some serendipitous things cause me to respond. first, i don't recognize
the node of the cc: address that is involved in this discussion even tho
it's at my university. second, a friend here videotaped the proceedings
of the '94 ntl. coalition against the misuse of pesticides (ncamp) conference,
and one of the workshops, on inerts, involved rodeo in the context of
contaminants. as i rememnber, the msds for rodeo listed dichloroethene or
some such 2 carbon aliphatic organochlorine) at 0.45% but the label did
not, despite epa's requirement that list A inerts be listed on the label
(the organochlorine was on that list). monsanto explained to the nw
coaltn for alternatives to pesticides (ncap, which was leading the workshop)
that it wasn't on the label because it's a contaminant (presumably
of monochlorbenzene, which is on the label). i have a real problem visualizing
how an aromatic organochlorine could ever produce that much of an
aliphatic one in its production process. can you clarify?
> In a previous posting questioning the saftey of glyphosate surfactants, Jim
> Dixon, jdixon@ogopogo.educ.sfu.ca, concluded with:
>
> >I invite Mr. Hoogheem to get the facts by writing to me at 1476 Water Street,
> >Kelowna, B.C., Canada V1Y 1J5. In my opinion, it is incumbent upon the
> >manufacturer when providing details of their product to include _all_ of
> >the information and not just the lose data.
> ------
> Jim, give me your telephone number and I will be glad to
> call you. I do not sidestep anything. First, the surfactant
> DOES NOT BREAK DOWN INTO 1,4-DIOXANE. No one but you has
> EVER made that accusation. The surfactant is POEA,
[snip]
> Next, Rodeo does not even have a surfactant in it. Again-
but it does recommend several to use it with, including one that has
nonylphenols (potent hormone disrupter), again from my memory of watching
the tape of the workshop (no, rodeo was not the only subject discussed!).
[snip]
> call EPA. They have just issued a document that is called
> "The Reregistration Eligibility Document for Glyphosate".
> Guess what? Their review is based solely on non IBT and
> Craven data and we are ready to be reregistered and meet all
> current data requirements. You also might write the World
[snip]
and for how many formulations did monsanto use either of these 2 fradulent
(yes, convicted of fraud, on an absolutly massive scale in the case of
ibt) in the past?
> Sorry Jim, but you are going to have to come up with a lot
> more FACTS when you are dealing with this product. And if
> you use INTERNET, I'll be watching to make sure you are
> indeed factual.
>
> Thomas J. Hoogheem
> tjhoog@ccmail.monsanto.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
tony tweedale, grad TEMPERATE BUT ENDANGERED PLANET. ENJOYS
env. studies program (evst) WEATHER, NORTHERN LIGHTS, CONTINENTAL
rankin hall u. montana DRIFT. SEEKS CARING RELATIONSHIP WITH
missoula mt 59812 INTELLIGENT LIFEFORM. (f.o.e.)
406-542-1709 internet: esact@selway.umt.edu