JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the
antics of chemical companies?
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see
how DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long
enough to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of
thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand that money powers
the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my
Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are
too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for
drug trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort
of thing.
And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test
ILLEGAL drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because
PETA and PAWS won't let them use animals any more.

Steve

Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?
Could be we may come to it, it seems...

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't been
prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--


You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to establish
that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are clueless people,
so I had to ask first).

Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans
than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After all,
we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently than
humans.

It's almost impossible to tell what you do intend to say, Joe...

In general, instead of making a point, you raise rhetorical questions
and hyperbole and....oh, to heck with it...

For many purposes, hogs are about as close clinically to peoples at it
gets...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
...

As purely a point of reference, I'm guessing you don't have any
involvement w/ agricultural production nor in the production of a major
portion of your own? (I'm not planning a bash here, just trying to
actually establish some context for discussion.)


"Major" production depends on the whims of the weather and the friggin'
deer, but I've been a fanatical vegetable gardener for 30+ years. I'm not
involved with any sort of commercial production, other than giving away a
lot of herbs to a friend who runs a small restaurant.

OK, that's what I had figured, maybe.

Turn that into _having_ to produce enough to feed you and your family
reliably every day of the year or in producing enough product to sell to
be able to pay the daily bills and provide a comfortable standard of
living.

Our family has made our living farming for right at 100 years now in
middle of US. Changes are phenomenal in practice and scope in the time
since my grandfather homesteaded here. W/o any commercial herbicides
production costs would skyrocket and yield would be dramatically reduced.

It's kinda' like solar or wind power generation -- a good thing but the
energy density is so low as to make it a very hard economic replacement
for all higher-density generation techniques. While you're growing some
veggies and all, we're providing the wheat, etc., that you need for the
bread to put that tomato into a sandwich...

--


All true, but this doesn't address the fact that homeowners use chemicals
they know little or nothing about. I've heard neighbors say "If they sell
it, it must safe, right?" Homeowners do not NEED chemicals to make a living.

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second. Used
to be factories.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the
antics of chemical companies?
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see
how DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical.
Long enough to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see
hundreds of thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand
that money powers the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long
enough to lose my Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to
live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures
are too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for
drug trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That
sort of thing.
And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test
ILLEGAL drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because
PETA and PAWS won't let them use animals any more.

Steve

Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?
Could be we may come to it, it seems...

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't
been prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--


You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to
establish that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are
clueless people, so I had to ask first).

Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans
than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After
all, we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently
than humans.

It's almost impossible to tell what you do intend to say, Joe...

In general, instead of making a point, you raise rhetorical questions and
hyperbole and....oh, to heck with it...

For many purposes, hogs are about as close clinically to peoples at it
gets...


If you'd simply answered the initial question about ads, there would've been
less clutter, and this would've been easier.

I notice that you didn't address anything in the paragraph beginning with
"Some of these trials.." Is that because you need to believe the trials
exist because of animal rights issues?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second. Used
to be factories.


No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities,
and for some particular pollutants, maybe...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second.
Used to be factories.


No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities, and
for some particular pollutants, maybe...

--

Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn chemicals.
If you have data to prove them wrong, I'd love to see it. If not, you should
be able to imagine how they'd determine such a thing.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second.
Used to be factories.

No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities, and
for some particular pollutants, maybe...

--

Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn chemicals.

Reference? I'd have to read it to understand/evaluate -- I'm thinking
again, you've made an overcharacterization of what the EPA report
probably _really_ says...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second.
Used to be factories.

No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities,
and for some particular pollutants, maybe...

--

Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn
chemicals.

Reference? I'd have to read it to understand/evaluate -- I'm thinking
again, you've made an overcharacterization of what the EPA report probably
_really_ says...


It was either in the Chicago Tribune or NY Times last summer. I don't pay
for archive access for either of them, but if you do, the article should be
easy to find.

I'm curious, though: What would be your reason for doubting this?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the
antics of chemical companies?
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see
how DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical.
Long enough to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see
hundreds of thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand
that money powers the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long
enough to lose my Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to
live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures
are too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for
drug trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That
sort of thing.
And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test
ILLEGAL drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because
PETA and PAWS won't let them use animals any more.

Steve
Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?
Could be we may come to it, it seems...

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't
been prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--

You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to
establish that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are
clueless people, so I had to ask first).

Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans
than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After
all, we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently
than humans.
It's almost impossible to tell what you do intend to say, Joe...

In general, instead of making a point, you raise rhetorical questions and
hyperbole and....oh, to heck with it...

For many purposes, hogs are about as close clinically to peoples at it
gets...


If you'd simply answered the initial question about ads, there would've been
less clutter, and this would've been easier.

In what way "easier"? Yes, I have seen ads for clinical trials. So what?

I notice that you didn't address anything in the paragraph beginning with
"Some of these trials.." Is that because you need to believe the trials
exist because of animal rights issues?

No, that's not what I said although it is much more difficult to perform
useful animal trials and much research is delayed or not undertaken
because of overzealous AR advocates. I did make a semi-tongue-in-cheek
remark that it just might come to that, however...

However, in actuality I didn't respond because the point is so obvious
as to be Homer's "DOH!" and seemed unworthy of any response...

And, no, I'm not responding to this thread further...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...


And, no, I'm not responding to this thread further...

--

This doesn't surprise me.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Harry K" wrote
in reply to JoeSpareBedroom's comments:

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular
chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn
near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink
too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you
live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the
question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all
foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need
to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant
about AR.

Harry K


I think it is clear that JoeSpareBedroom has been eating chemically
tainted foods. There has to be some logical explanation for his
behavior.

Steve


Yeah. It's called a reading disorder. You should try and become infected
before you get old and die.


I am already getting old (58), and am in the process of dying (heart
disease). My days are too full to give any of my time to endless pointless
arguments about "it ain't fair", or "the way it SHOULD be". Because of a
brain injury, reading is not one of my hobbies. But, I do stay very busy
with the others. I think reading is for people who don't know how to do
anything.


Steve

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?

Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret the evil corporations don't want you to know
about. But it HAS been in recent papers and other publications. But, then,
you're a voracious reader, and knew that. Right?

BTW, you're the one who brought up the point about human testing. If you
can't explain your point, please don't foist it off on me to attempt to
explain.

Steve

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to
establish that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. Some of these
trials show that a drug works much differently with humans than with
animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After all, we
know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently than humans.

JOE, PLEASE STOP! In one post, you say they don't use humans, and in this
one, you say they do. Which is it. You're making me dizzy.

Steve

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

And, no, I'm not responding to this thread further...

--

This doesn't surprise me.


And Joe wins another one, not by a preponderance of the evidence, logic, or
facts, but by mere dogged persistence to the point of exhausting the
opponent.

Kudos, Joe.

Steve

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote


I know. I was referring at that point to pesticides. Think "general".

Do I understand you correctly then, that for the purposes of discussing
this issue, that we are supposed to think in "general" terms, yet you may
delve into minutiae on any issue?

I thought I had it right.

Steve


Actually, what you just said is unrelated to anything you've seen in this
discussion.


Have you been out in the shed snorting RoundUp again?

I thought so.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Harry K" wrote
in reply to JoeSpareBedroom's comments:

And just where did I say that? I pointed out that 1 particular
chemical is a poison and it is ingested daily. By extsension damn
near everything is the same. Even water will kill you if you drink
too much.

Most people live in the real world. By your posts it looks like you
live in a 'cocooned' house and never leave it. It does leave the
question of just what you eat as there are chemicals (GASP!) in all
foods.

Should there be more testing of some things? Probably. Does it need
to be on people? No. they use animals. Now you can go on a rant
about AR.

Harry K


I think it is clear that JoeSpareBedroom has been eating chemically
tainted foods. There has to be some logical explanation for his
behavior.

Steve


Yeah. It's called a reading disorder. You should try and become infected
before you get old and die.


I am already getting old (58), and am in the process of dying (heart
disease). My days are too full to give any of my time to endless
pointless arguments about "it ain't fair", or "the way it SHOULD be".
Because of a brain injury, reading is not one of my hobbies. But, I do
stay very busy with the others. I think reading is for people who don't
know how to do anything.


Steve


That's pathetic. I hope you don't tell such things to your grandchildren.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?

Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret the evil corporations don't want you to know
about. But it HAS been in recent papers and other publications. But,
then, you're a voracious reader, and knew that. Right?

BTW, you're the one who brought up the point about human testing. If you
can't explain your point, please don't foist it off on me to attempt to
explain.

Steve


It's been explained. You missed it.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Even before that, Rachel Carson said DDT was evil.

Literally millions (of people) have died as a result of the DDT ban.
Fortunately, DDT is making a comeback.


There's a big difference between spreading it around like M&Ms at a
kid's birthday party, and being a little more careful with the stuff
now.

Nonsense. Evil is evil, whether a little or a lot, irrespective of use, and
without considering the good.

If the nay-sayers of the world thought they could get fire banned, we'd be
living in the dark.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn
chemicals. If you have data to prove them wrong, I'd love to see it.
If not, you should be able to imagine how they'd determine such a
thing.

Well, you sure can't trust the EPA - they'd lie when the truth sounded
better. Heck, they even try to tell us RoundUp is safe!

Bastids!

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to
establish that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. Some of these
trials show that a drug works much differently with humans than with
animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After all, we
know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently than
humans.

JOE, PLEASE STOP! In one post, you say they don't use humans, and in this
one, you say they do. Which is it. You're making me dizzy.

Steve


We're talking about drug trials, not testing pesticides. Try and keep up.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because
watermelon could kill you?

Glysophate isn't a neurotoxin. It's a disrupter of a metabolic
process that only exists in _plants_.

Copper is engineered and applied as a toxin for certain things.

But it's also an essential mineral for humans. Try reducing your
exposure to 0, and see how well you do.

Absolutely I agree that we're using _way_ too much of the stuff (eg:
we don't use lawn chemicals _period_), and that people need to
be careful with what/how they use such things.

But not all chemicals are the same, nor is _all_ use 100% unacceptable.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because
watermelon could kill you?

Glysophate isn't a neurotoxin. It's a disrupter of a metabolic
process that only exists in _plants_.


I know. But at this point, we're talking about yard chemicals IN GENERAL.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses. Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem because
watermelon could kill you?

Glysophate isn't a neurotoxin. It's a disrupter of a metabolic
process that only exists in _plants_.

I know. But at this point, we're talking about yard chemicals IN GENERAL.

Yet, yard chemicals, in general, _aren't_ neurotoxins. If you're going
to talk about yard chemicals in general, then you have to pick something
that at least most of them have in common. Neurotoxicity isn't one of
them.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

Show me where humans were fed minute amounts of anything for many
years in a controlled study. They've not even done that with water.

Yes. It's possible that watermelon could be fatal at certain doses.
Does
this mean that engineered neurotoxins are not much of a problem
because
watermelon could kill you?

Glysophate isn't a neurotoxin. It's a disrupter of a metabolic
process that only exists in _plants_.

I know. But at this point, we're talking about yard chemicals IN GENERAL.

Yet, yard chemicals, in general, _aren't_ neurotoxins. If you're going
to talk about yard chemicals in general, then you have to pick something
that at least most of them have in common. Neurotoxicity isn't one of
them.
--
Chris Lewis,


OK, fine. Let's simplify this: There are people who believe that even though
yard chemicals cannot be tested on humans in a way that's scientifically
rigorous (as drugs are, or so we hope), it is OK to assume they are safe.
Why do they believe this?

By "safe", I don't mean anyone should drink a glass of herbicide. I'm
referring to the unintended consequences. Before we continue, do we need to
define those consequences so we're on the same page?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close second.
Used to be factories.
No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities,
and for some particular pollutants, maybe...

--
Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn
chemicals.
Reference? I'd have to read it to understand/evaluate -- I'm thinking
again, you've made an overcharacterization of what the EPA report probably
_really_ says...


It was either in the Chicago Tribune or NY Times last summer. I don't pay
for archive access for either of them, but if you do, the article should be
easy to find.

I'm curious, though: What would be your reason for doubting this?

Well, given that you have it second (or third) hand through a newspaper
article, not even the actual report itself, what could there _possibly_
be to doubt?

I'm saying I think the fact there may be more "point sources" in
homeowners is one thing, but what it really means in terms of actual
contamination may (and probably is) something different entirely.

I'd have to read the report to see what they actually said to comment
further. I don't accept every blind usenet post as gospel for some
reason...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Do you know that homeowners are now the number one point source for
groundwater pollution in this country? Golf courses are a close
second. Used to be factories.
No, I don't "know" that, nor do I think it true. In some localities,
and for some particular pollutants, maybe...

--
Well, the EPA says it's true, and the major pollutants are lawn
chemicals.
Reference? I'd have to read it to understand/evaluate -- I'm thinking
again, you've made an overcharacterization of what the EPA report
probably _really_ says...


It was either in the Chicago Tribune or NY Times last summer. I don't pay
for archive access for either of them, but if you do, the article should
be easy to find.

I'm curious, though: What would be your reason for doubting this?

Well, given that you have it second (or third) hand through a newspaper
article, not even the actual report itself, what could there _possibly_ be
to doubt?

I'm saying I think the fact there may be more "point sources" in
homeowners is one thing, but what it really means in terms of actual
contamination may (and probably is) something different entirely.

I'd have to read the report to see what they actually said to comment
further. I don't accept every blind usenet post as gospel for some
reason...


Logically, then, nothing anyone learned before the internet existed is
valid. Very interesting.

Onward:
In SOME, but NOT ALL places people live, what's poured into the soil will
end up their drinking water eventually.

TRUE OR FALSE?

Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :

I know. But at this point, we're talking about yard chemicals IN GENERAL.

Yet, yard chemicals, in general, _aren't_ neurotoxins. If you're going
to talk about yard chemicals in general, then you have to pick something
that at least most of them have in common. Neurotoxicity isn't one of
them.

OK, fine. Let's simplify this: There are people who believe that even though
yard chemicals cannot be tested on humans in a way that's scientifically
rigorous (as drugs are, or so we hope), it is OK to assume they are safe.
Why do they believe this?

By "safe", I don't mean anyone should drink a glass of herbicide. I'm
referring to the unintended consequences. Before we continue, do we need to
define those consequences so we're on the same page?

No - I don't have an issue with that.

A major part of my point is that "cannot be tested ... that's
scientifically rigorous" is highly misleading. It comes out
of the confusion over whether animal testing is applicable to humans
or not. It's _well_ understood that different species have different
responses to things. But it's also understood that if you check
multiple species, and have a large enough safety margin when applying
to humans, that it will be right virtually all of the time - right
more often than would be justified in testing a material not intended
for human consumption with humans directly. It doesn't matter whether,
say, roundup is twice or even 10 times as dangerous to humans as
your test species, if the safety margin is larger, it don't matter.

[You also have to remember that with drugs, the testing isn't
just for "safe limits", it's for minimum effective dosage level.
Being off by a factor of 100 in effective dosage level simply isn't
acceptable for a drug. But it is when you're determining max dosage
level for something not intended for therapeutic value - by biasing
the acceptable levels _low_.]

Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. Multi-generational. Not just by
Monsanto, but by governments and universities. It's effects on these
animals is well understood, isn't carcinogenic/teratogenic and "safe"
maximum dosage levels are well established for the tested species.
There have also been numerous on glysophate/roundup concentrations
after application in some worst-case scenarios. So you
know what the environmental dosage levels can be.

Now, if you looked at the link I've previously applied (documentation
from the Government of Canada specifying allowable limits) you'll note
that they took the lowest known demonstrable toxicity level (glysophate
is safer than common table salt in terms of acute toxicity!), and then
reduced it by a factor of ten to account for individual variation
and another 10 for species variation. Resulting in a total factor
of 100. That's the legal limit for roundup concentration.
That still being vastly higher than environmental levels
from anything short of a major spill, and that "reasonable" use by
the public is not dangerous.

I trust the scientific community enough to have lots of safety margin
and to have examined things closely enough to simply not worry about
roundup. The studies are there, and the margins are high enough to
take into account not testing directly on humans.

There are yard chemicals I'm not so confident of. And many of those
have already been restricted or banned. I don't see that happening
to roundup based on any evidence that is or likely to become available.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :

I know. But at this point, we're talking about yard chemicals IN
GENERAL.

Yet, yard chemicals, in general, _aren't_ neurotoxins. If you're going
to talk about yard chemicals in general, then you have to pick
something
that at least most of them have in common. Neurotoxicity isn't one of
them.

OK, fine. Let's simplify this: There are people who believe that even
though
yard chemicals cannot be tested on humans in a way that's scientifically
rigorous (as drugs are, or so we hope), it is OK to assume they are safe.
Why do they believe this?

By "safe", I don't mean anyone should drink a glass of herbicide. I'm
referring to the unintended consequences. Before we continue, do we need
to
define those consequences so we're on the same page?

No - I don't have an issue with that.

A major part of my point is that "cannot be tested ... that's
scientifically rigorous" is highly misleading. It comes out
of the confusion over whether animal testing is applicable to humans
or not. It's _well_ understood that different species have different
responses to things. But it's also understood that if you check
multiple species, and have a large enough safety margin when applying
to humans, that it will be right virtually all of the time - right
more often than would be justified in testing a material not intended
for human consumption with humans directly. It doesn't matter whether,
say, roundup is twice or even 10 times as dangerous to humans as
your test species, if the safety margin is larger, it don't matter.

[You also have to remember that with drugs, the testing isn't
just for "safe limits", it's for minimum effective dosage level.
Being off by a factor of 100 in effective dosage level simply isn't
acceptable for a drug. But it is when you're determining max dosage
level for something not intended for therapeutic value - by biasing
the acceptable levels _low_.]

Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. Multi-generational. Not just by
Monsanto, but by governments and universities. It's effects on these
animals is well understood, isn't carcinogenic/teratogenic and "safe"
maximum dosage levels are well established for the tested species.
There have also been numerous on glysophate/roundup concentrations
after application in some worst-case scenarios. So you
know what the environmental dosage levels can be.

Now, if you looked at the link I've previously applied (documentation
from the Government of Canada specifying allowable limits) you'll note
that they took the lowest known demonstrable toxicity level (glysophate
is safer than common table salt in terms of acute toxicity!), and then
reduced it by a factor of ten to account for individual variation
and another 10 for species variation. Resulting in a total factor
of 100. That's the legal limit for roundup concentration.
That still being vastly higher than environmental levels
from anything short of a major spill, and that "reasonable" use by
the public is not dangerous.

I trust the scientific community enough to have lots of safety margin
and to have examined things closely enough to simply not worry about
roundup. The studies are there, and the margins are high enough to
take into account not testing directly on humans.

There are yard chemicals I'm not so confident of. And many of those
have already been restricted or banned. I don't see that happening
to roundup based on any evidence that is or likely to become available.
--
Chris Lewis,


I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which I'd
like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...
....
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. ...

I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which I'd
like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.

What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]"
did you not comprehend?

And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what
product of any type is "safe" for your use?

There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...
...
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. ...

I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which
I'd like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.

What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]" did
you not comprehend?

And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what
product of any type is "safe" for your use?

There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...

--


No tests have involved long term exposure. And, believe me when I tell you
NOBODY volunteered their kids to be exposed to these chemicals.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:50:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...
...
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a
few
low dosage studies on humans]. ...

I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing
(which
I'd like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.

What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]"
did
you not comprehend?

And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what
product of any type is "safe" for your use?

There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...

--


No tests have involved long term exposure. And, believe me when I tell you
NOBODY volunteered their kids to be exposed to these chemicals.



A long term worldwide test was conducted. The results? They found that
100% of people who died had at some point consumed water.
Interestingly enough, in that same study they found NOT ONE case of
anyone who died who drank only Roundup.

Case CLOSED.

Now... Go away. get a life, or at least a hobby.


Go **** yourself, child.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...
...
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. ...
I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which
I'd like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.
What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]" did
you not comprehend?

And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what
product of any type is "safe" for your use?

There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...

--


No tests have involved long term exposure. And, believe me when I tell you
NOBODY volunteered their kids to be exposed to these chemicals.

That's not the question I raised. But, that it might have been
accidental exposure studied (and I don't know the precise provenance of
the studies he cites; I'm trusting Chris's assessment as accurate as
he's usually pretty careful) doesn't invalidate conclusions which may be
drawn from observations of effects.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly before, there isn't
epidemiological data to indicate widespread problems with recommended
practice and usage and the particular herbicide has now been in
widespread use for over 30 years now. That's pretty much a definition
of long term...

As I say, you can be practical and reasonable about risks or paranoid.
There would appear to be far more serious potential threats than this
particular one to obsess over.

--

According to JoeSpareBedroom :

I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which I'd
like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.

You must not have read either the link, or all of my posting. Because
there has been human testing to find out whether humans process
the stuff any differently than the species involved with more
rigorous testing and potentially invalidate the factor of 100
safety margin that's built in to the legal limits.

Yes, species vary. But not that much.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Jul 23, 11:07 am, dpb wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...
...
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. ...
I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which
I'd like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.
What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]" did
you not comprehend?

And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what
product of any type is "safe" for your use?

There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...

--

No tests have involved long term exposure. And, believe me when I tell you
NOBODY volunteered their kids to be exposed to these chemicals.

That's not the question I raised. But, that it might have been
accidental exposure studied (and I don't know the precise provenance of
the studies he cites; I'm trusting Chris's assessment as accurate as
he's usually pretty careful) doesn't invalidate conclusions which may be
drawn from observations of effects.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly before, there isn't
epidemiological data to indicate widespread problems with recommended
practice and usage and the particular herbicide has now been in
widespread use for over 30 years now. That's pretty much a definition
of long term...

As I say, you can be practical and reasonable about risks or paranoid.
There would appear to be far more serious potential threats than this
particular one to obsess over.

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amen to that. If one is scared to use Roundup then no chemical of any
kind should ever be used. Almost all of them are more hazardous and
that includes (already mentioned) table salt, paint, gasoline, soap,
etc.

Harry K

wrote:



http://www.scotts.com/media/media/_P...e%20MSDS.pd f


Looks pretty safe to me. Possible eye irritation probably worse hazard.
I pay closer attention to toxicology section as up front sections are
generally aimed at laymen and overemphasize hazards or err on the side
of caution. Animals tested are good representation of human physiology.
If material was intended for human contact, consumption etc. there would
be human testing.

MSDS is a synopsis of all the data out there which for a material like
this that must have a ton of literature on its toxicity. Usually a
professional toxicologist would write the toxicology summary.

Frank

According to dpb :
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Probably shouldn't be prolonging this, but what the hey...
...
Glysophate and the formulations used (such as roundup) has been very
heavily tested. On a wide range of species [there have even been a few
low dosage studies on humans]. ...
I guess we'll just disagree on this. Until there is human testing (which
I'd like to think cannot happen), I trust none of it.
What about "[there have even been a few low dosage studies on humans]" did
you not comprehend?

And, if you trust no scientific study for this, how do you decide what
product of any type is "safe" for your use?

There's a point of reasonable caution and then there's paranoia...

No tests have involved long term exposure. And, believe me when I tell you
NOBODY volunteered their kids to be exposed to these chemicals.

That's not the question I raised. But, that it might have been
accidental exposure studied (and I don't know the precise provenance of
the studies he cites; I'm trusting Chris's assessment as accurate as
he's usually pretty careful) doesn't invalidate conclusions which may be
drawn from observations of effects.

The govt. publication cited several long-term multi-generational testing
on a variety of species, and no teratogenic or carcinogenic effects
were found whatsoever at any dosage. Those tend to be much more
consistent across species than other effects.

The human tests were deliberate - relatively short term uptake
studies (showing that virtually all of it was excreted very quickly,
and that bio-accumulation, if any, was unmeasurably low). Which were
consistent with the other species tests. Which impliest that potential
human results (for long term/acute etc) are within close proximity of
those known with other species.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly before, there isn't
epidemiological data to indicate widespread problems with recommended
practice and usage and the particular herbicide has now been in
widespread use for over 30 years now. That's pretty much a definition
of long term...

There have been some apocryphal reports of effects, but those appear
to not be attributable to roundup per-se.

Similarly there were some reports that allegedly showed that living under
high voltage towers in the country leads to cancer. Subsequent
analysis ended up showing that it was something different causing it -
the industrial strength persistent defoliants (that homeowners have
never been permitted to purchase - it _wasn't_ roundup) used for
long term control of vegetation near the towers/poles - that
realization led to changes in practise in the use and types of
defoliants.

Years ago, there was a major fuss in Toronto about high accumulated lead
levels in humans supposedly coming from a car battery recycling
companies in Toronto, with calls for their elimination. A university
student did a study/thesis on it, and she found to everyone's surprise
(including her own) that the lead _wasn't_ from the recycling companies,
it was the soft (lead-based) solder used in kettles. _That_ led to a
universal recall/replacement of kettles. As I recall, in Toronto
the municipal govt. simply drove around to every household, and gave
you a new kettle for every old one you surrendered.

We've seen a subsequent iteration of that with the banning of
lead-based solder in plumbing.

As I say, you can be practical and reasonable about risks or paranoid.
There would appear to be far more serious potential threats than this
particular one to obsess over.

Indeed, especially when some of the "natural" solutions turn out
to be more dangerous than the "chemical" one.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

When and IF you guys ever get past the point of beating this dead horse, and
want to beat some of the stupid humans that are prattling on endlessly about
this, please do sign me up.

Steve