5 ms·

There is a fair amount of bad science about the risks of Atrazine and it's a shame that they referenced some of it (the negative effects on frogs haven't been r

by cyphar 8y ago

There is a fair amount of bad science about the risks of Atrazine and it's a shame that they referenced some of it (the negative effects on frogs haven't been replicated and there is significant evidence that the paper was not entirely honest about the facts). But of course, I'm not an expert to gauge the accuracy of this paper. For those who are interested, it's likely that Alex Jones was referring to Atrazine with his "turning the frogs gay" rant (what he was referring to is the paper I mentioned, which claimed to find gonadal deformities in frogs that were exposed to Atrazine). I'm not a chemist, but one has done a few videos on the topic of Atrazine[1]. [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=s6NDtIU8liw https://youtube.com/watch?v=s6NDtIU8liw

alexandercrohde 8y ago
To be clear, the main thrust seems to be this new paper by unrelated authors : http://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD18505 http://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD18505 Unfortunately, a lot of pesticide research seems to get caught in a strange limbo where each side can't replicate the others results and accuses the other of bad science.
- deogeo 8y ago
  I too am surprised that companies are unable to reproduce the results finding their products harmful.
scottlocklin 8y ago
Can you cite something a little more meaty than "some youtube guy who claims to be a chemist?" Plenty of bad science out there which gets started in weird ways, but I have no idea if this guy is any better than Alex Jones.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
hammock 8y ago
You are referring to the 2002 Hayes study. There was another study done in 2010 by Hayes that showed "atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females.... Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility."
peisistratos 8y ago
> the negative effects on frogs haven't been replicated The liable chemical company responsible for atrazine said they could not replicate the study. > Alex Jones What layman commentators say about a published paper has little bearing. > a few videos Looking through their videos they have "The Young Turks are Morons", "You should not fund Greenpeace", "Kyle Kulinski - Lazy", more anti-Greenpeace videos. Ok. The video text says the EPA wanted to repeat Hayes findings. This was not the process the EPA fostered (incidentally, the EPA is currently run by a coal industry lobbyist, taking over for another fossil fuel advocate who said he was the "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda"). The last YouTube text paragraph is correct - Syngenta, the company which makes atrazine did experiments and said atrazine was not harmful. The text also says Hayes "resisted...answering questions about his data". Syngenta had a formal ethics complaint launched against Hayes at Berkeley, had his personal life investigated by private investigators (as legally obtained documents show), tried to get his papers retracted etc. Also it should be noted - Syngenta/Novartis hired Ecorisk to fund Hayes and others to look at atrazine. Hayes found these problems, and there was a subsequent conflict between Hayes and them. Any how, the OP paper is independent Australian scientists.
- cyphar 8y ago
  > more anti-Greenpeace videos. Those videos are about how Greenpeace is anti-GMO and how their rhetoric is harming the developing world. Just because Greenpeace has historically had many positive causes doesn't mean they aren't dead wrong with their stance on GMOs. Their attacks against golden rice and scare tactics around GMO seeds given to third-world nations have undoubtedly killed people. I also was skeptical about being anti-Greenpeace, but their views on GMOs are just simply anti-science.
d0mine 8y ago
To get a good model of what is happening, look at the history of the tobacco industry: on the one hand is money on the other—public health. Money can reject reality almost indefinitely. More examples: climate change, sugar, war machine.

by cyphar 8y ago

alexandercrohde 8y ago

To be clear, the main thrust seems to be this new paper by unrelated authors : http://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD18505 http://www.publish.csiro.au/RD/RD18505 Unfortunately, a lot of pesticide research seems to get caught in a strange limbo where each side can't replicate the others results and accuses the other of bad science.

deogeo 8y ago
I too am surprised that companies are unable to reproduce the results finding their products harmful.

scottlocklin 8y ago

Can you cite something a little more meaty than "some youtube guy who claims to be a chemist?" Plenty of bad science out there which gets started in weird ways, but I have no idea if this guy is any better than Alex Jones.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

hammock 8y ago

You are referring to the 2002 Hayes study. There was another study done in 2010 by Hayes that showed "atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females.... Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility."

peisistratos 8y ago

> the negative effects on frogs haven't been replicated The liable chemical company responsible for atrazine said they could not replicate the study. > Alex Jones What layman commentators say about a published paper has little bearing. > a few videos Looking through their videos they have "The Young Turks are Morons", "You should not fund Greenpeace", "Kyle Kulinski - Lazy", more anti-Greenpeace videos. Ok. The video text says the EPA wanted to repeat Hayes findings. This was not the process the EPA fostered (incidentally, the EPA is currently run by a coal industry lobbyist, taking over for another fossil fuel advocate who said he was the "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda"). The last YouTube text paragraph is correct - Syngenta, the company which makes atrazine did experiments and said atrazine was not harmful. The text also says Hayes "resisted...answering questions about his data". Syngenta had a formal ethics complaint launched against Hayes at Berkeley, had his personal life investigated by private investigators (as legally obtained documents show), tried to get his papers retracted etc. Also it should be noted - Syngenta/Novartis hired Ecorisk to fund Hayes and others to look at atrazine. Hayes found these problems, and there was a subsequent conflict between Hayes and them. Any how, the OP paper is independent Australian scientists.

cyphar 8y ago
> more anti-Greenpeace videos. Those videos are about how Greenpeace is anti-GMO and how their rhetoric is harming the developing world. Just because Greenpeace has historically had many positive causes doesn't mean they aren't dead wrong with their stance on GMOs. Their attacks against golden rice and scare tactics around GMO seeds given to third-world nations have undoubtedly killed people. I also was skeptical about being anti-Greenpeace, but their views on GMOs are just simply anti-science.

d0mine 8y ago

To get a good model of what is happening, look at the history of the tobacco industry: on the one hand is money on the other—public health. Money can reject reality almost indefinitely. More examples: climate change, sugar, war machine.