Roundup carcinogenic

greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
Singlemalt said:
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.
Click to expand...
of course!
carcinogens don't create cancer, all the time.
we all know an old dude or lady that smokes unfiltered camel cigarettes and they don't get cancer, and conversely I know people that are health nuts that get cancer, it's not something humans really understand well.
therein lies the problem.
Monsanto, as much as it's shitty to say, is almost a necessary evil, there would be MUCH more world hunger without them
but that's another argument
the planet is simply overpopulated.
we need 3 billion people to disappear in order to really stabilize.
but... that's a different thread title.
 
dannyboy602

dannyboy602

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I used to use Round Up liberally mostly bc I was led to believe it breaks down in soil and doesn't get into the ground water...I told clients that for years...now I'm finding out different and won't use it bc I just don't trust the manufacturer's safety data sheet anymore...I'm surprised to learn that you still use it (if I understand you correctly) and wanted to ask (bc you're a chemical expert) does the shit break down or not?
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
dannyboy602 said:
I used to use Round Up liberally mostly bc I was led to believe it breaks down in soil and doesn't get into the ground water...I told clients that for years...now I'm finding out different and won't use it bc I just don't trust the manufacturer's safety data sheet anymore...I'm surprised to learn that you still use it (if I understand you correctly) and wanted to ask (bc you're a chemical expert) does the shit break down or not?
Click to expand...
Yes it breaks down, fairly quickly dependent upon moisture, soil microbial activity, etc. When you read papers upon degradation they use one of the breakdown products as a marker which tends to be more persistent.
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
dannyboy602 said:
I used to use Round Up liberally mostly bc I was led to believe it breaks down in soil and doesn't get into the ground water...I told clients that for years...now I'm finding out different and won't use it bc I just don't trust the manufacturer's safety data sheet anymore...I'm surprised to learn that you still use it (if I understand you correctly) and wanted to ask (bc you're a chemical expert) does the shit break down or not?
Click to expand...
I personally won't use Roundup because of the additives, and now they have different "flavors" with additional herbicides(pre-emergents). Plain ol' glyphosate for me
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
dannyboy602 said:
I used to use Round Up liberally mostly bc I was led to believe it breaks down in soil and doesn't get into the ground water...I told clients that for years...now I'm finding out different and won't use it bc I just don't trust the manufacturer's safety data sheet anymore...I'm surprised to learn that you still use it (if I understand you correctly) and wanted to ask (bc you're a chemical expert) does the shit break down or not?
Click to expand...
In soil, the lifetime is days or weeks ... rarely months.

If it gets into groundwater, it is slowly biodegraded into phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients.

I think the worst wetland problems have to do with the other ingredients in the total herbicide package, like that tallow amine.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Rrog said:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/glyphosate-persistence-raises-questions/9510.article

Persists longer than thought. Human exposure is growing. Maybe this product is benign. Maybe

Seems silly to tempt fate
Click to expand...
It is always a balancing act. Glyphosate means more crop yield per acre ... and until we start building asteroid habitats ... there are only so many acres.

DDT is a toxic and persistent chemical insecticide, and yet the argument can be mounted that it saved more people than it harmed.

If you, as I, believe that man has a place in nature, such sentient balancing is a better strategy than sentimentality for primitive conditions. I like glyphosate, penicillin and toothpaste.
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
This type discussion can lead you to places you don't wish to go. Inhalation of combustion products, inhalation of HC solvents; e.g. smoking herb and BHO concentrates.
If you read Rrog's citation, there is a use if that is adhered to. In essence, field clearing. Use of glyphosate and timely tilling is what it was made for. Not GMO-glyphosate resistant crops; that will lead to the same problems we have with antibiotics. Life finds a way, and will evolve resistance.
 
haight

haight

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's a reason California is on the left coast.
 
billy4479

billy4479

Moderator
I tired to find but was unable , years ago Monsanto got caught faking lab results from there research. It was a big deal they where caught more than once doing so there's a whole Wikipedia page put there somewhere on it .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top