Roundup

[Game Over]

Why would anyone think of drinking it?

Would you take a swig of neem oil?

[Rideski]

Fish don't have a voice bruh.

[jackstraw]

because it's a convenient excuse for leftists to rail about a "big evil corporation".

caffeine is 40x as toxic as glysophate....

Highly scientific I see. But keep spewing against "leftists' whilst you suck more corporate cock.

[skaredshtles]

Highly scientific I see. But keep spewing against "leftists' whilst you suck more corporate cock.

But... but... it's a CHART!!

[Game Over]

Fish don't have a voice bruh.

Does glyphosate affect birds, fish, or other wildlife?

Pure glyphosate is low in toxicity to fish and wildlife, but some products containing glyphosate may be toxic because of the other ingredients in them. Glyphosate may affect fish and wildlife indirectly because killing the plants alters the animals' habitat.

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html#wildlife

[Game Over]

Highly scientific I see. But keep spewing against "leftists' whilst you suck more corporate cock.

But... but... it's a CHART!!

How do you pick and choose when to trust science and when to disregard it?

Are you guys also scared of chemtrails and flouride?

[skaredshtles]

How do you pick and choose when to trust science and when to disregard it?

Are you guys also scared of chemtrails and flouride?

What in the FUCK are you on about?

[Dantheman]

Statement from Health Canada on Glyphosate
January 11, 2019 - Ottawa, ON - Health Canada

No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...lyphosate.html

It is on the IARC list of probable human carcinogens: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...rcinogens.html

How do you pick and choose when to trust science and when to disregard it?

Are you guys also scared of chemtrails and flouride?

That graphic conflates acute toxicity with carcinogenicity, which is disingenuous and misleading at best.

Regarding the broader topic at hand, putting these matters in the hands of juries is definitely unsettling since the average person is scientifically illiterate.

[Rideski]

illiterate.

That means they litter, right?

[Game Over]

It is on the IARC list of probable human carcinogens: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...rcinogens.html

Yup - there it is. Right next to frying foods and being a hairdresser.

[Game Over]

^note that alcoholic beverages Is in the highest level. Two notches above glyphosate (edit)

[Game Over]

The plaintiff lawyers behind these cases rely heavily on the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which claimed glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” But the EPA’s new glyphosate assessment is far more robust than that 2015 analysis. Among other considerations, the EPA’s experts looked at 167 epidemiological, animal carcinogenicity, and genotoxicity studies. The agency excluded 39 of those studies over concerns about quality.

The IARC relied on fewer than half as many such studies. It was “limited to data published in openly available scientific literature and as such only considered a subset of the studies that EPA considered,” says Alexandra Dunn, the assistant administrator at EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

The international agency also failed to nix research focused on non-mammalian species like worms or reptiles, which the EPA considered irrelevant in determining human risk. And in 2017 Reuters reported the IARC ignored and omitted evidence that glyphosate was noncarcinogenic.

The IARC has issued cancer risk warnings for more than 1,000 products and activities, including hot beverages, aloe, red meat and working the night shift. An adviser for its glyphosate assessment, Christopher Portier, was accepting pay from Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South, a firm known for its cancer class-action lawsuits. Mr. Portier now appears as a witness for the plaintiffs in the Roundup litigation.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...ce-11557876010

[TWINS]

Best affordable weed killer out right now.
I spray 12 gallons over 1 acre 3 times a year at the lowest mix.
Takes 2 weeks to kill the weeds but works great.
Key is adding a 1/2 oz of dish soap to each gallon.
Soap helps keep the glysophate stuck on the weeds.
Hope they don't ban it.
My neighbors are more dangerous than the weed killer.

[Dantheman]

Yup - there it is. Right next to creosote, nitrogen mustards, lead, PBBs, PCE and TCE

FIFY.

You at least agree that Ripz's infographic is disingenuous and misleading, right?

[LegoSkier]

Yeah. Glyphosate actually isn't that bad for aquatic life. It is the adjuvants and stabilizers that are the problem. They are there precisely because glyphosate is so unstable that those are needed to prevent its decomposition in the bottle before it can be used.
Not claiming the shit is benign. I'm personally not a fan but it is a shit load better than pretty much every other industrial scale herbicide. Sulfonylureas and 2-4-D are some bad shit comparatively. Of course, we probably will replace herbicide use with little solar powered robots that roam around and pull up weeds in a decade or two.

[Game Over]

FIFY.

You at least agree that Ripz's infographic is disingenuous and misleading, right?

Red meat and very hot beverages are also in that group.

The info-graphic seems pretty straightforward IMV. Irrelevant in this case cuz LD50 has nothing to do with cancer... it’s far from the best example of the many like it out there but I’m not sure how it’s misleading or disingenuous.

What are your thoughts? Is it actually wrong or maybe because they used vitamin b for the x axis?

[Rideski]

little solar powered robots that roam around and pull up weeds in a decade or two.

They should have lasers instead.

[SB]

I only scanned the article today, but read a longer one about that family a month ago. Sounded like they used a LOT of it. Several acres over many years. Is it really that dangerous for average urban residential use? My lips sometimes go numb when I use it just from the mist in the air. I have one of those tank dispensers with the wand where I can get it right down on the ground, eliminates of lot of that. Sometimes still get it though.

Spray it on yer tallywacker and report back.

In the mean time the folks who make this should be made to drink shots of it. Just to prove to the rest of us its ok.

[Dantheman]

Red meat and very hot beverages are also in that group.

IIRC, evidence for very hot beverages is actually pretty solid. Red meat not so much, but I'm not going to bother getting into that right now. Regardless, I'm not here to defend the IARC and I already said that juries deciding this stuff is a bad idea.

The info-graphic seems pretty straightforward IMV. Irrelevant in this case cuz LD50 has nothing to do with cancer... it’s far from the best example of the many like it out there but I’m not sure how it’s misleading or disingenuous.

What are your thoughts? Is it actually wrong or maybe because they used vitamin b for the x axis?

You answered your own question. It’s misleading and disingenuous in this context precisely because acute toxicity has nothing to do with cancer.

[Ripzalot]

Highly scientific I see. But keep spewing against "leftists' whilst you suck more corporate cock.

aww, somebody got triggered. i'm not surprised, since you started this thread, now you must cling to your unscientific views and resort to demeaning the other side to save face. alinsky 101. or is that TGR 101?

here's the original article, sooooo unscientific and corporate.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/13/gly...nts-explained/

[Ripzalot]

It is on the IARC list of probable human carcinogens: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...rcinogens.html

isn't it interesting how a UN org can come to a conclusion where EVERY national governmental environmental agency says otherwise? and do you understand the meaning of "probable" in the context of these IARC classifications?

In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).

This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).

IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures.

To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancerrelated effects in experimental systems.

https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/me...ws-glyphosate/

That graphic conflates acute toxicity with carcinogenicity, which is disingenuous and misleading at best.

no it doesn't. i said toxic, the chart says toxicity. it was mostly a indirect reply to spooks bullshit story about killing aquatic life. either he's a liar, or the professor spiked the test. there are actually aquatic glysophate products on the market, all approved by local government.

Regarding the broader topic at hand, putting these matters in the hands of juries is definitely unsettling since the average person is scientifically illiterate.

this i do agree with 100%.

[wyeaster]

isn't it interesting how a UN org can come to a conclusion where EVERY national governmental environmental agency says otherwise? and do you understand the meaning of "probable" in the context of these IARC classifications?


https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/me...ws-glyphosate/


no it doesn't. i said toxic, the chart says toxicity. it was mostly a indirect reply to spooks bullshit story about killing aquatic life. either he's a liar, or the professor spiked the test. there are actually aquatic glysophate products on the market, all approved by local government.


this i do agree with 100%.

po witto wipsawot! hoit and angwy!

[nickwm21]

The weeds in my yard just laugh at the stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jackstraw]

aww, somebody got triggered. i'm not surprised, since you started this thread, now you must cling to your unscientific views and resort to demeaning the other side to save face. alinsky 101. or is that TGR 101?

here's the original article, sooooo unscientific and corporate.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/13/gly...nts-explained/

You are quite the tool. You had to make it a leftist thing and post a chart from a guy who is a chef. What alias do you post under in poly?

Yeah, I started this thread based on a business getting hammered by 3 lawsuits now. That's what it was about. How may scientists were involved in this trial and how was their proof that it has caused their cancers...in 3 cases now? I don't know, but there is more to that story. I don't really care, but I'm not buying any stock in Bayer right now.

[Skidog]

You are quite the tool. You had to make it a leftist thing and post a chart from a guy who is a chef. What alias do you post under in poly?

Yeah, I started this thread based on a business getting hammered by 3 lawsuits now. That's what it was about. How may scientists were involved in this trial and how was their proof that it has caused their cancers...in 3 cases now? I don't know, but there is more to that story. I don't really care, but I'm not buying any stock in Bayer right now.

How about some people just get cancer? Maybe these folks wouldve gotten it had then NEVER touched roundup. We will never know, but in todays litigious society it HAS to be someone's fault right? I gotta get PAID!