8 ms·

Well my father was an agricultural engineer at a state farm, obviously handling herbicides and pesticides. I remember him telling me that herbicide is harmless:

Well my father was an agricultural engineer at a state farm, obviously handling herbicides and pesticides. I remember him telling me that herbicide is harmless: "you can drink a spoon of it and you'd be fine, unlike pesticide". Well... he got Parkinson's. He also told us: "sugar is harmless". My parents would prepare house made syrup with a lot of sugar and he liked drinking it with soda. Quite a lot of it. Eventually when he started feeling not so good, he'd fight off the feeling by downing some additional glasses or sugary drink. Well ... he got diabetes. Eventually it was Parkinson's what finished him. In a way it's effect is similar to Stephen Hawking's disease, loss of motor function, only much slowly, albeit inevitably. Problem is you lose not just voluntary but also vegetative muscle function, including gut movements. Which is what eventually kills you: even though you can't swallow food anymore (not that you're feeling hungry, you feel sick and miserable) and it's fed to you by a tube, there's no point when your gut can't move it out of your body eventually. Nasty way to die.

nicetryguy 3y ago
stay hydrated!
anigbrowl 3y ago
That sounds like a lot to go through, for both him and you. Sorry to hear of it.
PakG1 3y ago
It's interesting what people would say about the safety of industrial chemicals. My dad worked as an aircraft maintenance engineer for an airliner, working on the big passenger aircraft. When he was being trained in the 70s/80s, they used 111-trichloroethane for a lot of stuff. They were told that the stuff was so safe that you could drink it. Later, he got kidney cancer. He sued and got only partial compensation because the court concluded that there was only a 50% chance that his cancer was from the 111-trichloroethane. Of course, today, we as a society still don't know if it causes cancer, but we think it might. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=431&toxid=76 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=4... Still, whether or not it does, it's wild that people would say things like that back then. Hey all, use this stuff, but you probably wouldn't want to drink it while you have lunch, right? Because we don't know what it really does to the body, so let's play it safe and use proper safety procedures, OK? Nope, it's, "this stuff is harmless, you could drink it and you'll be fine."
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > Hey all, use this stuff, but you probably wouldn't want to drink it while you have lunch, right? I don't know about that standard. There's a lot of things that are safe to work with that I wouldn't want to make part of lunch.
- avar 3y ago
  > it's wild that people > would say things like that > back then. I think it's "wild" that you're so confidently clinging to the narrative that there was a causal link between this chemical and your dad's cancer. Sure, it's possible, but clearly decades of data since then failing to move it away from the "probably a carcinogenic" column supports the notion that it's more harmless than not. The list of IARC group 2A includes bitumen (widely used in roofing), red meat, drinks above 65°C (150°F), being a barber, and working night shifts.
  - dappermanneke 3y ago
    I don't know why your reply is being hidden. it is completely fair to say most people drawing such links are likely mistaken.
    - MichaelRo 3y ago
      I'm not confidently clinging, just saying there's a probable causality link. My father has several brothers and sisters, none got Parkinson's but none worked with herbicides. An acquaintance that was also an agricultural engineer, colleague of my father, also got Parkinson's. There were lots of people in the town around those chemicals but noone kept track. They're almost all gone by now, but old age is also a factor. On the other hand it's almost certain not all got Parkinson's so funk knows. Again I didn't verify and I'm not in the mood to verify, although it would be possible since it's a small town. Go round every house and ask if their deceased relative had Parkinson's. But to what purpose?
    - PakG1 3y ago
      You too need to read my comment again. See my reply to gp comment.
TylerLives 3y ago
Eating a lot of anything can be harmful, but at this point it's widely accepted that eating sugar isn't more likely to cause diabetes. See this article if you wish to know more https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
- bmacho 3y ago
  > For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association. Is this true? Where are the sources?
  - baz00 3y ago
    At the bottom. But quite frankly you can get whatever result you like out of nutritional approaches by picking sources. I mean that's how they do meta-analysis studies. Pick an answer, fit the sources to it and publish. Then get picked up by some idiotic media on a slow news day and the next thing you have is a diet fad. Eat anything that is actually food, in moderation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- silisili 3y ago
  Not trying to be contrarian here, but this statement goes against everything I've read. Happy to learn something new, but this source is sketchy at best - do you have any additional sources of more merit?
  - TylerLives 3y ago
    Not sure what constitutes merit to you, but here is American Diabetes Association saying it's a myth that diabetes is caused by eating sugar - http://main.diabetes.org/ws/ADM/MRC_ADM_2018_Myths.pdf http://main.diabetes.org/ws/ADM/MRC_ADM_2018_Myths.pdf
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cracrecry 3y ago
I had the opposite experience. Chemists on my family, so everything was dangerous. The PVC tubes were dangerous because of plasticisers, epoxy resins combined with other chemicals. Flame retardants on foams a big no no. Teflon pans getting overheated being nasty so trow them away. Pesticides and herbicides forbidden at home. It was certainly a pain is the ass while growing up. On the other hand, my family members are getting old (nearing 100) without cancer, Parkinson, Alzheimer or things like that, preserving mobility and autonomy.
- codeisawesome 3y ago
  Would be cool if there was a single site with an easy-to-use but comprehensive index of all such materials found in and around an average home that would make a chemist anxious, along with the safe alternative.
  - getwiththeprog 3y ago
    If an individual does this, then they should be prepared to be sued. For example, say that Teflon in toxic and you will surely be sued. There are federal agencies that are supposed to monitor thse things, but in some countries these institutions are broken. IMHO Europe does the best job of regulating toxic substances. Even in other jurisdictions, there are manufacturers guides that are often not read or adhered to. I think this info is mostly out there and is able to be found. Yes, I agree that a comprehensive global index would be a great thing - so start with checking there (I forget where their index is!) And don't forget, alcohol, tobacco, driving and sugar are by far the biggest killers in our modern societies!
  - pjc50 3y ago
    That's how you get the Prop 65 warning nonsense. Besides, chemists themselves have varying ideas of personal safety, depending on what they work with and how flammable/explosive/toxic/all of the above it is. The only real solution, unfortunately, is for the regulatory authorities to make and publish clear evidence based decisions.
    - 3y ago
baz00 3y ago
Similar with my father. He is on the rapid decline stage. He's overweight, diabetic and suffering from congestive heart failure. Everything he did to get himself here was self inflicted because the consequences were not immediate and he was so self obsessed with his own correctness over doing what the hell he wanted that he was invincible. They won't do surgery on him to repair his heart because it's too risky. They took away his driving license. He sits at home all day waiting to die with cognitive visible on a weekly basis. His bowel has stopped working properly as well now. I always look at it like this: if the human body had a operators manual, would putting that inside your body be in the section marked O or the section marked X. If it's likely to go in the section marked X then you're either taking a risk or lining yourself up for a particularly shitty decline one day.
dappermanneke 3y ago
the problem with using anecdotes like these to evaluate causation is that the people who handled herbicides and pesticides all their life and did not get Parkinson's will not be posting about it
- banzo 3y ago
  There is probably a better chance they will than people that got Parkinson.

nicetryguy 3y ago

stay hydrated!

anigbrowl 3y ago

That sounds like a lot to go through, for both him and you. Sorry to hear of it.

PakG1 3y ago

It's interesting what people would say about the safety of industrial chemicals. My dad worked as an aircraft maintenance engineer for an airliner, working on the big passenger aircraft. When he was being trained in the 70s/80s, they used 111-trichloroethane for a lot of stuff. They were told that the stuff was so safe that you could drink it. Later, he got kidney cancer. He sued and got only partial compensation because the court concluded that there was only a 50% chance that his cancer was from the 111-trichloroethane. Of course, today, we as a society still don't know if it causes cancer, but we think it might. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=431&toxid=76 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=4... Still, whether or not it does, it's wild that people would say things like that back then. Hey all, use this stuff, but you probably wouldn't want to drink it while you have lunch, right? Because we don't know what it really does to the body, so let's play it safe and use proper safety procedures, OK? Nope, it's, "this stuff is harmless, you could drink it and you'll be fine."

Dylan16807 3y ago
> Hey all, use this stuff, but you probably wouldn't want to drink it while you have lunch, right? I don't know about that standard. There's a lot of things that are safe to work with that I wouldn't want to make part of lunch.
avar 3y ago
> it's wild that people > would say things like that > back then. I think it's "wild" that you're so confidently clinging to the narrative that there was a causal link between this chemical and your dad's cancer. Sure, it's possible, but clearly decades of data since then failing to move it away from the "probably a carcinogenic" column supports the notion that it's more harmless than not. The list of IARC group 2A includes bitumen (widely used in roofing), red meat, drinks above 65°C (150°F), being a barber, and working night shifts.
- dappermanneke 3y ago
  I don't know why your reply is being hidden. it is completely fair to say most people drawing such links are likely mistaken.
  - MichaelRo 3y ago
    I'm not confidently clinging, just saying there's a probable causality link. My father has several brothers and sisters, none got Parkinson's but none worked with herbicides. An acquaintance that was also an agricultural engineer, colleague of my father, also got Parkinson's. There were lots of people in the town around those chemicals but noone kept track. They're almost all gone by now, but old age is also a factor. On the other hand it's almost certain not all got Parkinson's so funk knows. Again I didn't verify and I'm not in the mood to verify, although it would be possible since it's a small town. Go round every house and ask if their deceased relative had Parkinson's. But to what purpose?
  - PakG1 3y ago
    You too need to read my comment again. See my reply to gp comment.

TylerLives 3y ago

Eating a lot of anything can be harmful, but at this point it's widely accepted that eating sugar isn't more likely to cause diabetes. See this article if you wish to know more https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

bmacho 3y ago
> For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association. Is this true? Where are the sources?
- baz00 3y ago
  At the bottom. But quite frankly you can get whatever result you like out of nutritional approaches by picking sources. I mean that's how they do meta-analysis studies. Pick an answer, fit the sources to it and publish. Then get picked up by some idiotic media on a slow news day and the next thing you have is a diet fad. Eat anything that is actually food, in moderation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
silisili 3y ago
Not trying to be contrarian here, but this statement goes against everything I've read. Happy to learn something new, but this source is sketchy at best - do you have any additional sources of more merit?
- TylerLives 3y ago
  Not sure what constitutes merit to you, but here is American Diabetes Association saying it's a myth that diabetes is caused by eating sugar - http://main.diabetes.org/ws/ADM/MRC_ADM_2018_Myths.pdf http://main.diabetes.org/ws/ADM/MRC_ADM_2018_Myths.pdf

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cracrecry 3y ago

I had the opposite experience. Chemists on my family, so everything was dangerous. The PVC tubes were dangerous because of plasticisers, epoxy resins combined with other chemicals. Flame retardants on foams a big no no. Teflon pans getting overheated being nasty so trow them away. Pesticides and herbicides forbidden at home. It was certainly a pain is the ass while growing up. On the other hand, my family members are getting old (nearing 100) without cancer, Parkinson, Alzheimer or things like that, preserving mobility and autonomy.

codeisawesome 3y ago
Would be cool if there was a single site with an easy-to-use but comprehensive index of all such materials found in and around an average home that would make a chemist anxious, along with the safe alternative.
- getwiththeprog 3y ago
  If an individual does this, then they should be prepared to be sued. For example, say that Teflon in toxic and you will surely be sued. There are federal agencies that are supposed to monitor thse things, but in some countries these institutions are broken. IMHO Europe does the best job of regulating toxic substances. Even in other jurisdictions, there are manufacturers guides that are often not read or adhered to. I think this info is mostly out there and is able to be found. Yes, I agree that a comprehensive global index would be a great thing - so start with checking there (I forget where their index is!) And don't forget, alcohol, tobacco, driving and sugar are by far the biggest killers in our modern societies!
- pjc50 3y ago
  That's how you get the Prop 65 warning nonsense. Besides, chemists themselves have varying ideas of personal safety, depending on what they work with and how flammable/explosive/toxic/all of the above it is. The only real solution, unfortunately, is for the regulatory authorities to make and publish clear evidence based decisions.
  - 3y ago

baz00 3y ago

Similar with my father. He is on the rapid decline stage. He's overweight, diabetic and suffering from congestive heart failure. Everything he did to get himself here was self inflicted because the consequences were not immediate and he was so self obsessed with his own correctness over doing what the hell he wanted that he was invincible. They won't do surgery on him to repair his heart because it's too risky. They took away his driving license. He sits at home all day waiting to die with cognitive visible on a weekly basis. His bowel has stopped working properly as well now. I always look at it like this: if the human body had a operators manual, would putting that inside your body be in the section marked O or the section marked X. If it's likely to go in the section marked X then you're either taking a risk or lining yourself up for a particularly shitty decline one day.

dappermanneke 3y ago

the problem with using anecdotes like these to evaluate causation is that the people who handled herbicides and pesticides all their life and did not get Parkinson's will not be posting about it

banzo 3y ago
There is probably a better chance they will than people that got Parkinson.