3 ms·

The MSDS for Roundup is hilarious. It's completely safe, no known health effects, as long as you're wearing a full hazmat suite.

by genter 3y ago

RoyalHenOil 3y ago
I used to work in the agriculture sector, and we had to fully suit up to spray anything whatsoever, even neem oil. But there were good reasons for this: 1. Human error: If the last user didn't clean it properly, there could still be residue in the sprayer from a different (more dangerous) chemical. Or you may have accidentally added the wrong chemical. 2. Bad luck: You never know who's going to have an allergic reaction to something, like a dye or a surfactant in the product. 3. Liability: Future research may reveal risks that we do not currently know about (e.g., who knows, maybe people with prior exposure will turn out to be more likely to get long covid or some random thing like that). Requiring a suit for absolutely everything means your employer doesn't have to stress about future lawsuits over unknowns like these.
vkou 3y ago
How does its[1] MSDS compare to any other herbicide/pesticide in common use[2]? All the handling instructions for the them are nearly word-for-word identical. It seems to be a good idea to wear a hazmat suit when you're spraying a field with anything that's supposed to kill weeds. [1] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Roundup%20Pro%20Conc%20SDS%208-12-20.pdf https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Roundup%20Pro%20Con... [2] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS%206-19-20.pdf https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS...
- sudhirc 3y ago
  If you have to wear the hazmat suite, think about the impact on non targetted crop plants and the farmer. Why this shit is even allowed?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    See people complaining about the rising food prices, just due to increasing labor costs. Definitely won’t be politically popular to make farming even more expensive.
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    Because we need to feed billions of people. Because doing that more efficiently not only saves labour and lives of people who would starve otherwise, but also land as we don't need as much of it, so it can be forests and grasslands and steppe [1]. Currently the most efficient way to grow plants on a massive scale requires using herbicides. As we need herbicides for industrial agriculture, herbicides need to be judged against other herbicides, not in isolation. Glyphosate is fairly benign compared to other herbicides (compare to [2] for example), it's not "shit". [1] In fact we are likely past peak agricultural land use https://ourworldindata.org/peak-agriculture-land https://ourworldindata.org/peak-agriculture-land [2] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS%206-19-20.pdf https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS...
    - timeon 3y ago
      > Because we need to feed billions of people. Then do not grow so much corn.
  - transcriptase 3y ago
    Virtually nil. Farmers (and employees certified/licensed to apply sprays) generally only spray in favourable conditions. Eg. Calm conditions where the output doesn’t go beyond a few meters of the intended swath. Given the cost, it makes little financial sense to waste it on non-target plants. And while nearly any pesticide/herbicide/fungicide will tell you to suit up and use a respirator, it’s usually because of the (often petroleum derived) volatiles used in the mixture to ensure stability and proper spreading rather than the active ingredient itself. Glyphosate (RoundUp) for example interacts with a biochemical pathway that doesn’t even exist in humans, yet still suffers from the legacy and cultural entrenchment of a paper that has since been refuted and retracted. The infamous “roundup causes cancer” paper where the author used lines of lab rats that were (intentionally, for use in cancer studies) genetically predisposed to developing tumours. The volatiles evaporate and break down rapidly, which is why a freshly sprayed field will have an odd aroma for several hours after application. Meanwhile these sprays come with a PHI (post harvest interval), whereby if a producer is following laws and regulations, the active ingredient itself is virtually undetectable at the time of harvest due to UV/heat/microbial degradation. PHIs are determined empirically by testing sprays across environments and conditions for years before certification, then still including a buffer period to account for outlier conditions where a chemical may persist beyond what was observed.
1letterunixname 3y ago
I was about to see if you were offering to make a toast with Patrick Moore but then I read the ending. Buried the lede. ;P
jcranmer 3y ago
Here's the MSDS for Vitamin D: https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&productDescription=VITAMIN+D3+5G&vendorId=VN00024248&countryCode=US&language=en https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&p... It also recommends wearing all the standard protective equipment. Guess it's not safe to eat any Vitamin D, then, right? Or maybe it's the dose that makes the poison. (Fun fact: Vitamin D is more acutely toxic than glyphosate.)
- stubish 3y ago
  Is there a way of telling from the MSDS or other sources that you actually need protective equipment when dealing with a particular chemical? I'm sure some of the stuff my partner deals with requires it, but suspect some of the other stuff she would be safer without the protective gear making her clumsier.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    > Is there a way of telling from the MSDS or other sources that you actually need protective equipment when dealing with a particular chemical? Not generally from official sources. The risk of liability is basically always going to make institutions recommend a bunch of precautions if the effect isn't perfectly known. Which, y'know, probably better safe than sorry when dealing with novel chemicals. But it's hard to distinguish between dangerous, unknown, and small risk in that kind of environment.
cyberax 3y ago
MSDS are crap. They are literally worse than useless. For example, I'm using perfluorohexyloctane eye drops. Its MSDS says that it's a severe eye irritant and requires eye protection when working with it. Again, for literal eye drops.
- cperciva 3y ago
  The dose makes the poison. Hundreds of people have been murdered using insulin, but I wear a device which injects me with it every 30 seconds.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    Perfluorohexyloctane is inert. It is also used to fill the eyeballs, after vitrectomy. It can damage the eye only mechanically. Yet it's listed as a severe eye irritant.

The MSDS for Roundup is hilarious. It's completely safe, no known health effects, as long as you're wearing a full hazmat suite.

by genter 3y ago

The MSDS for Roundup is hilarious. It's completely safe, no known health effects, as long as you're wearing a full hazmat suite.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago

I used to work in the agriculture sector, and we had to fully suit up to spray anything whatsoever, even neem oil. But there were good reasons for this: 1. Human error: If the last user didn't clean it properly, there could still be residue in the sprayer from a different (more dangerous) chemical. Or you may have accidentally added the wrong chemical. 2. Bad luck: You never know who's going to have an allergic reaction to something, like a dye or a surfactant in the product. 3. Liability: Future research may reveal risks that we do not currently know about (e.g., who knows, maybe people with prior exposure will turn out to be more likely to get long covid or some random thing like that). Requiring a suit for absolutely everything means your employer doesn't have to stress about future lawsuits over unknowns like these.

vkou 3y ago

How does its[1] MSDS compare to any other herbicide/pesticide in common use[2]? All the handling instructions for the them are nearly word-for-word identical. It seems to be a good idea to wear a hazmat suit when you're spraying a field with anything that's supposed to kill weeds. [1] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Roundup%20Pro%20Conc%20SDS%208-12-20.pdf https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Roundup%20Pro%20Con... [2] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS%206-19-20.pdf https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS...

sudhirc 3y ago
If you have to wear the hazmat suite, think about the impact on non targetted crop plants and the farmer. Why this shit is even allowed?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  See people complaining about the rising food prices, just due to increasing labor costs. Definitely won’t be politically popular to make farming even more expensive.
- dgroshev 3y ago
  Because we need to feed billions of people. Because doing that more efficiently not only saves labour and lives of people who would starve otherwise, but also land as we don't need as much of it, so it can be forests and grasslands and steppe [1]. Currently the most efficient way to grow plants on a massive scale requires using herbicides. As we need herbicides for industrial agriculture, herbicides need to be judged against other herbicides, not in isolation. Glyphosate is fairly benign compared to other herbicides (compare to [2] for example), it's not "shit". [1] In fact we are likely past peak agricultural land use https://ourworldindata.org/peak-agriculture-land https://ourworldindata.org/peak-agriculture-land [2] https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS%206-19-20.pdf https://labelsds.com/images/user_uploads/Atrazine%204L%20SDS...
  - timeon 3y ago
    > Because we need to feed billions of people. Then do not grow so much corn.
- transcriptase 3y ago
  Virtually nil. Farmers (and employees certified/licensed to apply sprays) generally only spray in favourable conditions. Eg. Calm conditions where the output doesn’t go beyond a few meters of the intended swath. Given the cost, it makes little financial sense to waste it on non-target plants. And while nearly any pesticide/herbicide/fungicide will tell you to suit up and use a respirator, it’s usually because of the (often petroleum derived) volatiles used in the mixture to ensure stability and proper spreading rather than the active ingredient itself. Glyphosate (RoundUp) for example interacts with a biochemical pathway that doesn’t even exist in humans, yet still suffers from the legacy and cultural entrenchment of a paper that has since been refuted and retracted. The infamous “roundup causes cancer” paper where the author used lines of lab rats that were (intentionally, for use in cancer studies) genetically predisposed to developing tumours. The volatiles evaporate and break down rapidly, which is why a freshly sprayed field will have an odd aroma for several hours after application. Meanwhile these sprays come with a PHI (post harvest interval), whereby if a producer is following laws and regulations, the active ingredient itself is virtually undetectable at the time of harvest due to UV/heat/microbial degradation. PHIs are determined empirically by testing sprays across environments and conditions for years before certification, then still including a buffer period to account for outlier conditions where a chemical may persist beyond what was observed.

1letterunixname 3y ago

I was about to see if you were offering to make a toast with Patrick Moore but then I read the ending. Buried the lede. ;P

jcranmer 3y ago

Here's the MSDS for Vitamin D: https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&productDescription=VITAMIN+D3+5G&vendorId=VN00024248&countryCode=US&language=en https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&p... It also recommends wearing all the standard protective equipment. Guess it's not safe to eat any Vitamin D, then, right? Or maybe it's the dose that makes the poison. (Fun fact: Vitamin D is more acutely toxic than glyphosate.)

stubish 3y ago
Is there a way of telling from the MSDS or other sources that you actually need protective equipment when dealing with a particular chemical? I'm sure some of the stuff my partner deals with requires it, but suspect some of the other stuff she would be safer without the protective gear making her clumsier.
- Kamq 3y ago
  > Is there a way of telling from the MSDS or other sources that you actually need protective equipment when dealing with a particular chemical? Not generally from official sources. The risk of liability is basically always going to make institutions recommend a bunch of precautions if the effect isn't perfectly known. Which, y'know, probably better safe than sorry when dealing with novel chemicals. But it's hard to distinguish between dangerous, unknown, and small risk in that kind of environment.

cyberax 3y ago

MSDS are crap. They are literally worse than useless. For example, I'm using perfluorohexyloctane eye drops. Its MSDS says that it's a severe eye irritant and requires eye protection when working with it. Again, for literal eye drops.

cperciva 3y ago
The dose makes the poison. Hundreds of people have been murdered using insulin, but I wear a device which injects me with it every 30 seconds.
- cyberax 3y ago
  Perfluorohexyloctane is inert. It is also used to fill the eyeballs, after vitrectomy. It can damage the eye only mechanically. Yet it's listed as a severe eye irritant.