5 ms·

The reason this is important to discuss is that Roundup is out there, in massive quantities, and if it is determined that it can cause cancer in much higher rat

The reason this is important to discuss is that Roundup is out there, in massive quantities, and if it is determined that it can cause cancer in much higher rates than previously expected - then something must be done about it, because of the sheer magnitude of the market penetration of this product. If it is discovered that Roundup-poisoned regions have extraordinarily high rates of cancer - and this is yet to be determined - then there is indeed an industry- and culture- changing event on the horizon. We don't get to that horizon unless we discuss the issues - so why are you attempting to thwart discussion of this issue by people who are intelligent enough to understand the science behind the conundrum?

TeMPOraL 12y ago
I totally agree with you here. And the study done by WHO is a step in the right direction. I'm not objecting studying things - on the contrary, I'd be happy to see more studies about Roundup because, as you said, it's used with our food on a mass scale. What I'm objecting is not quantifying the findings. Asbestos doesn't "cause cancer" the same way Roundup may or may not do, nor is it the same type of cancer. Bundling it all together is what I find harmful. Articles should give threat level.
Dylan16807 12y ago
>if it is determined that it can cause cancer in much higher rates than previously expected - then something must be done about it Even that is going too far! "much higher rates than previously expected" could still be miniscule. I want to discuss the issue. But a prerequisite is a risk ballpark. Anything before that is useless guesswork. I suppose we could split off five different threads to discuss what to do in each risk bracket. But that seems terribly inefficient. There's no way to have a good unified discussion about "might exist somewhere in these eight orders of magnitude"
tedunangst 12y ago
> something must be done! There's a mentality that's never backfired.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I totally agree with you here. And the study done by WHO is a step in the right direction. I'm not objecting studying things - on the contrary, I'd be happy to see more studies about Roundup because, as you said, it's used with our food on a mass scale. What I'm objecting is not quantifying the findings. Asbestos doesn't "cause cancer" the same way Roundup may or may not do, nor is it the same type of cancer. Bundling it all together is what I find harmful. Articles should give threat level.

Dylan16807 12y ago

>if it is determined that it can cause cancer in much higher rates than previously expected - then something must be done about it Even that is going too far! "much higher rates than previously expected" could still be miniscule. I want to discuss the issue. But a prerequisite is a risk ballpark. Anything before that is useless guesswork. I suppose we could split off five different threads to discuss what to do in each risk bracket. But that seems terribly inefficient. There's no way to have a good unified discussion about "might exist somewhere in these eight orders of magnitude"

tedunangst 12y ago

> something must be done! There's a mentality that's never backfired.