# roundup post by randy oliver on bee-l



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

I'm afraid understanding the actual paper is beyond my abilities. The thrust seems to be that gut bacteria are effected negatively by glyphosphate. That I can understand. I have no idea if the people who wrote the paper are credible, if the journal is credible, and if sound scientific practice was followed in the development of the paper. I'm not sure if Randy's comment "Read at your own risk!" means be skeptical of what is written in the paper or is a warning that the paper turns conventional wisdom on its head.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

thanks for the up date


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Andrew Dewey said:


> I'm afraid understanding the actual paper is beyond my abilities.


 come on you can do it


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

My dictionary didn't contain enough of the words used, but I suspect that they didn't do any actual research, just took bits an pieces of others research and came up with the conclusions. did find it interesting that it could affect bees allowing pesticides to be more potent, but then again they say that about everything now. but I am going to bump up my zink intake along with b1 an b3 vitamins.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Look at the authors of this paper:


> Anthony Samsel[SUP] 1 [/SUP][SUP][/SUP]* and *Stephanie Seneff[SUP] 2,[/SUP]** *[SUP][/SUP]
> [SUP]1[/SUP] Independent Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH 03037, USA
> [SUP]2[/SUP] Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA


A "_computer scientist_" and an "_independent consultant_". Not exactly inspiring credentials for a study of substance that allegedly affects human health.

:ws:

From what I saw in looking at the paper earlier, they didn't actually _*do *_any studies/experiments. They simply assembled a collection of references and tried to make connections.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

radar what is a resident archiver any way.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> radar what is a resident archiver any way.

Hah! :lookout: _Barry _came up with the term. If you want to see the full extent of how this came about, see this thread:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...me-pieces-interchangeable&p=903722#post903722


I assume the title is a reference to me frequently posting links to older threads on [sometimes obscure] topics, and/or search results from outside sites.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Look at the authors of this paper:
> 
> A "_computer scientist_" and an "_independent consultant_". Not exactly inspiring credentials for a study of substance that allegedly affects human health.
> 
> ...


 OK so it’s good to know this paper has been totally debunked by the scientific expertise of the beesource community because some scientists compiled dissimilar research, which is deemed irrelevant because they didn’t do the research. Now THAT’S good science.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

But let us not be too quick to condemn the paper because the authors are not employed in the area that they are writing about. I have a son who graduated this spring with a BA in English. He is currently unemployed. But I have seen his writing and think he is pretty good. To phrase my concern with the authors in the form of a question: Are they capable of producing a well written paper using scientific methodology?

It is called critical thinking... If the authors demonstrate critical thinking in assessing published works by others - I can accept that. But I'm not going to blindly accept it until either I take the time to check them out, or someone whom I trust does.

Thinking - I want to assess the quality of the paper - not shoot the messenger. OK, if I weren't Quaker I might shoot the messenger *if* it is convincingly demonstrated that they are attempting to perpetuate fraud.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Look at the authors of this paper:
> 
> A "_computer scientist_" and an "_independent consultant_". Not exactly inspiring credentials for a study of substance that allegedly affects human health.
> 
> :ws:From what I saw in looking at the paper earlier, they didn't actually _*do *_any studies/experiments. They simply assembled a collection of references and tried to make connections.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

This was already discussed here: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?281686-How-to-control-vegetation-around-hives/page2


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

I have not read the entire paper let alone the other work cited. 

This type of survey of published research is certainly valid and can be very useful.

There was one sentence that I found interesting: 'Our systematic search
of the literature has led us to the realization that many of the health problems that appear to be
associated with a Western diet could be explained by biological disruptions that have already been
attributed to glyphosate.' The authors then go on to state that glyphosate use could be responsible for increases in digestion issues, obesity, autism, alzheimers, depression, parkinson's, liver disease, cancer and anorexia.

I find that authors are casting a very wide net and blaming anything, and everything, possible on glyphosate. There are numerous mentions of glyphosate being toxic. Well, if it wasn't toxic to plants it wouldn't be used.

While I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and say that since there hasn't been a problem found yet there will never be a problem. This survey of research may point towards so areas for further research. It certainly is not a smoking-gun by any stretch of the imagination.

The abstract mentioned the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest dessicant. I wonder which crops this is used on? It would be a possible pathway for increased residues in the human diet.

As far as impact on honeybees. The biggest one is that glyphosate kills flowering plants so bees cannot forage on them.

Tom


----------



## mann (Apr 24, 2013)

interesting fact... the company that makes roundup, Monsanto, is the same company that made agent orange, also a herbicide that caused many health problems for those exposed to it. Monsanto is also heavily involved in genetically modified plants for food that is a very controversial subject. I recently read an article about how they were involved in confiscating someones bees because they were genetically disposed to being resistant to roundup? im going to try to find the article and repost I cant remember the details.


----------



## mann (Apr 24, 2013)

http://www.realfarmacy.com/illinois...-to-monsantos-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/ 

that's the link to the article I was talking about. :ws:


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Without restarting the entire issue over the seizure of Terrence Ingram's bees, I think the generally agreed upon conclusion is that Ingram's bees were full of AFB and that he had been distributing bees with AFB for years. His research as I understand it was not considered credible. I doubt anyone at Monsanto had even heard of Terrence Ingram prior to his bees being taken. From what I can determine, all proper protocols were followed but Mr. Ingram disputes the facts.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

mann said:


> http://www.realfarmacy.com/illinois...-to-monsantos-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/
> 
> that's the link to the article I was talking about. :ws:


Yikes! Stop right there! Please read this thread in its entirety before making another post on this subject. Mr. Ingram's "research" is about as credible as proof of the existence of Sasquatch. 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...Hives-Destroyed-by-the-IDofA&highlight=ingram


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

The paper needs to be evaluated by someone with a medical and/or chemistry background, obviously. Statements like 



> Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.


are particularly troublesome because they're so sweeping and inclusive - Roundup is responsible for basically everything that can be wrong with people? That's a pretty extraordinary claim; the mechanics behind say heart disease are well understood, and quite different from the mechanics behind say Alzheimer's disease. Others listed like "infertility" and "cancer" each cover a wide variety of separate conditions with separate causes and mechanics. It would really take someone with actual medical or chemical training to be able to speak on the credibility of such a claim.

Entropy is an open-access online white-paper repository that's usually confined to information technology but allows other subject matter to be submitted occasionally. It requires submitters to provide their own set of references, but does not verify the references on its own.


----------



## mann (Apr 24, 2013)

jim and Andrew I see there is more out there about this ingram story I was not aware of that thanks for pointing this out. the point I was trying to make disregarding the ingram story is that roundup is made by Monsanto who is and has been involved in many controversial practices which effect all farmers as well as the entire planet.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Just a few facts to consider about pesticides and Round Up in particular. The active ingredient in Round Up is glyphosate. All chemicals are poisons. It is just a matter of dose. That includes water. The lethal dose of water is about a gallon or a gallon and a half if you drink it over an hour period. Lethal dose and timing adjusted for body mass of course. So, how toxic is glyphosate in an acute situation? It is a few times more toxic than drinking water. It is about as toxic as table salt. It is far less toxic than tylenol. Acute toxicity is only part of the story. You must also consider chronic toxicity.

As round up is a pesticide it must be registered by the EPA. That is the law. Monsanto complies with laws as far as anyone has ever demonstrated. To get EPA to register anything as a pesticide requires many, many toxicity, environmental fate and chemistry studies. Not millions of dollars worth but tens and hundreds of millions of dollars worth eventually. No product ever gets a registration for use as a pesticide if it causes cancer in any test animal. This of course is not true of drugs used to treat humans. It is perfectly acceptable if they cause cancers in test animals. It is often even perfectly acceptable if they cause cancer in humans in some cases. I think it is very fair to say the chance you will ever get cancer from a pesticide is far, far less than the chance you will get cancer from some pill your doctor gives you.

Part of what is done during the animal studies required for registration of a pesticide is to establish a no effect level. A no effect level is that level, usually stated in milligrams of test substance per day per kilogram of body weight of the animal, where over a whole life of exposure no detectable effect is observed. EPA assumes that humans are equally as sensitive as test animals so sets the no effect level in humans equal to that of the most sensitive animal tested. Then EPA says no human should ever be exposed to more than 1/1000 that amount per day. To register a pesticide on a crop you must treat the crop according to what you want the label to read, harvest the crop with normal equipment and then test that harvested crop for residues of the pesticide and often some of its metabolites. The EPA assumes you will eat only treated crop at the max consumption of any known demographic group and calculates how much of your allowable daily exposure that crop uses. This data treatment generally throws in another safety factor of 10X or greater. So now your max likely exposure will be less than 1/10,000 of the no effect level in the most sensitive animal. Once enough crops are on the label to use the allowable daily exposure as set by the no effect level in animals no further crops can be registered.

How do I happen to know this stuff is true? Well, I am a PhD chemist who used to work for a company that did lots and lots of this kind of testing. That includes animal studies, residue studies, etc. I have supervised studies in these areas. I have interacted on many occasions with officials from the federal government. I am fully aware of the jail time if you get caught cheating on these studies. We routinely submitted studies to the EPA in support of pesticide registrations or FDA in support of drug registrations.

I am not particularly bothered by the fact that a couple of guys who have no apparent expertise in an area published a paper. Scientists often publish in areas where it is not so apparent that they have expertise. I am bothered by the fact this paper has nothing original in it at all. It is simply a rehash of others work published in other journals. That is why this paper is published in a no name journal such as Entropy. In fact reputable scientists generally are going to ignore anything published in such a journal as simply way too unimportant to waste any time over. If it was worthwhile it would have been published someplace that counts even if it is a review of others work.

Actually to make the slightest real sense of the paper the first thing you need to do is study the original sources very hard and see what the original authors concluded. It is fully apparent that these authors, Samsel and Seneff, have an ax to grind and are perfectly willing to take all kinds of liberties with objectivity. The paper is written with the intent of creating fear in the minds of those who are unable to really understand the language used or skilled enough to dig back to the original publications and find what the original authors felt.

In short I do not view this paper as being even science. It is closer to politics or religion than science. However, if you hate round up and are convinced it is killing your honey bees I also doubt if there is anything I could possibly say to change your mind. I sprayed all around my hives yesterday by the way. I used roundup. I know I sprayed some bees. I also know I sprayed the landing boards. I did not have any dead bees around my hives today. And even two frame nucs all seemed fine today.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Wow! Sounds like a pretty informed post to me. Thanks RC. Now be prepared for the "industry shill" accusations.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Richard Cryberg said:


> In short I do not view this paper as being even science. It is closer to politics or religion than science. However, if you hate round up and are convinced it is killing your honey bees I also doubt if there is anything I could possibly say to change your mind. I sprayed all around my hives yesterday by the way. I used roundup. I know I sprayed some bees. I also know I sprayed the landing boards. I did not have any dead bees around my hives today. And even two frame nucs all seemed fine today.


Now.... where is that next comment, where someone points out that you are obviously a paid shill hired by Monsanto.....


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Richard Cryberg said:


> Just a few facts to consider.......


thanks for the thoughtful post richard and welcome aboard!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

(edit, misunderstood hpm's post.)


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> (edit, misunderstood hpm's post.)


Yes... I know. My humor is often misconstrued.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mann said:


> interesting fact... the company that makes roundup, Monsanto, is the same company that made agent orange, also a herbicide that caused many health problems for those exposed to it.


Mann I'm afraid you have been duped by the greeny misinformation campaign.

Apart from the Terrance Ingram debacle you mentioned, the statement about Monsanto and agent orange is something that has also been overblown by paranoid greenies who see big brother everywhere.

After the war many of the vets were understandably traumatised, not just by the war, but by their treatment by society when they returned. Years later, some of them had developed cancers, had deformed children, and other ailments. Some documentaries were made showing very disturbing footage of deformed children and various ailments, blaming it on agent orange. 

Some individual settlements with vets were made, and eventually, affected vets took a class action to sue the government. But the case was eventually thrown out, because the statistics showed that the rates of these diseases were not significantly more in vets and their families, than the rest of the population. IE, agent orange had not increased incidence of these diseases.

The moral of the story :- There is a lot of sensationalist, and sometimes well written and convincingly argued "stuff" out there. Always read between the lines, and always look for REAL science.


----------



## cdevier (Jul 17, 2010)

RC , Thanks for the post. Its info like your's that make this forum worthwhile.
Charlie


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Richard, thanks.

Some of the stuff I read makes me sick, and there is always that % of the population who buy it.

To have an expert in this field on the forum, who can speak with authority, is invaluable. Please keep doing what you are doing. People are not ignorant, they just need correct information.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Yes, both MDPI and Entropy are controversial. The article may simply be "Junk Science".

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/16/more-controversy-over-open-access-publisher-mdpi/

Don't blink.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

hpm08161947 said:


> Now.... where is that next comment, where someone points out that you are obviously a paid shill hired by Monsanto.....


I have never worked for Monsanto. Frankly I am not particularly fond of Monsanto for reasons that have nothing at all to do with their product line. I have never done any studies of any kind on Monsanto products to the best of my knowledge. I was involved from time to time in legal cases where I did not always know the names of all litigants. So it is remotely possible I did at some point run some test on some Monsanto product without knowing it.

Monsanto was a second rate bit player in the Agent Orange business. I believe the two big suppliers were Diamond Shamrock and Dow. By the way, the health issues with Agent Orange had nothing at all to do with the active ingredients, 2,4 D and 2,4,5 T. Rather, the health issues were a result of a trace contaminant that is not even a herbicide called 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin if I remember the numbering system correctly. This product was on the market before EPA existed. EPA was created in about 1970 by Nixon as it was obvious to everyone there was a need for a Federal agency to regulate environmental issues. Everyone includes the chem industry. Congress passed a law named FIFRA that gave EPA express authority to regulate pesticides. And they ain't afraid to regulate them believe me. During the period from 1970 to about 1990 all pesticides had to undergo registration if new or reregistration if old and "grandfathered." Something like the impurity in Agent Orange would never get past registration today. I think it is very easy for the public to fail to recognize how young industry is. And like any youngster industry went thru lots of growing pains in terms of learning what was safe and what was dangerous. When I was a kid it was pretty much felt if something did not hurt you in a few days you did not need to worry about it. Today we worry very little about getting hurt fast as we limit exposures short term. Most of the worry is about long term exposure. Long term being years and decades. And most of the time and expense of testing is aimed at understanding the consequences of long term exposure. Still, always remember, everything is a poison. It is just a matter of dose.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

So what does blaming glyphosate have to do with anything? How much glyphosate is the average person ingesting per day? Was that stated at all? I'm trying to think of the things I eat every day and which ones were round-up ready.... I can't think of any....


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

Richard Cryberg said:


> As round up is a pesticide it must be registered by the EPA. That is the law. Monsanto complies with laws as far as anyone has ever demonstrated. To get EPA to register anything as a pesticide requires many, many toxicity, environmental fate and chemistry studies. Not millions of dollars worth but tens and hundreds of millions of dollars worth eventually. No product ever gets a registration for use as a pesticide if it causes cancer in any test animal.


It should be noted that EVERY pesticide, chemical compound, etc. that has ever been banned from use (i.e. DDT, Asbestos, PCB's, BPA, etc) were at one time considered to be safe and were approved for public use! NOT A SINGLE product makes it to the marketplace without extensive formal review--and yet we know that there are hundreds, even thousands of products/chemical compounds that are eventually found to be unsafe--some of them even extremely lethal/toxic (i.e. PCB's)

Speaking of Monsanto and PCB's it's worth noting that while their own scientists were aware of many of the ill-effects of PCB's by the late 1920's when they purchased Swann Chemical, Monsanto continued to produce and sell PCB's for nearly 5 DECADES, all the while raking in the profits while telling everyone that the product was safe as they fought efforts to ban or limit their use. As a result, towns like Anniston Alabama (where PCB's were produced) are now so contaminated that residents are not able to drink the water and even the soil in people's yards is considered toxic waste: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-528581.html

Monsanto KNEW of the dangers/risks, and they continued to manufacture and sell them anyway because they were making of ton of money doing so. And when they appeared in court and were summoned to D.C. to testify about PCB's, their claim was that: 

1. PCB's had been rigorously tested and found to be safe 
2. That PCB's had been subject to stringent government review and testing and then approved 
3. That PCB's had been in the marketplace for many years and had demonstrable effectiveness

It's no small irony therefore that that is EXACTLY what Monsanto is telling us today about GMO's.........So do I trust Monsanto when they say that GMO's are safe for humans, safe for pollinators, and good for the environment? Heck no I don't.......


http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp

http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I believe this thread is addressing the Samsel and Seneff paper and the toxicity of Glyphosate.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

What exactly about GMO's are toxic, let me ask that? I want all the fear mongers to give me a fact based explanation about it. Jim, does the paper address how much glyphosate is ingested per day by the average person and from what?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Andrew Dewey said:


> ... To phrase my concern with the authors in the form of a question: Are they capable of producing a well written paper using scientific methodology?...


 It is clearly stated at the front page that this is a *review*. Nothing to do with scientific methodology... 

What is interesting is that Randy Oliver supports the paper (review) with authors in question, but denied papers written by accomplished scientist and published in pier-reviewed journals! I am talking about neonics papers. I could see only one in common between discussed above review and criticized neonics papers - all of them did not pass Randy's famous "real field" test  If so, why Randy mentioned this review? Nobody in right mind would study the toxicity of Roundup on humans.

The bottom line is that since beneficial bacteria are in the bee's gut, Roundup potentially may be toxic to them creating problem to the bees.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

"Agent Orange" really has nothing to do with anything, whether it caused cancer or not. Monsanto made it, but they didn't spray it all over Vietnam. And in either case, what does the effects of Agent Orange have to do with bees and Roundup? They're two completely different chemicals and were developed decades apart.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

cerezha said:


> The bottom line is that since beneficial bacteria are in the bee's gut, Roundup *potentially may* be toxic to them creating problem to the bees.


What problem?

My bees get sprayed with roundup & they are OK, or thriving, to be more accurate.

Has it been shown roundup kills significant numbers of beneficial bacteria in the bees gut? Has this experiment been done on bees in normal field conditions?

If not, too many if's but's maybe's and "potentially may's".


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm not sure if there's any evidence of glyphosate's toxicity to humans. Although, there may be some issues with the formulation of Roundup. I do recall some problems reported in the South American 'soybean republic' where people reported being harmed during roundup applications.

In my opinion, there is no real link being demonstrated between glyphosate and Honeybee health.

As to why Randy chose to discuss the paper...?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> ...If not, too many if's but's maybe's and "potentially may's".


This is how science is happened, Oldtimer - it did not work your way  If you want to change the way, how it is working - go ahead, become an academician and establish new rules. Academic science is not happened in the "field", it is happened in the Lab. Thus, we could not satisfy your and Randy Oliver demand for "field" experiments  Nevertheless, all your entire life depends on experiments "in vitro" - in the Lab, not in the field... Do you really think that penicillin was invented in the field?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> I believe this thread is addressing the Samsel and Seneff paper and the toxicity of Glyphosate.


 Actually, if you read the article (technically, it is not a scientific paper) - it is about how Roundup (not Glyphosate exactly) affects many enzymes in mammals and could cause the damage (not accute). Toxicity is too primitive. Since it is approved by EPA - it means, there is no direct toxicity determined. Please, remember that DDT was ALSO approved by EPA!


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

JRG13 said:


> ... things I eat every day and which ones were round-up ready.... I can't think of any....


BECAUSE, USA have no policy to disclose GMOs in your food  On paper (on the can) - everything is fine and you could feel good!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

cerezha said:


> What is interesting is that Randy Oliver supports the paper (review) with authors in question, but denied papers written by accomplished scientist and published in pier-reviewed journals!


Not really the case. If you are trying to say that Randy is taking issue with established scientific fact, you exaggerate. 



cerezha said:


> Do you really think that penicillin was invented in the field?


Yes. Penicillin was "invented in the field" many thousands of years ago.
Do you really think penicillin was invented in a lab?



cerezha said:


> Please, remember that DDT was ALSO approved by EPA!


DDT was one of the earliest mass produced insecticides, coming into use at the time of the second world war. Prior to that, monoculture crops had been decimated by insects and DDT was considered almost a miracle, doubling production of many crops. At that time people were just not aware of the long term effects of using residual insecticides, they learned that the hard way later.

Really the only thing wrong with DDT is it lasts so long, which is why we had to stop pumping it into the planet.

Claiming DDT was approved by the EPA has little to do with the way things are done nowadays. Different world and different procedures.


But Cerezha. Bottom line. DDT, and penicillin, are not Roundup.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Not really the case. If you are trying to say that Randy is taking issue with established scientific fact, you exaggerate.


Yes, as a scientist, I confirm that nicotinoids react irreversible to Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors and therefore damage neurons



Oldtimer said:


> Yes. Penicillin was "invented in the field" many thousands of years ago. Do you really think penicillin was invented in a lab?.


 Could you educate me - how it was invented in the field 1000 years ago - details please and scientific article.



Oldtimer said:


> DDT was one of the earliest mass produced insecticides,


 I am just curious - was it produced also "in the field' 1000 years ago? From chemical point of view, both DDT and penicillin were synthesized in the Lab, not in the field...



Oldtimer said:


> Claiming DDT was approved by the EPA has little to do with the way things are done nowadays. Different world and different procedures.


 Could you clarify, what exactly changed and how you know? Are you in US? Any reference - about field tests and changes in EPA policy?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

WLC said:


> As to why Randy chose to discuss the paper...?


after reading his posts for years, you have to remember he has an interesting sense of humor, and sometimes posts stuff to get a discussion going, you have to follow some of the other threads to see whats going on, in this case, I haven't figured out what yet


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Maybe it was posted on April 1?

Regardless, Roundup does contain quite a few surfactants, solvents, emulsifiers, and adjuvants.

So, the 'formulants' have been discussed in the literature as potential problems.

While glyphosate may be relatively harmless, we can't say the same for the other formulants.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

cerezha said:


> Yes, as a scientist, I confirm that nicotinoids react irreversible to Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors and therefore damage neurons


I don't think you need to be a scientist to know that, heck, even I know that. Question is, what relevance is that random statement to Roundup, or anything else in the thread?



cerezha said:


> Could you educate me - how it was invented in the field 1000 years ago - details please and scientific article.


Penicillin? As you claim to be a scientist, I'm stunned you don't already know that. But, I guess I'm talking to the claimed ricin researcher, who didn't know ricin has existed for thousands of years in the castor oil plant. 
I'm not going to educate you how penicillin was in the field thousands of years ago. But, think mould. Think about it.....



cerezha said:


> I am just curious - was it produced also "in the field' 1000 years ago?


DDT? No.



cerezha said:


> Could you clarify, what exactly changed and how you know? Are you in US? Any reference - about field tests and changes in EPA policy?


In your capacity as a research scientist and expert on everything, you will no doubt be aware that DDT existed and was in use before President Nixon created the EPA.

Or are you?


Fail to see the relevance of much / any of this though. Bottom line. DDT and penicillin are not Roundup.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

cerezha said:


> From chemical point of view, both DDT and penicillin were synthesized *in the Lab, not in the field*...


:scratch: Open mouth, insert foot! :lpf:

Penicillin is a group of antibiotics derived from Penicillium *fungi*. Fungi that grew without human assistance! 

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#History


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Richard Cryberg said:


> It is about as toxic as table salt. .


 In 1996, New York’s attorney general sued Monsanto over the company’s use of “false and misleading advertising” about RoundUp. That case ended with Monsanto agreeing to stop calling Roundup “biodegradable,” and to pull ads claiming that Roundup was “safer than table salt,” “practically nontoxic,” and ”stayed where you put it.”


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Wow! Sounds like a pretty informed post to me. Thanks RC. Now be prepared for the "industry shill" accusations.


 The active ingredient of Roundup is the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. Another important ingredient in some formulations of Roundup is the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), which has been found to be highly toxic to animals and to humans.[41][42][43][44]

In November 2009, a French environment group (MDRGF) accused Monsanto of using chemicals in Roundup formulations not disclosed to the country's regulatory bodies, and demanded the removal of those products from the market.[45][46]

Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone.[47] Toxicologists have studied glyphosate alone, additives alone, and formulations.
In 1996, New York’s attorney general sued Monsanto over the company’s use of “false and misleading advertising” about RoundUp. That case ended with Monsanto agreeing to stop calling Roundup “biodegradable,” and to pull ads claiming that Roundup was “safer than table salt,” “practically nontoxic,” and ”stayed where you put it.”
No surprise, a study done in Germany in 2012 found glyphosate in all of the urine samples it took from non-agricultural workers in Berlin, at levels 5-20 times the limit for drinking water.
Glyphosate is the main active substance used in most commercial herbicides. It poisons not only plants, but also animals and humans. When testing for glyphosate contamination in an urban population, a German university found significant contamination in all urine samples with levels 5 to 20 times above the legal limit for drinking water.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well if it's so toxic, how come it doesn't bother my bees when I spray it all over them?



mac said:


> In 1996, New York’s attorney general sued Monsanto over the company’s use of “false and misleading advertising” about RoundUp. That case ended with Monsanto agreeing to stop calling Roundup “biodegradable,” and to pull ads claiming that Roundup was “safer than table salt,” “practically nontoxic,” and ”stayed where you put it.”


That they pulled the ad, does not necessarily equal Roundup is - "the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies."


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> Well if it's so toxic, how come it doesn't bother my bees when I spray it all over them?


 Good God almighty. Do you sell your honey???


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Penicillin is a group of antibiotics derived from Penicillium *fungi*. Fungi that grew without human assistance!
> 
> More here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#History


Surely you and Wikipeadia must be wrong. 

You are not a Research Scientist, so, what would you or I know? LOL


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mac said:


> Do you sell your honey???


How does that question support any of your claims?

Re glyphosate in urine, isn't that what you would expect in a healthy person who has worked with and been exposed to roundup and is excreting it in the normal way? I would expect to find a lot of things in urine at higher concentrations than recommended for drinking water LOL


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> You saying it's toxic? If you are, how toxic?


Well according to a French environmental group............


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

mac said:


> Good God almighty. Do you sell your honey???


If you pour Oldtimer's honey on the grass... the grass will die.

Actually... if you want to kill grass around your hives... just dump a 55 gal barrel of honey... the grass will never grow there again.... How do I know? Don't want to get into that... too painful.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I think that any of the toxicity issues depend on which formulation is being used, and how it is being used. There are dozens and dozens of different herbicide formulations containing glyphosate.

It's a good thing if what you're using isn't one of the 'problematic' formulations.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

hpm08161947 said:


> If you pour Oldtimer's honey on the grass... the grass will die.
> 
> Actually... if you want to kill grass around your hives... just dump a 55 gal barrel of honey... the grass will never grow there again.... How do I know? Don't want to get into that... too painful.


Yes true! 

I have also killed grass with honey spills.

Must be the roundup in it.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

hpm08161947 said:


> If you pour Oldtimer's honey on the grass... the grass will die.
> 
> Actually... if you want to kill grass around your hives... just dump a 55 gal barrel of honey... the grass will never grow there again.... How do I know? Don't want to get into that... too painful.


Hey Im in that club too. A sad reminder everytime I see it. But some sort of weeds actually did eventually grow back there. I think it was something developed by Monsanto. :lpf:


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

JRG13 said:


> So what does blaming glyphosate have to do with anything? How much glyphosate is the average person ingesting per day? Was that stated at all? I'm trying to think of the things I eat every day and which ones were round-up ready.... I can't think of any....


 For potatoes, spraying herbicides on the field immediately before harvest (2.5 l / ha), hardens the skin and reduces its susceptibility to late blight and germination, which improved the potatoes shelf life. Active compounds of the herbicide directly enter the potato through the leaves; however, decomposition of the poison takes place in the body of the consumer.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

“Any scientists who tells you they know that GMO’s are safe and not to worry about it are either ignorant of the history of science or is deliberately lying. Nobody knows what the long term effect will be.” (Geneticist, Dr. David Suzuki )


----------



## Chemguy (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks, Richard. I'll also add to your excellent post that in any purported or actual scientific writing, the words "could" and "may" are not the same as "does" and "will." If the last two words, or other such definitive terms, are used then that is a specific claim and in any truly scientific work the statements must be supported by experimental evidence if the claim is to be validated. Further, any claim is just an hypothesis and must be falsifiable. Even in the "real" scientific papers. That's how science works. Anything else is just conjecture.


There's a lot of pseudoscience out there. More and more and more every day.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Chemguy said:


> There's a lot of pseudoscience out there. More and more and more every day.


 Next week, the USDA will decide whether to allow Monsanto and Dow to introduce one half of the chemical mixture Agent Orange into our food supply. Widescale use of Roundup has led to a new generation of resistant weeds, and the next step in the pesticide arms race is 2,4-D — a chemical linked to cancer, Parkinson’s and reproductive problems.

Farmers that sign up to use genetically-engineered 2,4-D-resistant corn will be required to spray down their fields with both 2,4-D and Roundup, double-dosing our food, our soil and our waterways with the toxins. Some experts estimate this will increase the use of 2,4-D 50-fold, even though the EPA says the chemical is already our seventh-largest source of dioxins — nasty, highly toxic chemicals that bioaccumulate as they move up the food chain and cause cancer, developmental damage, and birth defects
In the study, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Valparaiso in Chile spiked the drinking water of laboratory mice with weed killer, then charted the animals' reproductive rates. They found a 20% increase in failed pregnancies at extremely low doses--seven times lower than the maximum allowable rate for U.S. drinking water.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mac said:


> They found a 20% increase in failed pregnancies at extremely low doses--seven times lower than the maximum allowable rate for U.S. drinking water.


Did you get that from the paper, or from somebody talking about the paper?


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Richard Cryberg said:


> I sprayed all around my hives yesterday by the way. I used roundup. I know I sprayed some bees. I also know I sprayed the landing boards. I did not have any dead bees around my hives today. And even two frame nucs all seemed fine today.


 Now THATS good science


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> Did you get that from the paper, or from somebody talking about the paper?


 I made it up


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Wouldn't be the only thing on the thread made up LOL.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mac said:


> Now THATS good science


It would be at least as good as a lot of the "science" on this thread.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

mac said:


> Next week, the USDA will decide whether to allow Monsanto and Dow to introduce one half of the chemical mixture Agent Orange into our food supply. Widescale use of Roundup has led to a new generation of resistant weeds, and the next step in the pesticide arms race is 2,4-D — a chemical linked to cancer, Parkinson’s and reproductive problems.


@Mac - I know this is a very emotional issue - but using language that plays to the emotions doesn't help the discussion. After reading your opening paragraph I came close to skipping the rest of your post - dismissing it as typical extremest rhetoric.

Could what you wanted to convey have been communicated like this?

_Next week the USDA will rule on a petition by the Monsanto & Dow Chemical companies to allow the release of the pesticide known as 2-4-D. 2-4-D was a component of the Agent Orange herbicide and defoliant used by the US in the Viet Nam war, and is proposed for release now because of increasing resistance by weeds to Monsanto's Roundup product. 2-4-D has been linked to a variety of human health conditions, including cancer, Parkinson’s and reproductive problems._

With the version above, I wouldn't have been tempted to skip over your post.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

EPA also regulates all inerts in pesticides. All inerts used must be on the generally recognized as safe list (GRAS list) to be used in any pesticide. This includes solvents, suspending agents, surfactants, buffers, viscosity control agents, wetting agents, stickers, antimicrobials, antifungals, etc. Before anything is added to the GRAS list it must have tox data and other supporting data that demonstrates it is reasonably safe as defined by the EPA. There also must be a public advertisement asking for public comment on inclusion of each new substance on the GRAS list. All such substances are toxic. Everything is toxic if the dose is high enough. That includes oxygen in the air.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Andrew Dewey said:


> Could what you wanted to convey have been communicated like this?
> 
> _Next week the USDA will rule on a petition by the Monsanto & Dow Chemical companies to allow the release of the pesticide known as 2-4-D. 2-4-D was a component of the Agent Orange herbicide and defoliant used by the US in the Viet Nam war, and is proposed for release now because of increasing resistance by weeds to Monsanto's Roundup product. 2-4-D has been linked to a variety of human health conditions, including cancer, Parkinson’s and reproductive problems._
> 
> With the version above, I wouldn't have been tempted to skip over your post.


Sad thing, he did actually have a point.

24D was responsible for a rash of health problems in my country. But it wasn't the 24D it was an impurity in it, dioxin. Work was done to eliminate the dioxin level and eventually they got it to where a barrel of 24D had less dioxin than one green potato. But by that time the public just didn't want the product anyway so production was largely phased out, and the site the factory was is considered toxic.

Without the dioxin it may not be such a bad thing. If you are reading any greeny research they will focus on some especially contaminated batch of 24D they found somewhere, to do their experiments with.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Andrew Dewey said:


> Could what you wanted to convey have been communicated like this?
> 
> _Next week the USDA will rule on a petition by the Monsanto & Dow Chemical companies to allow the release of the pesticide known as 2-4-D. 2-4-D was a component of the Agent Orange herbicide and defoliant used by the US in the Viet Nam war, and is proposed for release now because of increasing resistance by weeds to Monsanto's Roundup product. 2-4-D has been linked to a variety of human health conditions, including cancer, Parkinson’s and reproductive problems._
> 
> With the version above, I wouldn't have been tempted to skip over your post.


 Well no since it was a direct quote from a news paper and I didn't feel at liberty to change it. I should have indicated that fact. Sorry


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

That's OK. Much of this stuff is presented this way. In the absence of any proper science the most productive way to garner support in a portion of the population is to appeal to emotions. The trouble with this tactic is the other part of the population react against the shallowness of this and that is why this stuff is so polarising.

No worthwhile facts, so people who are motivated by facts are not targeted. People who are motivated by feelings are targeted. Ask one of them anything resembling a pointed question about their "facts", they suddenly get lost, and say things like they made it up, or some such dismissive reply. Studies that supposedly exist are quoted but rarely referenced and for good reason.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

2,4-D continues to be used, where legal, for its low cost. However, where municipal lawn pesticide bylaws exist, such as in Canada,[14] alternatives such as corn gluten meal and vinegar-based products[dubious – discuss] are increasingly being used to combat weeds.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> You are not a Research Scientist, so, what would you or I know? LOL


Hah! I know enough to *actually check and verify *a statement _before _I claim that another poster is wrong! 

If I spent more time buried in a lab, apparently I would would not need to bother to get my facts straight before posting!

:ws:

OT, thanks for pointing out that penicillin did not originate in a lab. I wasn't aware of its origins until your post and then I looked into it. :gh:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes guess it pays us humbler folks to check our facts before telling others they are wrong.

The type of false or misleading claims that are made and often go unchallenged, fuel argument based on ignorance, sadly, and take things in the wrong direction.

One example of that from this very thread was the claim that the EPA approved the use of DDT, said as a means to discredit the EPA. The real facts are as follows. Upon doing a little research, (not that I'm a research scientist LOL) it turns out one of the very first things the EPA did when it was created, was announce a ban DDT. To achieve that in just over a year since the organisation was created is extremely quick, by the usual standards for these types of things. Trouble is, pointing out these kind of errors that lead people astray can seem a little negative so people are sometimes reluctant to do it. But some claims made are truly wild, such as one of the other ones you pointed out Rader. Best thing is keep the good humour. 

A lot of these Evil Empire, Big Brother type conspiracy theories are based on similar misinformation that creeps in unnoticed.

Where is Cerezha anyway?


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

I agree with you Oldtimer--I want the facts, not rhetoric or spin.

When it comes to issues like food safety, pesticides, etc. you have 3 main actors:

1. The companies producing and selling the product
2. Environmental groups
3. Government regulators

Each of them has their own perspective on the issue that they can readily support with "their" scientists. Industry wants to keep selling their product, Enviro groups take in more contributions when there is a perceived crisis/problem to rally their supporters, and government regulators are always trying to justify their budgets and their existence, all the while becoming political footballs.

Somewhere in the middles lies the truth.

Regarding DDT, it's worth noting that industry insisted that it was safe for many years, even though internal documents revealed that they knew there were serious health risks from it many years before others raised questions about it. We all know the same thing happened with the Tobacco Industry--they put "tobacco-friendly" scientists on their payroll to publish papers that favored them and they squashed all the research they could that showed the harmful effects of tobacco. The same thing happened with DDT.

Also, to this day many on the right still insist that Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" (which first made the negative impacts of DDT widely known to the public) was a sham, and that DDT was banned because of "left-wing, whacko environmentalists" even though the consensus among the scientific community is crystal clear on the dangers of DDT regardless of Carson's work. Carson's book is a favorite punching bag of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

http://www.cato.org/events/silent-spring-50-false-crises-rachel-carson 

You're right that banning DDT was one of the first actions of the EPA, however it's worth noting that in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence, initially the EPA's scientific review board voted to NOT ban it. The public and scientific community cried foul because the review board members were a carryover from the department of Agriculture and many felt that they were too cozy with Agribusiness to make a unbiased decision that wasn't swayed by Big Ag. Eventually, DDT was banned.

Today, the "cozy relationship with Agribusiness" is maybe worse than ever--one need only look closely at how many former Monsanto employees and lobbyists are now working for the EPA, Dept. of Ag, etc.

Big Tobacco told us for decades their product was safe. Monsanto told us for decades that PCB's were safe. For decades Ownings-Corning told us that asbestos was safe. And yet we now know that their assertions were patently self-serving and wrong. That has been the MO for corporations when safety and/or public health issues are raised about their products: stall, deny, hire industry-friendly scientists, and maintain the status quo (sales/revenue stream) as long as is possible. 

Monsanto is insisting their GMO's and their companion pesticides are safe too, but frankly, given their history, their efforts to thwart the labeling of GMO foods, the sheer number of their former employees in high positions within the EPA and the Dept of Ag and the revolving door between industry and government regulators, and their legal threats against farmers and states that want to label GMO's, I don't trust Monsanto for a second...


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Yes guess it pays us humbler folks to check our facts before telling others they are wrong...Where is Cerezha anyway?


I am sorry, I was away finishing my research paper and planning new experiments. 

I apologize for misinformation - yes, DDT was initially regulated by USDA, when EPA did not exist. Nevertheless, EPA originally resisted to admit that DDT is harmful to the health. They were forced to take some action under the court order. You could see the sequence of events from EPA side:

EPA Regulatory Actions

On December 2, 1970, major responsibility for Federal regulation of pesticides was transferred to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In January 1971, under *a court order *following a suit by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), EPA issued notices of intent to cancel all remaining Federal registrations of products containing DDT. The principal crops affected by this action were cotton, citrus, and certain vegetables.

In March 1971, EPA issued cancellation notices for all registrations of products containing * TDE, * a DDT metabolite (RS - not DDT!). The EPA Administrator further announced that *no suspension* of the registration of DDT products was warranted because evidence of imminent hazard to the public welfare *was lacking*. (Suspension, in contrast to cancellation, is the more severe action taken against pesticide products under the law.) Because of the decision not to suspend, companies were able to continue marketing their products in interstate commerce pending the final resolution of the administrative cancellation process. After reconsideration of the March order, in light of a scientific advisory committee report, the Administrator later reaffirmed his refusal to suspend the DDT registrations. The report was requested by Montrose Chemical Corporation, sole remaining manufacturer of the basic DDT chemical.

In August 1971, upon the request of 31 DDT formulators, a hearing began on the cancellation of all remaining Federally registered uses of products containing DDT. When the hearing ended in March 1972, the transcripts of 9,312 pages contained testimony from 125 expert witnesses and over 300 documents. The principal parties to the hearings were various formulators of DDT products, USDA, the EDF, and EPA.

On June 14, 1972, the EPA Administrator announced the final cancellation of all remaining crop uses of DDT in the U.S. effective December 31, 1972. The order did not affect public health and quarantine uses, or exports of DDT. The Administrator based his decision on findings of persistence, transport, biomagnification, toxicological effects and on the absence of benefits of DDT in relation to the availability of effective and less environmentally harmful substitutes. The effective date of the prohibition was delayed for six months in order to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides. In conjunction with this transition, EPA and USDA jointly developed "Project Safeguard," a program of education in the use of highly toxic organophosphate substitutes for DDT.

Immediately following the DDT prohibition by EPA, the pesticides industry and EDF filed appeals contesting the June order with several U.S. courts. Industry filed suit to nullify the EPA ruling while EDF sought to extend the prohibition to those few uses not covered by the order. The appeals were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

On December 13, 1973, the Court ruled that there was "substantial evidence" in the record to support the EPA Administrator's ban on DDT.
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-regulatory-history-brief-survey-1975
**********************
In another words, in case of DDT and neonics and possible Roundup EPA was acting in very similar way resisting to make preventive steps to minimize damage to the public health. Somebody did this parallel between DDT and neonics and Roundup and I do support it. It looks like, every time EPA acted only after enormous pressure from the public (not scientific evidence), which is deeply disturbing to me. The comments regarding my incompetence are funny (the degree of ignorance). As I stated many times, I am not an expert in bees - If I stated something wrongly, I usually apologize and correct my statements. In this case, I do not feel I should apologize, sorry about this. As a scientist - it is amusing how deep and wide gap between us...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good, well researched post, Cerezha. 

Except for the last paragraph, your conclusion.

However your summary of the facts in the rest of the post was correct, nice to see some good work, ignoring the last paragraph. You have shown that your previous claim the EPA approved the use of DDT was misleading. You have shown that the use of DDT was already a _fait accompli_ by the time the EPA was created. The EPA did what it was supposed to, which was investigate and follow due process, which involved hearing arguments from all involved parties, letting court cases etc play out, and in view of all that reaching a decision to ban, which they did surprisingly speedily.

Your previous statement that the EPA "approved" DDT is a misleading attempt to defame the EPA. They followed due process and did a perfect job, in the circumstances in which they found themselves.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

BigDawg thanks for the well balanced post. 

Although in this thread I've combated some bad information and bad science, that doesn't mean I'm a ******* (all the time) 

Like nearly all beekeepers I'm pretty environmentally aware and think I'm on the same wavelength with your post.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> ...Except for the last paragraph, your conclusion.
> ...


 Well,you need to swallow the whole or nothing. You could not use only part of the text  Good appetite!


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

BigDawg said:


> Today, the "cozy relationship with Agribusiness" is maybe worse than ever--one need only look closely at how many former Monsanto employees and lobbyists are now working for the EPA, Dept. of Ag, etc.


I don't find this argument compelling, actually. 

If it were the other way around - EPA, Ag Department staffers that later end up in private sector jobs with Monsanto - then I could see the suggestion that the staffers are being rewarded by Mansanto for friendly actions in office at least as logical. But folks who have left the employ of Monsanto for regulatory government jobs? They already have pensions, severance packages which can't legally be taken away no matter what they do in office. They have no incentive to continue to conspire in Monsanto's interest. Unless you want to accuse someone in particular of engaging in some kind of illegal arrangement? If someone in the EPA is taking bribes - who is it, and how do we know? A decision or even a dozen decisions which happen to benefit Company X isn't good enough evidence by itself.

The fact is, most if not all people who hold non-appointed high-level jobs in the Ag Department and EPA are going to be hired out of mid to high levels of management in agribusiness and chemical companies because those are the folks who have the relevant experience and expertise needed for the job. There's simply no avoiding that "appearance", if you think about it.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

melliferal said:


> I don't find this argument compelling, actually.
> 
> If it were the other way around - EPA, Ag Department staffers that later end up in private sector jobs with Monsanto - then I could see the suggestion that the staffers are being rewarded by Mansanto for friendly actions in office at least as logical. But folks who have left the employ of Monsanto for regulatory government jobs? They already have pensions, severance packages which can't legally be taken away no matter what they do in office. They have no incentive to continue to conspire in Monsanto's interest. Unless you want to accuse someone in particular of engaging in some kind of illegal arrangement? If someone in the EPA is taking bribes - who is it, and how do we know? A decision or even a dozen decisions which happen to benefit Company X isn't good enough evidence by itself.


It has conflict of interest written all over it.....http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm



> The fact is, most if not all people who hold non-appointed high-level jobs in the Ag Department and EPA are going to be hired out of mid to high levels of management in agribusiness and chemical companies because those are the folks who have the relevant experience and expertise needed for the job. There's simply no avoiding that "appearance", if you think about it.


See the article above......


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

You do realize that Monsanto lost its patent on glyphosate years ago?

Glyphosate herbicides are used on alot more than just crops.

But, I don't think that we're talking about glyphosate herbicides like Roundup anymore.

I don't really see any studies showing that they kill bees outright though.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

cerezha said:


> Well,you need to swallow the whole or nothing. You could not use only part of the text  Good appetite!


I have to swallow everything you say, or nothing.  

How would you feel if somebody said that to you? 

Research Scientist or not, not everything you say is 100% gospel. As evidenced for example, by your little penicillin _faux pas_. Basic schoolboy science that you didn't know and made the wrong guess. One of many wrong guesses you have made in several threads and presented as fact.

I cannot accept everything you say. Nobody should accept everything _anyone_ says. Your terms are too harsh. I have accepted the facts you presented, I disagree with some of the other stuff. That's the way it is, sorry I am not a blind believer.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

cerezha said:


> Well,you need to swallow the whole or nothing. You could not use only part of the text  Good appetite!


Real scientists publish claims under their real names like I do. They do not hide behind a pseudonym. If you have a real name you can see easy enough these days if their claimed expertise actually exists. As there are only five Crybergs in existence it is easy to verify who I am and what degrees I have and what I have published in peer reviewed journals and what I have patented.

DDT was banned because industry was not making a nickel profit from the product and if banned could sell stuff that was more profitable. Besides the insect resistance problem was getting so bad it was pretty ineffective towards the end. So, when the hearings to ban the product were held industry did very little to defend it. The basis of the hearings were:
1. DDT was claimed to cause cancer
2. DDT was claimed to have a half life in the environment of 30 years or more.
3. DDT was claimed to cause egg shell thinning in raptors.

To date no tests have shown DDT to be a cause of any human cancers. As I recall it does show up as a very mild carcinogen in some very sensitive mouse studies sometimes. I am not sure the rate of cancers is statistically significant. And I really do not care either If they are statistically significant it would not be registerable today. It is far less carcinogenic than human drugs that many millions of people take every day. Statins for instance all cause cancer in mouse test studies when the animal is dosed such that it has a blood plasma drug level equal to what is aimed for in normal human treatments.

The data that claimed long half lives in the environment was bad data. In the 60's doing part per million assays was state of the art for analytical chem and even then loaded with problems. Many assays were contaminated with other materials that were not DDT but gave a DDT response. Today we do assays with ease that are thousands of times more sensitive and also far more specific. It is rather obvious that the 30 year half life was nonsense as it is not found today in the environment with assays that give meaningful results. If it really had a 30 year half life in the environment 25% of it should still be out there.

According to the Audubon bird counts most raptor populations hit the low point in the 40s before DDT was even available and were recovering by 1970. The administrative law judge in charge of the EPA hearings found there was no credible scientific evidence that DDT was responsible for Raptor population decreases or egg shell thinning. In fact after the ban USDA did feeding studies and showed that DDT or its metabolites did not cause egg shell thinning even when fed at doses vastly in excess of environmental exposure levels. A series of studies that the environmental groups simply ignore and deny.

Do I give a hoot if DDT was banned? Nope. Do not care at all. Never worked on the product professionally. Have not used it since I as a kid on the farm when we used it to kill flies in the dairy barn.

And what does DDT have to do with Roundup? I thought this thread was about Roundup killing bees.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> ...I cannot accept everything you say....


 Of coarse, but you could not just took a large part of my comment out of content. If you are not happy with my posts - you should just add me in "ignore" (whichever it's called at beesource) list. This way, you should not worry about my comments at all


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I'm allowed to participate in a debate. No?

Don't like your claims critiqued?

Being kept honest a little hard to live with?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Richard Cryberg said:


> Real scientists publish claims under their real names like I do...


 Not at beesource - sorry guys! With such anti-science attitude, I just do not feel comfortable to disclose it. I am using my real first name, which is sufficient. I do not think that my name is telling anything at beesource anyway. I am using my real name at my professional networks, where my privacy is protected.  But in general, I agree - everyone on public network should use the real name for transparency, so Monsanto, government etc would know their critics!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

cerezha said:


> not at beesource - sorry guys! With such anti-science attitude


Sometimes this place is hysterical.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

BigDawg said:


> It has conflict of interest written all over it.....http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm


Again, in the reverse situation I might agree. But I don't see a conflict of interest having an ex-employee of any agricultural enterprise working in the US Department of Agriculture unless there's evidence of a continued relationship. Otherwise - what, people who get a job with Monsanto out of college should never be allowed to work public sector?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> Sometimes this place is hysterical.


Sometimes?


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

What do people think of Terrence Ingram's claims about roundup?:

http://www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/TheCaseAgainstRoundUp1.pdf


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

BigDawg said:


> What do people think of Terrence Ingram's claims about roundup?:
> 
> http://www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/TheCaseAgainstRoundUp1.pdf


The first thing that strikes me is that I have never seen RoundUp aerially applied to SoyBeans..... guess I did not know that SB could be that RoundUp resistant.

Secondly... I believe Terrence's case has been pretty well ground up here on BSource.


----------

