Out, What the author also did not report was the fact that 13 of the 39 positive tests (not sure where 41 came from) were for samples taken prior to the date that any spray had been applied that year, meaning the exposure was not from areal spray. In addition, no objective investigation of potential exposure paths was done for those that tested positive. Add in the fact that there was no chain of custody documentation of the urine samples and that Dr. Barr is the sister of one of the subjects included in the study against all scientific study protocols and you get a what amounts to a junk study.