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

Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#61

Post by matthewmacleod »

fit2rule wrote: post #32
healthisevil wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three po…

Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers , so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted. What a ludicrous position.

This was obviously not the stated position, and you are being deliberately disingenuous by portraying it as such.

"It's the dose that makes the poison" - that's a fairly accurate statement. Every industry uses chemicals that are potentially harmful, and we accept that as a trade-off for the benefits they offer.

The same applies to RoundUp. Is the benefit it offers to agriculture worth the risk? Can exposure be controlled in such a way that the risk is ameliorated? There's a cost-benefit analysis to be performed there.

Point is, stating that RoundUp is possibly carcinogenic is useful information – but it doesn't mean its better to immediately stop use of it. It also doesn't mean that Monsanto "knowingly market[ed] a poisonous, carcinogenic substance", as you stated. It does mean that use of the substance may potentially need to be re-evaluated, but preposterous jumping to conclusion of the sort you exhibited is what's killing political debate worldwide.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#62

Post by TeMPOraL »

jholman wrote: post #58
fit2rule wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stay on topic. We're discussing Monsantos' culpability for poisoning the earth.

No, we're not. You might be, but no one else is. What people are generally discussing is whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans, and meta-issues like whether or not the article does a good job of helping us understand whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans. Although some (currently-absent) HN commenters probably feel otherwise, I don't see a single comment in this thread trying to downplay culpability (alth…

> (Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.)

Indeed. I disagree with fit2rule all around the comment threads for this article and I upvoted that one - because it's reasonable and thoughtful.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#63

Post by tudorw »

tsotha wrote: post #49
azinman2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Especially since it's apples and oranges. Water is not optional. Without it you die. Roundup is optional. Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Dumping many many tons off chemicals designed to kill (however small the organism) all over our food and planet, let alone planting homogeneous, patented, and GM'd "basic" plants, is a recipe that likely isn't good…

>Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Historical yields were tiny compared to what we get from contemporary farms. I don't know if we need Roundup in particular, but if we went back to traditional farming methods half the world would starve. There's no going back.

It's more about what we are willing to eat than what we grow, diets high in meat require lots of arable land and energy to create.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#64

Post by Dylan16807 »

azinman2 wrote: post #41
fit2rule wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers , so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted. What a ludicrous position.

Exactly. Especially since it's apples and oranges. Water is not optional. Without it you die. Roundup is optional. Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Dumping many many tons off chemicals designed to kill (however small the organism) all over our food and planet, let alone planting homogeneous, patented, and GM'd "basic" plants, is a recipe that likely isn't good…

Everything is optional at some level.

You need to do a cost/benefit analysis, not reject methods that could cause any number of deaths ever.

Because all methods cause some number of deaths in some circumstances.

Numbers need context if you're going to make the right decision.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#65

Post by Dylan16807 »

stfu wrote: post #56
anon1385 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmentalist is hardly the word I'd use to describe Patrick Moore. Professional contrarian, science denier and industry shill would be more accurate. He is certainly not some 'random environmentalist'. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

It is somewhat telling how certain people on HN all of the sudden start defending Moore...

Did anyone defend his opinions? Insulting the journalist is not defending Moore. Using the title from his wikipedia page when calling him "some random" is not defending him either.

I think you're seeing what you want to see...

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#66

Post by mkempe »

Here is a better source for the hypothesis and evidence: Glyphosate probably causes cancer, says WHO + Lancet paper. [1]

Yes, Glyphosate happens to be an ingredient in Roundup, which happens to be manufactured by Monsanto. Neither are the primary subject of the scientific hypothesis.

[1, PDF] http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVol...

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#67

Post by realusername »

tsotha wrote: post #49
azinman2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Especially since it's apples and oranges. Water is not optional. Without it you die. Roundup is optional. Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Dumping many many tons off chemicals designed to kill (however small the organism) all over our food and planet, let alone planting homogeneous, patented, and GM'd "basic" plants, is a recipe that likely isn't good…

>Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Historical yields were tiny compared to what we get from contemporary farms. I don't know if we need Roundup in particular, but if we went back to traditional farming methods half the world would starve. There's no going back.

Actually there is no evidence of this, a good proportion of of the food produced is actually used to feed animals which is the most inefficient way to produce food.

Just by eating less meat (which makes sense because we are not supposed to eat so much meat), suddenly we don't need to product so much. The actual price of the food is so low currently that what you pay in a supermarket is mostly the externalities. Switching to cleaner methods would not lead to starvation providing that we would eat differently.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#68

Post by cowsandmilk »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #42

I encourage anyone who wants to know more about glyphosate to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqWwhggnbyw Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab (BS in Biophysics, MS & EE in Electrical Engineering, PHD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) and she has done research suggesting glyphosate is responsible for a whole host of human health issues…

Quickly looking at her CSAIL page, I note 2 things about her glyphosate research:

(1) Her talks generally are not at scientific conferences.

(2) Her published articles are in "predatory open access journals". Since she is not stupid, I assume she is publishing this work there because she cannot publish in more respected journals.

The WHO is respected, it is relying on well-performed studies. If they say glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, I'll pay attention. Seneff is publishing in Omics and MDPI journals, which are viewed as publication mills by the community. It appears the community has examined her claims and rejected her from being publishing them anywhere respectable.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#69

Post by Dylan16807 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

This article (not the study) is total trash. Every other thing on this planet - from water to oxygen to sunlight to common cold[0] to turning a light on when you go pee at night [1] apparently causes cancer. People read bullshit like that, start being afraid of everything they interact with, and then newspapers are surprised we have anti-vaccine movements, or that the general population doesn't trust science at all.…

Tangential, but that gawker article sure is being terrible about science. Turning on a light for an entire hour screws up circadian rhythms. That does not imply that 1-2 minutes of pee light does the same.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#70

Post by jp555 »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #51
rmason wrote: post #7

I know that its hard for someone to understand who doesn't work with farm chemicals on a regular basis but Roundup is on the low side in terms of toxicity. Here's a copy of a Material Safety Data Sheet that all those who handle herbicides need to maintain for employee access: http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF Almost anything is toxic, even salt, if the dose is high enough. The question that must be…

We are not talking about toxicity, but about carcinogen products. Very different. Carbon monoxide is toxic. If I breath it while walking a previously fired forest, I feel bad today. If I breath too much I die. But if I get out alive tomorrow my body will be fine. Carcinogen work in totally different ways. If I contact or breath it I will feel fine today but I will have created damage to some of my cells DNA. This dam…

Most people cook with oil at too high a temperature, causing it to smoke and develop carcinogenic compounds, regularly, over decades. There are many examples of this in our lives (ultravilot sunlight, cosmic radiation on intercontinental flights, radon rich basement bedrooms, etc), the point being that carcinogens and cancer are more complex than you suggest. Yes smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day for decades increases one's risk for cancer, but so does just living to an old age as a non-smoker.

I remember reading a study of cadavers that found everyone has microscopic cancers throughout their bodies, throughout their lives. It seems there's a dance between evironments that drive the proliferation of micro-cancers and our body's ability to repair this damage.

Post reply on HN