Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by randomdata » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

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.

The article says it isn't used as a crop desiccant in wheat. If you want another anecdotal data point, as a grain grower myself, I have to echo the sentiment there. I'm sure someone has tried it, but I see no reason for wheat to need desiccation generally.

Edible beans on the other hand...

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

#192

Post by jerven » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

lorenzhs wrote: post #160

jerven wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neem OIL is an biological pesticide that is organic approved. Vastly more likely to kill you than roundup use. Neem OIL LD50 = 31.95g/kg Caffeine LD50 = 175 g/kg (150-200 estimate in humans) Glycosate LD50 = > 2000 g/kg i.e. the "Biological&organic and traditional" alternative used is two orders magnitude more dangerous.

Except two of those numbers are off by three orders of magnitude. Caffeine's LD50 is 150-200 milli gram/kg, Glyphosate is at 2-5.6g/kg (in rats). These numbers are completely meaningless, though, because LD50 is not the correct measure of toxicity unless you plan on drinking the stuff. The concerns are about the effects of pesticides on the body, not literally dying from the poisonous effects of pesticide . Salt is a…

Thanks you are correct, I messed up my numbers.

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

#193

Post by sametmax » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #176

jpttsn wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only people remembered to check for unknown unknowns.

And that doesn't apply to the "Organic" Industry because...?

Nobody said it doesn't. But the whole purpose of organic is to do it in a way that has been tested by darwin natural selection for a long time in a very complex system.

Of course that doesn't mean the organic industry is doing things properly nor does it mean that this type of culture doesn't some other negative side effects.

But globally, I'll bet on the farmer cooperative that want to avoid pesticide to be less evil than a mega corporation that produce the Agent Orange. Does that sound silly ?

I really don't get how much you are willing to reverse this attack from Monsanto to organic sellers.

Sure nobody is perfect. And yes, the whole debate is tainted by pseudo science and bad faith. But come on, it's not even on the same scale.

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

#194

Post by walkon » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #103

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.

> I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans?

You'll get your answer by working in the fields for a few weeks.

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

#195

Post by randomdata » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

yxhuvud wrote: post #100

baldfat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been on a wheat farm? I actually have been and even got to help around the farm for fun. My friend had 4.5 squares. That is a square equals 1 square mile. How would we increase labor for weed control? I also lived in Imperial Valley, California. The back breaking work that the migrant workers did was amazing difficult. It would take double or triple the workers to pick through and weed a farm then pick…

There are mechanical ways to fight weeds. You'd have to use the tractor and appropriate tools on the field a lot more, and you may end up to have to stop growing just one crop all years but instead cycle between different crops.

That's how it used to be done way back in the day, but what about the growing pressure to get away from disturbing the soil entirely? I even recall a Minute Earth[1] video, of all places, pressuring us to move towards no-till practices, which relies on herbicides. It seems we're getting some mixed messages.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOefA-bSduM

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

#196

Post by Broken_Hippo » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:29 PM UTC

baldfat wrote: post #170

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've personally looked into some of these things, and have read quite a few warnings about both salt and vinegar. Improperly used, they can ruin the soil and render it barren. I'm not sure of the truth of this, but it was enough to make me just use manual labor at home (in other words, my garden was half weeds since I rarely did it). The larger the scale of application, however, the worse they seem to perform. [1] Sa…

> Just because things are natural or traditional doesn't make them necessarily better than the chemicals we are dealing with now a) cyanide is 100% natural so is snake venom so is that better then you? b) Everything is a chemical. Salt is Sodium chloride (NaCl) has it certainly does destroy the soil. If you don't like someone try dumping some salt into their garden. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/env…

My point exactly :)

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

#197

Post by adsfqwop » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:29 PM UTC

jpttsn wrote: post #154

adsfqwop wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance. You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are simplifying everything way too much. Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in protein structures. Does that not worry you? Gly…

If only people remembered to check for unknown unknowns.

Does he know Glyphosate mimics glycine? I'm pretty sure he doesn't. That's an unknown to him.

Whenever you study a complex subject, you have to be aware that there are things you might not know about. And there are also things you might not know you do not know.

That's an unknown unknown.

You're making light of a very serious issue among scientists and science. An honest scientist keeps looking for the unknown, a dishonest scientist (to himself) stops looking, and then it becomes dogma.

This guy thinks he knows it all, but he does not, and he does not even realize that there could be things he does not know. When you do that, you can easily switch from doing science, to (accidentally or deliberately) start pushing an agenda.

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

#198

Post by luckydude » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

luckydude wrote: post #25

My dad died because of roundup. He was a physics prof, smart guy, fought hard for wetland issues. Was on the board of Wisconsin Wetlands. He didn't drink, didn't smoke, he was very active, very fit, and yet he got cancer. I can feel the down votes coming, but he was a guy that just should not have gotten cancer. Roundup gave him cancer. I could tell you stories about him dieing that would be not so fun. Fuck cancer a…

So all the nay sayers are right, I can't prove it was roundup. But the cancer he got was the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma not some unrelated cancer from sun exposure.

His side of the family is cancer free going back generations. And they lived well into their 90's. One of my great uncle's made it to 103 or 104 (I think, I know it was over a hundred because I remember the fuss, I was very young). My dad was diagnosed at 75 and died the same year.

I can't prove anything, I'm a programmer not a cancer researcher. He was the guy who was convinced it was roundup, he was 100% mentally after the diagnosis and did tons of research trying to figure out what could have caused the cancer. He was baffled by getting cancer, nobody in his family got cancer and he had no bad habits that could have lead to this. So maybe he talked himself into it, I dunno. What I do know is he had nothing else in his history that he found, all he found was roundup.

If someone can show that there is zero connection between roundup and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma then I have no idea what caused the cancer. But if you google non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and roundup you'll see the lawyers lining up to sue. Are all those lawsuits imaginary? Usually the lawyers don't get involved in those sorts of numbers unless they think they are going to win.

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

#199

Post by hammock » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

joelthelion wrote: post #146

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…

> It doesn't do us any good calling everything in the world a carcinogen I think it would help tremendously if we started expressing everything in terms of Disability-adjusted life years[1] lost. So instead of "Drinking hot tea causes cancer!", the headline would read "Drinking hot tea causes you to lose an average 20 minutes of disability-adjusted life expectancy". A lot less scary, and a lot easier to compare with…

Hot tea causes cancer?

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

#200

Post by sametmax » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 2:35 PM UTC

splawn wrote: post #189

adsfqwop wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance. You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are simplifying everything way too much. Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in protein structures. Does that not worry you? Gly…

>You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns This sounds reasonable. /s Do you have an example of anything that accounts for the possibility of unknown unknowns? My guess is if you do, then all it will take to "debunk" it is someone with a bigger imagination. EDIT: bad comma

The way you take in consideration unknown unknowns is not by trying to think of every single possible thing.

It's actually quite the opposite.

You start from what you know and what you control. From that you can assess what you can mess up. The scale, the consequences and likelihood of it.

E.G: if you are using a very potent instable new explosive, you have much more unknown unknowns that if you are manipulating a well well know concentrated acid.

Now starting from here you know what the cost of what you don't know could be, and else can choose measures to mitigate that such as more research, bigger safety coefficient, additional staff, insurance, etc.

When we blame a company for not taking in consideration unknown unknowns, it usually means they just tried to build the very minimal legal requirement to put it on the market and make money. They may have known that it was risky, but they didn't bother.