Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not saying it isn't toxic. Of course it is, othserwise it wouldn't kill the weeds the say it does, but the fact still remains, scientists can find something wrong with anything they want to find something wrong with. Studies also can show whatever the study wants to show. Think of all the things that were not good for us, but now are ok or visa versa. Look at the date on the study you are talking about. 4 years is a long time.
The earliest studies linking cigarette smoking to cancer are more than 4 years old, but that doesn't mean they are to be ignored. There's nothing unusual about citing studies from four years ago, or even longer. Scientists don't limit their searches to the current year. What matters is the quality of the research conducted.
Also, obviously, the court was not faced with the question of whether or not Roundup is toxic to plants, but if it was a substantial contributor to, not the sole cause of, the plaintiff's cancer.
Monsanto's lawyers were not able to prove their case. Internal emails, along with other evidence according to the plaintiff's attorneys, suggested that they ignored studies raising the possibility of a link between Roundup and cancer; and that they actually worked hard to silence scientists whose opinions they did not like.
We can't retry the case. Monsanto's option is to appeal.
Monsanto has long worked to “bully scientists” and suppress evidence of the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, a lawyer argued on Monday in a landmark lawsuit against the global chemical corporation.
“Monsanto has specifically gone out of its way to bully … and to fight independent researchers,” said the attorney Brent Wisner, who presented internal Monsanto emails that he said showed how the agrochemical company rejected critical research and expert warnings over the years while pursuing and helping to write favorable analyses of their products. “They fought science.”
Glyphosate isn’t used on lawns, if it were, there wouldn’t be any lawn because it would all be dead.
Personally, I worry more about chemicals like atrazine or dicamba that are used in weed and feed products. Atrazine is used heavily on golf courses and corn fields and persists for a long time.
I never said it was used on lawns. I said that I did not want my dog to walk on or near lawns that had been treated with junk. My dog could also walk in places where there had been weeds. Since dogs don't wear shoes, the chemicals would be absorbed through the pads of their feet.
It's not a good idea to live too near to a golf course due to the chemicals used--and on a regular basis. Why increase your risk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Many "harmless" things are poisonous in strong enough concentrations or extended exposure. This man was a groundskeeper who was around this and many other chemicals as part of his livelihood. Also, it is likely he used preparations for commercial applications that are not allowed for residential use. I would not assume his exposure to be typical to that of a "hobbyist".
Different people have different tolerances. Some people will never be affected, some people will be affected after a certain amount of exposure, some people will be affected by a slight exposure. A "hobbyist" could be one of those who can't tolerate much poison. Or the "hobbyist" could be getting exposed to other chemicals and this particular one could be the nail in the coffin. Why increase the risk?
This has to do with pesticide when we lived in North FL,
A neighbor used a bug company on a schedule,not funny but observing concerning.
The truck would pull up,children playing in yard and in and out of home.
The bug man would put on rubber gloves up to his elbows,boots and spray around foundation.out about 4-5 ft and with same protective gear go in home and spray using wand.Horrible.
Horrible to know that things like this go on. I know what you mean because I had neighbors who had some company come and spray their lawn all the time--including the entire backyard. These people were not too bright.
The guy doing the spraying was covered head to toe in protective gear--that tells you something right there.
Yet, hours later, the grandchildren would be rolling in the grass in that same backyard. I don't think those people would have believed me if I had tried to tell them.
The guy doing the spraying was covered head to toe in protective gear--that tells you something right there.
.
Right. It tells us lawyers are ruining this country. Workman's comp is a cancer in itself and SSI is killing the SS System. Nobody takes personal responsibility anymore. It's so lucrative to do otherwise. Once it was the American Dream to work hard and get ahead. Now it's The Dream to fall down in Walmart and sue the corporation.
When some well educated scientist develops a method of dissecting a malignant tumor and making a definitive determination as to exactly what caused it to grow, I will believe something really causes cancer.
Since nobody has ever been able to do that, AFAIK, the doomsayers are free to rant about this, that, and the other thing causing cancer. NOBODY can prove them wrong!
Of course, THEY can not prove that they are right, either, but the Chicken Littles in the general populace will gleefully jump on the bandwagon demanding that This, That, and The Other Thing be banned immediately because of Health Hazards.
As previously pointed out, it is intriguing that the little companies seldom get sued. The lawsuits are filed against the BIG companies. You know, the ones with great liability insurance and deep pockets...
Then the plaintiff's lawyers pocket 30 to 50% (or more) of the settlement!
This short video (4:41) by Dr. Michael Greger covers the issue of Roundup's toxicity. He points out that Roundup is not the same as pure glyphosate, it's main ingredient, since it contains surfactants and other chemicals that help it to penetrate and render it to be far more toxic than glyphosate alone.
It's amazing, but nah, maybe not, to see what potentially damaging things people will write in corporate emails: Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/b...ed-emails.html
The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”
In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”
Millions of people use Round-Up, and they use far more often than that guy did, and they didn't get cancer.
People get cancer. It's just what happens, and there isn't always a causal factor.
You also have to consider all of the chemicals in sunscreens, body lotions, creams, soaps, air fresheners, and all the preservatives and non organic ingredients that go into our food and drink.
You really have to wonder why cancer is so very prevalent today as compared to years ago. Something has certainly changed!
To bring this problem into perspective look at figures, in your EPA report, 1.2 on page 17 and 1.4 on page 18. They clearly show how much has changed in a 20 year period from 1994 (figure 1.2) to 2014 (figure 1.4).
On page 13 of the report they state: "Recently, several international agencies have evaluated the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a subdivision of the World Health Organization (WHO), determined that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen (group 2A) (IARC, 2015)." However other agencies have not gone that far. That said it is still plenty of ammunition for the right legal team.
It will be an interesting fight and, because of the widespread use, I suspect that it will happen sooner rather than later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
