3 ms·

tl;dr: “Ninety percent of Marrero’s patients came back with elevated amounts of glyphosate in their blood, in one case as high as 15,000 times the test’s lowest

tl;dr: “Ninety percent of Marrero’s patients came back with elevated amounts of glyphosate in their blood, in one case as high as 15,000 times the test’s lowest detectable concentration.”

BenjiWiebe 2y ago
Not saying glyphosate isn't the problem, but 15,000 times the lowest detectable amount doesn't really say how high it is. Maybe the test is really sensitive? Maybe farmers in non-cluster areas also have similar levels? What about the average? The highest was 15k times the minimum detectable, were the rest 5 on a scale of 100k? Were the rest higher than random people from elsewhere in the world? Seems to be reporter bias in that bit of the article.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  The reverse problem exists too: Something could have insanely high levels of X, but for engineering reasons our tests for X aren't very good, then it gets falsely downplayed as "It's just 5 times higher than the minimum detectable level."
devmor 2y ago
Without a control group, this information is little more than a hunch - and the article clearly states so immediately after. While I'd like to see this angle investigated, pretending that this is a conclusion is not really useful. That area has also been used for testing multiple chemical agents with dubious health effects in the past.
sterlind 2y ago
that means almost nothing. a Geiger counter can pick up radiation from a single banana. that just means the detector is sensitive, not that bushels of bananas are a health hazard. the detection threshold is completely irrelevant. I grew up in the Deep South. the water table is notoriously contaminated with herbicides and ag runoff. I'm sure it causes health hazards, but I haven't seen early-onset neurodegenerative disorders. if it's glyphosate, why don't we have that here?
- 11101010001100 2y ago
  What if you do, but no one is tracking them?
dekhn 2y ago
That line struck me - as an example of innumeracy, or at least misunderstanding of tests. Or maybe it was willful ignorance intended to sound more shocking than it is.
zaik 2y ago
This is a really bad tl;dr.
- mistersquid 2y ago
  > This is a really bad tl;dr. I literally and merely quoted the OP. My intention was to help others understand the gist of the article, not to support its claims or insert an opinion. Isn't that what "tl;dr" summaries are for?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tl;dr: “Ninety percent of Marrero’s patients came back with elevated amounts of glyphosate in their blood, in one case as high as 15,000 times the test’s lowest detectable concentration.”

BenjiWiebe 2y ago

Not saying glyphosate isn't the problem, but 15,000 times the lowest detectable amount doesn't really say how high it is. Maybe the test is really sensitive? Maybe farmers in non-cluster areas also have similar levels? What about the average? The highest was 15k times the minimum detectable, were the rest 5 on a scale of 100k? Were the rest higher than random people from elsewhere in the world? Seems to be reporter bias in that bit of the article.

Terr_ 2y ago
The reverse problem exists too: Something could have insanely high levels of X, but for engineering reasons our tests for X aren't very good, then it gets falsely downplayed as "It's just 5 times higher than the minimum detectable level."

devmor 2y ago

Without a control group, this information is little more than a hunch - and the article clearly states so immediately after. While I'd like to see this angle investigated, pretending that this is a conclusion is not really useful. That area has also been used for testing multiple chemical agents with dubious health effects in the past.

sterlind 2y ago

that means almost nothing. a Geiger counter can pick up radiation from a single banana. that just means the detector is sensitive, not that bushels of bananas are a health hazard. the detection threshold is completely irrelevant. I grew up in the Deep South. the water table is notoriously contaminated with herbicides and ag runoff. I'm sure it causes health hazards, but I haven't seen early-onset neurodegenerative disorders. if it's glyphosate, why don't we have that here?

11101010001100 2y ago
What if you do, but no one is tracking them?

dekhn 2y ago

That line struck me - as an example of innumeracy, or at least misunderstanding of tests. Or maybe it was willful ignorance intended to sound more shocking than it is.

zaik 2y ago

This is a really bad tl;dr.

mistersquid 2y ago
> This is a really bad tl;dr. I literally and merely quoted the OP. My intention was to help others understand the gist of the article, not to support its claims or insert an opinion. Isn't that what "tl;dr" summaries are for?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]