4 ms·

See the following review : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 "There is insufficient evidence to conclude

by searine 10y ago

See the following review : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants" Surfactants, in general, are toxic. There is nothing special about POEA. Used properly, surfactants can be of good use and result in safe improvement of agriculture.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Surfactants, in general, are toxic. // But you said, did you not, that Roundup - which is about 50% surfactants - was safe, safe to drink even. You compared it to drinking coffee IIRC. How is Roundup not toxic then?
- danielweber 10y ago
  The trace amounts of roundup left on food crops is below any measured harm level. People who work with it in fields should be careful. Consumers have a thousand other things more dangerous to worry about.
- searine 10y ago
  >surfactants were safe, Safe when used properly. >safe to drink even. Never said that.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >"All studies thus far point to roundup/glyphosate being incredibly safe." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481, searine) FWIW the context was ability to harm humans in any way; you were responding to a person saying they'd been given a rash after using Roundup. >>"A good portion of which can do serious harm to life. Therefore "unknown" is the issue." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508, goda90) >"Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557, searine) Which I'll accept was not quite what I thought you'd said. Will you admit that you've claimed roundup to be "incredibly safe"? Also that in response to someone claiming it was harmful that your response, in context, suggested that coffee was more harmful?
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      > Also that in response to someone claiming it was harmful that your response, in context, suggested that coffee was more harmful? He didn't say "more harmful", he said "more carcinogenic". That is a very specific form of harm.
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        My point is it's a politicians response - the questioner asked about harm and the answer was a shift to a specific form of harm so that drinking Roundup could be compared to drinking coffee. It's perhaps strictly true, buy the manner is dishonest. Such an answer discredits the writer. The intent is to sow the idea that 'Roundup is less harmful to drink than coffee' even if the explicit expression was different.

by searine 10y ago

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>Surfactants, in general, are toxic. // But you said, did you not, that Roundup - which is about 50% surfactants - was safe, safe to drink even. You compared it to drinking coffee IIRC. How is Roundup not toxic then?

danielweber 10y ago
The trace amounts of roundup left on food crops is below any measured harm level. People who work with it in fields should be careful. Consumers have a thousand other things more dangerous to worry about.
searine 10y ago
>surfactants were safe, Safe when used properly. >safe to drink even. Never said that.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >"All studies thus far point to roundup/glyphosate being incredibly safe." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481, searine) FWIW the context was ability to harm humans in any way; you were responding to a person saying they'd been given a rash after using Roundup. >>"A good portion of which can do serious harm to life. Therefore "unknown" is the issue." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508, goda90) >"Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557, searine) Which I'll accept was not quite what I thought you'd said. Will you admit that you've claimed roundup to be "incredibly safe"? Also that in response to someone claiming it was harmful that your response, in context, suggested that coffee was more harmful?
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > Also that in response to someone claiming it was harmful that your response, in context, suggested that coffee was more harmful? He didn't say "more harmful", he said "more carcinogenic". That is a very specific form of harm.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      My point is it's a politicians response - the questioner asked about harm and the answer was a shift to a specific form of harm so that drinking Roundup could be compared to drinking coffee. It's perhaps strictly true, buy the manner is dishonest. Such an answer discredits the writer. The intent is to sow the idea that 'Roundup is less harmful to drink than coffee' even if the explicit expression was different.