Please check my calculations. I came up with approximately 50 mg of the fungicide Tebuconazole administered as the daily dose amount given to the male test rats.

And it's not an insecticide, it's a fungicide. Makes me doubt the entire study.

From the article: "Adult male albino rats (Rattus norvegicus) of an average body weight 180–200 g were used for experimentation." 250 mg per 1000 gm of body weight is equal to 0.250 mg per gm of body weight. So using average 190 gm body weight yields 47.5 mg per day.

The paper did not explain why this dose was selected, but I assume that the reviewers and editor felt the choice was reasonable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following paper on a similar chemical (but different type of rat) does explain their choice of dosage:

Title: "Evaluation of the reproductive toxicity of fungicide propiconazole in male rats"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniela_Gerardin/publication/280058455_Evaluation_of_the_reproductive_toxicity_of_fungicide_propiconazole_in_male_rats/links/5728abb108aef5d48d2c7f9a.pdf

In their conclusion section, they state: "Then, our results indicate that treatment with Prop may have an endocrine disrupter effect and could cause damage to the male reproductive functions. Therefore, there is a need for further
studies, since the population is continuously exposed to this compound."

I have no scientific basis for my following statement, but I believe the dosage rate given to the rats is outrageously high, 47.5 mg/day! Therefore the severity of the negative health effects the test rats experienced has no correlation to the toxic effects I as a home rose gardener would experience.

My level of exposure to the toxic effects of the fungicide during normal, routine rose spraying, following label directions, and practicing generally accepted safest possible spraying procedures is what concerns me, not what some extremely inapplicable lab test result concluded.

Moses W. PA., I have already commented that the original scientific paper in this thread is a reviewed, accepted scientific paper.

Here is another reviewed published paper in this field.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/2/464.full

"The rats were gavaged with 0, 50, or 100 mg/kg tebuconazole or 15 or 50 mg/kg epoxiconazole, respectively, from GD 7 to postnatal day (PND) 16. The doses were based on literature survey."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some comments on the use of high concentrations for certain types of scientific studies in an earlier thread:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/discussions/1701112/bayer-advanced-disease-control-is-it-safe-to-use?n=27

In it I state: "The following was stated: "The testing that was done that promoted the caution was done with amounts that far exceed what the average rose gardener would use in 3 lifetimes."
---------------------------------
H. Kuska comment. The above statement would be useful if the only danger was to immediately kill (Acute Toxicity). However, testing may also try to determine long time range negative effects (examples: Cancer, Developmental or Reproductive Toxin, and/or Endocrine Disruptor) i.e. determine if something will be harmful 20 or 30 years after a low dose exposure or exposures to similar acting chemicals.

Since the obvious method - apply a low dose to humans and observe for 20 or 30 years is not a practical procedure, high concentration experiments on a finite number of animals (or laboratory cell cultures) for a practical time exposure is a common first step substitute. If this first step substitute indicates a possible problem, then I recommend application of the Precautionary Principle while further definitive testing is carried out (unless one wants to volunteer to be what I call "a beta tester")."

Please read the original thread to put this quote into the full context.

Most of these studies are for agricultural use of pesticides. The normal home gardener would not have this kind of exposure. Of course you must use caution when using any chemical in the garden or the house. Proper protection with gloves, eye cover and clothes are important. Doing this will avoid any kind of negative effects of using the products.

The wonders of science, so called, never cease to DISMAY me.

What happened to the ICE AGE our wise scientists declared that the world was cycling into in the mid-1970's?

More recently, man-made GLOBAL WARMING, has been reconfigured into CLIMATE CHANGE by our wise scientists. This covers all bases in case the climate goes either way. Scientists hedge their bets better than any Las Vegas card shark.

May I add the dire straits Californians were proclaimed to be in by our esteemed scientists. They declared just one year ago that California's climate has now changed into a PERMANENT drought state, due to climate change, or is it global warming, or whatever future terminology readjustment our sagacious scientists will assure us is the truth.