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

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#181

Post by ComputerGuru »

bazzert wrote: post #128
erikpukinskis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 But it was hugely flawed and was retracted.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.

Reminds me of aspartame. It's probably the only drug that's been studied more than glyphosate as a result of bad science causing public outrage.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#182

Post by luckydude »

tptacek wrote: post #84
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…

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…

Could you tell us/me about your background in this area? I looked you up, you seem to be a computer security guy.

Yet you are talking like you have pretty deep knowledge about biology and oncology, certainly more than I would claim to have.

Just wondering.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#183

Post by HillaryBriss »

7sigma wrote: post #180
HillaryBriss wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

interesting. that chart describes caffeine as more toxic than glyphosate.

caffeine is about thirty times more toxic than glyphosate. According to wikipedia: "The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass (75–100 cups of coffee for a 70 kilogram adult)" For glyphosate: "The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg. Other oral LD50 values for glyphosate are 1,538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for…

that's also really interesting.

here's what i don't get: how should i weigh the risks of acute toxicity against the risks of carcinogenicity?

i take in caffeine every day. glyphosate, only rarely, and in truly minute quantities. i haven't yet ingested enough of either to die immediately.

but have i ingested enough of either one to get cancer? is one a more powerful carcinogen than the other, taken in the quantities i experience? etc

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#184

Post by notadoc »

Oletros wrote: post #172
notadoc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, by avoiding "GMO foods", your friends are probably increasing their exposure to herbicides that have a much clearer connection to human health risks. I am responding to that comment from you. I'd love to read about how avoiding "GMO foods" increases exposure to herbicides, do you have any information on that?

> I'd love to read about how avoiding "GMO foods" increases exposure to herbicides, The OP comment doesn't say that. It says that probably is increasing their exposure more toxic herbicides, not that is increasing the exposure to herbicides

> It says that probably is increasing their exposure more toxic herbicides

OK, that sounds very interesting, can you show me the supporting data?

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#185

Post by DannyBee »

pc86 wrote: post #116
DannyBee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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."

Ah, but now you've pointed out the problem with your own argument. Nobody uses 100% glyphosphate either. It's highly diluted.

"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. "

Saying salt + vinegar is worse than glyphosphate is only true if you bastardize how glyphosphate is used. So yes, i'd agree with you that your point makes no sense :)

" forget for a moment that one of the chemicals is specifically designed to kill things."

Intent is irrelevant in nature. It's also not made to kill humans.

This point is just more of the same. Acetic acid is meant to destroy things too!

You are arguing "in the concentrations used, it's not destructive". That's quite literally the same as glyphosphate.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#186

Post by DannyBee »

arbitrage wrote: post #69
DannyBee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody said pure acetic acid. It's diluted to 5%.

and if you dilute the glyphosphate to the amount actually used, it's still going to be less toxic than the salt + vinegar.

You may not like this, but that's science!

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#187

Post by Oletros »

notadoc wrote: post #184
Oletros wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to read about how avoiding "GMO foods" increases exposure to herbicides, The OP comment doesn't say that. It says that probably is increasing their exposure more toxic herbicides, not that is increasing the exposure to herbicides

> It says that probably is increasing their exposure more toxic herbicides OK, that sounds very interesting, can you show me the supporting data?

I don't have any data and I'm not the one making the claim, I just was correcting a misunderstanding about the claim

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#189

Post by andreasgonewild »

bazzert wrote: post #127
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.

> 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 ?

PCBs (1935-1977), Agent Orange (1965-1969), Aspartame (1985-2000); how many examples do you want? They have public, verifiable roots that go all the way back to the Nazis and Zyklon-B. Not to mention trying to take over and ruin the global food supply for profit with their artificial bullshit seeds and chemicals.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#190

Post by tmaly »

fpgaminer wrote: post #170
notadoc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which pesticides do you refer to? I'd love to read and share exactly that sort of data.

A quick Google finds this (I consider NPR to be at least a decent source): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/13724926... That seems to cover the basics of the situation. The TL;DR is that an "organic" label just means the food was grown using only "organic" components. There are plenty of organic pesticides.

you have to also consider which organic standard. The ones in California and Oregon are much more strict than USDA organic
Post reply on HN