Roundup carcinogenic

[greasemonkeymann]

To be fair, California has some pretty nutty laws and propositions that other states don't. For example, the fruit based nutritional beverage that I drink has a lead warning on it for no good reason because of CA proposition 65. A single serving of spinach or green beans contains many times more lead than the fruit drink, yet California does not put a warning label on fruits and vegetables. These laws are well intentioned but misleading. They seem to put unnecessary fear into the public, and make it harder for producers...

man, I feel ya
but the concern is that most states don't let you know what is in your food.
the WORLD needs transparency, theres chemicals in damn near everything, and most of the time people aren't warned, are ignorant, etc.
California is annoying in a lot of regards, but I do agree with the fact that the general public NEEDS to be more informed on these things
so many have no idea about SO much.

 

[cannabineer]

I know, simply by reading some of the things you write, that you are well educated, and fairly intellectual.
my question is why you'd want to use something knowingly that "probably" cause cancer
the "probably" is according to World Health Organization
I mean it's all good if you are the ONLY one exposed to it, but we all know that's not true.
I assume you are using it outside, no?
Maybe i'm just too cognizant of the cancer causing things in the world.
and admittedly I may have somewhat of an UN-natural fear of it..
But really?
an un-natural fear would be something that probably won't happen to me.
when in actuality the chances of someone getting cancer in their lifetime is sadly high.

The World Health Organization and the State of California are political organizations. They influence or enact laws. When a state organ determines that something may or may not be carcinogenic, I wonder whose interests are getting served or sunk. I have found the legislation of science to be a very ineffective process, and it leads to idiocies like paint that doesn't work and the new plastic bag tax.

So i don't care what the WHO or the SoCA say ... I'd rather know what Nature or Lancet have to say. Politics is not peer-reviewed in the same way as (published in the primary journals) science.

I think much of the problem with RoundUp is the formulation. There is a surfactant (polyethoxylated tallow amine) that aids application of the herbicidally active ingredient (phosphonomethylglycine), and that surfactant has been found to be the direct cause of wetland amphibian etc. poisonings. I haven't seen any credible research yet to show that glyphosate itself isn't one of the greatest ag-chem breakthroughs of the last century.

 

[greasemonkeymann]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/17/494301343/epa-weighs-in-on-glyphosate-says-it-doesnt-cause-cancer

well, I can't say the term "likely" is convincing enough to me.
it's cancer.
and it's "likely" that monsantos massive monetary influence could sway some "experts"
so i'll retain my skepticism

 

[greasemonkeymann]

The World Health Organization and the State of California are political organizations. They influence or enact laws. When a state organ determines that something may or may not be carcinogenic, I wonder whose interests are getting served or sunk. I have found the legislation of science to be a very ineffective process, and it leads to idiocies like paint that doesn't work and the new plastic bag tax.

So i don't care what the WHO or the SoCA say ... I'd rather know what Nature or Lancet have to say. Politics is not peer-reviewed in the same way as (published in the primary journals) science.

I think much of the problem with RoundUp is the formulation. There is a surfactant (polyethoxylated tallow amine) that aids application of the herbicidally active ingredient (phosphonomethylglycine), and that surfactant has been found to be the direct cause of wetland amphibian etc. poisonings. I haven't seen any credible research yet to show that glyphosate itself isn't one of the greatest ag-chem breakthroughs of the last century.

you let your dogs or kids play on the lawn after spraying?

 

[cannabineer]

just an observation. we all do things we know we should not be doing. dont take it personal.
using glycophosphate in the garden, supporting anti mj corps(for the cash pay out) are just a couple of them.

I do not know that I should not be using glyphosate. Aside from your opinion, I have seen nothing to sway me away from RoundUp, or more specifically the Orchard Supply brand of glyphosate.

 

[Singlemalt]

well, I can't say the term "likely" is convincing enough to me.
it's cancer.
and it's "likely" that monsantos massive monetary influence could sway some "experts"
so i'll retain my skepticism

You(meaning yourself) are extremely more likely to develop "cancer" from the solvents, lubricants and compounds you work with daily. Monsanto's greatest sin is not that they wish to poison the food supply (they don't); it's that they wish to OWN the food supply

 

[cannabineer]

you let your dogs or kids play on the lawn after spraying?

I do not have a dog, and my kids could not be forced to play outside at gunpoint. The neighbor's dog knows to stay on his side of the fence.

 

[Singlemalt]

I don't use Roundup; I use a generic glyphosate that has nothing else added. I make my own surfactant out of DAWN dish detergent and add a little ammonium sulphate as a nitrogen boost/stimulant for the weeds

 

[greasemonkeymann]

You(meaning yourself) are extremely more likely to develop "cancer" from the solvents, lubricants and compounds you work with daily.

preach it my friend. You are correct
I am well aware (probably hyper aware) of the stuff I work with daily, I primarily fix emission failures, everything out the cars exhaust causes cancer..
minus the water vapor and co2..

 

[cannabineer]

I don't use Roundup; I use a generic glyphosate that has nothing else added. I make my own surfactant out of DAWN dish detergent and add a little ammonium sulphate as a nitrogen boost/stimulant for the weeds

lol sweetening the poison

I always add a few drops of Ultra Dawn. That polyethoxylated tallow amine may be murder on newts, but spurge, oy.

 

[cannabineer]

preach it my friend. You are correct
I am well aware (probably hyper aware) of the stuff I work with daily, I;m primarily fix emission failures, everything out the cars exhaust causes cancer..
minus the water vapor and co2..

I think Diesels are more dangerous because they are sooty, and soot contains the polycyclics that are famous carcinogens. (They bind to the ArH receptor which then enables their metabolism into molecular mousetraps.)
From auto exhaust, the other compounds of concern are nitroarenes, minority exhaust components and (I surmise) almost entirely missing if the "cat" is working. The stench of half-burned gas behind an old carbureted, uncatalyzed truck is mostly aldehydes and ketones that are, as far as we know now, more noxious than dangerous.

 

[greasemonkeymann]

I do not know that I should not be using glyphosate. Aside from your opinion, I have seen nothing to sway me away from RoundUp, or more specifically the Orchard Supply brand of glyphosate.

here's my complaint with that logic man
we don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
So to gamble with that, in my opinion, is reckless.
Spraying something into the air (air that you do not own, and in fact, share) that NOBODY knows for sure is safe, seems to be reckless/careless.
It's an absolute horrible, horrible thing to suggest, but in the future if someone near you developed cancer....
just saying.
that would be a big thing to swallow.

Nobody knows what causes cancer.
hell even doctors had problems for years just linking tobacco and cancer.

 

[greasemonkeymann]

I think Diesels are more dangerous because they are sooty, and soot contains the polycyclics that are famous carcinogens. (They bind to the ArH receptor which then enables their metabolism into molecular mousetraps.)
From auto exhaust, the other compounds of concern are nitroarenes, minority exhaust components and (I surmise) almost entirely missing if the "cat" is working. The stench of half-burned gas behind an old carbureted, uncatalyzed truck is mostly aldehydes and ketones that are, as far as we know now, more noxious than dangerous.

they are.
You are dead on.
well, minus the small part that hydrocarbon is also a known carcinogen, and readily made by combustion engines, and sadly the most created.
diesels and the solid particulates are far and away the most dangerous thing out the exhaust.
as far as the aldehydes and ketones, those are smelled in conjunction with the unburned gas, which is simple HC, (mixed with CO as well, depending on the malfunction of the car) which....
Surprise!

causes cancer

http://www.lung-cancer.com/organics.html

past that the other is CO, which is waaaaay more deadly than anything, we all know that carbon monoxide is one of the deadliest things to oxygen breathing entities..

 

[cannabineer]

here's my complaint with that logic man
we don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
So to gamble with that, in my opinion, is reckless.
Spraying something into the air (air that you do not own, and in fact, share) that NOBODY knows for sure is safe, seems to be reckless/careless.
It's an absolute horrible, horrible thing to suggest, but in the future if someone near you developed cancer....
just saying.
that would be a big thing to swallow.

Nobody knows what causes cancer.
hell even doctors had problems for years just linking tobacco and cancer.

Doctors had problems because of the specific and directed interference provided by the Tobacco Institute.

As for the relative carcinogenicity of things ... I have some knowledge on the subject and would NOT emit arsenic or chloroform if I can at all help it.

I don't have a good reason to believe that glyphosate is nearly as dangerous to our collective health as, say, corn syrup.

I have enough chemical phobias. I am certain that all the dichloromethane I inhaled without really meaning to has started a timer in a cell somewhere in me. Every strange itch heralds the emergence of the Tumor. I am very unwilling to add another scare to my list without there being scientific data available ... and not a legislative decree in their place. Laws and sausages ... you do not wanna see how either is made.

 

[cannabineer]

they are.
You are dead on.
diesels and the solid particulates are far and away the most dangerous thing out the exhaust.
as far as the aldehydes and ketones, those are smelled in conjunction with the unburned gas, which is simple HC, (mixed with CO as well, depending on the malfunction of the car) which.... causes cancer
http://www.lung-cancer.com/organics.html

past that the other is CO, which is waaaaay more deadly than anything, we all know that carbon monoxide is one of the deadliest things to oxygen breathing entities..

I checked the link, and the only carcinogens there are benzene and the other aromatics. The aldehydes and ketones are not aromatic HCs.

 

[greasemonkeymann]

I checked the link, and the only carcinogens there are benzene and the other aromatics. The aldehydes and ketones are not aromatic HCs.

ah, well that's a totally different argument man, and sort of a pointless one at that.
regardless of whether we smell them, the cars create them.
and they cause cancer. Whether we can smell them or not, is another argument all together.
I don't smell carbon monoxide either, but I can smell a rich running car, which creates CO, these are things you acquire over decades of diagnosing cars, the specific aromatic hydrocarbons are irrelevant.
the gas analyzer is where that comes in handy
that's why I used the term "in conjunction"
after doing this for awhile you can smell them a mile away.

 

[cannabineer]

ah, well that's a totally different argument man, and sort of a pointless one at that.
regardless of whether we smell them, the cars create them.
and they cause cancer. Whether we can smell them or not, is another argument all together.
I don't smell carbon monoxide either, but I can smell a rich running car, which creates CO, these are things you acquire over decades of diagnosing cars, the specific aromatic hydrocarbons are irrelevant.
the gas analyzer is where that comes in handy
that's why I used the term "in conjunction"
after doing this for awhile you can smell them a mile away.

It is the bolded that I think is your opinion, not fact.
That said, i have my full set of chemical phobias that are based on my emotions and not my reasoning. But I know they are my own private reality until proven or disproven by some actual work.

The epidemiology of cancer is a very very difficult subject to do research in. Not only is there a weak and much-delayed signal for many compounds ... much of that signal loses when you do the statistics. That process is a breeding ground for bad (biased) science and the legislation that it spawns.

In the lab where i worked, some of the most insidious compounds had really attractive odors. Benzene, nitrobenzene and dimethyl sulfate smell good! I used to sniff the bottle of alpha, alpha-prime-dipyridyl. Its half-molecule pyridine is a suspected carcinogen and a known chemosterilant. I have breathed much pyridine over the years.

 

[greasemonkeymann]

It is the bolded that I think is your opinion, not fact.
That said, i have my full set of chemical phobias that are based on my emotions and not my reasoning. But I know they are my own private reality until proven or disproven by some actual work.

The epidemiology of cancer is a very very difficult subject to do research in. Not only is there a weak and much-delayed signal for many compounds ... much of that signal loses when you do the statistics. That process is a breeding ground for bad (biased) science and the legislation that it spawns.

In the lab where i worked, some of the most insidious compounds had really attractive odors. Benzene, nitrobenzene and dimethyl sulfate smell good! I used to sniff the bottle of alpha, alpha-prime-dipyridyl. Its half-molecule pyridine is a suspected carcinogen and a known chemosterilant. I have breathed much pyridine over the years.

the bolded was in reference to the "aromatic" hydrocarbon
c'mon man.
Now Hydrocarbons don't cause cancer either?
that's my opinion too?

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-so-many-aldehydes-so-carcinogenic

 

[Singlemalt]

A large problem with "it causes cancer" is the fact that our life spans are much longer and our health and nutrition is much better than a few hundred years ago; and we don't have adequate comparative controls to yesteryear. As an example I'm in my '60s and have had some skin cancers removed which have popped up over the last few years, due to a largely outdoor life and inadequate sun protection. Years ago skin cancer was fairly rare as folks didn't live long enough to develop them. Most cancers take many years to develop or trigger. We live longer due to health care, education and more and better nutrition. Hence more cancers are seen. Like it or not companies like Monsanto have beneficially contributed world wide to the more and better nutrition. Farming is a rough, dirty exhausting business, in times past folks would die early through over work. I have farmed and even with modern chemicals and equipment it is an uncertain venture.

 

[Rrog]

Surprising convo.