5 ms·

The evidence offered that glyphosate causes cancer is not very credible, though.

by TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

Analemma_ 9y ago
How are we supposed to verify that statement if the study was killed?
- tptacek 9y ago
  Because lots of people have studied glyphosate. We're not dependent on the EPA for this.
  - 5ilv3r 9y ago
    We sort of are.... since they are the regulating body with authority in this area.
    - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      They are one regulating body with jurisdiction in the US. There are other (less biased) research groups, and plenty of other countries with organizations equivalent to the EPA.
      - DiabloD3 9y ago
        I actually agree with this. If, say, Canada or Europe or Australia banned it and banned importation of any goods exposed to it, Monsanto would be forced to seriously rethink their options.
  - luckydude 9y ago
    In the thread yesterday I asked tptacek: Could you tell us/me about your background in this area? I looked you up, you seem to be a computer security guy. Yet you are talking like you have pretty deep knowledge about biology and oncology, certainly more than I would claim to have. Just wondering. No answer there, maybe he missed it and will answer this time.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      This is an incredibly rude comment.
      - luckydude 9y ago
        Well it was certainly not intended to be that way. I was asking because you pop up every time there is a discussion about roundup and you are constantly making the case that there is no evidence that there is a link between roundup and cancer. Which would be fine if you were a scientist who works in this area or somehow had the backround needed to make those claims. But your linkedin profile shows you to be someone who works in computer security. I'm not sure how it is rude to ask about your background/education in the areas of biology and oncology when you are making pretty black and white statements about roundup. Without any caveat like "I'm an interested party and I've read a bunch of papers and what it seems to me is ...". As an example (there are many more, this seems to be a passion of yours): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646527 It's entirely possible that you had a former career in the biology/oncology field and transitioned to computer security, though it seems unlikely if the intertubes are correct at placing you at about 40 years old. I'm just curious how it is that a computer security guy has such an extensive background in oncology and human biology. If asking about your background is rude, ok, then my bad. I'm sometimes clueless about stuff like that. But you are making strong statements, it doesn't seem that all unreasonable to wonder how you know about this stuff.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        On HN, it's better to address the argument directly. If he's mistaken, it doesn't matter who he is.
        luckydude 9y ago
        I'm not qualified to address his arguments, I never claimed I was an expert. I was just wondering how it is possible that California thinks glyphosate can cause cancer, the world health organization thinks that, the EU seems to be heading in that direction, a zillion lawyers want to talk to you if you used glyphosate and got cancer, how is it possible that there is that much smoke and no fire? I'm not an expert, I have no training in this area but that doesn't mean I can't see smoke when it is right in front of me. I don't know if it is glyphosate or something else in roundup but there are a lot of people saying that it looks like it ups the risk of non-hodgkin's lymphoma which is what got my dad and he used a lot of roundup. A statistically "valid" "data point" of 1 (in other words, I know it doesn't conclude anything but I still wonder if roundup was to blame). And whenever this topic comes up, tptacek is there to say there is no link. Which would make sense if he's an oncologist or a biologist or someone with training in this area, but that doesn't seem to be the case, go google him and he's a computer security guy. So I asked how he knows what he says he knows. Bring on the downvotes I guess, but I'd still like to understand why this person is an expert on this stuff with what appears to be no background in it. Isn't hackernews about learning and getting to the truth? Don't we like to understand our sources? It would be completely understandable if he's got actual expertise in this area and maybe that's the case, but if so, why not just say that?
- pera 9y ago
  I would obviously like to see more studies, but here is one from the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization indicating that glyphosate seems to be safe when used as a pesticide: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5693e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5693e.pdf (page 31 of the pdf) Edit: here is an article explaining why more studies are needed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
  - ams6110 9y ago
    > glyphosate seems to be safe when used as a pesticide Just to be accurate, glyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Herbicides are pesticides. Herbicide is more specific, pesticide isn't inaccurate.
      - ams6110 9y ago
        Hmm, so it is. I never knew that. I have always thought pesticide was for insects, herbicide for plants.
- pg_bot 9y ago
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbi...

The evidence offered that glyphosate causes cancer is not very credible, though.

Analemma_ 9y ago

How are we supposed to verify that statement if the study was killed?

tptacek 9y ago
Because lots of people have studied glyphosate. We're not dependent on the EPA for this.
- 5ilv3r 9y ago
  We sort of are.... since they are the regulating body with authority in this area.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    They are one regulating body with jurisdiction in the US. There are other (less biased) research groups, and plenty of other countries with organizations equivalent to the EPA.
    - DiabloD3 9y ago
      I actually agree with this. If, say, Canada or Europe or Australia banned it and banned importation of any goods exposed to it, Monsanto would be forced to seriously rethink their options.
- luckydude 9y ago
  In the thread yesterday I asked tptacek: Could you tell us/me about your background in this area? I looked you up, you seem to be a computer security guy. Yet you are talking like you have pretty deep knowledge about biology and oncology, certainly more than I would claim to have. Just wondering. No answer there, maybe he missed it and will answer this time.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This is an incredibly rude comment.
    - luckydude 9y ago
      Well it was certainly not intended to be that way. I was asking because you pop up every time there is a discussion about roundup and you are constantly making the case that there is no evidence that there is a link between roundup and cancer. Which would be fine if you were a scientist who works in this area or somehow had the backround needed to make those claims. But your linkedin profile shows you to be someone who works in computer security. I'm not sure how it is rude to ask about your background/education in the areas of biology and oncology when you are making pretty black and white statements about roundup. Without any caveat like "I'm an interested party and I've read a bunch of papers and what it seems to me is ...". As an example (there are many more, this seems to be a passion of yours): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646527 It's entirely possible that you had a former career in the biology/oncology field and transitioned to computer security, though it seems unlikely if the intertubes are correct at placing you at about 40 years old. I'm just curious how it is that a computer security guy has such an extensive background in oncology and human biology. If asking about your background is rude, ok, then my bad. I'm sometimes clueless about stuff like that. But you are making strong statements, it doesn't seem that all unreasonable to wonder how you know about this stuff.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        On HN, it's better to address the argument directly. If he's mistaken, it doesn't matter who he is.
        luckydude 9y ago
        I'm not qualified to address his arguments, I never claimed I was an expert. I was just wondering how it is possible that California thinks glyphosate can cause cancer, the world health organization thinks that, the EU seems to be heading in that direction, a zillion lawyers want to talk to you if you used glyphosate and got cancer, how is it possible that there is that much smoke and no fire? I'm not an expert, I have no training in this area but that doesn't mean I can't see smoke when it is right in front of me. I don't know if it is glyphosate or something else in roundup but there are a lot of people saying that it looks like it ups the risk of non-hodgkin's lymphoma which is what got my dad and he used a lot of roundup. A statistically "valid" "data point" of 1 (in other words, I know it doesn't conclude anything but I still wonder if roundup was to blame). And whenever this topic comes up, tptacek is there to say there is no link. Which would make sense if he's an oncologist or a biologist or someone with training in this area, but that doesn't seem to be the case, go google him and he's a computer security guy. So I asked how he knows what he says he knows. Bring on the downvotes I guess, but I'd still like to understand why this person is an expert on this stuff with what appears to be no background in it. Isn't hackernews about learning and getting to the truth? Don't we like to understand our sources? It would be completely understandable if he's got actual expertise in this area and maybe that's the case, but if so, why not just say that?
pera 9y ago
I would obviously like to see more studies, but here is one from the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization indicating that glyphosate seems to be safe when used as a pesticide: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5693e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5693e.pdf (page 31 of the pdf) Edit: here is an article explaining why more studies are needed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
- ams6110 9y ago
  > glyphosate seems to be safe when used as a pesticide Just to be accurate, glyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Herbicides are pesticides. Herbicide is more specific, pesticide isn't inaccurate.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      Hmm, so it is. I never knew that. I have always thought pesticide was for insects, herbicide for plants.
pg_bot 9y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbi...