Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Glenn]

"Second, while the half-life of glyphosate, the active ingredient in 
Roundup, varies widely in the soil, it does usually break down swiftly."


Rick,

Tony West also missed that this claim has been shown to be false.

 You're reading of the reports are the correct ones and extremely 
dilute concentrations can produce the harmful effects.  The chemical 
companies are excused from doing proper research by a compliant 
government.  They produce data on a substance in isolation.  But 
toxicity can be compounded in the real world much like drug interactions 
of safe doses can be harmful and deadly.


Glenn

On 6/16/2011 9:35 PM, Richard Conrad wrote:

Tony,  This was covered by the studies which showed the hazardous effects in 
extremely dilute concentrations... did you miss that   Rick Conrad

On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Anthony West wrote:


you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on 
Roundup. First, most of the malign findings in human beings occur with 
agribusiness applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than 
dilute commercial solutions


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3708 - Release Date: 06/16/11 
14:34:00

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Glenn]

On 6/16/2011 7:08 PM, Anthony West wrote:
in this case, the Dept. of Parks & Recreation, and perhaps Capital 
Projects as well. It is a citywide issue which has nothing in 
particular to do with Clark Park. There will never be a situation in 
which Parks & Rec employs one herbicide in a project in Park X and 
another in Park Y, based on local input.


Here is another whopper told by Mr. West.  The company that spread the 
poison in the past was a subcontractor for the Moon landscape company 
and not city employees!  Nor were the two guys that I witnessed during 
the redesign city employees!   Many local people know that the Dept of 
Rec. transferred "maintenance" of Clark Park to UCD and its layers of 
subcontractors many years ago when the "Party for the Park" first began.


Has long term FOCP leader Tony West forgotten???

As I explained before, no one is going to get any answers about RoundUp 
use or any future issues from the Clark Park Partnership or the city.  
People are supposed to get frustrated as they are given the circular run 
around between FOCP and UCD.   I hope no one is waiting for the internal 
investigation of the violation of federal law and the John Fenton 
affair-haha




 I publicly asked former UCD director, Lewis Wendell, to open records 
on Clark Park for inspection when PENN tried to raise property taxes, 
BID.  He refused to answer me and UCD will always refuse unless they are 
taken to court.  Frankly, their "experts" don't care what is done to 
Clark Park as long as they can advertise the money spent which is to 
justify their control.  If people think the landscape companies are city 
employees as West suggests, they need to wake up and ask some of the 
honest neighbors to the park, like me.


How long will local people tolerate "community representatives" 
repeatedly lying as they engage in secret deals against the public good 
and safety???











You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Anthony West]

Rick,

I said "most of the malign findings in human beings" That is 
correct. Read the studies Mary referred to carefully. Most of the 
studies involving dilute concentrations are laboratory experiments on 
cells or animals, which are distinct from field applications. Most of 
the studies involving epidemiological findings in human beings are from 
concentrated agribusiness applications.


--Tony West



On 6/16/2011 9:35 PM, Richard Conrad wrote:

Tony,  This was covered by the studies which showed the hazardous effects in 
extremely dilute concentrations... did you miss that   Rick Conrad

On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Anthony West wrote:


you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on 
Roundup. First, most of the malign findings in human beings occur with 
agribusiness applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than 
dilute commercial solutions


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.





You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Anthony West]

Kimm and Margie,

There is no "applying" in Clark Park for you to stop. This was a 
one-time application as part of a construction project. That 
construction is now over. Readers need to distinguish between landscape 
maintenance and landscape construction. They are not overseen by the 
same staff or conducted by the same contractor. Building a park is much 
like building a school or a firehouse. The immediate community does not 
get to vote in advance on the specific chemicals used in the mortar or 
the HVAC system. Typically, the public isn't involved at all in these 
decisions.


These projects are handled on a citywide basis, using industry-wide best 
practices as judged by the City's relevant engineers. They are the 
people responsible for these decisions. You must talk with them about 
future projects, here or elsewhere. As a rule, custom engineering -- 
developing one menu of materials for one site and another for another -- 
drives up costs, so you will need to factor these costs into your 
discussions with the engineers and their funders. Anyone who wishes to 
pursue this, I admire and wish the best of luck.


-- Tony West



On 6/17/2011 1:29 AM, Kimm Tynan wrote:
Actually, in my experience in community organizing, this is absolutely 
false.  Public institutions respond to the people who are pressuring 
them, and ignore those who are not.  It may or may not be just or 
fair, but it is.


If we want the rec department to stop applying toxic chemicals to 
Clark Park, we can get that to happen.  It would not be that hard.


Kimm


On 6/16/11 9:24 PM, "Margie Politzer"  wrote:

Tony said below:
"There will never be a situation in which Parks & Rec employs one
herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on
local input."

Tony, how do you know this?

Margie

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Kimm Tynan]

Actually, in my experience in community organizing, this is absolutely
false.  Public institutions respond to the people who are pressuring them,
and ignore those who are not.  It may or may not be just or fair, but it is.

If we want the rec department to stop applying toxic chemicals to Clark
Park, we can get that to happen.  It would not be that hard.

Kimm


On 6/16/11 9:24 PM, "Margie Politzer"  wrote:

> Tony said below:
> "There will never be a situation in which Parks & Rec employs one herbicide in
> a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input."
> 
> Tony, how do you know this?
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Anthony West wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Mary,
>> 
>> I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step
>> around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First,most of
>> the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusinessapplications,
>> which can be up to 20 times more concentrated thandilute commercial
>> solutions. Second, while the half-life ofglyphosate, the active
>> ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in thesoil, it does usually break
>> down swiftly. That's why most harmfuleffects are associated with its
>> handlers, not with food consumers orbypassers in a treated field months
>> later. There was a reason, inother words, why this construction site was
>> fenced off from thepublic for 75 days after this soil treatment, which
>> was appliedearly, before the new sod was laid down.
>> 
>> You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to
>> research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides,and
>> society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturersalone.
>> 
>> You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-listhas
>> any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisionson
>> application. This is a consideration that rests on thecontracting
>> agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks &Recreation, and perhaps
>> Capital Projects as well. It is a citywideissue which has nothing in
>> particular to do with Clark Park. Therewill never be a situation in which
>> Parks & Rec employs oneherbicide in a project in Park X and another in
>> Park Y, based onlocal input.
>> 
>> So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about thissubject
>> should direct the fruits of their research toward people whowrite
>> contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is theCity that
>> must decide which construction practices are safe andwhich construction
>> practices are affordable.
>> 
>> --Tony West
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, mcget...@aol.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Frank Chase's reassurances that the  pesticide
>>> Roundup is safe to humans and  animals, are, I am
>>> sure, well-intentioned.   But the very latest
>>> research, done by  independent, university-based
>>> scientists,  makes a strong argument that the
>>> dangers of  this product have been grossly
>>> underestimated  .  Numerous studies have now
>>> demonstrated the  toxicity of Roundup (not just its
>>> main  ingredient glyphosate) to amphibians, mammals
>>> and humans.  
>>>
>>>   In Ontario, a dramatic increase in
>>> miscarriages and premature births occurred in  farm
>>> families where the farmer fathers were  using
>>> Roundup.  In Argentina, a region  newly-planted in
>>> RoundupReady soy and  frequently sprayed with
>>> Roundup saw a  significant increase in certain birth
>>> defects.  Researchers in France and Argentina,
>>> alarmed at this association between Roundup  use and
>>> harm to humans, undertook research  aimed at testing
>>> whether there was a cause and  effect relationship
>>> at work.  They concluded  that Roundup, at
>>> concentrations well below  those commonly employed
>>> in agriculture,  produced birth defects in
>>> amphibians, reduced  fertility in rodents, and was
>>> lethal to human  fetal, embryonic and placental
>>> cells.  Other  researchers have observed an
>>> association  between exposure to Roundup and
>>> increases 

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Richard Conrad]

Tony,  This was covered by the studies which showed the hazardous effects in 
extremely dilute concentrations... did you miss that   Rick Conrad

On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Anthony West wrote:

>> you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on 
>> Roundup. First, most of the malign findings in human beings occur with 
>> agribusiness applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated 
>> than dilute commercial solutions


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Margie Politzer]

Tony said below:
"There will never be a situation in which Parks & Rec employs one  
herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local  
input."


Tony, how do you know this?

Margie




On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Anthony West wrote:


Mary,

I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step  
around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First,  
most of the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusiness  
applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than 
dilute commercial solutions. Second, while the half-life of  
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in the  
soil, it does usually break down swiftly. That's why most harmful  
effects are associated with its handlers, not with food consumers or  
bypassers in a treated field months later. There was a reason, in  
other words, why this construction site was fenced off from the  
public for 75 days after this soil treatment, which was applied  
early, before the new sod was laid down.


You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to  
research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides,  
and society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturers  
alone.


You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-list  
has any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisions  
on application. This is a consideration that rests on the  
contracting agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks &  
Recreation, and perhaps Capital Projects as well. It is a citywide  
issue which has nothing in particular to do with Clark Park. There  
will never be a situation in which Parks & Rec employs one herbicide  
in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input.


So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about this  
subject should direct the fruits of their research toward people who  
write contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is the  
City that must decide which construction practices are safe and  
which construction practices are affordable.


--Tony West



On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, mcget...@aol.com wrote:


Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to  
humans and animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned.  But the very  
latest research, done by independent, university-based scientists,  
makes a strong argument that the dangers of this product have been  
grossly underestimated .  Numerous studies have now demonstrated  
the toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient glyphosate)  
to amphibians, mammals and humans.


In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature  
births occurred in farm families where the farmer fathers were  
using Roundup.  In Argentina, a region newly-planted in  
RoundupReady soy and frequently sprayed with Roundup saw a  
significant increase in certain birth defects.  Researchers in  
France and Argentina, alarmed at this association between Roundup  
use and harm to humans, undertook research aimed at testing whether  
there was a cause and effect relationship at work.  They concluded  
that Roundup, at concentrations well below those commonly employed  
in agriculture, produced birth defects in amphibians, reduced  
fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human fetal, embryonic and  
placental cells.  Other researchers have observed an association  
between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma in humans.


Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely  
on research that 1) was performed by scientists in the employ of  
its manufacturer, much of it never published in any peer-reviewed  
journals, and with evidence that negative findings were suppressed  
and 2) investigated the toxicity of glyphosate alone, ignoring the  
fact that the additives in the Roundup compound greatly increase  
the toxic effect.


Two just-published reports address the relationship between Roundup  
and birth defects and the safety of crops genetically modified to  
tolerate spraying with Roundup (the plants store Roundup, which  
thus enters the food supply either directly through human  
consumption, or indirectly, as animal feed that then is stored by  
the animals, eventually consumed by humans).  They are both  
excellent reviews of the status of research on Roundup and a good  
source for the most important scientific literature on the topic.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf 
,


Reading these reviews, as well as articles on the toxic effects of  
incredibly small doses of Roundup on human fetal and placental  
cells, certainly shakes one's faith in  Monsanto's claims of its  
being harmless.


In any case, neither Frank Chance nor the FOCP are the pesticide  
police.  They are not responsible for its application in Clark  
Park, nor are they scientists equipped to judge 

Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[Anthony West]

Mary,

I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step 
around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First, most of 
the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusiness 
applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than dilute 
commercial solutions. Second, while the half-life of glyphosate, the 
active ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in the soil, it does usually 
break down swiftly. That's why most harmful effects are associated with 
its handlers, not with food consumers or bypassers in a treated field 
months later. There was a reason, in other words, why this construction 
site was fenced off from the public for 75 days after this soil 
treatment, which was applied early, before the new sod was laid down.


You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to 
research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides, and 
society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturers alone.


You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-list has 
any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisions on 
application. This is a consideration that rests on the contracting 
agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks & Recreation, and perhaps 
Capital Projects as well. It is a citywide issue which has nothing in 
particular to do with Clark Park. There will never be a situation in 
which Parks & Rec employs one herbicide in a project in Park X and 
another in Park Y, based on local input.


So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about this subject 
should direct the fruits of their research toward people who write 
contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is the City that 
must decide which construction practices are safe and which construction 
practices are affordable.


--Tony West



On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, mcget...@aol.com wrote:
Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to 
humans and animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned.  But the very 
latest research, done by independent, university-based scientists, 
makes a strong argument that the dangers of this product have been 
grossly underestimated .  Numerous studies have now demonstrated the 
toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient glyphosate) to 
amphibians, mammals and humans.


In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature births 
occurred in farm families where the farmer fathers were using 
Roundup.  In Argentina, a region newly-planted in RoundupReady soy and 
frequently sprayed with Roundup saw a significant increase in certain 
birth defects.  Researchers in France and Argentina, alarmed at this 
association between Roundup use and harm to humans, undertook research 
aimed at testing whether there was a cause and effect relationship at 
work.  They concluded that Roundup, at concentrations well below those 
commonly employed in agriculture, produced birth defects in 
amphibians, reduced fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human 
fetal, embryonic and placental cells.  Other researchers have observed 
an association between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma 
in humans.


Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely on 
research that 1) was performed by scientists in the employ of its 
manufacturer, much of it never published in any peer-reviewed 
journals, and with evidence that negative findings were suppressed and 
2) investigated the toxicity of glyphosate alone, ignoring the fact 
that the additives in the Roundup compound greatly increase the toxic 
effect.


Two just-published reports address the relationship between Roundup 
and birth defects and the safety of crops genetically modified to 
tolerate spraying with Roundup (the plants store Roundup, which thus 
enters the food supply either directly through human consumption, or 
indirectly, as animal feed that then is stored by the animals, 
eventually consumed by humans).  They are both excellent reviews of 
the status of research on Roundup and a good source for the most 
important scientific literature on the topic.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf,

Reading these reviews, as well as articles on the toxic effects of 
incredibly small doses of Roundup on human fetal and placental cells, 
certainly shakes one's faith in  Monsanto's claims of its being harmless.


In any case, neither Frank Chance nor the FOCP are the pesticide 
police.  They are not responsible for its application in Clark Park, 
nor are they scientists equipped to judge its safety.  Clearly, the 
responsibility lies with the city and its agents (UCD, landscape 
contractors, etc).  How much Roundup was used in Clark Park is only 
part of the story.  How much of this pesticide has been spread around 
the city at large?  Perhaps that question should be posed to the Parks 
and Rec people.  I don't t

[UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research

[mcgettig]

 Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to humans and 
animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned.  But the very latest research, done 
by independent, university-based scientists, makes a strong argument that the 
dangers of this product have been grossly underestimated.  Numerous studies 
have now demonstrated the toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient 
glyphosate) to amphibians, mammals and humans.  

In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature births occurred 
in farm families where the farmer fathers were using Roundup.  In Argentina, a 
region newly-planted in RoundupReady soy and frequently sprayed with Roundup 
saw a significant increase in certain birth defects.  Researchers in France and 
Argentina, alarmed at this association between Roundup use and harm to humans, 
undertook research aimed at testing whether there was a cause and effect 
relationship at work.  They concluded that Roundup, at concentrations well 
below those commonly employed in agriculture, produced birth defects in 
amphibians, reduced fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human fetal, 
embryonic and placental cells.  Other researchers have observed an association 
between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma in humans.  

Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely on research 
that 1) was performed by scientists in the employ of its manufacturer, much of 
it never published in any peer-reviewed journals, and with evidence that 
negative findings were suppressed and 2) investigated the toxicity of 
glyphosate alone, ignoring the fact that the additives in the Roundup compound 
greatly increase the toxic effect.

Two just-published reports address the relationship between Roundup and birth 
defects and the safety of crops genetically modified to tolerate spraying with 
Roundup (the plants store Roundup, which thus enters the food supply either 
directly through human consumption, or indirectly, as animal feed that then is 
stored by the animals, eventually consumed by humans).  They are both excellent 
reviews of the status of research on Roundup and a good source for the most 
important scientific literature on the topic.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf,

Reading these reviews, as well as articles on the toxic effects of incredibly 
small doses of Roundup on human fetal and placental cells, certainly shakes 
one's faith in  Monsanto's claims of its being harmless.

In any case, neither Frank Chance nor the FOCP are the pesticide police.  They 
are not responsible for its application in Clark Park, nor are they scientists 
equipped to judge its safety.  Clearly, the responsibility lies with the city 
and its agents (UCD, landscape contractors, etc).  How much Roundup was used in 
Clark Park is only part of the story.  How much of this pesticide has been 
spread around the city at large?  Perhaps that question should be posed to the 
Parks and Rec people.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this is 
a potential public health concern.  After all, the city of Boulder, CO has 
banned its use.  

Roundup and the crops genetically modified to tolerate it are now hugely 
controversial in Europe and it is likely that the debate about its safety will 
go on for some time - there is billions at stake.  At this point, I don't think 
any one can say definitively whether the application of Roundup in Clark Park 
does or does not pose a risk to children, to pregnant women, or to couples 
hoping to become parents.  For now, people will have to decide for themselves, 
I guess, how much uncertainty they can tolerate when it comes to their health 
and their children's.
 
Mary