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

81–90 of 123 posts

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

#81

Post by sukilot »

realusername wrote: post #67
tsotha wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Switc…

Most americans would happily choose cancer over vegetarianism. That part isn't Monsanto's fault. Source: I am a vegetarian who talks to omnivores and near-carnivores.

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

#82

Post by TeMPOraL »

rl3 wrote: post #80
TeMPOraL wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The job of the press is - or should be - to inform people. It's not about "in-depth context and analysis"; what bundling everything under "causes cancer" does is provide negative information . > If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions to support whatever biased position they hold, they can do that too. I understand that you can't be responsible for people being randomly stupid, but if the stup…

> I understand that you can't be responsible for people being randomly stupid, but if the stupidity is systematic and predictable, then indeed it becomes your responsibilty if you know about it and play into it for profit. Though I tend to agree, it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that an article, due to its brevity, was intentionally written that way for the sake of profit.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was written this way only because it's just how everyone writes such things these days (i.e. "it's cancer!!!1111") - but not having malicious intent doesn't change the fact it's harmful.

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

#83

Post by sukilot »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #60
anon1385 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying you are prepared to drink it is a gimmick. The same basic idea has been used a million times before for everything from asbestos to tobacco to coal dust to lead paint. Common enough for it to be parodied in a 25 year old episode of the Simpsons ("Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish"). Also Patrick Moore is a professional science denier. He doesn't deserve respect from anybody.

"can drink" and "prepared to drink" are different things. Also I don't assume that random glasses of chemicals handed to me have been processed and handled in a food-grade manner.

Claiming you could drink a quarter of it implies you believe it is food grade. It's extreme my disingenuous to hypothesize that a Roundup bottle imparts more health hazard than the contents.

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

#84

Post by Zigurd »

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…

> Almost anything is toxic, even salt, if the dose is high enough.

That is tremendously misleading. You body needs salt to function. Your body does not need, and has no use for glyphosate. There is no beneficial dose. If it's harmful, an incredibly minute amount can be materially harmful.

Moreover there are at least two ways to get a significant number of people developing diagnosed cancers from chemical exposure: A small population (ag workers) and a large dose, or a small dose and a large population - the rest of us.

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

#85

Post by TeMPOraL »

rl3 wrote: post #79
Dylan16807 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the article's problem. A ballpark range of the risk is necessary to even get close to understanding the issue. Reporting without that is worse than nothing. It leaves people further from informed than they previously were.

Imagine if we were talking about a tweet, and that tweet simply mentioned the existence of the WHO report in question. I highly doubt it would be subject to the same level of condemnation. The article may as well be the journalistic equivalent of that. Its purpose isn't to provide an in-depth understanding of the issue, it's simply saying an event occurred that is notable.

People give different weight to tweets and articles, in a similar way they do to a HN comment and a blog post. In both cases, the former is less "official" than the latter. I agree that the line between these two types of responses can be blurred at times.

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

#86

Post by Zigurd »

healthisevil wrote: post #26
fit2rule wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

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…

Not a very good example. There's a pretty good argument Tylenol is too dangerous to be an OTC drug. There are no Tylenol cancer cases because they all died of liver failure.

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

#87

Post by pharke »

jp555 wrote: post #70
Htsthbjig wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 increa…

To make things even more complex, with ultra-violet for sure but possibly involving other forms of radiation as well, it is possible that small amounts of exposure actually produce a preventative effect in regards to cancer. With UV, that mechanism is the production of vitamin D in the body, a lack of which causes a wide variety of health issues and may have a link to the development of cancer.

This panel by the Mars Society actually had a very interesting discussion of this area of human health that deserves much more study. https://youtu.be/sFHQlobJbwY

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

#88

Post by Dylan16807 »

sukilot wrote: post #83
Dylan16807 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"can drink" and "prepared to drink" are different things. Also I don't assume that random glasses of chemicals handed to me have been processed and handled in a food-grade manner.

Claiming you could drink a quarter of it implies you believe it is food grade. It's extreme my disingenuous to hypothesize that a Roundup bottle imparts more health hazard than the contents.

>Claiming you could drink a quarter of it implies you believe it is food grade.

This makes no sense. Chemicals aren't inherently food grade or not. I won't drink a non-food-grade quart of water either.

>It's extreme my disingenuous to hypothesize that a Roundup bottle imparts more health hazard than the contents.

You've heard of agent orange, right? It wasn't the herbicides that injured people, it was small quantities of potent contaminants.

It's not just the bottle, it's every container it's ever touched, every source for dirt or bad-to-ingest chemicals to get in that wouldn't bother plants at all.

Edit: And to be clear, this applies just fine to things that are human-safe in small doses or for farm use. Contamination by literal dirt is a great example of something fine to spray on plants and dumb to consume directly.

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

#89

Post by Ygg2 »

ideonexus wrote: post #77
kyrra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side question. If I wanted to explain with studies to someone that GMO hate is unfounded, do you have a recommendation on a place to gather facts or recent studies on it?

I wrote a blog post defending GMOs awhile back, with examples of non-Monsanto GMOs that have saved papayas in Hawaii, promise to deliver food to Africa, and improve nutrition. The thing many people don't realize is that all food is GMO. There are no such things as tomatoes, peaches, apples, or corn in nature. These are all products of just a few thousand years of selective breeding. With GMOs, we are also constantly…

That's misleading definition of GMO. Genetically Modified Organisms is not the same as Gene Modified organisms. Gene modified organisms are made through selective breeding. Genetically Modified Organisms are made by splicing genes from other creatures.

The former means application of genetics, while second implies selective breeding.

I've honestly got nothing against GMO, and I know that GMO carries a stigma, but honestly, so do vaccines. I've got loads of problem with Monsanto, their business practices and Round-up but not too many problems with GMO as GMO.

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

#90

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN