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

111–120 of 123 posts

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

#111

Post by fit2rule »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #110
fit2rule wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the meantime, the pro-Monsanto downvote brigade has been quenched by more who agree with me than don't...

Cool. But how about just writing more of the constructive kind of comments? Then there will be no need for downvoting brigades for any side.

I was calling into question the veracity by which some were willing to defend Monsanto, no matter the cost. I agree that the tone of responses can be moderated higher, but I also think that the reaction of the pro-Monsanto crowd has its own insidious nature, which must be dealt with - its a company well known for its own online PR tricks and campaigns, in an effort to manage its image. And it is not without its evil side, as a corporation.

So I'll consider your feedback for the next time we have to discuss Monsanto's efforts to control the worlds food.

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

#112

Post by DataCreep »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #76
soufron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well begin by the website of Monsanto, lol.

Well, why not? There are first to know the good arguments for their solutions. You can start there and then go look for independent analysis and verification of the claims.

While we're at it, let's have BP teach us all why their oil spills and dumping of even more toxic chemicals into the ocean to cover those spills up are really no big deal.

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

#113

Post by neohaven »

soufron wrote: post #94
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…

This is such a stupid, misleading and criminal way to put things up. The world is toxic. You can die by crossing the path of a car. You can die by drowning. You can die by ingesting meat until you choke. But why would you do that? There is a name to it. It's called suicide. Accepting to use and eat toxic products when other possibilities exist is a form of suicide - even if it's collective.

Water, drank too much, too fast, can kill you.

The dose makes the poison.

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

#114

Post by TeMPOraL »

fit2rule wrote: post #111
TeMPOraL wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. But how about just writing more of the constructive kind of comments? Then there will be no need for downvoting brigades for any side.

I was calling into question the veracity by which some were willing to defend Monsanto, no matter the cost. I agree that the tone of responses can be moderated higher, but I also think that the reaction of the pro-Monsanto crowd has its own insidious nature, which must be dealt with - its a company well known for its own online PR tricks and campaigns, in an effort to manage its image. And it is not without its evil…

In general I don't think Monsanto has a very strong support group here - most of the discussions about that company I read here was pointing out various evil things they're doing. I myself I'm not a fan of the company - but I believe in what I call 'high-resolution discourse' - i.e. focusing precisely on the actual problem. In case of Monsanto, most of the problems with them is about their business practices, not about the GMO technology - so it's fair to blame them for acting like assholes, but it's not fair to automatically assume the tech is bad (or to extend it to the entire field, e.g. "GMOs are bad because Monsanto is evil").

If the hypothetical pro- and anti-Monsanto crowd is willing to engage in a constructive, high-resolution discourse then I think it's only for the better - everyone can learn something new from it.

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

#115

Post by kbutler »

kbutler wrote: post #99
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…

We know that sunshine is carcinogenic. Is a farm worker more likely to contract cancer from the 8 hours/day exposure to sunshine, or to glyphosate? I personally have no idea, but I think it would be an interesting measure.

I can't edit my post above, but here is the International Agency for Research on Cancer list of "known" carcinogens (group 1, including "solar radiation") and "probable" carcinogens (group 2A, including glyphosate).

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Classifications...

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

#116

Post by kbutler »

kbutler wrote: post #99
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…

We know that sunshine is carcinogenic. Is a farm worker more likely to contract cancer from the 8 hours/day exposure to sunshine, or to glyphosate? I personally have no idea, but I think it would be an interesting measure.

I can't edit my post above, but here is the International Agency for Research on Cancer list of "known" carcinogens (group 1, including "solar radiation") and "probable" carcinogens (group 2A, including glyphosate).

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Classifications...

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

#117

Post by tsotha »

cmdrfred wrote: post #78
realusername wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about when the population doubles, and then doubles again? http://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01...

That's very unlikely. The global population is probably going to peak mid-century and then go down.

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

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

kbutler wrote: post #99
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…

We know that sunshine is carcinogenic. Is a farm worker more likely to contract cancer from the 8 hours/day exposure to sunshine, or to glyphosate? I personally have no idea, but I think it would be an interesting measure.

Er, why? The choice isn't between sunlight and no glyphosphate and glyphosphate and no sunshine, so there is no real reason to compare them except to make irrelevant propaganda points.

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

#119

Post by cmdrfred »

tsotha wrote: post #117
cmdrfred wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when the population doubles, and then doubles again? http://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01...

That's very unlikely. The global population is probably going to peak mid-century and then go down.

Is it? Where do you see that trend?

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/worldpopulat.gif

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

#120

Post by jp555 »

eurleif wrote: post #102
pharke wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. I imagine that vitamin D production and DNA damage are separate events. Presumably, both can occur at the same time. So would someone who took vitamin D supplements but didn't get sun exposure be slightly less likely to develop cancer than someon…

I've just recently seen work that's exploring vitamin D suplimation vs. sunlight derived vitamin D and they're finding the sunlight provides more benefit than no sunlight exposure and Vitamin D suplimation.
Post reply on HN