Roundup Carcinogenic at Parts per TRILLION

reply to post by signalfire

How do you intend to avoid something that's ubiquitous and invisible?

You can't.
We are surrounded by things that are not good for us.

This is an interesting study but it should be noted that it does not indicate that glyphosate causes cancer. Just that it can increase the growth rate of hormonally influenced cancer by acting like estrogen.

Since pre-menopausal women are pretty well infused with estrogen, it's unlikely that the effects of glyphosate dominate. However after menopause, when estrogen levels drop, there could be a problem. But the thing is, the incidence of breast cancer in menopausal women has been declining since 1999.

For comparison purposes, I checked out what the toxic dose of cyanide is (and probably got myself on yet another NSA list...).

From 'Cyanide.org':

The toxicity of hydrogen cyanide to humans is dependent on the nature of the exposure. Due to the variability of dose-response effects between individuals, the toxicity of a substance is typically expressed as the concentration or dose that is lethal to 50% of the exposed population (LC50 or LD50). The LC50 for gaseous hydrogen cyanide is 100-300 parts per million. Inhalation of cyanide in this range results in death within 10-60 minutes, with death coming more quickly as the concentration increases. Inhalation of 2,000 parts per million hydrogen cyanide causes death within one minute. The LD50 for ingestion is 50-200 milligrams, or 1-3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, calculated as hydrogen cyanide. For contact with unabraded skin, the LD50 is 100 milligrams (as hydrogen cyanide) per kilogram of body weight.

Can some math whiz calculate the difference for me from 'parts per trillion' and the above parameters? How much more toxic is Roundup compared to cyanide?

'LD50' means Lethal Dose; the amount necessary to cause death in half the exposed individuals.

See, the problem here is the time frames in the different poisons. Cyanide will kill you in minutes which means tracking down the offensive chemical is relatively easy. If Roundup kills you and everyone else on the planet including the ones diligently paying extra for 'organic' because that's contaminated also, or the water is now, or the next field over, but instead of instantly it takes a decade or more, then it's untraceable or nearly so. It's like an Agatha Christie novel of the perfect murder as long as you're patient enough.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by signalfire

 

How do you intend to avoid something that's ubiquitous and invisible?

You can't.
We are surrounded by things that are not good for us.

This is an interesting study but it should be noted that it does not indicate that glyphosate causes cancer. Just that it can increase the growth rate of hormonally influenced cancer by acting like estrogen.

Since pre-menopausal women are pretty well infused with estrogen, it's unlikely that the effects of glyphosate dominate. However after menopause, when estrogen levels drop, there could be a problem. But the thing is, the incidence of breast cancer in menopausal women has been declining since 1999.

edit on 6/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The incidence of breast cancer in post menopausal women is declining because of the scare a while back about HRT therapy.

That's cold comfort to me and other women who have been diagnosed with it, though...

Ban it.

Ban it NOW!

And hang those who created such a murder of mother nature. Weeds are plants too and much prettier than most crops.

Eating weeds is probably better for you anyway, but those parasitic big pharma companies wouldn't tell you that.

reply to post by signalfire

Of course. That makes sense. It would also imply that the increase prior to 1999 was due to increasing use of HRT.

The implication in the article of the OP that Roundup, and in particular the use of GMO crops, has affected breast cancer rates would seem to be unfounded.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by smurfy

 

Dear smurfy,

Thanks, I had to give you a star for the link. I hope you'll not see me as ungrateful for still being confused.

The link seemed to be a summary, or popularization, from a dozen years ago. Should we assume it's still valid?

Let's say that it is valid. Here's the part that confuses me:

Studies seem to implicate one particular class of chemicals -- chlorophenols. Chlorophenols are chlorine-containing chemicals that include dioxins, PCBs, DDT, and the so-called "phenoxy herbicides," including the weed killers 2,4,5-T, and 2,4-D. This last one is the most popular crabgrass and dandelion killer in America, sold as Weed-B-Gone, Weedone, Miracle, Demise, Lawn-Keep, Raid Weed Killer, Plantgard, Hormotox, and Ded-Weed, among other trademarked names.

I'm confused for two reasons. One, this chemical doesn't seem to be used for crops as Roundup is, and two, Roundup uses a different chemical as it's active ingredient. Are we looking at an apple and escalator comparison?

With respect,
Charles1952

That part is to do with Dioxin derived weedkillers, I wouln't touch 245T or 24D with a bargepole . I think it is safe to say that Glyphosate is marketed now as a 'safer' alternative for killing weeds, but it has been around for a long time too, and in the long term Glyphosate is harmful. All this stuff gets transported everywhere naturally, and is a insidious slow acting killer.
I'm afraid I have to use another link to expand things. I hope this helps,

articles.mercola.com...

Here is the video from that link,



Actually from some of the remarks, I think we all need to view the video, and that link, since it more than implies a human interference in the ecological system in a negative way.

And ALL cancer rates are going up, not down. There has to be a connection.

www.medpagetoday.com...

The number of young women presenting with metastatic breast cancer has been slowly but steadily rising over the past 3 decades, a national study found.

[snip]
The analysis of three SEER registries spanning 1973-2009, 1992-2009, and 2000-2009 showed an increase from 1.53 to 2.90 per 100,000 in incidence of breast cancer with remote metastases beyond the lymph nodes or adjacent organs among women, ages 25 to 39, over that time period.



www.thestandard.co.zw...

In part the rise is due to increasing lifespans, as more men reach the age when the cancer is likely to develop, where once they would have died earlier.

But more men are also being diagnosed at a younger age after being tested for prostate specific antigen. High levels of PSA in the blood are linked to the cancer.


www.pancan.org...

The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network has released a special report called, The Alarming Rise of Pancreatic Cancer Deaths in the United States: Why We Need to Stem the Tide Today. This report was written by the organization's Research and Scientific Affairs team, led by our Vice President of Scientific and Medical Affairs Lynn Matrisian, PhD.

The alarming findings presented in the report include the fact that by the year 2020, and possibly as early as 2015, pancreatic cancer will move from the fourth leading cause of cancer death to the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States.

reply to post by hamburgerler


that is like saying "if you do not like the smell do not breathe..."

taking this beyond, what to do, realistic, if one dislikes all state governance (globally, immigration is not an option) ? Do you reached the same realization on our dark future, whatever option one takes all are bleak...

I just want to be clear here in case no one else was, this study shows that if this roundup carcinogen is present in parts-per-trillion quantities, it can cause cancer.

That is 1 particle /1,000,000,000,000 particles.

A lot of carcinogens need to be something like 1 particle / 1,000,000 (parts per million), which is a lot more concentrated, to cause cancer.

Here is a million dollars:



Most carcinogens would be cancerous if a few of those dollars were tainted.

Here is a trillion dollars:



If any of these dollars are tainted, it would be cancerous.

Scary. When in high school, I worked at a golf course. Part of my job was spraying the greens with insecticide, fungicide and, yes, Roundup. Got that sh*t all over me once... Guess I'm screwed. But, that's probably nothing compared to the exposure to DU rounds... Breast cancer for a dude would be embarrassing.

reply to post by darkbake

I just want to be clear here in case no one else was, this study shows that if this roundup carcinogen is present in parts-per-trillion quantities, it can cause cancer.

No. The study does not show that roundup can cause cancer. It shows that glyphosate can increase the rate of growth of one type of breast cancer cell when it is applied directly to those cells, in vitro.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by signalfire

 

This is why store bought produce is washed.

Every home gardener who uses pesticides or fertilizers washes their produce unless they are an idiot.

Unfortunately, washing produce does little to remove many pesticides. You'll get rid of dirt, but the pesticides remain. One of the only ways to get them off is to soak the produce in vinegar for a few minutes - I've never tried this since I don't want my produce to taste like vinegar!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by signalfire

 

Of course. That makes sense. It would also imply that the increase prior to 1999 was due to increasing use of HRT.

The implication in the article of the OP that Roundup, and in particular the use of GMO crops, has affected breast cancer rates would seem to be unfounded.

You contradict yourself because in an earlier post you said it did affect them, but only through estrogen. That's stll affecting them. And all your comments are hearsay anyway.

It is better to think as cancer as being about what you are NOT exposed to as to what you are.
Carcinogens have been around since time immemorial and thus evolution has fortified us
with mechanisms to deal with the problem. It is overloading these mechanisms or overriding them
that leads to the problem.

(Google salvesterols)
Limbo

reply to post by Phage


Thanks, I missed that... but I think I was right on the graphical representation.

Pesticides kill pests. Herbicides ( Roundup- Rodeo for aquatic application, exactly same thing = marketing/ liability) kill plants. Roundup-glyphosate break down to salts, salt kills plants. Surfactant is called "sticker" as slang, it makes the glyphosate "stick" to the leaves longer so it can be absorbed. Glyphosate is systemic, it gets absorbed and kills from the root up as opposed to foliar kill. Some use dish soap for "sticker". The "LABEL" on glyphosate will tell you to not use on food crops, it is to kill plants. Pesticides don't absorb, so they can be washed off. My concern is the gmo that changes the structure of the food plant that can kill pests that attack it. (1) what does that do to us from a poison standpoint (2) Our bodies were designed to use the plant and animal proteins as food. Change their structure, what do you have ?

reply to post by thebtheb

You contradict yourself because in an earlier post you said it did affect them, but only through estrogen. That's stll affecting them. And all your comments are hearsay anyway.

Please show me where I said there was any effect on cancer rates.
All my comments are hearsay? What does that mean?

reply to post by skycowboy

Virtually all plants contain pesticides.
If they didn't they would not survive long.
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...

Absolutely Phage, I was intending to refer to applied pesticides


BTW thanks for the links. I remember as a kid when a stock tank(pond) was about to go dry people would use rotenone to shock the fish to harvest instead of letting them die and waste. My Dad said it only took the oxygen out of the water thus immobilizing the fish.