SPAM random annoying things

[Scouse]

Courts are no place for analysis of science.

Totally agree with this tho

 

[Wij]

Clearly unbiased. Guy who makes a living out of inventing pesticides does his own meta-analysis of (what quality?) studies that "he can find" and writes opinion piece that says "I don't think there's anything wrong". Well duh.

I'll stick with the WHO's analysis myself - that it's a "probable carcinogen".

But regardless - even if the WHO themselves say glyphospate is "unlikely" to cause cancer at levels found in the diet - the precautionary principle should still apply.

Given the advantages of smaller scale non-monoculture farming (from an ecological perspective) I personally think we should be moving towards that model of food production anyway. Reduced pesticide use, greater biodiversity, more varied (but more expensive) food.

More expensive? Maybe our habits need to change.**


**of course, being an utterly sanctamonious prick, I save and use all the bones from the meats we use and any vegetable matter that looks unappetising gets curried. Zero food waste in the house of scouse

Why question the messenger rather than the message. The figures are there in the article. About the only thing you could conclude from the actual data is that farmers are more likely to get non-hodgkins-lymphoma but there's no reason to believe that glyphosate is the cause of that.

The WHO classifications are really silly and can so easily mislead but despite that they and the UN concluded that there's no reason to think that glyphosate in the amounts found in food is likely to be harmful:

Glyphosate unlikely to pose risk to humans, UN/WHO study says

Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It targets a pathway which only plants have. No animals have it. It is probably the most studied chemical safety-wise in history. There are hundreds of studies that point to there being no reason to think there is a risk.

On the slightly-related note of GM produce, many GM modifications are there to allow LESS usage of pesticides or herbicides. Roundup-ready corn can be treated with glyphosate much earlier than non-ready corn. Overall this leads to less glyphosate being used as you then don't need to apply it several time later when the weeds are more fully grown and hardier.

Bt Brinjal means much less pesticide is needed as the Brinjal are immune to their main pest.

Etc etc...

 

[Job]

And are more likely to survive..in painfully scarce amounts..in our food.
Seriously its something to be aware of..but its not a health issue in those amounts.

 

[Job]

Why question the messenger rather than the message. The figures are there in the article. About the only thing you could conclude from the actual data is that farmers are more likely to get non-hodgkins-lymphoma but there's no reason to believe that glyphosate is the cause of that.

The WHO classifications are really silly and can so easily mislead but despite that they and the UN concluded that there's no reason to think that glyphosate in the amounts found in food is likely to be harmful:

Glyphosate unlikely to pose risk to humans, UN/WHO study says

Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It targets a pathway which only plants have. No animals have it. It is probably the most studied chemical safety-wise in history. There are hundreds of studies that point to there being no reason to think there is a risk.

On the slightly-related note of GM produce, many GM modifications are there to allow LESS usage of pesticides or herbicides. Roundup-ready corn can be treated with glyphosate much earlier than non-ready corn. Overall this leads to less glyphosate being used as you then don't need to apply it several time later when the weeds are more fully grown and hardier.

Bt Brinjal means much less pesticide is needed as the Brinjal are immune to their main pest.

Etc etc...

The biggest concern for GM is that corporations are in charge of pest evolution and thus our food supply on a level where if it goes tits up millions will starve...millions of poor people obviously.
Its no different from google or win10, control of the masses.
The bugs evolve and you have to go back to gm inc who have modified vast swathes of agriculture and are the only ones with a cure.

 

[Scouse]

Why question the messenger rather than the message. The figures are there in the article.

In this case I question the messenger because it's well-documented that people with a vested interest create findings that don't go against their vested interest. And this guy designs weedkillers - which is about as bad as it gets.

The figures might be there - but from studies he's found, and an interpretation he's made - with no mention about quality of study, methodology etc. etc.

You made the statement that "a court of law is no place for science" - and I fully agree with that. But at the same time, an opinion piece crafted by a guy who makes his living from weedkillers isn't the place for science either. In fact, I'd argue that the court comes higher.

they and the UN concluded that there's no reason to think that glyphosate in the amounts found in food is likely to be harmful

Yes. Please see my post above where I said exactly that - and still argued the precautionary principle should apply. Note the bolding of likely.

Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It targets a pathway which only plants have. No animals have it

It may target a chemical pathway in plants very effectively but that in no way means that it can't have other effects. And it's been identified as a probable carcinogen. Not possible, but probable.

In the levels found in our end-product food? Unlikely. Not definitely not - but unlikely.

Again. Precautionary principle. Especially as we're talking about an unlikely effect on the entire world population.

On the slightly-related note of GM produce, many GM modifications are there to allow LESS usage of pesticides or herbicides. Roundup-ready corn can be treated with glyphosate much earlier than non-ready corn. Overall this leads to less glyphosate being used as you then don't need to apply it several time later when the weeds are more fully grown and hardier.

Absolutely. Agree again. But what's actually happening on the ground is that there's a selection pressure being applied via the ubiquitous use of weedkillers in combination with GM-strains that are resistant. This is resulting in an evolutionary arms race, so to speak.

It's unnecessary. We can grow enough food whilst at the same time massively increasing biodiversity (instead of our current mega-farm monoculture), reducing chemical use and removing these "possible" and "probables" off our massively-more-varied tables.

But big agriculture and big chemical stands to lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars and people like that bloke would need to get a new job.

 

[Scouse]

On my point above about it being unnecessary / arms-race / the application of chemicals (when we've already got methods of growing crops that don't require it) - there's no way to apply these chemicals wholesale without having unintended consequences. The ecological web is simply too complex.

I'm not advocating being a flat-earther, that we shouldn't be doing research and learning absolutely everything we can. But when it comes to our foodstuffs it's too precious to fuck about with. History shows that we're not a very clever animal - especially when it comes to managing complex systems - the evidence is all around us regarding biodiversity and habitat loss, soil degredation etc. etc.

We need an about face - at least until we understand a shitload more about the complex web of effects we're having. It's not just human health we're on about - it's planetary health IMO. And when we've got a way of producing our food which is demonstrably better for the environment, whilst not leaving us going hungry, then we should absolutely do that.


Glyphosate is one of the least harmful herbicides we have. And (in combination with the farming behaviours that it enables) it's not great. We need a global rethink.

Edit: This sort of shit is unnecessary (editedit: from that article):

Consider glyphosate, the powerhouse weed killer used ubiquitously in the United States to protect major crops like corn and soybeans. A bit more than 20 years ago, crops were genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, allowing them to survive exposure to the chemical while weeds perished. By 2014, some 90 percent of planted U.S. corn, soybean and cotton crops were genetically modified to withstand glyphosate. Unfortunately, as the evolutionary arms race progresses, many weeds have figured out how to evolve resistance to glyphosate, making the chemical increasingly ineffective

But we can grow food without it, a wider variety of food, yadda yadda yadda brokenrecord

 

[Wij]

In this case I question the messenger because it's well-documented that people with a vested interest create findings that don't go against their vested interest. And this guy designs weedkillers - which is about as bad as it gets.

The figures might be there - but from studies he's found, and an interpretation he's made - with no mention about quality of study, methodology etc. etc.

That is not an argument. He is a scientist in that field. Studying weeds and pesticides is his job. He is an expert.

So you say he can't be trusted because he has vested interests?

I can't even...

I could point you at similar articles and studies but what's the point if you are just going to dismiss them as biased because they know things.

 

[Wij]

I wonder what else comes under the 'probably carcinogenic' label from IARC...

BACON!

Apply the precautionary principle to your frying pan.

/edit: In fact bacon comes higher than Glyphosate in their rankings. Glyphosate comes at the same level as 'red meat'.

 

[Scouse]

That is not an argument. He is a scientist in that field. Studying weeds and pesticides is his job. He is an expert.

So you say he can't be trusted because he has vested interests?

That standpoint is not even remotely controversial. Often there is a legal requirement for scientists to disclose if they have financial interests in the field that they're researching - because it's been proven time and again that financial interest brings in bias. Consciously or subconsiously.

But it was far from my whole argument (or discussion point). If you want to dismiss the whole thing because of that then fair enough. But there are other scientists / groups of scientists who've come to different conclusions than the guy who designs weedkillers. You dismissed the court of law, I dismissed the weedkiller guy - there are other sources we can turn to.

On the cancer point alone - you and I both agree that it's unlikely to cause cancer in the amounts found in our foodstuffs. It looks to me like we disagree on the precautionary principle however.

Regardless of the cancer point @Wij - I stand by the points I made about them being totally unnecessary and ultimately self-defeating - and I think these arguments against the uses of weedkillers and pesticides are the more important ones.

 

[Job]

Exactly.
Considering there is only a statistical link with cigarettes and lung cancer...the list of probable carcinogens is quite simply laughable.
Its just a list of risk levels and the vast majority are as near to zero as you can get

 

[Scouse]

I wonder what else comes under the 'probably carcinogenic' label from IARC...

BACON!

Apply the precautionary principle to your frying pan.

Lol I was just thinking bacon when I pressed "post" and saw your post.

BTW - I have applied the precautionary principle to my frying pan. My consumption of bacon has dropped considerably.

Conversely - my enjoyment of bacon has risen considerably. It seems to me that the enjoyment of bacon is inversely proportional to the frequency of consumption.

 

[Scouse]

Exactly.
Considering there is only a statistical link with cigarettes and lung cancer...the list of probable carcinogens is quite simply laughable.
Its just a list of risk levels.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say there @Job. Smoking kills two in three people who do it.

Way more than weedkillers.

 

[Moriath]

List of things that cause cancer

1. Life.

 

[Scouse]

List of things that cause cancer

1. Life.

You'd breathe from a bag full of asbestos dust would you?

Oh, wait, no? You wouldn't? Is that because it's sensible to try to limit risks?

 

[Job]

Not quite sure what you're trying to say there @Job. Smoking kills two in three people who do it.

Way more than weedkillers.

But theres no biological link...only statistics.
You can smoke a 100 a day for 60 years and not get lung cancer.

 

[Scouse]

Do you chase your own tail?

 

[Job]

Cigarettes dont cause lung cancer..they just increase your chances of getting it..like all carcinogens.

 

[Scouse]

Getting hit by a car at 30mph doesn't cause injury or death, it just increases the likelihood, eh?

It's all "just statistics" and therefore not real, or the fault of lawyers, or something.



GO TOMMY!!!!!!

 

[SilverHood]

Getting hit by a car at 30mph doesn't cause injury or death, it just increases the likelihood, eh?

It's all "just statistics" and therefore not real, or the fault of lawyers, or something.

Guns dont kill people. People do!

 

[Job]

All carcinogens are just risks.
They damage cells...everynow and then that damage will cause a cell to start mutating and it will by pass multiple sytems in the body that have evolved to kill uncontrolled cell growth.
They dont cause cancer..they just increase the odds.

 

[Scouse]

So that damage, it's not causal? I mean, if your head smashes against a car window, and you die, it wasn't caused by the car crashing into you, it's just unfortunate maths, right?

 

[Syri]

All carcinogens are just risks.
They damage cells...

They damage cells...

Yeah, that's not causing anything... you know, cells get damaged all the time. Oh, there goes another one, damaging itself. Seriously. Do you think about what you're even typing yourself? If something is causing damage, that's causing the problem. You can't say that if you break a window, the fact someone didn't fix it resulted in it breaking...

 

[old.user4556]

I wonder if we stopped talking about ‘sunburn’ and started calling it ‘radiation burns’ then we might start to change attitudes about it?

 

[CorNokZ]

Pride. It is no longer just a parade or a few concerts. We're having Pride week in Copenhagen right now and it is a shit show tbh. The picture is the view from my office window. The show starts at 10am with Madonna, Cher and various live artists and bass levels at MAX. Not a single person in the crowd.

Add to that, every single store and business are falling over one another on the social media to show how tolerant they are and how much they loooove the LGBT+ community, when in reality they are just pushing ads and don't give a shit.

The whole idea of Pride is ridiculous. It is to show they are like everyone else and that it is normal. Well, why do you need a week to talk about your sexuality and literally shove it in my face, if you want it to be normal? Pride is the exact opposite of what it says, and makes it almost abnormal. Couldn't care less you're into dudes, and if you want normal, stop talking about it and just live it. That's what the rest of us do.

 

[Job]

So that damage, it's not causal? I mean, if your head smashes against a car window, and you die, it wasn't caused by the car crashing into you, it's just unfortunate maths, right?

You need to look up what causes cancer.

 

[Job]

Yeah, that's not causing anything... you know, cells get damaged all the time. Oh, there goes another one, damaging itself. Seriously. Do you think about what you're even typing yourself? If something is causing damage, that's causing the problem. You can't say that if you break a window, the fact someone didn't fix it resulted in it breaking...

Well all get cancerous cells everyday, there is multiple layers of protection..self destruction..the immune sytem etc.
If you constantly cause cells to mutate by damaging them, then you increase the odds...
Thats how it works..

 

[Scouse]

The fact that people still insist on using closed forms of "social media" despite now knowing that bookface, twatter et. al are just data-scraping, antidemocratic, millenial-baiting wankstains.

Still, makes me feel good when I see this on FH (with increasing regularity):


Looks like my adblocker and tracking protection is working just fine

 

[Moriath]

The fact that people still insist on using closed forms of "social media" despite now knowing that bookface, twatter et. al are just data-scraping, antidemocratic, millenial-baiting wankstains.

Still, makes me feel good when I see this on FH (with increasing regularity):
View attachment 39061

Looks like my adblocker and tracking protection is working just fine

Will make sure i continue to make you feel good then. My adblocker doesnt affect twatter.

 

[fettoken]

So that damage, it's not causal? I mean, if your head smashes against a car window, and you die, it wasn't caused by the car crashing into you, it's just unfortunate maths, right?

Exactly. It's the unfortunate spark that's created when the mechanism hits the cartridge and sets off the bullet.

 

[Lamp]

Youtube.
Horrible now.

Was watching a video on electromagnetism (as you do) then mid sentence appears an advert for some Australian hair gel.

Staying with NewPipe. Ad free and everything downloadable at a touch.