Roundup carcinogenic

dannyboy602

dannyboy602

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 Politics is not peer-reviewed in the same way as (published in the primary journals) science.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...
I watched this one today.
This one I watched yesterday while I was on the throne.
I think you being a chem guy could appreciate the science that mostly goes in one ear and out the other with me.
If you do find fault with it cannabineer hmu...I'm all ears bc I think this stuff should be banned off the face of the earth. XO.
 
ovo

ovo

Well-Known Member
If Snopes says so we are being foolish then I'll put glyphosate on my corn flakes. Thank you Monsanto.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
dannyboy602 said:
I watched this one today.
This one I watched yesterday while I was on the throne.
I think you being a chem guy could appreciate the science that mostly goes in one ear and out the other with me.
If you do find fault with it cannabineer hmu...I'm all ears bc I think this stuff should be banned off the face of the earth. XO.
Click to expand...
These two videos beautifully illustrate why I am insistent on references from the peer-reviewed literature.

Both presenters use perfect professional speak to present largely acceptable stories, but in the fragments I viewed, I witnessed serious breaches of logic.

In the first video, the presenter made two unacceptable claims.
1) Glyphosate was designed to bind (listed) metals (A) and glyphosate-resistant crops are low in minerals.(B)
2)These minerals are the difference between the old 56-pound bushel and the current 54-pound bushel.(C)

In the second, the presenter showed that there is a similarity in the graphs between autism and glyphosate use. She then claimed that glyphosate was causative in human autism.(D)

My objections, by the letters:

A: What are the binding constants? This is essential info because it drives how well the metals are bound at the very low environmental concentrations of glyphosate. This is sophomore-year biochem kind of stuff about which he is being deliberately unclear.

B: How low? Which minerals? The connection between glyphosate binding metal ions (at an industrial concentration of ten or more per cent!) and binding metals in the ppm (parts per million) range found in treated crops is deliberate cant.

C: Burn a bushel of corn to ash. it will weigh less than two pounds. The unsupported assertion that glyphosate cost the bushel of corn an unreal quantity of minerals is "because I said so" reasoning at its worst. If this guy had pulled such a stunt in grad school, his peers would have whacked him with the bat labeled correlation is not causation.

The peer-reviewed literature will not allow such flying miscarriages of reasoning method past. But in a Youtube video of (someone with a credential) being filmed addressing (interest group) who paid his or her honorarium ... anything goes.

My recommendation is to be on the lookout for these sneaky moments where a correlation is (a) sneakily suggested, and (b) magically assumed to be causal. They are sometimes hard to spot. But find only one and you've uncovered a liar. This is my take on the vids.

Thus I do not have any more reason to consider glyphosate to be the poison!! that these folk want us to believe it is. I find misuse of the credibility of science like this to be not only reprehensible on general moral/ethical grounds, but a symptom of our wholesale retreat from critical thinking. Both videos require us to substitute feels for thoughts. I an repelled by that dishonesty.

So do i know that glyphosate is safe? No. But liars like this damage the dialog by obscuring the real issues ... and recruiting followers via social media. They are a bigger enemy than the corporate entity everyone loves to hate.
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
curious2garden said:
Yes but you have to have an education to disambiguate these topics. They really aren't going to like the data that is rolling in on autism either
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2017119a.html
Click to expand...
Yah and it is not glyphosate.

Science is the current dogma of our age, and it is easily mis-ministered. I often fail in my bid to remain objective, but that does not reduce my obligation to do so. Bad science leads to bad policy which leads to much unnecessary suffering. So i am seriously opposed to sciency-sounding charlatans. Unfortunately, interest groups sponsoring research and conferences is no news; I am strongly reminded of the Tobacco Institute's dishonest practices, but now with earth-y terms like Organic in the organization's title. Caveat emptor.
 
dannyboy602

dannyboy602

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
These two videos beautifully illustrate why I am insistent on references from the peer-reviewed literature.

Both presenters use perfect professional speak to present largely acceptable stories, but in the fragments I viewed, I witnessed serious breaches of logic.

In the first video, the presenter made two unacceptable claims.
1) Glyphosate was designed to bind (listed) metals (A) and glyphosate-resistant crops are low in minerals.(B)
2)These minerals are the difference between the old 56-pound bushel and the current 54-pound bushel.(C)

In the second, the presenter showed that there is a similarity in the graphs between autism and glyphosate use. She then claimed that glyphosate was causative in human autism.(D)

My objections, by the letters:

A: What are the binding constants? This is essential info because it drives how well the metals are bound at the very low environmental concentrations of glyphosate. This is sophomore-year biochem kind of stuff about which he is being deliberately unclear.

B: How low? Which minerals? The connection between glyphosate binding metal ions (at an industrial concentration of ten or more per cent!) and binding metals in the ppm (parts per million) range found in treated crops is deliberate cant.

C: Burn a bushel of corn to ash. it will weigh less than two pounds. The unsupported assertion that glyphosate cost the bushel of corn an unreal quantity of minerals is "because I said so" reasoning at its worst. If this guy had pulled such a stunt in grad school, his peers would have whacked him with the bat labeled correlation is not causation.

The peer-reviewed literature will not allow such flying miscarriages of reasoning method past. But in a Youtube video of (someone with a credential) being filmed addressing (interest group) who paid his or her honorarium ... anything goes.

My recommendation is to be on the lookout for these sneaky moments where a correlation is (a) sneakily suggested, and (b) magically assumed to be causal. They are sometimes hard to spot. But find only one and you've uncovered a liar. This is my take on the vids.

Thus I do not have any more reason to consider glyphosate to be the poison!! that these folk want us to believe it is. I find misuse of the credibility of science like this to be not only reprehensible on general moral/ethical grounds, but a symptom of our wholesale retreat from critical thinking. Both videos require us to substitute feels for thoughts. I an repelled by that dishonesty.

So do i know that glyphosate is safe? No. But liars like this damage the dialog by obscuring the real issues ... and recruiting followers via social media. They are a bigger enemy than the corporate entity everyone loves to hate.
Click to expand...
That's why I love you bear. Thx for taking the time to clear that up. Time for my glyphosate martini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top