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

Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#101

Post by beat »

Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: post #97
beat wrote: post #8

This topic is so aggravating. On one hand, you have the "Don't eat science words, they give you the autism cancer!" reactionaries, and on the other side, you have the "Everything is completely benign, because science!" reactionaries.

This is false centrism. The 'science' side is perfectly prepared to accept any compelling data about risks or hazards. In many cases, these are the same people that have raised the alarm on various pollutants or environmental risks. But they don't say that about glyphosate because .. there's no evidence. It's just not there. All the terrible evils that this compound is supposed to have, such powerful effects, would b…

As a "science folk" myself, I care deeply about people just shouting "BUT SCIENCE!" to pretend their emotionally charged opinions are, somehow, facts. Which is absolutely what happens when discussing this issue.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#102

Post by beat »

crdrost wrote: post #90
beat wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this, and immediately thought of one of my maxims... "Data duplication is the source of all bugs".

Your maxim is already in common parlance as Karlton’s principle. “There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things.” (Some add “and off-by-one errors” but arguably that is the same problem of some ‘cache’ being ‘invalid’ and never suitably repopulated…) With that said downstream caches are often solid, if one treats them as the source of truth. “We just pretend this has not hap…

Yeah, I wrote about that exact thing a while back. https://hackernoon.com/the-two-hard-problems-in-computer-sci...

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#103

Post by JamesBarney »

zwerdlds wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that got farmers sued by Monsanto was the planting of "Roundup-Ready" seeds and subsequent application of glyphosate to the crop , which would kill a non-Roundup-Ready crop. You could plant Monsanto's GM seeds all you wanted without legal risk, so long as you treated them like any other crop and didn't try to exploit their GM properties.

I must be reading the situation wrong. Would you mind describing how situations detailed in this article jibe with your account? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-smal...

When you buy Monsanto seed you are licensed to use it under certain terms. One of those terms is not saving/harvesting the seeds and replanting them. Parr went to farmers, convinced them this was ok, and then charged them money to help them do it.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#104

Post by asdff »

sjg007 wrote: post #85
manifestsilence wrote: post #6

Here is the paper that made me start to take organic food seriously a few years ago: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ I don't have the skills to evaluate it in depth but it seems to indicate a plausible connection between glyphosate and leaky gut, which could explain why a lot of people who don't actually have celiac's have troubles with wheat. This is conjecture on my part, but it's possible tha…

Those authors are not credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff

It's also a predatory journal.

https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#105

Post by JamesBarney »

beat wrote: post #101
Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false centrism. The 'science' side is perfectly prepared to accept any compelling data about risks or hazards. In many cases, these are the same people that have raised the alarm on various pollutants or environmental risks. But they don't say that about glyphosate because .. there's no evidence. It's just not there. All the terrible evils that this compound is supposed to have, such powerful effects, would b…

As a "science folk" myself, I care deeply about people just shouting "BUT SCIENCE!" to pretend their emotionally charged opinions are, somehow, facts. Which is absolutely what happens when discussing this issue.

But the science really does only supports one side of this issue.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#106

Post by JamesBarney »

manifestsilence wrote: post #10
beat wrote: post #8

This topic is so aggravating. On one hand, you have the "Don't eat science words, they give you the autism cancer!" reactionaries, and on the other side, you have the "Everything is completely benign, because science!" reactionaries.

Yup, I hear you. I try to put my faith on the in-between folks, who say, "we can't prove in a court of law that this is harmful, but in this case there is a plausible mechanism and the risks don't seem justified. In this other case, there's no plausible mechanism for harm or the benefits outweigh the risks." The people who show some kind of doubt are, as always, the ones to actually listen to.

Or sometimes they're just less informed.

People who are well-versed with statistics have studied vaccines, gmo, and glyphosate the overwhelming majority all came to the same conclusion and they're confident in that conclusion. Maybe these things are dangerous but there isn't any good evidence they are.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#107

Post by asdff »

crdrost wrote: post #62
chicob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't decide for organic because of that. Like I said in another comment in this thread, organic farming still uses pesticides, just not the synthetic ones. In my opinion as a farmer, the foundational principle of Organic Farming is not a path towards better farming practices, but one that divides what is supposedly natural and organic, and what is artificial and synthetic. This has more to do with a romantic id…

I think you don’t give yourself enough credit by calling it a “romantic ideal of purity;” it really does make a difference. A little pesticide is fine for cosmetic value: people buy more of the prettier fruits and veggies, great. But when you start to apply modern engineering to it, you get extremely powerful pesticides which are able to do something much more dangerous. The most talked-about example of what I am tal…

You take out the eyes of a potato and stick it in the ground and you've also created a genetically identical clone. I'd bet most potato varieties are farmed this way and have been for a long time.

All of the bananas you eat are also genetically identical, since all banana trees grown for U.S. markets are clippings from the same original cavendish tree. Bananas is a real concern though for U.S. markets and there is currently a blight spreading, but the good news is there are hundreds of types of bananas, most of them more flavorful. The hard part is shipping them to the U.S. without bruising.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#108

Post by grandmczeb »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #92
grandmczeb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the paper version of [1]. Worthy of further research? Sure. "Damning" and "urgent"? Probably not. [1] https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, o…

They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots.

> You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs.

Except there are specific clinical links between lead/asbestos and particular, well identified conditions. On the other hand, your argument is the same used by the anti-vax and "alternative science" crowd since time immortal.

> It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.

It must also depend on your definition of "probably"; typically, people use the word to mean "very likely" or "more likely than not", but I see you've developed your own definition here.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#109

Post by JamesBarney »

manifestsilence wrote: post #6

Here is the paper that made me start to take organic food seriously a few years ago: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ I don't have the skills to evaluate it in depth but it seems to indicate a plausible connection between glyphosate and leaky gut, which could explain why a lot of people who don't actually have celiac's have troubles with wheat. This is conjecture on my part, but it's possible tha…

This article is a fishing expedition published by someone who is not involved in the field at all and wasn't peer reviewed by anyone who studies this seriously.

Speaking of fishy, the fish study was a small study where fish were literally swimming in roundup(not just glyphosate) at much higher concentrations than anything humans have contact with. Which tells us it's probably a bad idea to drink a glass of round up.

Here is a critique by an actual researcher in the field. http://www.ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-ca...

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#110

Post by JamesBarney »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #92
grandmczeb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the paper version of [1]. Worthy of further research? Sure. "Damning" and "urgent"? Probably not. [1] https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, o…

If I look at number of glasses of water drank and 30 types of cancer and find that one statistically significant correlation between water and increased incidence of one of those cancers have I done good science?

Not to mention if I give someone a glass of water it will do nothing. If I force feed them a 1000x the dose, like many of these studies, they would die. A far worse outcome than what happened to these mice and fish.

But if glyphosate is this poisonous why don't rats get sick when we give it to them?

Post reply on HN