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

221–230 of 379 posts

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

#221

Post by contravariant »

nemo44x wrote: post #49

This is bad journalism. Glyphosate is not “linked” to cancer. Sone groups think it is “probably” a carcinogen but most every governing body around the world says it is not as there’s no proof of the link at all. This is probably not journalism but rather propaganda designed to rally public support around glyphosate bans which we have seen in Germany and now the Netherlands. Farmers can still use it of course, but the…

If we're counting red flags toss "found in X% of Y" onto the heap as well.

Any report about 'detecting' something without mentioning safe levels or how amazingly sensitive some types of detection are should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

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

#222

Post by djbusby »

hammock wrote: post #205
algoatecorn wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but I think what they are saying is that they would like to see new GMO crops developed for consumer benefit instead of herbicide resistance.

Doesn’t sound too profitable

Focused on the wrong target.

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

#223

Post by IncRnd »

whimsicalism wrote: post #192
IncRnd wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drinking glyphosate could be a much larger acute exposure so it’s perfectly reasonable to say it’s safe as normally used but not want to drink it. It's a short video. But, you are commenting without even having watched it. The executive said that glyphosate is so safe that it is safe to drink. When the interviewer then said that they have a glass of glyphosate and asked if the exec would like to drink it, the execu…

? I don't see how that in any way diminishes what the GP said.

He is refuting what was said in the video but in the process has completely mistated what was said in that same video.

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

#225

Post by jancsika »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #170
rasz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sense of here mister lobbyist this is a glass of perfectly safe glyphosate, drink it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA

olive oil is great and I could not live without it, but I would not drink a glass of it it for no reason!

If I got paid by Big Olive as a lobbyist I'd at least take a swig. (I believe that lobbyist made a claim about drinking a spoonful.)

Then I'd probably cough and pivot to how to tell the difference between high quality olive oil and what the fraudsters are pushing. I'd celebrate the good work of my good friends at the California Olive Oil Council and many others to address the growing problem of fake olive oils. Let's protect our small olive farmers!

In short: if I instead turned red, started freaking out and stormed out of the interview, it would probably be wise to stay away from olive oil until you figured out exactly what happened there.

Edit: clarification

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

#226

Post by mmcconnell1618 »

nemo44x wrote: post #53
535188B17C93743 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawns are awful for the environment, and lawn care is a large part of this. Why we still have golf courses in any area that is regularly in drought is beyond me.

Swimming pools are worse. Let’s ban those first.

Most swimming pools (in ground) are filled once with water and rarely need additional water added. They use much less water than the average sprinkler system. They do require energy (pump and filter systems) and chemicals to keep things balanced but it designed as a closed loop system other than unusual circumstances.

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

#227

Post by wronglyprepaid »

kpennell wrote: post #164

The US sprays this all over Colombia to get rid of Coca but it ends up getting into the water and other crops https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/20/biden-pushes-co...

Maybe you linked to the wrong article, that article mentions "Duque’s spraying campaign" - fairly sure that Duque is not US.

Also Biden is the most progressive president in history, and I think with Colombia's track record when it comes to black and trans bodies you should maybe look in the mirror before pointing fingers.

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

#228

Post by mistrial9 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #194
mistrial9 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is outdated thinking. LD50 is a measure of poison in testing, but since then it is acknowledged that there are cumulative over a lifetime effects, there are endocrine disrupting effects, and there may be effects from small doses that tip balancing systems in the body significantly.. those are from memory, not a specialist here.

Water also has an LD50 but you wouldn't say there are cumulative over lifetime harms from drinking water.

water tainted with lead may be more to the point

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

#229

Post by ouid »

ramphastidae wrote: post #151

Society loves to make fun of those who choose organic produce, but avoiding glysophate is the main reason I do so, and it works: > Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary glyphosate levels in U.S. children and adults > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...

the pesticides used in organic farming are about as bad for you as the pesticides used in non organic farming, and used in higher quantities, since they are worse at being pesticides.

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

#230

Post by wussboy »

pmichaud wrote: post #157
grendelt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The back and forth with regulatory agencies is so frustrating. Another user here pointed out a while back that the better regulatory model, when it comes to health, is to put the onus on the supplier. We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.

This is essentially the model that we have with the FDA, right? And we have a bunch of problems with that too. I don't think there's a simple solution that just makes all scenarios better/easier/safer/whatever.

Perhaps we do have problems with that model. But are the problems of the "tens of millions of humans have potentially been exposed to this harmful compound and the result seems disastrous" variety? Or are the problems of the "it takes longer than normal" variety?

Because both are "problems". But I know which one I'd rather have as a society.

Post reply on HN