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

131–140 of 379 posts

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

#131

Post by triyambakam »

240P_Climate wrote: post #119
csr86 wrote: post #115

Maybe one day we can skip plants and weedkillers by using artificial process to make food. Photosynthesis is not very efficient either. Less land for farms and more forests.

Eat meat like our ancestors did perhaps? Fat is only dangerous if it can stick to sugar. Sugar molecules are like little daggers that attach to arteries.

Processed sugar. And it could be better said the other way around: processed sugar is more dangerous coupled with high fat intake.

Sugars bound in fiber are fine. No one got heart disease or diabetes from eating too many apples with a diet of otherwise moderate fat intake.

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

#132

Post by voakbasda »

jiggywiggy wrote: post #104
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

There are many ways that don't require that much more effort. For instance plastic covering the field will clean up a field. But that's a tiny bit more work then just spraying and poisoning everything. Of course the GMO crops that are bred to be glysophate resistant are even more convenient

That’s not a tiny amount of work. We are talking about hundreds and thousands of acres. That is not feasible for covering with plastic.

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

#133

Post by toxik »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #60

Well, if it truly is tied to cancer, I'll be sure to let Hacker News know. Back in college I was paid $50 to wear a backpack sprayer loaded with the stuff and go nuclear on a guy's weed-infested garden. Backpack sprayers leak, so I got glyphosate all over my skin, my back in particular. It's been a little more than 10 years, so nothing, but then again, I'm also only 32, live a fairly healthy lifestyle, and have no fa…

I smoked a pack of cigs back in my teens and I don’t have cancer.

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

#134

Post by checker »

stevenicr wrote: post #109
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

I was shocked to learn that many farms are using the chemical to spray the entire field in order to not just kill weeds, but also to increase bud yield / weight. Similar to the rohip whatever chemical is given to some beef when it close to slaughter to magically make it gain weight. Apparently when you spray this stuff on the plants a couple days before harvest, they know they are being killed / dieing - so they put…

Wow that's incredibly depressing. Yeah glyphosate kills weeds by inducing unsustainable growth and forcing the plant to overextend itself and die as a result. So it makes sense that if you apply it to a crop you're going to harvest anyway you'll get a bit more yield out of it.

I guess tech+ban is the only way to go, unless we're okay forcing ourselves to play the cancer lottery with worse odds.

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

#135

Post by elif »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #60

Well, if it truly is tied to cancer, I'll be sure to let Hacker News know. Back in college I was paid $50 to wear a backpack sprayer loaded with the stuff and go nuclear on a guy's weed-infested garden. Backpack sprayers leak, so I got glyphosate all over my skin, my back in particular. It's been a little more than 10 years, so nothing, but then again, I'm also only 32, live a fairly healthy lifestyle, and have no fa…

The skin is designed to protect you from foreign substances.

The intestines are designed to absorb foreign substances.

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

#136

Post by timcash »

thfuran wrote: post #127
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.

That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.

yup

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

#137

Post by thatcat »

kurthr wrote: post #106
tastyfreeze wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the chemical inputs to farms make them unprofitable. Each year takes more input to make the farm work. We broke the ecosystem, nitrogen cycle and phosphate cycle by tilling, monocropping, and chemical input. The way we farm kills the soil. We can support the population without chemical inputs if we manage the land differently. It takes about 3 years to transition to a regenerative management style. That is how lo…

Tell that to Sri Lanka. There is massive unrest, because people will starve. The farmers were not the ones saying, "don't use chemical fertilizer", the ex-government was.

You have to have an alternative management plan in place, obviously.

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

#138

Post by its_bbq »

thfuran wrote: post #127
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.

That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.

Well that's a feature if we can't come up with chemicals that aren't harmful at industrial scale

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

#139

Post by mandmandam »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #50

GMO skepticism is pretty much the same as anti-vax. Lots of talk about big corporations and a fetish for “natural” as well as a litany of vague syndromes without a clearly elucidated biological mechanism.

Your confidence in big Agri and big Pharma would be hilarious, if it wasn't so dangerous.

Do you have any idea what all the chemicals we're pumping into the lakes and rivers and earth and ocean are doing to the biosphere?

Seriously! How many species above the background rate are going extinct every year?! The blame for that lies squarely and undeniably at the industries you have such blind confidence in.

"Man is quite insane. He wouldn't know how to create a maggot, and he creates Gods by the dozen." —Michel de Montaigne

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

#140

Post by elcomet »

thfuran wrote: post #127
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.

That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.

Of course they could, you just have to prove that they are harmless (at least in their expected usage and dosage)
Post reply on HN