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

361–370 of 379 posts

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

#361

Post by Retric »

Supermancho wrote: post #352
Retric wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children don’t clear weeds instinctivly, it’s learned behavior. Tossing seeds around can however be accidental, you can easily do it without intention.

> Children don’t clear weeds instinctivly, it’s learned behavior. It's not clear what you mean by "learned" here. You have plants. Other plants grow next to them and they die. It's observed learning (as I showed in the photos), similar to learning fire is hot. You have been implying it's more than that and are flat wrong on this simple understanding of reality. There's nobody that can help you with that.

You just described a relationship that didn't apply to native species before domestocsrion. In effect they where growing weeds.

Second you described learning and ignored culture showing children this relationship. Looking at a prepared area doesn't exist without someone preparing the area.

Clearly you don't understand what’s going on.

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

#362

Post by pvaldes »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #120
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...

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.

The real question is why there is herbicide in your urine. Everything else is a smoke curtain.

Why if it does not cause cancer but is behind the obesity epidemic?, or related with the autism increase starting at exactly the same years?.

"Not causes cancer" does not mean "is harmless". This stuff shouldn't be there

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

#363

Post by hiptobecubic »

marc_abonce wrote: post #233
user3939382 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I’m concerned Bayer and Monsanto are like evil incarnate and last time I brought up this lawsuit on HN I was shocked people were defending them. We’re talking about the company that intentionally sold HIV infected blood to people. If it was legal and they could increase profits by lighting people on fire they would do it. Yet people trust corrupt research that they paid for showing their product is safe. We…

> Bayer [...] intentionally sold HIV infected blood to people. I had no idea about this. For anyone else that's curious: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood...

Jesus Christ.. Imagine being in jail for selling weed to someone who wanted it, meanwhile everyone that orchestrated this is still relaxing on their yachts. Unbelievable.

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

#364

Post by nswest23 »

pumnikol wrote: post #309

I've been in the field for many years and I see the EU on the forefront of public chemical safety, both in terms of legislation and enforcement. ECHA is transparent about glyphosate [1]. It is not even labelled as CMR on REACH Annex III [2], and that's saying a lot. If you follow the developments, you will find that there is no way to prove a chemical as "safe". All it takes is one bloke on record to develop any heal…

Pretty standard shilling here. This comment is designed to induce apathy by making the problem seem insurmountable and so convince you that it's impossible to know anything so why bother trying [to remove cancer inducing chemicals from the food supply].

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

#365

Post by gruez »

more_corn wrote: post #357
gruez wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ... You seem to be presenting this fact as some sort of that bayer is guilty, but it's not really convincing. For one, it's a 8 person jury in san francisco. I'd expect them to rule against bayer on ideological grounds (ie. little guy vs multi bililon dollar…

This is an absurd assertion. Also you’re literally quoting “Thank you for smoking” with your follow up defense.

>This is an absurd assertion

Wow thanks for the thorough refutation! I have now realized my error and totally changed my mind!

>Also you’re literally quoting “Thank you for smoking” with your follow up defense.

So your idea of a refutation is to reference a fictional novel? I'm at a loss for words.

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

#366

Post by arminiusreturns »

colechristensen wrote: post #287
arminiusreturns wrote: post #245

I quit a job in the industry during the era the studies started coming out when I found out about the bosses ties to Monsanto. The real kicker for me was during my digging into them, although largely due to corporate buyout name games, they were the ones responsible for agent orange, with Nam vets in my family I couldn't stay. Use the most natural chemicals you can for crop/yard control. The same warning applies to t…

Natural doesn’t mean anything when it comes to safety of a substance. There are quite a few dangerous substances used for “organic” weed and pest control. Well controlled synthetics can indeed be safer. Or if it’s your yard, don’t do anything to it. You don’t need to.

Least-toxic would probably ve the correct terminology, you are correct.

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

#367

Post by kybishop »

classichasclass wrote: post #260
kybishop wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the FDA exists?? Because that would be fraud to claim otherwise, and fruit/veg sources are easily traceable back to their source, particularly at quantity?

USDA regulates that, at least for products with its seal. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/organic-s...

Thank you for the correction

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

#368

Post by dredmorbius »

dredmorbius wrote: post #334
zzzeek wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i was speaking legally

Agreement on terms and context is critical to discussion. (Applies to this entire thread, not just parent comment.)

... and just because this is still bothering me:

A surprisingly common form of conversational failure is when two (or more) parties are discussing some matter all with different ideas as to what is being discussed or the context of the discussion.

I'd run across a good description of that recently though I can't seem to recall where / find it presently.

It's not included in this discussion of Wiio's Laws, though there's enough other material there that's excellent guidance for communication that I'm linking it regardless:

https://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

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

#369

Post by 535188B17C93743 »

parineum wrote: post #33
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.

A lot of golf courses use grey water.

Their water usage is only part of the problem. Extensive over-use of fertilizers which then end up in water ways is just as bad, if not worse.

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

#370

Post by Llamamoe »

tomp wrote: post #296
whimsicalism wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of reasons. That is one large one, but you can also integrate natural pesticides into the genome of the plant, ie. Bt corn.

Which could be equally dangerous as external pesticides like glyphosate.

Every single plant and fungi in the world contains natural pesticides to fend off pests and pathogens. E.g. caffeine, nicotine.
Post reply on HN