3 ms·

>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.