>> Isn't this an assumption of gross
>> incompetency on the part of the lab as a
>> whole?"

> absolutely not

Please provide an example, as I would view it as an indictment of the lab at
the management level, as one cannot use facilities that are not provided,
and anyone walking in the door is going to be covered with "contaminants"
without some specific best practices in place to keep that from the
sensitive gear.

> I can understand the reason for asking 
> both questions if the asker knows nothing 
> at all about analytical chemistry or how
> to determine if data is good by routinely
> putting the proper checks in place.

Then please provide the specifics, as there may be some reading who no
nothing about the subject. My first-hand experience is that anyone buying
sensitive gear and wanting any decent ROI would be well-advised to also
purchase infrastructure to allow these "proper checks" to be a part of the
normal workflow.  That's how we did it at the Greensboro Works, and I would
assume that there are several Bell Systems Practices on the subject,
woefully outdated by now, but the only known attempt to document such things
for a diverse set of labs, working on everything under the sun.

> You missed so many key
> points in this discussion!

No, I chose to not mention distractions from the key points.  The key points
seem to be:

a)  This stuff is absolutely everywhere.
b)  This stuff has gotten into absolutely everything.
c)  The tolerances that do exist seem to be not tight enough to protect
health
d)  The FDA has not even been screening for this stuff, due to the sway of
the ag-chem companies
e)  There is credible evidence that has convinced the entire World Health
Organization that thus stuff is "probably" a carcinogen, where "probably" is
one notch below "certainly".  The state of California agrees.
f)  Once again, we appear to have been lied to, for years and years.

>> but we should make an effort to be factual.
>> The rats in the study above 
>> were fed Roundup in their 
>> drinking water, including 
>> the adjuvants in the 
>> formulation, so we can't 
>> say that the effect
>> was due to glyphosate.

The effort to be factual was made, and the paper does mention in passing
that some of the impact might due to adjuvants, or enhanced by the
adjuvants, while still pretty firmly linking the tangible findings and
specific results to the glyphosate, as they link the biochemistry to the
known mechanisms of glyphosate:

"Since glyphosate is an organonitrogen, this first set of proteins (BHMT,
CYP2C7, HMGCS1, CYP2E1, MGST1) could constitute a signature of glyphosate
metabolic effects. This is consistent with the glyphosate metabolic
process..."

"... Collectively, these gene ontology terms are indicative of a change in
lipid metabolism provoked by intoxication with the Roundup herbicide and
imply the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)."

"We hypothesize that glyphosate could interfere at multiple points within
the TCA cycle by inhibiting enzymes having oxoacids as substrates."

So, the above seems pretty clear that they are seeing some of the known
effects of the glyphosate.  Any talk about the adjuvants seems pure
speculation, rather than "factual",  as there is no disclosure by the
manufacturer of even what the adjuvants are!  

But even if all these effects were entirely the fault of the adjuvants, do
we care?  One only sees glyphosate used in formulations that include the
adjuvants, so the fair test is to use the product as it is sold, exactly
what was done in the "Nature" paper.

>>> For $99, These guys sell a kit with a Limit 
>>> of detection (LoD) of 0.007 ppb for 
>>> glyphosate in water...

> James,  need to check, that's not a test kit,  that's a sample kit.

I did not say "test kit".  I said "kit".  Regardless, the point should be
clear - that a commercial test offered to the public at a profit cannot
possibly be as sensitive as the current state of the art, and we can assume
the actual state of the art to be lower.  I also carefully qualified the
analysis as being marketed only for water contamination.  Why is the testing
method even relevant?

> We should also note that at least one of the authors, 
> Seralini, is well known for his anti-Roundup advocacy, 
> and could hardly be considered to be an impartial researcher.

This is a weak critique that can easily be reversed, with the same lack of
impact.  Look how many papers are published by the employees of the company
that makes RoundUp!  They are pro-Roundup advocates and could "hardly be
considered to be impartial researchers" either.  That sort of talk gets us
nowhere, as the data and the findings are the things to look at.

I find it amazing that we are asked to believe that both the Journal Nature
and the New York Times might somehow both be completely wrong on the same
issue, and a few beekeepers in an internet forum are the only ones with the
TRUTH.

...and let's not forget the scrappy band of multi-billion dollar beleaguered
multinationals that the beekeepers occasionally quote!

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html