Even maninstream media, a lefty outlet for sure, can find good things to say about Roundup.
It seems some people want desperately to return to disease, starvation, and war rather than a minscule, probably nonexistent, risk from a chemical. Is that not the definition of irrational?
Reality check: You are using the same kind of crooked argumentation as those we try to educate to reality here at JunkScience. You cant really believe that feeling uneasy when a few drops of some stuff kills a big bush is the same as “desperately returning to disease, starvation and war”. That is exactly the same kind of argument as when climate alarmists talk about highly probable catastrophes!
The record of the chemical industry for hazardous stuff is not all that glowing. The Bhopal catastrophe is all too well in memory, and the consequences of the defoliation in VIetnam are just horrendous. You sound very certain proclaiming the risk with Roundup is miniscule and probably nonexistent. Please present the scientific investigations on which that statement is based.
I am guessing you have never seen the DDT tshirt graphic at the top of the page. Or did you object to that too and ask for scientific verification?
Bhopal is exactly the same argument you just accused me of using improperly. A catastrope does not define a position, remember?
I have seen nothing that proved Agent Orange was as bad as it was professed to be—though it was a great way to get money for an illness that may or may not have anything to do with Agent Orange. Just like Love Canal and many other such lotteries for winning large payouts. The science is extremely lacking in all of these cases. In reality, virtually every substance out there can be made to look like it causes cancer and harms the planet. Statistics are wonderful tools for getting certainty where none exists. I have seen no studies that show definitive links between routine chemical use and increases in cancer in other than very vague ways. Lots of “maybe” and “could be”. Not science.
Did you read the link in the article? I thought that said Roundup was not a risk, but apparently I mistook the statement “Solid Reporting on the (Non) Risks of Roundup” as saying Roundup was not a risk.
I’d like to believe “Roundup” was safe when used as directed–for the sake of an eighty-something relative who uses it regularly. Trouble is, I’ve watched him and his wife become ill for a day or two after each use-as-directed. Not that I’ve asked–I’ve gone into their house, healthy, and my nose has started gushing like a fountain due to exposure to the fumes. And I watched a fine healthy cat and three of her four kittens die, slowly and painfully, after eating a bird that had become vulnerable after “Roundup” had been sprayed on local roadsides. (You can always tell when that’s happened because, apart from my allergies going berserk, you can see dead songbirds along the roadsides.) No, “Roundup” is NOT safe; its effects are just hard to quantify. The effects of “Roundup-Ready” food on gluten-intolerant people like me aren’t hard to quantify at all, but as a matter of compassion I won’t go into details about them.
Priscilla: You are using your own allergies and sensitivities to extrapolate to all others and pretend that proves something. It does not. Roundup is a problem to YOU. Now we can argue about whether or not Roundup should be removed because a few gluten-intolerant people are not bothered by it (we could also argue over there reality of “gluten-intolerant”) but then we would have to outlaw virtually everything because someone’s allergies are triggered by it. We would have to live in bubbles and even then in my case the bubble itself may cause a reaction,. Your allergies do not function as a measurement for chemical risk–by definition an allergy is an ABNORMAL response. Now, before you get on your high horse and scream I don’t understand, I have severe allergies to a whole page load of items, including chemical sealants, etc. I cannot go into a store where Orkin just sprayed. The detergent aisle at the supermarket makes my face swell. However, I realize this only applies to ME and I am not going to be so unscientific as to claim that somehow my abnormal reaction to things proves they are evil and must be banned.
Did you observe the cat all the time after it gave birth, observe the bird that had become “vulnerable” from roundup and do an autopsy to verify there was actual poisoning of the cat in a direct from the consumption of the bird. If not, the story was meaningless. If so, I hope you took video and have a copy of the autopsy to back up your claim.
Note: I have an aquaintence that reacts to strongly to smell of bananas she loses her voice and nearly passes out. Is that proof bananas are bad for us?
Peanuts would be a good example.
It never ceases to amaze me how this site will so thoughtfully go after biased government “science”, but when big business presents their biased “science” it is assumed they have our best interests at heart. Good luck with your glyphosate fortified foods you naive fools.
“Good luck with your glyphosate fortified foods you naive fools.” There is NO more glyphosate in GMO corn than nonGMO corn and some organics. Why you call them such can only be explained by your complete lack of understanding of what GMO actually is and love of alarmist terminology.
As for those “pure, unadulterated, utopian organics:
It fascinates me that Mercola and TropicalTraditions are considered “truthful”. They make billions off promoting their nonsense and yet people hate Monsanto. Blindness or religious zeal perhaps? Irrational no matter what the source.
Mercola is a bomb throwing marketer, and I’ve never heard of Tropical Traditions. Glyphosate food residues do exist, and they destroy soil and gut bacteria, among other negative health consequences.
Help me understand the irrational aspects of this paper. Sorry, I don’t trust Monsanto any more than I trust Joe.
Expression of Concern Note added on 17 September 2015 by the Editors: The editors of the journal have been alerted to concerns over potential bias in opinions and bias in the choice of citation sources used in this article. We note that the authors stand by the content as published. Since the nature of the claims against the paper concern speculation and opinion, and not fraud or academic misconduct, the editors would like to make readers aware that the approach to collating literature citations for this article was likely not systematic and may not reflect the spectrum of opinions on the issues covered by the article. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles.
As noted, this is not an actual study but a compilation of questionable assumptions.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.