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

California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 190 posts

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#101

Post by dao- »

adrr wrote: post #70
rudedogg wrote: post #26

I switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer and can't believe how well it works. It seems to be just as effective as RoundUp.

Depending on the vinegar/soap it may contain alcohol which is known carcinogen where glyphosates are a suspected carcinogen. On toxicity, acetic acid in vinegar is pretty high and associated with things like osteoporosis which has been seen in people who consume apple cider vinegar on a daily basis. Along the same lines LD50 of glyphosates is 10,000mg/kg where acetic acid in vinegar is fatal at 3000mg/kg.

I guess you could damage your skin via direct contact if you're not careful and use them a lot, but the alcohol and acetic acid will dissolve in the ground in reasonable time. Using such herbicides should be way less harmful than drinking a glass of wine or cider every now and then, and safer than glyphosate too.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#102

Post by [deleted] »

luckydude wrote: post #71
chapium wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were probably shouted down because your argument is bad. First, you cite anecdotal evidence of one case. Next you claim to not be an expert in oncology, but you somehow have more knowledge on the subject than them. There may indeed be a link, but you are supporting your case poorly. Condolences for your father.

I'm not trying to make an argument, I was just passing on a single data point. I made it pretty clear that I don't know and it's not my field. I don't know how you get from what I said to "somehow I have more knowledge than oncologists". If I said that then I'm 100% wrong. My dad was a physicist and when he got cancer he started looking around to try and figure out why. He found that the only thing that made sense to…

[deleted]

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#103

Post by jasode »

jcranmer wrote: post #95
striking wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?

The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. The idea is to get companies to stop using potentially dangerous chemicals, so the proposition required that companies give a warning if they use any of a set of chemicals on a certain list. Which might be okay, except it has several problems: * Private citizens are able to initiate civil enforcement and collect penalties; it's not limited to regulat…

>The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. [...] There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations.

Well, there's that old saying: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." -- supposedly Abe Lincoln

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+la....

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#104

Post by wccrawford »

cronjobber wrote: post #57
luckydude wrote: post #34

Last time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers wanting to talk to you about it). Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not an…

> But who are the people here that keep defending it? In recent times, people have become afraid of being perceived as anti-science . See it all the time.

Worse, people believe in the results of anything labeled "science" blindly, without considering whether it's actually true or what the confidence level of the scientists is in their own result.

For example, evolution. I know someone who believes in it so strongly that you can't suggest that it's still just a theory, and that it's actually possible that it's incorrect. Unlikely, sure, but possible. He gets irate and claims it as a fact.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#105

Post by tptacek »

andreasgonewild wrote: post #100
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's very little epidemiological evidence to suggest glyphosate is a human carcinogen. Millions of people are exposed to it, some in significant amounts on work sites. If there's any correlation between heavy occupational exposure to glyphosate and human cancer, it's very weak. Similarly: there's not a lot of first-principles logic to carcinogenicity of glyphosate. It's active in a metabolic pathway that animals d…

The metabolic pathway-propaganda doesn't tell half the truth; there are plenty of living organisms and organs within the human body that are badly affected by Glyphosate; enough to make you wonder if that wasn't part of the plan all along. Nothing good ever came out of Monsanto, it's all harmful crap; it's mind-boggling that these psychos are allowed to continue given their track record.

Cornell has done studies where they've fed dogs and rats huge amounts of glyphosate over long periods of time and were unable to detect any cellular changes. Due respect, but when you're at the point where you can't give rats cancer with long-term high dosing, the bar for establishing carcinogenicity from first-principles reasoning is very, very high.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#106

Post by wccrawford »

UtahDave wrote: post #14

California thinks EVERYTHING is cancer causing. I took my kids to Disneyland last year and right after the security screen there was a Prop 65 sign saying (roughly) that "Disneyland contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer". How is that helpful at all?

I have a picture of one of those signs near our hotel when we stayed there. My wife and I were very surprised to see it. It's so ridiculous.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#107

Post by jcranmer »

sp332 wrote: post #99
jcranmer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pesticide residue is absolutely not a concern. If you're still terrified of it, just rinse your fruit and vegetables off first, and that will eliminate it. Glyphosate itself really isn't a problem unless you're dealing with 55-gallon drums of it on a regular basis (and even then, the evidence is less than compelling). But such is chemophobia that we can't treat repercussions in an industrial settings with solely OSHA…

Oh, I meant the labeling requirements. How much glyphosate is allowed to be on the produce before they have to label it? Or once the food has been touched, is it tainted forever (legally speaking)?

As far as I can tell from Proposition 65... any amount is sufficient to necessitate a label.

The current law states: [the requirements to not expose anyone to such a chemical are waived for] an exposure for which the person responsible can show that the exposure poses no significant risk assuming lifetime exposure at the level in question for substances known to the state to cause cancer, and that the exposure will have no observable effect assuming exposure at one thousand (1000) times the level in question for substances known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity, based on evidence and standards of comparable scientific validity to the evidence and standards which form the scientific basis for the listing of such chemical pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 25249.8. In any action brought to enforce Section 25249.6, the burden of showing that an exposure meets the criteria of this subdivision shall be on the defendant.

So basically, the minimum amount you need to label is the minimum amount you'd be unable to convince a jury that exposure to is safe.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#109

Post by tptacek »

Crespyl wrote: post #96
tptacek wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty simple to observe that if you're using the same label for ethylene oxide and potato chips, something is wrong with your system.

In fairness, an equally simple observation is that there might be something wrong with your potato chips. Not that I think CA's level of labeling is reasonable or at all helpful.

No! The problem isn't potato chips; it's cooked potatoes. See the issue? The labels are actually subtracting from your understanding of the risk.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#110

Post by omginternets »

adrr wrote: post #89
omginternets wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LD50 and carcinogenesis have very little to do with each other.

Both are related to mortality.

Yes, and the topic of discussion is most assuredly not: which will make you drop dead while using it.

Rather, it's "which will give you cancer through long-term exposure".

Post reply on HN