W.H.O. Report Links Ingredient in Roundup to Cancer

a reply to: machineintelligence

OK, the article says it "may" be cancerous but it doesn't mention at what point, PPM, strength, that there is a worry.

I did read that those most at risk would be where it is being sprayed and the people that live there.


I think that would be easy to correlate by checking records of cancer occurrences in those areas and compare them to the rest of the country. Does anyone know if such a study has ben made or if they plan to?

From what I have read I learned that the roundup breaks down quickly. The problem comes with adding phosphate fertilizer to the soil, it rejuvenates it. This means it does not completely break down in the soil and can be a problem for many years.

The whole roundup promotion is a scam. It may not be really bad for us but it sure the hell isn't good for us.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I'm not aware of a study but I don't think there would need to be one. Roundup is used nearly everywhere here. It's an incredibly popular herbicide sold to everyday gardeners, businesses & schools, as well as farmers and industrial farmers (which I believe are the biggest customers). That's why the survival shows here say not to forage near roads or heavy traffic areas, because of the heavy usage of pesticides & herbicides lol

Most or all of Monsanto's Genetically Modified crops & seeds are "Roundup Ready". This just means their DNA has been altered to be resistant to Roundup. Then they sell preposterous amounts of Industrial strength Roundup to the farmers, so they can douse their entire fields with it. And of course, the only vegetation that should survive this dousing are the resistant "Roundup Ready" strains. Their method was so successful that something like 80% or more of foods in the US are GMOs. And that percentage is even higher with our staple crops like wheat, corn, and potatoes.

So it would literally be better to find the areas where Roundup isn't being used

a reply to: rickymouse

It's always the unintended consequences of human action that is the hardest to curtail because no one wants to take ownership and solve the issue. Everyone involved deflects and keeps cashing checks until no one will put up with it any longer.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Maybe you didn't understand what I said.

Because you said

So it would literally be better to find the areas where Roundup isn't being used

yet you also said

I'm not aware of a study but I don't think there would need to be one.

I will disagree I think a study is very important. If you want to build a case stronger than a may cause scenario.

So when I said

I think that would be easy to correlate by checking records of cancer occurrences in those areas and compare them to the rest of the country.

The study would check cancer occurrences in areas where roundup is heavily used and compare that to areas where it isn't.

If cancer rates were significantly higher where it is used that would be correlative evidence that roundup is cancer causing, but you need to be prepared for the opposite to be true as well.

I am one of the people who likes to have supporting evidence to back claims. ATM this one article which says it "may" be carcinogenic is not evidence or supported by evidence that is why we need studies to determine if the claim has any merrit.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Maybe you didn't understand what I said.

Because you said

So it would literally be better to find the areas where Roundup isn't being used

yet you also said

I'm not aware of a study but I don't think there would need to be one.

I will disagree I think a study is very important. If you want to build a case stronger than a may cause scenario.

So when I said

I think that would be easy to correlate by checking records of cancer occurrences in those areas and compare them to the rest of the country.

The study would check cancer occurrences in areas where roundup is heavily used and compare that to areas where it isn't.

If cancer rates were significantly higher where it is used that would be correlative evidence that roundup is cancer causing, but you need to be prepared for the opposite to be true as well.

I am one of the people who likes to have supporting evidence to back claims. ATM this one article which says it "may" be carcinogenic is not evidence or supported by evidence that is why we need studies to determine if the claim has any merrit.

I think you're misunderstanding something. Roundup isn't some isolated product that is only used in isolated or industrial places. You would literally have to ask every household, business (that has a lawn), school, college, local park, etc if they use it, as well as every industrial farm if they use it. It's sold in normal stores, like this container sold at Wal-Mart. And this one sold at Target (these were just 2 basic examples, it's frigging everywhere.

Another problem is America has such a high rate of cancer, it would be easy to say people's cancer was caused by something else. The real dilemma for me is finding out if it's only Roundup's specific blend or if it's the active ingredients that may cause autism, cancer, & the such. Because if it's just the active ingredients, then we'd have to also check generic versions & competitors products as well.

Edit: Unless you mean comparing rates to the countries that don't use it, be it by choice or through poverty. But it's virtually everywhere in the US.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think you're misunderstanding something.

I am sure you are the one with the misunderstanding.

Areas where it is sprayed on mass such as farmlands, should show higher cases of cancer if it is carcinogenic than areas like where I live and people spot treat their driveways and flower gardens.

I have roundup in the garage, a gallon container with a sprayer which has lasted me over three years and will probably last another two.

My exposure to it is multiples less than someone in a farming area.


If you are simply against substantiating the carcinogenic claims then I have to assume you are not interested in the truth and would rather work from ignorance maybe because you are more afraid that such a study would not support your preconceived notions.

I maintain that I want evidence and a strong case built for either outcome.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think you're misunderstanding something.

I am sure you are the one with the misunderstanding.

Areas where it is sprayed on mass such as farmlands, should show higher cases of cancer if it is carcinogenic than areas like where I live and people spot treat their driveways and flower gardens.

I have roundup in the garage, a gallon container with a sprayer which has lasted me over three years and will probably last another two.

My exposure to it is multiples less than someone in a farming area.


If you are simply against substantiating the carcinogenic claims then I have to assume you are not interested in the truth and would rather work from ignorance maybe because you are more afraid that such a study would not support your preconceived notions.

I maintain that I want evidence and a strong case built for either outcome.

You're free to assume & want whatever you like. It doesn't change the fact that it's virtually everywhere here & you'd have to survey every single place I mentioned earlier in order to see how much is being used & where. Then you could do this hypothetical study to get the facts. Just because you say you barely use it doesn't mean every other individual barely uses it, much less the schools, colleges, local parks, businesses with lawns, etc. For someone who claims they like facts, you sure like to assume things.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It is a fact that I like the scientific method. Do you know what step we are at with this thread?




Is there a reason you don't want to complete those steps?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It doesn't change the fact that it's virtually everywhere here & you'd have to survey every single place I mentioned earlier in order to see how much is being used & where. Then you could do this hypothetical study to get the facts. Just because you say you barely use it doesn't mean every other individual barely uses it, much less the schools, colleges, local parks, businesses with lawns, etc.

That statement reminds me of a study the city of Orlando did to find out when I-4 saw the heaviest traffic. They spent quite a bit of money to find out that the heaviest traffic was in the morning and evening. (typical work hours)

I question if such a study needed to be done. IMO anyone could have told them that.

Likewise I question if a study needs to be done that will tell us that farmlands where roundup is sprayed over entire fields compared to residential areas like mine needs to be done to verify that roundup is used multiples less in residential areas.

I am sure you could get that study though after all they got one for I-4 probably for similar reasoning.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Actually, we have thousands of monarch butterflies in my county, city of Grover Beach. The have a migrational resting and refueling grove in the eucalyptus trees here. They love milkweed and we actively nurture it here just for those butterflies. Poison free.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It doesn't change the fact that it's virtually everywhere here & you'd have to survey every single place I mentioned earlier in order to see how much is being used & where. Then you could do this hypothetical study to get the facts. Just because you say you barely use it doesn't mean every other individual barely uses it, much less the schools, colleges, local parks, businesses with lawns, etc.

That statement reminds me of a study the city of Orlando did to find out when I-4 saw the heaviest traffic. They spent quite a bit of money to find out that the heaviest traffic was in the morning and evening. (typical work hours)

I question if such a study needed to be done. IMO anyone could have told them that.

Likewise I question if a study needs to be done that will tell us that farmlands where roundup is sprayed over entire fields compared to residential areas like mine needs to be done to verify that roundup is used multiples less in residential areas.

I am sure you could get that study though after all they got one for I-4 probably for similar reasoning.

Whatever dude. I don't even know what you're trying to prove or imply. This has become pointless. But for the record, I said "I'm not aware of a study but I don't think there would need to be one." That's me stating an opinion. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. No one's required to agree or disagree with someone else's opinion. And my opinion remains the same on that. So I'm not even sure why you're so set on arguing my opinion.

I also said "So it would literally be better to find the areas where Roundup isn't being used". That's the conclusion I reached based on the nearly universal usage of Roundup & its competitors. I think it would be better to study organic farming areas, and regions without the means or desire to use pesticides; then compare those results to the general, Roundup using population. I stand by that conclusion. You don't. That's fine. But I haven't changed my mind on that either.

And why would I try to get some study about this? You're the one insisting on there being a study beyond the study listed in the OP. And you're the one constantly stating you want to see such a study, not me. I flat out stated I didn't think it was needed. So what are you even trying to say? Actually, you don't have to answer that. I'll just agree to disagree with you. I was replying at first to relieve my boredom between projects, but I'm not bored enough to keep going around in circles, if we're only going to be repeating the same points.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Another problem is America has such a high rate of cancer, it would be easy to say people's cancer was caused by something else.

meh, i know you all are on Monsanto is evil diatribe, but here are some facts:

Cancer rates

interesting huh?

Check out this site for some really interesting facts:
Top Ten Exporters of Food

I wonder why the US is able to feed its entire country and yet produce even more food for export than anyone else? Could it be Monsanto?


V

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It seems to me you are the only one going in circles. That is my opinion try respecting it the same way you want yours to be respected.

I just want to ask you one thing though.

I think it would be better to study organic farming areas, and regions without the means or desire to use pesticides; then compare those results to the general, Roundup using population.

I take it you think Roundup isn't used in organic farming. Why do you think that?

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

ALERT: Certified Organic Food Grown in U.S. Found Contaminated with Glyphosate Herbicide

I do admit that the label of "organic farming' at least sounds healthier and there are studies that suggest the placebo effect can have positive results so I support organic farming.

a reply to: criticalhit

...approximately 220 000 fatalities and about 750 000 chronic illnesses every
year (Hart and Pimentel, 2002).

ki
Sheesh. This is insanity.

And TPTB said, "Here, come let me inject your kids with more vaccines to prevent disease and/or save their life! Cause if you don't you're an idiot bad person who doesn't love your child. Oh, then go cook them a nice dinner of glyphosate squash and butter beans. Or, you could pay out your a$$ for the organic variety- except the water they used to grow them had a nice brew of it. You could grow your own... oh yeah, the water again. Looks like you're screwed either way. Ah well, have a nice day, and so sorry your kid screamed when I stuck those 5 needles in him today to keep him healty-ish."

So yeah, I know glyphosate has nothing to do with vaccines... except that they encourage them because they CARE about public health, except when they don't. :/

Maybe the WHO should take a step back and remember their own research that each and every one of us carries in their DNA the actual cancer gene. This gene lays dormant unless triggered by some basically unknown reason. It could literally be anything (Roundup , tar , anything present in life) . It could be different from person to person . The only thing common is it appears to be a chemical based reaction . Instead of ok , this causes cancer , that causes cancer , why not attempt altering that one part of the genetic structure that contains the live cancer ? Several organizations are mapping the genetic structure of humans , they know its there. Perhaps a targeted beam of x-rays? I know it sounds out there , but this is reasonably possible .

a reply to: here4this

Actually there are more than 200 different types of cancer in humans, and something like 40% can be avoided by our actions and lifestyles. And "cancer" itself is just abnormal cells. Usually our bodies destroy cells that are damaged or that don't work properly, but cancers happen when our bodies either can't or won't destroy those abnormal cells.

Benign cancerous tumors are just lumps of abnormal cells that can't reproduce on their own or spread throughout the body. Usually these can be treated by removing the lump of abnormal cells or by chemotherapy, which literally poisons the cells until they die.

Malignant cancers are abnormal cells that either our bodies think are ok (so it reproduces them), or abnormal cells with the ability to reproduce themselves. These are usually the most deadly cancers, because they'll continue spreading through our bodies and causing more abnormalities.

Different things can be carcinogens (cancer causing) if they can cause abnormalities in our cells. That's why so many forms of radiation are carcinogens, because they can literally alter the DNA in our cells. That's why too much sunlight can cause skin cancer, because it can damage & sometimes alter the skin cells. If Spider-Man and the Hulk were real, their powers would be the result of beneficial cancers spreading through their bodies. Most cancers cause negative effects though, like red blood cells that don't hold oxygen or other cells that are too rigid to do their normal work.

So I'm not saying you're wrong b/c there are cancers that are hereditary. Just letting you know there are plenty of things that can directly cause cancers too.

a reply to: new_here

Yeah, that never made sense to me. They say they care so much about our health & demonize people for questioning vaccine companies. But they have no problem selling tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, or many other harmful substances. But these are the same people who sold asbestos for decades and fought for decades in court about tobacco's effects.

a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL you seem to think "organic farming" is... ah who cares.

If I put a seed in dirt, water it & let it grow, that's organic farming. I'm not talking about & don't care about what different groups certify as organic, because that's just a label. The world's food supply up until the advent of modern chemistry was virtually only "organic farming" (disclaimer: that may not be true because many cultures had or have secret farming techniques for their cash crops, and who knows what concoctions were used in them. I've even seen some who used urine & blood when farming "secret" herbs).

I'd describe it more as farming and chemical-aided farming. But I suspect you already know this & are just being facetious so I'll leave it at that.

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Another problem is America has such a high rate of cancer, it would be easy to say people's cancer was caused by something else.

meh, i know you all are on Monsanto is evil diatribe, but here are some facts:

Cancer rates

interesting huh?

Check out this site for some really interesting facts:
Top Ten Exporters of Food

I wonder why the US is able to feed its entire country and yet produce even more food for export than anyone else? Could it be Monsanto?


V

Of course the US is a major food exporter. And yes, Monsanto's seeds & Roundup Ready crops are a big part of that. But what does that have to do with "Roundup" causing negative affects in people?

And I don't understand the point you're making with the 1st link. I said America has a high rate of cancer & it does. There are almost 200 countries in the world & your link shows we have the 6th highest rate of cancer. That's a high rate of cancer.

Unless you're saying that "If Monsanto-aided foods are so dangerous, then why aren't global cancer rates higher in the areas that import American agricultural products?". My initial reply to that would be: First, that top exporter of food map is for all foods, including beef, chicken, and other foods not directly related to Roundup.

And 2nd, something like 40% of the world's population are small farmers (usually in poor countries). And my link claims 90% of food in Africa (the second most populous continent) is derived from small farms, not imports. We'd have to look at the major importers of our Monsanto-aided foods/seeds to see if they have higher cancer rates. But one example of a possible case of this is India.