3 ms·

Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epide

Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done). I don't doubt that these chemicals could cause cancer, but if they do it's at a rate that prevents easy detection. [Edit] -- And to be clear, I'm not advocating that Roundup is safe. Like everything in our food system it should be scrutinized and studied, trade secrets be damned.

rsync 10y ago
"Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done)." The heavy machinery that you speak of is used for a great many other things than simply weed/foliage control. So aren't you going to have that infrastructure, and those risks, regardless of what you do with your weeds ? The more serious problem with this line of reasoning is that the risks of the machinery are confined to the people doing the work, whereas the (possibly much smaller, but less understood) risks are potentially borne by the entire population around their use. What if your neighbors don't share your risk analysis ?
iheartmemcache 10y ago
The people who volunteer to be subject of those long-term studies tend to have little overlap with the demographic exposed to said chemicals. I.e., your average seasonal migrant who's going to work 8 years here then return to their South or Central American home. If they do stay here, they're more often than not seasonal migrants, sans documentation, not the type who'd volunteer to come into a university building twice a year for 20 years to be a medical subject of a study. (These guys likely don't even have base-level medical healthcare).

rsync 10y ago

"Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done)." The heavy machinery that you speak of is used for a great many other things than simply weed/foliage control. So aren't you going to have that infrastructure, and those risks, regardless of what you do with your weeds ? The more serious problem with this line of reasoning is that the risks of the machinery are confined to the people doing the work, whereas the (possibly much smaller, but less understood) risks are potentially borne by the entire population around their use. What if your neighbors don't share your risk analysis ?

iheartmemcache 10y ago

The people who volunteer to be subject of those long-term studies tend to have little overlap with the demographic exposed to said chemicals. I.e., your average seasonal migrant who's going to work 8 years here then return to their South or Central American home. If they do stay here, they're more often than not seasonal migrants, sans documentation, not the type who'd volunteer to come into a university building twice a year for 20 years to be a medical subject of a study. (These guys likely don't even have base-level medical healthcare).