5 ms·
For comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food,
by adrr 4y ago
For comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food, bbq/grilling.
- hammock 4y agodeleted
- adrr 4y agoWhat does this have to do with the discussion? Hackernews is suppose to be about constructive debate.
- hammock 4y agoMaybe I am missing the constructive nature of your comment, can you clarify? Are you proposing coffee is as cancerous as Roundup? Constructively, have you seen this video? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-drink-roundup.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-dr...
- adrr 4y agoRoundup hasn't been shown to be carcinogen in any animal model testing and only one observational study has shown an up lift in a cancer. Hence the designation of potential. Hot beverages significantly increases risk of Esophageal cancer in multiple observational studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/
- ch4s3 4y agoThat seems like a ridiculous gotcha type exchange. I can be both true that glyphosate is safer than alternative herbicides and something you shouldn't drink.
- hammock 4y agoThe guy, unprompted, said "you can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you." If that is a gotcha, it's self-inflicted
- ch4s3 4y agoyeah, it's totally a self own but it gets paraded around a lot like it proves something which it clearly doesn't.
- SuoDuanDao 4y agoIt proves the guy is blatantly dishonest, no?
- ch4s3 4y agoDoes it? It really just shows that he wasn't serious when he said he'd literally dirk it. I wouldn't assume that was a serious statement. A more careful person would have said something like "you could hypothetically drink the stuff and based on everything we know right now you'd be just fine."
- Retric 4y agoAs always it comes down to scale not labels. Glyphosate in normal use is vastly more dangerous than anything you mentioned.
- tptacek 4y agoIs it?
- hcurtiss 4y agoThat is decidedly untrue.
- pas 4y agoWhat's the current consensus? It's dangerous to the workers who work on the fields, not to the consumers at the end of the chain, or both?
- rstuart4133 4y ago> What's the current consensus? The comments on HN are usually very informative, and this article is no exception. Here we have this comment: > The IARC is the odd one out here and their results are based mainly on discredited experiments on rats that are known to be prone to getting cancer (meaning they aren't a good model for humans in this case). It depends on how you define consensus, I guess. But the data is clear: one organisation out of many, and they drew their conclusions not from humans but from rats prone to cancer. > It's dangerous to the workers who work on the fields, not to the consumers at the end of the chain, or both? I don't know. But one of Glyphosate charms is it breaks down very rapidly. It means it doesn't do damage to surrounding plants that weren't directly exposed (unlike say 75-D). So my wild guess is you would have to be a field worker exposed to it directly. IIRC the people who won law suits against Monsanto were field workers who got regularly drenched in the stuff.
- adrr 4y agoOnly EU considers it a potential carcinogen. Rest world says it safe. No animal model study has shown it to be dangerous.