/2010 6:14 PM spake thus:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:09:55 -0500, "JimT" wrote:
You didn't read it so you can't tell me one thing in that article that
is false, can you? If you were self assured in your stance you
would defend it, and counter the article with your knowledge. Right?
Nope. When an article starts off with a daft conclusion, there is no
reason to read further.
Got your mind made up just because that paper dares to state a conclusion,
eh?
Here's what it says about Roundup, ostensibly the subject of this
discussion:
* Monsanto’s Notorious Pesticides
* Roundup—Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) is Monsanto’s flagship
* weed killer (or herbicide), accounting for 67% of the company's
* total sales or about $2.6 billion annually.1 The amount of Roundup
* sold has grown by around 20% each year over the past five years.2
* Monsanto has expanded its capacity to produce Roundup nearly
* five-fold since 1992.3 While Monsanto maintains that Roundup is safe,
* many others disagree, including the New York State Attorney General..
* Based on its investigation, the Attorney General’s office filed a
* lawsuit arguing that the company’s advertising inaccurately portrayed
* Monsanto's glyphosate-containing products as safe and as not causing
* any harmful effects to people or the environment. As part of an
* out-of-court settlement, Monsanto agreed to discontinue use of terms
* such as "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" in all
* advertising of glyphosate-containing products in New York state and
* paid US$50,000 toward the state's costs of pursuing the case.4 There
* are a number of environmental and human health problems associated
* with glyphosate. For example, in studies of people (mostly farmers)
* exposed to glyphosate, exposure is associated with an increased risk
* of miscarriages, premature birth and the cancer, non-Hodgkin’s
* lymphoma.5 In one case, Monsanto paid a US$225,000 fine for having
* mislabeled Roundup containers on 75 separate occasions. It was the
* largest settlement ever paid for violation of U.S. Worker Protection
* Standards. The labels had claimed that the restricted entry period
* after application of Roundup was four, rather than the actual 12
* hours.6
So just what exactly about this do you disagree with? Keep in mind that
all those numbers I've left in the text are footnote references you can
check if you refer to the PDF.
Or you can just choose to take the company at their word. I suppose you
actually believe that BP is doing all it can to mitigate the effects from
its exploded oil rig, for example.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
Ehh...He's painted in a corner and he doesn't know how to get out.
Declare the dissenters are idiots and claim victory.
Jim- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
KRW's point is that you can easily find very biased, distorted, one-
sided, piece of crap stories about virtually anything on the
internet. And I have to agree with his position that a source that
starts out with the obvious bias of the reference is usually not worth
reading.
I can find you the exact same kind of FUD about your precious chosen
alternative, vinegar:
http://www.dherbs.com/articles/vinegar-60.html
"Vinegar, in general, is an impure dilute solution of acetic acid
obtained by fermentation and used as a condiment and preservative.
Folks, beware of vinegar. It is not a food (condiment). It is a
solvent, but more importantly, it is a poison and toxin to the human
body."
So, now the vinegar on our salads is gonna kill us all.
You spreaded some FUD yourself here, first making a post that
indicated that your issue with Roundup was it's safety when used
around trees. Now, instead it turns out it's just Roundup itself that
you want to make the issue and I have yet to see anything that says
it's harmful to trees.