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

271–280 of 379 posts

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

#271

Post by lostlogin »

adrr wrote: post #237
abe_duarte wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have been exposed to the chemical got cancer. Internal Monsanto documents show the link and their concern. A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...

There’s more than glyphosate in roundup. Also if glyphosate increased the risk of cancer, we would see cancer increase when it started to get widely used. Cancer rates except for skin cancer keep falling.

It’s possible that rates would have fallen further if glyphosate wasn’t present.

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

#272

Post by Dylan16807 »

NullPrefix wrote: post #243
newguynewphone wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait are you suggesting this companies were not guilty? are we reading the same settlements?

Not quoting any of these articles, but "settled with no admission of guilt"

The claim was about companies that are actually not guilty, and while sometimes that's ambiguous it's up to IncRnd to cite an example where it actually is ambiguous or better for the company, with a payment of a billion or more.

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

#273

Post by ciconia »

checker wrote: post #3

How far off are we from having drones that mechanically remove weeds at a reasonable cost? It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. We can build loyal wingman drones to kill enemy aircraft but we can't kill weeds?? Edit: I'm talking about farming, not lawns. RTFA

Weeds are largely a symptom of monoculture, an algricultural practice that's ecologically destructive. Besides, there are diverse solutions to controlling weeds: mulching, association planting, green cover...

> It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food.

Yes, but it's also ridiculous to treat the symptom instead of the disease.

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

#274

Post by whimsicalism »

swayvil wrote: post #256
whimsicalism wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, the rules forbid explicit accusation. Not vague insinuation. A rule forbidding vague insinuation would be too broad and open to abuse. That said, Monsanto would certainly deploy a flock of shills to HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. The existence of motive, means and opportunity is clear. Therefore they have definitely done that. Are we going to ignore that fact?

Why make up something so easily checked? From the HN rules:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like.

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

#275

Post by bobthepanda »

wussboy wrote: post #230
pmichaud wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sometimes the result actually results in millions of humans getting cancer as a result of inaction.

In most of the world (Canada, EU, Korea, Japan, etc.) sunscreen is regulated as a cosmetic, but in the US the FDA regulates it as an OTC drug. The last time an ingredient was approved for sunscreen use was in 1999, and in other countries there are more active ingredients with better properties than what is currently approved for use in the US.

The problem is that a good deal of the US approved list is basically off limits because they've since been shown to be unhealthy, and what's left on the list has challenging cosmetic properties to the point where people can't be convinced to apply sunscreen every day, because formulations do things like become oily and don't play nice with other cosmetics, or show up as chalky white pigment on any remotely dark skintones. https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/new-sunscreens-for-uva-...

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

#276

Post by 8note »

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #226
nemo44x wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indoor or outdoor?

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

#277

Post by Dylan16807 »

geoduck14 wrote: post #254
WarChortle wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're overthinking this a little. If Monsanto comes up with a new weedkiller, they have to prove that its safe for humans before its put into use. It has nothing to do with restaurants. Obviously stuff would be grandfathered in as well. But its a fantastic idea going forward.

If you require farmers to use "approved" processes for farming, but you don't require grocery stores and restaurants to use those farmers , then they will simply buy food from farmers that don't follow those principles.

If we're talking about domestic farmers, they're going to get caught at the same rate regardless of what you tell grocery stores and restaurants to do.

If you mean international farmers, I think it's obvious you'd have to apply the same rules to imported food, so no they won't simply buy food that doesn't follow the rules.

But also, even if we did require grocery stores and restaurants to use certified farmers in some way, that wouldn't be hard at all! That's not even in the same ballpark as requiring scientific proof of chemical safety.

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

#278

Post by csisnett »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #165

Monsanto has poisoned the world..not just the US. Now that it sold out to Bayer, most of the world is fed by the same powers that made Agent Orange and Napalm. Our food is grown with fossil fuels and chemicals. It’s chemical warfare on soil and water. Glyphosate gets into us due to runoff’s into the water system and the aquifers. This is food grown as fodder and it gets into animals and then into us. It’s hideously o…

Meat is good for you

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

#279

Post by blacksmith_tb »

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

... to pesticide manufacturers, no. But say, a GM tomato[1] that had added nutrients seems like it could make someone rich? I'd be happy to throw a few in my salad.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato#Im...

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

#280

Post by Supermancho »

Retric wrote: post #204
Supermancho wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farming existed before weed killing. Weed killing has been integral to farming since it's inception.^1 Chemical herbicides were popularized in the 19th century, which necessarily coincided with the modern population explosion. ^1 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=1759... .

“The earliest evidence of small-scale cultivation of edible grasses is from around 21,000 BC with the Ohalo II people on the shores of the Sea of Galilee.” “The earliest known weed control technology in 8000 BCE was the plow and hand-weeding (which includes hand-pulling, cutting with a knife, hoes and mattocks).” That's a very long gap till 8,000 BC.

It's implied that @21000BC, they were pulling weeds by hand. Weed killing is part of cultivation. No offense, but you seem completely out of touch with reality, on this topic. I'm not sure you can make a compelling argument without experiencing the simple world of gardening.

https://imgur.com/a/Bly85h8 - these are 2 weeds that have taken over and killed a simple flowering plant from our yard. You can see there are 2 plots that we have spliced from our healthy flowers, where we have been testing weed control methodology, since the neighbors have let these weeds become their lawn. The simple solution seems to be wait until the weed is big enough to have a solid rootball and pull it up manually. This is both the common way for small gardens to be managed AND the only solution for certain invasive species like the Himalayan blackberry which can regrow from stalks or leaves after being mulched and buried - they are resilient to pretty much every pesticide, but they aren't our problem after moving out of WA.

In farmland, you can go over every inch of your acreage and try to spot treat (which won't stop proliferation) or you can uniformly treat, as modern farming currently does.

Post reply on HN