Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 261 posts

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#101

Post by cies »

bootload wrote: post #92

As a youngster I used to work PT while I was at Uni back in the 80's, taking care of a semi-rural parkland spread over 200 square miles. Every Spring, our workload would increase, slashing, clearing of weeds and blackberries. So Round-up was used. I told the boss no and refused to use it. The pesticide would be measured then added to the spray packs and the blokes would hand spray what ever needed to be knocked down.…

I honestly do not understand that a company with such a track record is widely considered to be an legit business. They're a public enemy!

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#102

Post by ptaipale »

djyaz1200 wrote: post #77

Having held my mothers hand as she received chemo for her Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma I can tell you this... if there is a even a tiny chance using Roundup increases the risk of the disease it isn't worth it.

There are lots of other things that have much higher chance of causing cancer. Almost everything is carcinogenic, so if you start living by that argument, Roundup is not high on the list at all.

For instance, drinking beer or wine. Alcohol is known to be carcinogenic for certain whereas with Roundup we're still talking about that tiny chance. There's always a tiny chance that a molecule from car exhaust or microparticle from a rail increases the risk of cancer, so will you say that the risk of being in a proximity of a car or a bus or a train isn't worth it?

It is important to be able to put things into context and assess the orders of magnitude. Things like beer are for certain a much bigger cancer risk than Roundup, not to mention tobacco. Still, there is much more talk about banning Roundup than beer.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#103

Post by cies »

gumby wrote: post #44

One important reasons for robotics is to reduce/eliminate the use of pesticides. After all we use weed killed because it's cheaper than weeding by hand. Regardless of whether Glyphosate is toxic to humans or not, it kills the rhizome (fungi and other ecology around the roots), drying the soil and making it less productive. Robots will not only avoid this problem but support the planting of complementary crops.

While I'm not against robots per se, I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans?

Without this job I foresee several potential problems: large unemployment, people leaving the countryside, many low paying jobs that feel meaningless to the workers.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#104

Post by tdeschamps »

yodsanklai wrote: post #85
djsumdog wrote: post #27

It's difficult to judge long term toxicity in humans. You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, and the correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes needs a fully understandable cause. That's how the industry slipped by for years. Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health. The anti-fl…

> Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health I've never researched this so it may be confirmation bias, but my experience living in Europe and the US is that Americans have better looking teeth.

better looking does not mean healthier, especially thanks to bleach, whitening and surgery.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#105

Post by arthurfm »

mohaine wrote: post #18
jnordwick wrote: post #4

I think the proper comparison is Roundup verses other herbicides. It that comparative analysis, it definitely wins.

Especially vs other broad spectrum herbicides. We used this one year as a no till knock down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener. A droplet small enough to blow 30 feet in the air was enough to make a yellow spot on any plant it landed on. It is also linked to Parkinson's disease.

> The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener.

VX (and VG) nerve agents were originally intended for use as pesticides so this isn't surprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_(nerve_agent)

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#106

Post by kamih »

sametmax wrote: post #88
macandcheese wrote: post #72

It's not legal for sale in New York, mostly because of false advertising the company previously did touting it's biodegradability, even going so far as to say that it's "practically non-toxic". In fact, they continue to be the subject of a class action lawsuit in NY: https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-ca... Unfortunately all that may come of that lawsuit is a small label change... It pains me t…

It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious proven activities. It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.

No tinfoil required, there are now companies you can pay that will "manage" social network comment sections in your favor.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#107

Post by ClassyJacket »

sien wrote: post #28
taneq wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lithium ion batteries are pretty much 'safe to eat'^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H non-toxic (Edit: NOT safe to eat, as discussed below) (compared with lead-acid or nickel-cadmium batteries)... but I still wouldn't actually eat one .

Lithium in your stomach? Seriously? Button batteries are a real risk for kids. They have died eating them. For any parent out there it's scary, button batteries are pretty common and look like a sweet or something. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/two-year-ol...

SOME Lithium in your stomach is safe, and in some circumstances is arguably safer than none, as it's an effective, prescribed antidepressant.

But I don't advocate eating batteries. Just saying that Lithium isn't poison in certain quantities.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#108

Post by gadders »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #71
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without claiming RoundUp is good for you, I would point to this with regards to your point #4: http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp

Gotta love how Snopes dismisses anecdotal claims of allergies, then goes on to use anecdotal stories from farmers on a discussion forum to support their assertion that RoundUp isn't used as a crop dessicant.

Pretty sure they use it on Rape Seed in the UK. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#109

Post by arthurfm »

mikekchar wrote: post #62
baldfat wrote: post #11

The funny thing is we have less herbicides because of Roundup. The option is we starve the world, because we will not be able to product enough wheat etc. or we use stronger herbicides. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...

There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour. Herbicides don't increase yield. They decrease cost. Wheat is currently $4.35 a bushel. A bushel of wheat is about 60 lbs. So, we're paying just over 7 cents a pound for wheat. Fix the distribution side, not the production side. There's a lot more fat there. And in the mean time, research ways of reducing labour on physical meth…

> There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour.

Wouldn't organic herbicides containing Nonanoic (Pelargonic) acid [1], vinegar [2] or salt [3] also be options?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonanoic_acid

[2] http://weedicide.co.uk/does-vinegar-kill-weeds/

[3] http://weedicide.co.uk/salt-kill-weeds-herbicide/

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#110

Post by gadders »

sametmax wrote: post #84
alevskaya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health. History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco, asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good. Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improp…

You can't trust charities either. They have a vested interest in maintaining their world view in spite of contrary evidence. For instance, the banning of DDT in Africa despite the fact that using it to control malaria saves lives.
Post reply on HN