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

51–60 of 123 posts

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

#51

Post by Htsthbjig »

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 damage will create other damages when 5 years from no my cells transcribe some genes in a chain reaction, or will accumulate errors over time.

Five years from now one of the damaged cells will start replicating itself without control, and I will get cancer.

We get cancer by indirect ways, and delayed in time, on people that are not isolated so it is hard to get the cause effect relationship.

I worked in a Hospital for some time. On oncology got people that smoke 3-4 cigarettes packages a day that got pulmonary cancer, but they were seriously convinced that smoking had nothing to do with it.

It took decades to establish a relationship between smoking and cancer, and that was with half of the population smoking. With smaller populations it becomes harder and harder.

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

#52

Post by TeMPOraL »

fit2rule wrote: post #40
TeMPOraL wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. It doesn't really defend or accuse Roundup, it just gives a bunch of quotes from both sides. And that's ok. My issue is that there's no attempt at specifying the significance of the problem. Saying "it (maybe) causes cancer" doesn't say absolutely anything about how dangerous it actually is - both in absolute terms and relative to alternatives. I think that "X causes cancer" articles should be considered harmf…

>I think that "X causes cancer" articles should be considered harmful. Well then your opinion is highly un-intelligent and socially specious, because cancer sucks and if people can avoid it by being educated about the nature of what causes it, thats a good thing. Why would you like the world to get more cancer?

What I'm saying is that those article should specify threat level. Cancers are not equal to each other, cancer risks even more so.

Article claiming "asbestos has a stupidly high risk of giving you a lung cancer when inhaled, get rid of it" is ok. Article saying "coffee increases chance of prostate cancer in mice by 0.03% (p<0.05)" is also fine. Note that the first is a serious public health hazard, while the second is something irrelevant - you're about as likely to get killed by a car driven by a shark than by a prostate cancer from coffee. But when you lump the two together, saying just that "asbestos/coffee causes cancer", you breed paranoia.

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

#53

Post by rl3 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36
rl3 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything is a serious danger to humans here, it's not Roundup, it's reporting like this. What exactly is so horrible about Bloomberg's reporting in this instance? Did you even read the article? Half of it is essentially defending Roundup.

I did. It doesn't really defend or accuse Roundup, it just gives a bunch of quotes from both sides. And that's ok. My issue is that there's no attempt at specifying the significance of the problem. Saying "it (maybe) causes cancer" doesn't say absolutely anything about how dangerous it actually is - both in absolute terms and relative to alternatives. I think that "X causes cancer" articles should be considered harmf…

I get what you're saying. However, the article having a high degree of brevity isn't really cause to shoot the messenger in this case.

What was reported was factually correct. Bloomberg isn't obligated to provide in-depth context and analysis of the issue.

If people want to take interest in the underlying science, they can. If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions to support whatever biased position they hold, they can do that too.

Either way, it's not the article's problem.

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

#54

Post by anon1385 »

SquareWheel wrote: post #50
prapam2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moore tells the interviewer that one "could drink a whole quart of [Roundup]" without any harm. When Moore is offered a glass of the weedkiller, however, he refuses and says "I'm not stupid." - Why did he bring it up when he was not going to follow it through.

He might have expected a modicum of respect from the interviewer, and not a gimmick to "win" an argument.

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.

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

#55

Post by cowsandmilk »

thesimon wrote: post #16

This interview about the topic (Glyphosate by Monsanto) is also quite telling: http://m.canalplus.fr/?vid=1122650 (English with French subtitles) Interviewee: It is completely safe and you could even drink it Interviewer: We got a glass of it here, you want to drink some Interviewee: No, of course not, I'm not an idiot and the interview is over now.

People can play that game:

Interviewee: It is completely safe to drink urine

Interviewer: I have some urine here, would you like to drink some?

It is clear the interviewer is there to make a spectacle, not to meaningfully inform the public of the facts.

Edit: Or...

Interviewee: It is completely safe to smoke cigarettes

Interviewer: I have a pack here, would you like to smoke one?

Interviewee: Sure

PROOF THAT CIGARETTES ARE SAFE!!!!

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

#56

Post by stfu »

anon1385 wrote: post #46
TeMPOraL wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not even a company representative! He's some random environmentalist who wanted to talk about golden rice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentali... It's sickening what passes on as journalism today.

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...

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

#57

Post by walterbell »

Is there a link between the WHO classification and California food labels, as claimed by http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/2... ?

Indeed, the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen is more significant than you may realize. IARC is one of the five research agencies from which the OEHHA—which is the California agency of environmental hazards—gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65. What this means is that in a few years’ time, foods containing glyphosate will have to have a Prop 65 Warning label to be sold in California. While it will take time, that process is now in motion with the IARC classifying glyphosate as a Class 2 carcinogen.

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

#58

Post by jholman »

fit2rule wrote: post #33
thaumasiotes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must get really worked up about the companies that make X-ray machines.

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 (although not that many people are playing it up, either). And you're the only one talking about poisoning the earth (which is definitely an important subject, but not really relevant to the linked article, which is about the impact on human health). So why are YOU trying to change the topic?

(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.)

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

#59

Post by TeMPOraL »

fit2rule wrote: post #37
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.…

The reason this is important to discuss is that Roundup is out there, in massive quantities, and if it is determined that it can cause cancer in much higher rates than previously expected - then something must be done about it, because of the sheer magnitude of the market penetration of this product . If it is discovered that Roundup-poisoned regions have extraordinarily high rates of cancer - and this is yet to be d…

I totally agree with you here. And the study done by WHO is a step in the right direction. I'm not objecting studying things - on the contrary, I'd be happy to see more studies about Roundup because, as you said, it's used with our food on a mass scale.

What I'm objecting is not quantifying the findings. Asbestos doesn't "cause cancer" the same way Roundup may or may not do, nor is it the same type of cancer. Bundling it all together is what I find harmful. Articles should give threat level.

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

#60

Post by Dylan16807 »

anon1385 wrote: post #54
SquareWheel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have expected a modicum of respect from the interviewer, and not a gimmick to "win" an argument.

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.

Post reply on HN