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

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#111

Post by stcredzero »

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…

was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed.

This describes some rather large fraction of laws, period.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#112

Post by djsumdog »

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.

Corbet does a great video on the Weaponization of Science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#113

Post by stcredzero »

Diederich wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #6

Here's the current California Prop 65 list. It's... extensive. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing... I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings. California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts ---…

> California cognitive dissonance I was born here over 40 years ago, and I've lived here since then except for a 15 year stint in the south and midwest. I love my state; but this place is objectively crazy in a lot of ways. Maybe that's one of the core ingredients to the many other awesome things here.

> I love my state; but this place is objectively crazy in a lot of ways.

> Maybe that's one of the core ingredients to the many other awesome things here.

California cognitive dissonance. (Nice job setting up the symmetry!)

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#114

Post by pera »

tptacek wrote: post #105
andreasgonewild wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be interested in reading Cornell's study, because it seem to contradict a World Health Organization study that marks glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (meaning that there is "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals").

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#115

Post by moronicalox »

intopieces wrote: post #20
cjensen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65. The "bag of potatoes" in your example would not have to be individually labeled. The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold.

> The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold. I just don't know what to do with the information on those signs. They are posted outside my apartment, at my work's garage, at Fry's... if I actively heeded the sign's warnings I would have to leave California I guess.

They are at Starbucks. I really don't know how to interpret these things because they have no details. They don't say which item is known to cause cancer, so I'm standing there adding sweetener and thinking "should I not add sugar? Or cinnamon?". It is doing more harm than good at this point.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#116

Post by pc86 »

DannyBee wrote: post #66
pc86 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll drink a teaspoon of vinegar and salt every day, you drink a teaspoon of glyphosphate every day.

If you are going to drink a teaspoon of pure (not diluted) acetic acid each day, and salt, i'll definitely take the glyphosphate. The acetic acid is going to eat your internal organs.

Vinegar isn't pure acetic acid so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I mean I know why, because then you can argue against a point I didn't make instead of the point I did.

A teaspoon of regular vinegar a day is not going to have any lasting effects on your health other than making you despise anything that tastes even remotely like vinegar.

Saying "salt + vinegar is more toxic than glyphosphate" is only true if you bastardize the definition of both and willingly forget for a moment that one of the chemicals is specifically designed to kill things.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#117

Post by pc86 »

adrr wrote: post #73
pc86 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll drink a teaspoon of vinegar and salt every day, you drink a teaspoon of glyphosphate every day.

Have you seen the MSDS on acetic acid? Drinking a strong acid isn't good for your health. Chronic Effects on Humans: MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. May cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, mucous membranes, skin, teeth. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922769

Well then it's a good thing we're talking about vinegar, which is 4-6% acetic acid, unless you're talking about wine vinegar (we're not), and not talking about 100% pure acetic acid, which is what you linked.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> I switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer and can't believe how well it works.

Yeah, salting the Earth is rather well established as a herbicidal practice known for millenia; increasing soil and runoff salinity has rather negative long-term environmental consequences, though (though, I guess, desertification can be a rather dramatic solution to the “plants I don't like grow here” problem.)

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#119

Post by tptacek »

pera wrote: post #114
tptacek wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be interested in reading Cornell's study, because it seem to contradict a World Health Organization study that marks glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (meaning that there is "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals").

I'm wrong, it was the EPA, and Cornell just cited them (thanks for calling me on this!):

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.p...

The WHO ultimately walked back IARC's glyphosate assessment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUS...

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#120

Post by dragonwriter »

striking wrote: post #18
cjensen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65. The "bag of potatoes" in your example would not have to be individually labeled. The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold.

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

The point is for everything to have a warning on it, to obscure the actual dangers. (At least, if to wasn't, you'd expect the groups that pushed Prop 65 to realize the problem and push for a fix.)
Post reply on HN