3 ms·

It's been in global use for almost 50 years. I don't doubt that it may produce some negative effects, but it wouldn't concern me even a little bit to discover t

It's been in global use for almost 50 years. I don't doubt that it may produce some negative effects, but it wouldn't concern me even a little bit to discover that some of it could be detected in my urine. If the impacts were that severe I expect that they would have shown up in force by now.

cool_dude85 4y ago
What do you mean by "severe effects" and how are you sure they haven't shown up in force? Let's say the incidence rate of certain types of cancer triples. You still might never meet someone with one of these types of cancer, and you might not even know if you did whether their cancer was caused by glyphosate. But still sounds like a severe effect to me if you're the guy with cancer, right?
- astrostl 4y ago
  I'm most directly referring to the implication in the article: cancer. It wouldn't surprise me if it tripled the odds of rare cancer, but even taking this claim at face value triple a tiny amount is still a tiny amount. And I do believe I'd still think of it that way if I happened to roll snake eyes.
ReactiveJelly 4y ago
But isn't there a similar concern with microplastics? Plastics have been around for decades, but they're being used in greater volume every year, and we've been finding them in odd places, and we aren't sure it's safe for them to be in those places.
cameronh90 4y ago
The last 50 years has seen significant increases in the rates of obesity, severe allergies, celiac, heart disease, alzheimer's, depression, etc. There are plenty of other (demonstrated and theoretical) reasons behind that, but it seems a little hasty to say we haven't seen severe health impacts. It might just be that we haven't figured out the link yet.
- astrostl 4y ago
  I'd expect a severe link to be apparent in its deployment, i.e., that regions with earlier and more significant uptake would experience earlier and more significant [problems]. The article and my reply refer to cancer, but I would extend the offer to other subjects.

cool_dude85 4y ago

What do you mean by "severe effects" and how are you sure they haven't shown up in force? Let's say the incidence rate of certain types of cancer triples. You still might never meet someone with one of these types of cancer, and you might not even know if you did whether their cancer was caused by glyphosate. But still sounds like a severe effect to me if you're the guy with cancer, right?

astrostl 4y ago
I'm most directly referring to the implication in the article: cancer. It wouldn't surprise me if it tripled the odds of rare cancer, but even taking this claim at face value triple a tiny amount is still a tiny amount. And I do believe I'd still think of it that way if I happened to roll snake eyes.

ReactiveJelly 4y ago

But isn't there a similar concern with microplastics? Plastics have been around for decades, but they're being used in greater volume every year, and we've been finding them in odd places, and we aren't sure it's safe for them to be in those places.

cameronh90 4y ago

The last 50 years has seen significant increases in the rates of obesity, severe allergies, celiac, heart disease, alzheimer's, depression, etc. There are plenty of other (demonstrated and theoretical) reasons behind that, but it seems a little hasty to say we haven't seen severe health impacts. It might just be that we haven't figured out the link yet.

astrostl 4y ago
I'd expect a severe link to be apparent in its deployment, i.e., that regions with earlier and more significant uptake would experience earlier and more significant [problems]. The article and my reply refer to cancer, but I would extend the offer to other subjects.