3 ms·

From what I understand: we just don't know for sure. There is just no conclusive evidence saying 'humans exposed to this amount will have a higher risk at devel

by stinos 9y ago

From what I understand: we just don't know for sure. There is just no conclusive evidence saying 'humans exposed to this amount will have a higher risk at developing cancer'. That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor does it mean we will never know. That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was, no other conclusions seem justified at this point - again, as far as I know from when I last read up on it a couple of months ago).

luckydude 9y ago
My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. And California is now doing that. So what are they basing that ban on? If there is no evidence why would they do that? Has the EU or California made a practice of labeling stuff as cancer causing without any evidence? That seems pretty weird if that's true. Thanks for the tone of your answer, BTW.
- stinos 9y ago
  So what are they basing that ban on? I assume things like this: Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.” From http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20..., thanks to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roundup-harm-mammals https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roun...
- Oletros 9y ago
  > My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. Well, the EU commission has to decide but the ECHA study concluded that it is not carcinogen https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carc...
kbenson 9y ago
> That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was IIRC, the push back was against taking what his dad assumed was the cause as gospel without actual evidence. It's tricky, you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on, and respect their memory after they are gone, but there's really no reason we should provide them more factual relevance than previously. Human beings are often not rational creatures, and I see no reason to believe that the stress of illness and possible impending death would make them more rational in general (even if it may make certain individuals more or less rational).
- pc86 9y ago
  > you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on > and respect their memory after they are gone Dead people can be wrong. That's totally okay - it doesn't tarnish their memory in the slightest. And just because you're the one that's ill doesn't mean you suddenly have greater medical insight or training. Me getting cancer doesn't give me the slightest idea what caused it.

by stinos 9y ago

luckydude 9y ago

My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. And California is now doing that. So what are they basing that ban on? If there is no evidence why would they do that? Has the EU or California made a practice of labeling stuff as cancer causing without any evidence? That seems pretty weird if that's true. Thanks for the tone of your answer, BTW.

stinos 9y ago
So what are they basing that ban on? I assume things like this: Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.” From http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20..., thanks to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roundup-harm-mammals https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roun...
Oletros 9y ago
> My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. Well, the EU commission has to decide but the ECHA study concluded that it is not carcinogen https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carc...

kbenson 9y ago

> That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was IIRC, the push back was against taking what his dad assumed was the cause as gospel without actual evidence. It's tricky, you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on, and respect their memory after they are gone, but there's really no reason we should provide them more factual relevance than previously. Human beings are often not rational creatures, and I see no reason to believe that the stress of illness and possible impending death would make them more rational in general (even if it may make certain individuals more or less rational).

pc86 9y ago
> you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on > and respect their memory after they are gone Dead people can be wrong. That's totally okay - it doesn't tarnish their memory in the slightest. And just because you're the one that's ill doesn't mean you suddenly have greater medical insight or training. Me getting cancer doesn't give me the slightest idea what caused it.