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

Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 379 posts

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#211

Post by peoplefromibiza »

xattt wrote: post #146
WillPostForFood wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have been exposed to got cancer, but that is meaningless in showing causation. Internal documents show concern, but show no evidence that it causes cancer, or that Monsanto had internal data showing it caused cancer.

This type of rhetoric isn’t helpful, except to companies and manufacturers looking to minimize the attention around specific products with known carcinogenic properties.

well it also doesn't help to make assumptions based on skewed correlations.

Every living animal, including us, drinks water.

Every living animal dies.

Is there something in the water maybe?

I don't see how this line of reasoning can be helpful honestly.

---

There is no limit on how much damages this mentality can do.

Think about the recent stream of

people got COVID vaccine, then died

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#212

Post by whimsicalism »

swayvil wrote: post #79
whimsicalism wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend you remind yourself of the HN rules. The evidence that glyphosate in fold causes cancer is currently really weak, albeit enough to convince a lay jury.

The reply to which you replied is flagged and killed. It was not a very hot reply. It did not break the "guidelines". Well worded and informative actually. This is telling.

It insinuated that there are a number of users on this website that are being paid by Monsanto. That is absolutely against site guidelines.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#213

Post by Retric »

whimsicalism wrote: post #197
Retric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farming existed before people. Humanity has gotten very good at it and weedkilling is a big part of it. But, wild plants propagate quite well on their own, spending seeds of things you want more of results in more of that species. Preparing the environment and selecting seeds ca push that much further but the absolute minimum threshold is very low. Toss eaten apples into your yard, and eventually you get apple trees.

I think your definition of farming might be a wee bit broad.

What in your mind is the clear cut separation between ants cultivating fungus, people tossing specific seeds on the ground 20,000 years ago, and whatever you think of as farming?

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#214

Post by hammock »

voakbasda wrote: post #132
jiggywiggy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways that don't require that much more effort. For instance plastic covering the field will clean up a field. But that's a tiny bit more work then just spraying and poisoning everything. Of course the GMO crops that are bred to be glysophate resistant are even more convenient

That’s not a tiny amount of work. We are talking about hundreds and thousands of acres. That is not feasible for covering with plastic.

Covering with plastic is exactly what happens in strawberry fields every season. There is no other commercially feasible way to grow them.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#215

Post by whimsicalism »

Retric wrote: post #213
whimsicalism wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your definition of farming might be a wee bit broad.

What in your mind is the clear cut separation between ants cultivating fungus, people tossing specific seeds on the ground 20,000 years ago, and whatever you think of as farming?

Okay I was wondering if you were going to bring ants up because I think that is a good point.

> people tossing specific seeds on the ground 20,000 years ago

This seems irrelevant to whether farming occurred before people.

I don't think the line is very clear cut at all, but it does involve intentional intervention by a species not the plant.

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#216

Post by cameronh90 »

parineum wrote: post #57
paulryanrogers wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't see any citations on either side of this discussion. WHO says yes [0] while EPA says "not likely" [1]. Until the experts agree people can decide for themselves what risks they consider acceptable. Or at least they can if they can afford buying from farmers who don't yet use the chemical. [0] https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... [1] https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-ris…

WHO doesn't say "yes" they say "probably". Same category as very hot water (65c). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A

To be fair, being submerged in hot water for long enough might cause cancer, if you somehow survive.

From what I can tell, the WHO only categorises a single chemical as "Group 4: the agent (mixture) is probably not carcinogenic to humans".

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#217

Post by peoplefromibiza »

krolden wrote: post #206
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mister organic farmer, here is a plate of cow manure, eat it.

That's stupid. But I will definitely drink some compost tea if it will shut you up.

subgroup analysis showed that increase in consumption of three cups of black tea per day was a significant risk factor for breast cancer (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32).

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#218

Post by hammock »

tomohawk wrote: post #103

If you're eating anything with oats grown in the US, especially things like Cheerios, you're likely getting a big dose of glyphosate. They spray this on the oats to kill and dessicate them prior to harvest to prevent the crop from being ruined by rain.

Does that include organic oats?

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#219

Post by IncRnd »

dodgerdan wrote: post #150
IncRnd wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Monsanto was guilty, many companies and people settle for large amounts of money even when not guilty. Settling is often about cost not guilt. A company settles to reduce future risks and to stop unbounded lawsuit costs.

Show me an example of that where the payment was over $1bn.

It took me less than 10 seconds to find.

"Companies Finalize $26 Billion Deal With States and Cities to End Opioid Lawsuits" [1]

"Judge approves $1 billion settlement for victims of deadly Florida condo collapse" [2]

"39 State Attorneys General Announce $1.85 Billion Settlement with Student Loan Servicer Navient" [3]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/health/opioids-settlement...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-approves-1-billion...

[3] https://www.navientagsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0

Re: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

#220

Post by Retric »

whimsicalism wrote: post #215
Retric wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in your mind is the clear cut separation between ants cultivating fungus, people tossing specific seeds on the ground 20,000 years ago, and whatever you think of as farming?

Okay I was wondering if you were going to bring ants up because I think that is a good point. > people tossing specific seeds on the ground 20,000 years ago This seems irrelevant to whether farming occurred before people. I don't think the line is very clear cut at all, but it does involve intentional intervention by a species not the plant.

> > people tossing specific seeds on the ground 20,000 years ago

> This seems irrelevant to whether farming occurred before people.

It gets to if for example squirrels storing seeds underground is possibly farming or not. It's an intentional activity, but takes too long for a specific squirrel to see much benefit from it. IMO, it’s kind of a mind bender when you really dig into it.

I think a reassemble argument is squirrels as a species farm though individuals don’t.

Post reply on HN