Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer • Hacker News Board

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#131

Post by machz » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

beat wrote: post #12

I am really looking forward to the day we can replace chemical herbicides with weed-hunting robots. It seems such a huge market opportunity... little, inexpensive bots that can roam a field, picking out weeds the moment they appear as seedlings, never touching the crop itself, not putting anything in the soil. When I was a kid growing up in central Illinois in the 1970s, before Roundup, "walking beans" was a common s…

Thankfully, labour is cheaper in India than many herbicides, so farmers didn't subscribe to them in big numbers. I can tell you with certainty that we don’t use glyphosate on wheat or sugar cane (at least in a large part of India that I know).

There's a danger these companies can make inroads though: I was in field few days back and there was an Agriculture University professor who quite paternalistically suggested to a farmer that he use this product to de-weed the field. Gosh, degrees and education aren't enough sometimes. I wasn't in the position to debate (as someone younger and a software engineer), it made my stomach growl.

We honestly need to have ethics trainings for Professors/Researchers across the globe.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#132

Post by cannonedhamster » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:14 AM UTC

markaz wrote: post #98

cannonedhamster wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize vinegar is a plant killer right? Too much water is a plant killer, too much sun is a plant killer. There are insecticides that kill bugs that don't have an impact on humans. Starvation probably kills far more people than Roundup. I mean I hate Monsanto as a company too but literally you could die drinking too much water. If you cannot even define how something would impact humans wouldn't the appropria…

You do realize vinegar (acid) is a human killer right? Too much water is a human killer, too much sun is a human killer. Science typically starts with a hypothesis and tests it. Starting with the hypothesis that roundup is dangerous for humans is logical because we already know it is not safe for other forms of life.

Vinegar is only dangerous if consumed above a safe level, same with the sun, water, etc. Which was the point you seemed to miss. Toxicity is determined not by how it interacts with plants, but the safe level for humans, which is different than plants. Your assumption that everything is automatically dangerous is not founded in anything close to science or even evidence at this point. Prove that it's dangerous, it's been the most common and least toxic herbicide for years. Wouldn't you expect more concrete evidence to turn up similar to smoking, black lung disease, mesthelioma, etc? There hasn't been a huge upsurge in cancer rates, in fact they've gone down since glyphosate has been used. There is literally no concrete evidence currently that this is dangerous to humans at concentrations currently used. Find proof then I'll believe you.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#133

Post by ptah » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 7:28 AM UTC

beat wrote: post #82

ptah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or even better: abandon monoculture

Abandoning monoculture means completely upending the harvesting process. That's a much harder problem. Or abandoning annual crops in favor of perennials, which would have tremendous negative impact on productivity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

in the long term we will have to do this with perennials and find new harvesting techniques as current system is creating dustbowls long term

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#134

Post by manifestsilence » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

chicob wrote: post #52

manifestsilence wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the glyphosate-resistant varieties is that they allow for liberal and injudicious use of the chemical. I'm sure it makes economic sense to be able to carpet spray your crop instead of having to spot spray or use careful timing, but over-spray blowing onto trees causes damage in many areas, as well as putting large quantities of glyphosate into water systems.

I understand that worry, but it doesn't make much economic sense. It is possible that some farmers would abuse it, but that would be expensive and unnecessary, since the target weed would die with a regular dosage. Abuse of glyphosate spraying is also counter-productive. Low volume sprayings are generally more effective. And by the way, glyphosate-resistant does not mean glyphosate-impervious. Non-targets can still b…

I mean to say that current levels of application as actually practiced are too high and cause damage. It seemingly hasn't been proven, but many people blame it for oak tatters: https://hortnews.extension.iastate.edu/oak-tatters

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#135

Post by zip1234 » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

jbattle wrote: post #60

zip1234 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps little automated dirt guns like mobile SAM sites that can shoot down pests as well? They can just pick up a few grains of dirt and shoot them at any pests that come near the plants.

https://www.bugasalt.com/

That's what I was thinking of but salt doesn't do well with plants unfortunately so that's why I thought dirt might work.