Subject: Re: Roundup
From: bum@mail.utexas.edu (Caleb Rounds)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:42:40 -0500
Message-ID: <MOD$970925.4420@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970912.25120@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970917.22772@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970923.10790@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
In article <MOD$970923.10790@rec.gardens.ecosystems>,
michaelross@mindspring.com wrote:
> bum@mail.utexas.edu (Caleb Rounds) wrote:
>
>
> >What we've seen in this debate is that there are two sides to this issue,
> >both have "facts." The "facts" disagree;this is probably true b/c of
> >different sorts of experimental conditions. Now each of us can make
> >his/her own decision.
>
>
> I am not so sure the facts "disagree." Have you got an example?
What i was thinking of was the fact that some say Roundup will turn into
harmless, soil-affixed components in seven days, others hold that it has a
"half-life" of 147 days. I've read both of these in posts claiming and
citing scientific authority. I think at some level there may be actual
"facts," but what a particular experiment proves can often seem at odds
with another experiment (hence the rest of my statement about experimental
conditions).
> But as you say we all make our own decesions. One reason why it keeps
> getting air time is because somebody's toes will get stepped on
> whether it is status quo from here on out or a change. This makes it
> a worhty topic of repeated conversation. Besides a lot of us didn't
> have the benefit of earlier hashings out.
Good point.
>
> >Roundup can be harmful. So can apple seeds. So can a guitar string if used
> >incorrectly. (like around the guitarist's neck).
>
> The PANNA papers by Caroline Cox lead me to believe that even
> "correct" use has some problems associated with it (which for some
> reason are less commonly known). And perhaps a new "correct" use
> might be in order.
I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't trust Monsanto if they told me the
sky was blue (well maybe). I read an article from the Harvard Review of
Business the other day in which Shapiro (their CEO) claimed that they were
major groundbreakers (oh, sometimes I can be so punny) in sustainable,
no-till agriculture. The article IMHO is a good read and a nice example of
spin-doctoring. As a sidebar, read the first "readings" article in this
month's Harper's. Very educational. Two sides, one coin.
Caleb