http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the
third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among
agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other
compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely
difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is
often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and
existent data may not be reliable.
(“Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,”
greenpeace.org - April 1997)

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular,
gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
(“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural
Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"


" Monsano’s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that
Roundup is safe, but the facts just don’t support this. Independent
scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms,
beneficial insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation
on which they depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that
Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be
extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a
year after application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard
categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity,
long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and
carcinogenicity."

Thanks,


Bertie Brink
Life is a sexually transmitted disease. R. D. Laing
http://www.setdefault.com/ : http://www.csmonitor.com/

Yeah right, go look up the MSDS and compare to caffeine. Glyphosphate is
one tenth as toxic as caffeine.

"Bertie Brink" wrote in message
...


http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the
third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among
agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other
compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely
difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is
often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and existent
data may not be reliable.
(“Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,”
greenpeace.org - April 1997)

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular,
gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
(“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural
Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"


" Monsano’s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that Roundup
is safe, but the facts just don’t support this. Independent scientific
studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial
insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation on which they
depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that Roundup breaks
down into harmless substances, it has been found to be extremely
persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a year after
application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard categories of
toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity, long-term toxicity,
genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and carcinogenicity."

Thanks,


Bertie Brink
Life is a sexually transmitted disease. R. D. Laing
http://www.setdefault.com/ : http://www.csmonitor.com/

According to Bertie Brink :

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides,

Doncha just love fear mongering?

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/si...temp/~Kss4ig:6

Authors:

Williams GM
Kroes R
Munro IC

Author Address: Department of Pathology, New York Medical College,
Valhalla 10595, USA.

Source: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000, Apr; 31(2 Pt 1):117-65.
[Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.]

Abstract:

Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been
conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions
worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health
concern. Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically
raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and
comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It
includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product
[aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the
predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in
Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review
included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published
research reports. The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and
both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal
penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption.
Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA
bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in
acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the
concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation,
while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The
genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a
weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was
no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it
was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the
production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime
feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for
glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is
noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or
developmentally toxic. 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. Results from standard studies with these
materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine
modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide
does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or
endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk
assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified
for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies
with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk
were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable
NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. Acute risks were
assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute
human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected
conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"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?

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

"plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter."
Wow, to think I thought it was a non-selective plant killer, I didn't know
it destroys vegetation.


"Bertie Brink" wrote in message
...


http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the
third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among
agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other
compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely
difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is
often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and existent
data may not be reliable.
(“Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,”
greenpeace.org - April 1997)

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular,
gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
(“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural
Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"


" Monsano’s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that Roundup
is safe, but the facts just don’t support this. Independent scientific
studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial
insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation on which they
depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that Roundup breaks
down into harmless substances, it has been found to be extremely
persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a year after
application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard categories of
toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity, long-term toxicity,
genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and carcinogenicity."

Thanks,


Bertie Brink
Life is a sexually transmitted disease. R. D. Laing
http://www.setdefault.com/ : http://www.csmonitor.com/

Bertie Brink wrote:

Products containing glyphosate also contain other
compounds, which can be toxic.

Vanilla extract contains alcohol, which can be toxic. Dose?

Glyphosate is technically extremely
difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is
often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and
existent data may not be reliable.

Lovely. More info needed. Dragons are extremely difficult
to photograph in downtown Newark, NJ.

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular,
gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
("Special Report: what you need to know about pest control," Natural
Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"

The eminent scientific journal?

Independent
scientific studies have shown that Roundup... destroys the vegetation

I should hope it would!

Although Monsanto claims that
Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be
extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a
year after application.

Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard
categories of toxicological testing

How many adverse effects? What rate? What is the margin of error?

This kind of reporting goes against what you are trying to do. Present

us with verifiable facts, figures, doses, and so forth, or you simply
add
to the vast bulk of logic fallacies and numerology that is the global
environmental movement today.

MSDS for WATER H2O

slip hazard on floors and espically if frozen, electrical shock hazard
when water and electric mix, drownd hazard and it doesnt take much.
shall i go on?

water is dangerous. perhaps it should be banned too

wrote:
MSDS for WATER H2O

slip hazard on floors and espically if frozen, electrical shock hazard
when water and electric mix, drownd hazard and it doesnt take much.
shall i go on?

water is dangerous. perhaps it should be banned too

Ah yes, dihydrogen monoxide, that ubiquitous chemical.

Don't forget that its gaseous form may cause severe burns, its solid
form may freeze exposed flesh and cause frostbite, it is found in every
municipal water supply and aquifer in industrialized countries as well
as the developing world, and no treatment plant can successfully
eliminate 100% of it. Although used in many industrial processes and
found in large quantities in automotive and powerplant exhaust, it is
actually added intentionally to the soft drinks at fast food
restaurants, regardless of health concerns.

"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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
There is NO way to test properly for human health problems...
no controlled study is possible.


Well, if the scientific method is invalid, then I might as well start
smokin' Camel non filters. * light puff ack *

Bertie Brink wrote:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) ... is the
third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness ...

So, since it is one of if not the most widely used and probably by a
wide margin, that would actually seem to corroborate it's relative
safety...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:22:18 -0400, Bertie Brink
wrote:



http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the
third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among
agricultural workers.

Okay, first clue agricultural workers. Ask your self if you have been
working in the fields with the stuff for the last month. Ask yourself
whether you will be in the fields with the stuff all the next month.
The cases that appear to have indicated a higher tendency to cancer
are from people with long term exposure at high concentration. Google
"medical studies glyphosate" a spend some time reading the various
articles. Read critically and especially in context of who was being
studied. Then form your own opinion.

Products containing glyphosate also contain other
compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely
difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is
often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and
existent data may not be reliable.
(“Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,”
greenpeace.org - April 1997)

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular,
gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
(“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural
Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"

Did they say in what concentration and to whom. From Natural Health
Magazine. Oh, than that must be a reliable unbiased source without any
agenda.

" Monsano’s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that
Roundup is safe, but the facts just don’t support this. Independent
scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms,
beneficial insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation
on which they depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that
Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be
extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a
year after application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard
categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity,
long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and
carcinogenicity."

Careful of "independent studies". Can be as simple as the an author
who tried it in his backyard, and saw an earthworm die in the area at
some point.


Thanks,


Bertie Brink
Life is a sexually transmitted disease. R. D. Laing
http://www.setdefault.com/ : http://www.csmonitor.com/

If I was working with it daily over long periods I would be concerned.
Show some good sense when working a couple times with it
Gary Dyrkacz

Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/

wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
There is NO way to test properly for human health problems...
no controlled study is possible.


Well, if the scientific method is invalid, then I might as well start
smokin' Camel non filters. * light puff ack *


BUT, Camel non filters have been tested on live human beings for years, now
they died an early death.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:0Vayg.6538


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.

Controlled studies do account for such factors. It's simple science.


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.


Use roundup on lawns, and you have no lawn.

Bob

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

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news:0Vayg.6538


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.

Controlled studies do account for such factors. It's simple science.

You're right. They do account for such factors. But, they need to know what
the factors are. When it comes to determining what we breathe, drink and
eat, that is virtually impossible. Telling a researcher you eat 4 apples a
week is not enough. You need to know where they came from, what was sprayed
on them, and the quality of the water used to irrigate the orchards. What's
in the water used to make the beer, liquor or juice drinks you consume?
Unknown. What's in the fish you eat? Unknown. What's sprayed on the beans
used to make your coffee, beans which originate in countries where there are
even less controls than here with regard to chemical use? Unknown.

In addition to all this, I seem to recall reading that testing agricultural
chemicals (formally) on humans is now illegal in this country, although you
and I are involuntary lab rats.

Roll the dice.

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I run a farm, and I am extremely careful around my animals. I was
very hesitant to use Roundup or anything else near them. I thoroughly
read up on Roundup and other weed killers. Roundup came up safe time
and time again. I would not believe Monsanto, or for taht matter, the
manufacturer of any product. I did read the govt. studies and many
more. It appears safe and the safest of all the choices. I still
will not use it where my animals will eat for at least a week, and I
still try to use as little as possible. However, of the choices
available, Roundup seems the safest and the only thing I will use.
On my lawn I have spot sprayed individual weeds. Thats a pain in the
butt to do, but it works.

Mark

---------------------


On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:22:18 -0400, Bertie Brink
wrote:



http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm

"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the
third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among
agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other
compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely
difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is
often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and
existent data may not be reliable.
(“Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,”
greenpeace.org - April 1997)

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular,
gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
(“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural
Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"


" Monsano’s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that
Roundup is safe, but the facts just don’t support this. Independent
scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms,
beneficial insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation
on which they depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that
Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be
extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a
year after application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard
categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity,
long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and
carcinogenicity."

Thanks,


Bertie Brink
Life is a sexually transmitted disease. R. D. Laing
http://www.setdefault.com/ : http://www.csmonitor.com/

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:38:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Harry K" wrote in message
I put no trust at all in studies done by outfits with
an ax to grind.

Harry K


How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?


I have heard "study" defined as "carefully assembling the data that
verifies the desired result" ... or words to that effect.
Anyone who ever wrote "views" in a database is familiar with the
process. You just keep fine tuning the parameters of your query until
the right number comes out,

Basically, yeah. That's it. I have this occasional fantasy about oncologists
who are heading toward becoming alcoholics after seeing so many kids with
cancer, and what kind of study those guys would set up if they received a
huge anonymous donation earmarked for proper research methods.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable. As for the current issue (Roundup) - that product
doesn't and didn't need any hype from the company. It would have
poured off the shelves just like it did even if there had been very
restrictive use requirements. It was a product that farmers, stockmen,
etc. had been praying for since chemicals first came into use.

If you think that Monsanto downplays the dangers of chemicals, just
read the application books that come with each package thereof.

In the OP, there were outright lies and distortions in the first few
lines of text and it didn't improve from there.

Harry K

wrote:
I run a farm, and I am extremely careful around my animals. I was
very hesitant to use Roundup or anything else near them. I thoroughly
read up on Roundup and other weed killers. Roundup came up safe time
and time again. I would not believe Monsanto, or for taht matter, the
manufacturer of any product. I did read the govt. studies and many
more. It appears safe and the safest of all the choices. I still
will not use it where my animals will eat for at least a week, and I
still try to use as little as possible. However, of the choices
available, Roundup seems the safest and the only thing I will use.
On my lawn I have spot sprayed individual weeds. Thats a pain in the
butt to do, but it works.

Mark




Oh come on now. You mean you;re not gonna believe such credible
sources of unbiased scientific research as :

Women's Cancer Resource Center
Coaltion for a Healthy Oakland School Environment
Greenpeace
Natural Health Magazine
Organic Gardening
Alternative Medicine Magazine

Any one of these could publish a short story from any author with any
agenda and no credible qualifications.

The only real research study listed was done in Sweden using 400
patients diagnosed with NH Lymphoma. There, they tried to determine
what herbicides and pesticides people were exposed to over the
preceeding decades by questioning them or their survivors if they were
deceased. Now, already that makes the whole thing suspect. Relying
on surveys filled out by survivors as to what chemicals someone was
exposed to over the last 25 years is dubious a best. And most of
these people were likely exposed to many agents over those decades.
Trying to determine what MIGHT have caused cancer from that data is
virtually impossible.

And all this one study showed was some increased risk for exposure to
glyphosate. Anyone familiar with cancer studies knows that it's not
unusual for one study to suggest there MIGHT be an association, then
another study to show no association. That's why the scientific
community takes all the research as a whole when drawing conclusions.
Fear mongerers on the other hand, grasp at any info, then try to make
it look like it is the definitive work on the subject. For example,
there are thousands of studies one could cite that cast some question
on many of the food additives, drugs, or even the foods themselves that
we widely use today. If we went off the deep end based on one study,
virtually everything would be deemed dangerous.

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable.

Please name one or more reputable agencies.


And, the next question is not intended to offend, but I have to ask. When
you see articles which cite research sources, how do you decide which to
trust? In case this is unclear, here are definitions. Number 2 is the
appropriate one in this context.

Main Entry: cite
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit·ed; cit·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from
Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciEre to
stir, move -- more at -KINESIS
1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof cites several
noteworthy authors
3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or
praise b : to name in a citation
4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an
example, proof, or precedent cited the weather as a reason for canceling
the picnic

dihydrogen monoxide

never knew the chemical description of water

wrote in message
...


I have heard "study" defined as "carefully assembling the data that
verifies the desired result" ... or words to that effect.
Anyone who ever wrote "views" in a database is familiar with the
process. You just keep fine tuning the parameters of your query until
the right number comes out,

That's what peer review is for.

Bob

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Bob" wrote in message
. ..

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news:0Vayg.6538


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.

Controlled studies do account for such factors. It's simple science.

You're right. They do account for such factors. But, they need to know what
the factors are. When it comes to determining what we breathe, drink and
eat, that is virtually impossible. Telling a researcher you eat 4 apples a
week is not enough. You need to know where they came from, what was sprayed
on them, and the quality of the water used to irrigate the orchards. What's
in the water used to make the beer, liquor or juice drinks you consume?
Unknown. What's in the fish you eat? Unknown. What's sprayed on the beans
used to make your coffee, beans which originate in countries where there are
even less controls than here with regard to chemical use? Unknown.

You account for such things as well as you can, and use a big enough
sample so they average out. It's been done for years.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Bob" wrote in message
. ..

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news:0Vayg.6538


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.

Controlled studies do account for such factors. It's simple science.

You're right. They do account for such factors. But, they need to know
what
the factors are. When it comes to determining what we breathe, drink and
eat, that is virtually impossible. Telling a researcher you eat 4 apples
a
week is not enough. You need to know where they came from, what was
sprayed
on them, and the quality of the water used to irrigate the orchards.
What's
in the water used to make the beer, liquor or juice drinks you consume?
Unknown. What's in the fish you eat? Unknown. What's sprayed on the beans
used to make your coffee, beans which originate in countries where there
are
even less controls than here with regard to chemical use? Unknown.

You account for such things as well as you can, and use a big enough
sample so they average out. It's been done for years.

Bob

Formal human tests of pesticide exposure have been very rare, for obvious
reasons. You'll find a few, but nothing statistically significant when
compared with the total size of the market.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable.

Please name one or more reputable agencies.


And, the next question is not intended to offend, but I have to ask. When
you see articles which cite research sources, how do you decide which to
trust? In case this is unclear, here are definitions. Number 2 is the
appropriate one in this context.

Main Entry: cite
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit·ed; cit·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from
Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciEre to
stir, move -- more at -KINESIS
1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof cites several
noteworthy authors
3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or
praise b : to name in a citation
4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an
example, proof, or precedent cited the weather as a reason for canceling
the picnic


begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK=YI8&6:'8D
3IT[IK9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

Monsanto

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product
to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable.

Please name one or more reputable agencies.


And, the next question is not intended to offend, but I have to ask. When
you see articles which cite research sources, how do you decide which to
trust? In case this is unclear, here are definitions. Number 2 is the
appropriate one in this context.

Main Entry: cite
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit·ed; cit·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from
Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciEre
to
stir, move -- more at -KINESIS
1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a
court)
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof cites several
noteworthy authors
3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or
praise b : to name in a citation
4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an
example, proof, or precedent cited the weather as a reason for canceling
the picnic


begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK=YI8&6:'8D
3IT[IK9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

Monsanto

Harry K

Monsanto is not an agency, but that response is an interesting clue to how
you view these things. How about the second question? When sources are
cited, how do you decide which ones you trust?

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable.

Please name one or more reputable agencies.


The one that authored the report I quoted the abstract from does quite
well.

Hint: it wasn't Monsanto.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to :
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:39:38 GMT, yourname wrote:

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

I believe this came up because the DEA was spraying large parts of the
Andes undiscriminately in an effort to kill coca plants and in the
concentrations they were spraying it was actually killing off large
populations of native plants and animals.

Was that roundup or was that paraquat?

Paraquat is quite toxic, no question about _that_.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product
to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable.

Please name one or more reputable agencies.


The one that authored the report I quoted the abstract from does quite
well.

Hint: it wasn't Monsanto.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est

When Harry K used the term "agency", I interpreted that to mean a government
agency. You mentioned a college which, unless I'm reading it wrong, did NOT
do the research itself. You posted an article by someone who offered
opinions on OTHER peoples' research.

Doesn't matter, though. After you posted that information, I asked you a
question which you didn't respond to, unless you also post under the name of
"yourname". Until you answer the earlier question, we can't continue.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :

When Harry K used the term "agency", I interpreted that to mean a government
agency.

Why?

You mentioned a college which, unless I'm reading it wrong, did NOT
do the research itself. You posted an article by someone who offered
opinions on OTHER peoples' research.

Not a "someone". Several.

So? Reviews of studies are just as valid. That particular agency
isn't exactly your typical "college" churning out just philosophy
majors either.

How about WHO then?

How about just about all of the other studies on TOXNET (NIH) that a
search for "roundup toxicity" yield?

Some of those studies look a bit scary. But look closer - they're
talking about _extremely_ high dosage levels.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd notice drinking the LD50 dose
of Roundup - which is about a pound of the _pure_ stuff.

Doesn't matter, though. After you posted that information, I asked you a
question which you didn't respond to, unless you also post under the name of
"yourname". Until you answer the earlier question, we can't continue.

What question was that?

That loaded question about "why it can't be believed?", which either
turns into a diatribe about trusting Monsanto (which I'm not), or
some nonsense about animal tests are always totally irrelevant?

Whereas in fact, animal studies almost always reflect how we react
to things, and where they don't, they discover that, because they
test it on more than one kind of animal.

Let's on the other hand, talk about Greenpeace asserting that Roundup
is "one of the most toxic herbicides", without a slightest shred of
evidence, no citations, _nothing_.

Now compare the LD50 dose of Roundup (which is on the order of one _pound_
for a normal size man) with that of caffeine, paraquat, or that
matter, table salt.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:81syg.6356
You account for such things as well as you can, and use a big enough
sample so they average out. It's been done for years.

Bob

Formal human tests of pesticide exposure have been very rare, for obvious
reasons. You'll find a few, but nothing statistically significant when
compared with the total size of the market.


Sorry. I'm just refering to the method, not this particular test.

Testing something like this on humans is, of course, rare. Tests on
animals can model effects on humans if properly done.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news:81syg.6356
You account for such things as well as you can, and use a big enough
sample so they average out. It's been done for years.

Bob

Formal human tests of pesticide exposure have been very rare, for obvious
reasons. You'll find a few, but nothing statistically significant when
compared with the total size of the market.


Sorry. I'm just refering to the method, not this particular test.

Testing something like this on humans is, of course, rare. Tests on
animals can model effects on humans if properly done.

Bob



There is no agreement on how much can be extrapolated from animal tests. The
chemical companies say the similarities are either valid, or not, depending
on convenience.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:26:36 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

I believe this came up because the DEA was spraying large parts of the
Andes undiscriminately in an effort to kill coca plants and in the
concentrations they were spraying it was actually killing off large
populations of native plants and animals.

Was that roundup or was that paraquat?

Paraquat is quite toxic, no question about _that_

Paraquat was used on pot plants. Different deal. This was after that
debacle.

Whatever we hosed down Colombian villages with, it doused humans and their
food crops.

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:55:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:26:36 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

I believe this came up because the DEA was spraying large parts of the
Andes undiscriminately in an effort to kill coca plants and in the
concentrations they were spraying it was actually killing off large
populations of native plants and animals.

Was that roundup or was that paraquat?

Paraquat is quite toxic, no question about _that_

Paraquat was used on pot plants. Different deal. This was after that
debacle.

Whatever we hosed down Colombian villages with, it doused humans and their
food crops.

Paraquat was the Reagan administration's chemical.

Paraquat was used long before the Regan administration; Nixon,
perhaps.

Roundup was
Clinton's. They were both defoliants and both probably presented the
biggest threat when they were smoked but the roundup f was used
against coca which wasn't really smoked. Maybe the "agricultural
workers" who got sick were the ones chewing coca leaves.
I do remember the controversy with Greenpeace and it did refer to
activities in South America.0

--
Keith

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:55:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:26:36 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

I believe this came up because the DEA was spraying large parts of the
Andes undiscriminately in an effort to kill coca plants and in the
concentrations they were spraying it was actually killing off large
populations of native plants and animals.

Was that roundup or was that paraquat?

Paraquat is quite toxic, no question about _that_

Paraquat was used on pot plants. Different deal. This was after that
debacle.

Whatever we hosed down Colombian villages with, it doused humans and their
food crops.

Paraquat was the Reagan administration's chemical. Roundup was
Clinton's. They were both defoliants and both probably presented the
biggest threat when they were smoked but the roundup f was used
against coca which wasn't really smoked. Maybe the "agricultural
workers" who got sick were the ones chewing coca leaves.
I do remember the controversy with Greenpeace and it did refer to
activities in South America.0

Whatever we sprayed was killing food crops - small gardens that families
used for food, not big corporate affairs. And, all this to compensate for
the fact that a lot of parents here and elsewhere are unable to talk
honestly to their kids about drugs.

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their
product
to
get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?

I trust reputable agencies. Things like greenpeace, ARA etc. are far
from reputable.

Please name one or more reputable agencies.


And, the next question is not intended to offend, but I have to ask.
When
you see articles which cite research sources, how do you decide which to
trust? In case this is unclear, here are definitions. Number 2 is the
appropriate one in this context.

Main Entry: cite
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit·ed; cit·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from
Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of
ciEre
to
stir, move -- more at -KINESIS
1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a
court)
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof cites several
noteworthy authors
3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or
praise b : to name in a citation
4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an
example, proof, or precedent cited the weather as a reason for
canceling
the picnic


begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK=YI8&6:'8D
3IT[IK9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

Monsanto

Harry K

Monsanto is not an agency, but that response is an interesting clue to how
you view these things. How about the second question? When sources are
cited, how do you decide which ones you trust?

Okay, if you say so. If you want a real agency EPA. I think that is
the agency that approves all MSDSs.

What sources do I trust and how do I decide? It is more a question of
deciding which ones I don't trust. That includes any source orginating
from places associated with AR, Greenpiece, ELF, Vegetarians. That
last one is sorta open as Vegetarians run the gamet from sane to kook -
most of the vegetarians in these forums are on the kook end of the
scale.

An additional criteria is 'what are they saying?' If it doesn't pass
the smell test (the OPs doesn't) I don't trust it.

Harry K

====================================

EPA - that's a funny one, Harry. Like the FDA, lots of conflicts of interest
there.

According to Charlie Morgan :

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was something that
would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been sprayed with
it.

Paraquat is a defoliant. Making the people sick who smoked the stuff
harvested before Paraquat finished killing it was considered an added bonus.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.