Live data from Hacker News

California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

reuters.com

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#71
post #55

Last time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers wanting to talk to you about it). Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not an…

You were probably shouted down because your argument is bad. First, you cite anecdotal evidence of one case. Next you claim to not be an expert in oncology, but you somehow have more knowledge on the subject than them. There may indeed be a link, but you are supporting your case poorly. Condolences for your father.

I'm not trying to make an argument, I was just passing on a single data point. I made it pretty clear that I don't know and it's not my field. I don't know how you get from what I said to "somehow I have more knowledge than oncologists". If I said that then I'm 100% wrong.

My dad was a physicist and when he got cancer he started looking around to try and figure out why. He found that the only thing that made sense to him was roundup, I think he just went through all the stuff he had been exposed to in his life and that was the only thing that had any possibility of giving him cancer.

Maybe that's a bad argument but he was pretty baffled about it until he found roundup. There was literally no cancer in his family and his relatives tended to live well into their 90's. He was 75 and very fit, I went canoing with him 2 weeks before he died.

He had a lot of roundup exposure because he was very active in wetlands preservation and they fought off invasive species with roundup. At the time, there was very little noise about roundup being possibly cancer causing.

Again, that's just background, I'm not trying to make an argument that it is or is not cancer causing, I don't know. What I am trying to say is that he thought that was the cause, California seems to think there is something there, the EU seems to think there is something there, and the lawyers seem to think there is something there. That's a lot of people, in my opinion too many people, for it to be a conspiracy.

So it's fine if people want to say my dad's case is not evidence or useful or whatever. That's really not the point. The point is there is enough smoke there to think there is a fire and I don't get why people would argue about my smoke being nonsense; that seems to miss the bigger picture.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#73
post #59
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both salt and vinegar are more toxic than glyphosphate.

I'll drink a teaspoon of vinegar and salt every day, you drink a teaspoon of glyphosphate every day.

Have you seen the MSDS on acetic acid? Drinking a strong acid isn't good for your health.

Chronic Effects on Humans: MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. May cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, mucous membranes, skin, teeth.

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922769

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#74

Last time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers wanting to talk to you about it). Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not an…

There is no solid evidence of a connection. Go ahead and Google it yourself. The only "evidence" against it is a bunch of biased sites who love to pooh-pooh "toxins" and "unnaturality"

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#75
post #36
post #27

I've already switched to vinegar, salt, and a pump sprayer from lowes, it's cheaper and i can buy gallons and pounds of it from costco

but probably more toxic than glyphosphate. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...

interesting. that chart describes caffeine as more toxic than glyphosate.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#76
post #2

Seems to me that the evidence surrounding this isn't strong enough to warrant designating glyphosate as "cancer-causing" for humans, but the evidence surrounding the adverse effects in animals is pretty strong (based on my skimming of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans ). Would like to hear thoughts from anyone close to the matter, I'm sure you have a different perspective than I.

After this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair I'm very skeptical about claims of glyphosate being "cancer-causing" (whatever that means when no measure of effect size is mentioned), even in animals.

Why? Flawed studies get run all the time. If you see a flawed study about bat flight, does that make you more skeptical about all bat flight studies?

Do you get joy from hippies being wrong? That's probably going to cause huge biases in your science reading.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#77
post #3

Would this affect produce in a grocery store? I thought the pesticide was supposed to be mostly gone by the time the product is harvested. I mean there are stories of farmers blasting it on crops later in the cycle but those seem to be an exception.

>I mean there are stories of farmers blasting it on crops later in the cycle but those seem to be an exception.

Glyphosate is used regularly as a desiccant, I don't think it's an exception[1].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#78
post #10
post #6

Here's the current California Prop 65 list. It's... extensive. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing... I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings. California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts ---…

Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65. The "bag of potatoes" in your example would not have to be individually labeled. The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold.

I really want a t-shirt saying in bold letters "This person contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer."

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#79
post #6

Here's the current California Prop 65 list. It's... extensive. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing... I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings. California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts ---…

You can't go into a building in California without seeing a sign warning about carcinogens, so you tune them out. I have no idea how you're supposed to know if there's something truly dangerous.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#80
post #6

Here's the current California Prop 65 list. It's... extensive. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing... I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings. California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts ---…

I have often thought on my flights into California that as soon as the plane crosses the California state line, the pilot should just come on and announce "The State of California is known by the State of California to contain things known by the State of California to cause cancer."
Post reply on HN