Live data from Hacker News

California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

reuters.com

121–130 of 190 posts

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#121
post #84

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…

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…

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and eroding critical forage.

Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land into corn and soy cropland, where reduced pollinator habitat actually reduces crop yields (or requires more agricultural abuses like migratory honeybees).

To say this is a useful chemical is misleading. It's designed to kill things and like all such chemicals, there are significant tradeoffs, regardless of whether it is directly carcinogenic to humans.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#122
post #121
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…

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and eroding critical forage. Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land into corn and soy…

That's interesting, but you're rebutting a bunch of arguments I didn't make.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#125
post #84

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…

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…

How much research have you done on this topic?

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#126
post #73
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

Chemically, a "strong acid" is one that dissociates completely in solution. HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, HBr, HI, HClO4, HClO3 comprise the complete list. That's it. All other acids have a dissociation constant, pKa.

The pKa for acetic acid is 4.76 . It is a "weak acid", but then again, so is HF, with a pKa of 3.17 . If you have ever seen Breaking Bad, you have seen what even a "weak acid" can do to the human body at high concentrations.

The usual story about acetic acid is that your chem prof was pipetting glacial acetic acid by mouth, and they accidentally got some in their mouth, and all the cells lining their oral cavity peeled off the next day. And they used bulbs or thumbwheel pumps on their pipettes ever since. Not sure if this story is especially common or if it is made up to scare students into using the lab equipment safely.

But anyway, the point is that the ill effects for caustic chemicals are largely dependent on concentration. "Vinegar" is acetic acid diluted to between 4 wt% and 18 wt%. You can drink vinegar, and just have skin rashes and weak teeth. If you drink enough glacial acetic acid (>99 wt%), you're going to die.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#127
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.

> 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. Can you back that up with even one verified instance ?

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair I'm very skeptical about claims of glyphosate being "cancer-causing" (whatever that means when no measure of effect size is mentioned), even in animals.

Why? Flawed studies get run all the time. If you see a flawed study about bat flight, does that make you more skeptical about all bat flight studies? Do you get joy from hippies being wrong? That's probably going to cause huge biases in your science reading.

The point being it is the only study that seemed to point to a link to cancer. But it was hugely flawed and was retracted. Given the hysteria over roundup you would think there were a bunch of such studies.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#129

(nevermind)

Don't comment like that here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20astroturf&sort=b...

It was mostly a joke, but I get your point and it's fair enough.

Here is some interesting reading instead:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-called-c...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222006

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=2%2C4-D+cancer

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't comment like that here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20astroturf&sort=b...

It was mostly a joke, but I get your point and it's fair enough. Here is some interesting reading instead: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-called-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…

It's not a joke. It's like the 4th comment you've posted on this thread claiming that people who disagree with you must be paid shills.

As for your links: the ones actually about glyphosate are all based on IARC's assessment, which the WHO was later forced to walk back (see upthread). The remainder are about herbicides that aren't glyphosate. Nobody is arguing that all herbicides are safe. The discussion is about whether glyphosate is a human carcinogen. The evidence suggests: probably not.

Post reply on HN