d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Summer Scotus Roundup
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 29,032
Joined: Jun 20 2007
Gold: 34.51
Jun 25 2026 05:06pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4


Lmao that's the one. It's a classic.
Member
Posts: 50,971
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jun 25 2026 06:15pm
You sound like Patrick Moore when he said its safe enough to drink during an interview, they provided him and he promptly exited the interview. The Pro GMO lobbyist for Monsanto's.

You have evidence that past studies, by Independent scientists of course was actually written by Monsanto's. Of which they did over and over and over again and got caught doing via leaked emails. Even being as brash to say remember to work it into our PR loop, lmao. And they just kept doing it.

Oh and then we have the leaked emails from Monsanto's to the EPA that heavily suggest , and I mean you would have to stretch it to think they were not directly telling them what to say but we can leave it at suggesting what to say. The private billion dollar company heavily suggesting a government regulatory body, I mean who could imagine that.

Now Bayer has thus settled over what 114K as in number of lawsuits tied to Roundup and into the billions of dollars in settlement money all for what they are touting is totally fine. Wonder why they are the ones paying out?

The amount of products, services, fees, predatory lending practices, etc that have all had consumer protection put in place that is then over-turned or products touted as healthy and safe from industry sponsored studies / data points that then turned out not to be is quite the list.

I wonder if the EPA has ever suffered any scrutiny because they constantly have former pro chemical lobbyists appointed?

Douglas Troutman: Appointed Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). He previously served as the interim CEO and top lobbyist for the American Cleaning Institute, which represents cleaning product supply chains and frequently pushes back against chemical regulations.
Nancy Beck: Served as a senior official and deputy assistant administrator in the OCSPP. Before joining the agency, she was a leader and lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council—the largest chemical industry trade group in the U.S.
Lynn Ann Dekleva: Served as a leader in the EPA's chemical safety office. She previously held senior roles at DuPont and the American Chemistry Council, where she fought against regulations of chemicals like formaldehyde.
Kyle Kunkler: Appointed to oversee the EPA's pesticide policy as a deputy assistant administrator. Prior to his EPA tenure, he was the top lobbyist for the American Soybean Association and advocated for the continued use of contentious herbicides.

But who am I to say, if you want to lick that degraded teflon pan while smoking its up to you. I mean there was enough evidence presented by industry that it was totally safe.

Call it a conspiracy if you want, time and time again has shown money usually carries until it becomes too obvious.


Did a conspiracy make agencies in a variety of countries all come to the same findings?
Was it nefarious cover-up that researchers keep posting studies of animals being exposed to lifelong glyphosate with no ill effects?

Any discerning mind should be able to tell the difference between a cover-up in spite of scientific evidence, and people making spurious allegations. Ask yourself what the scenarios would look like
If Monsanto was trying desperately to censor the evil truth that "roundup causes cancer", then with all the litigation and research into it over a half a century, someone would have conclusively proven it. There would be some hard studies that would establish it. Not "drown a rat in 10x its bodyweight of a substance and it suffocates" or "there's a 41% statistical uptick in cases of non-hodgkins lymphoma in a population that's much older than our control population and doesn't die from gun violence in the inner cities so they instead have higher rates of cancer because they live long enough to get cancer". If there was an actual causation, someone would have figured out the mechanics. The wikipedia article would have no choice but to say how glyphosate does X, X impacts Y, Y causes cancer. Except that isn't the case, because nobody even has a credible theory.

The fact is that anti-science is easy on the masses. People love to believe in conspiracy theories and refuse to believe the hard science of how things work, whenever anything is more complicated than the superficially obvious. Nuclear power gets hamstrung by unnecessary levels of radiation because 'NUCLEAR ENERGY SCARY!". GMO foods like roundup-resistant crops? 2spooky. Covid vaccines!? That's how they sterilize the masses. Chemtrails? Turns the frogs gay.
Member
Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Jun 25 2026 07:47pm
Did a conspiracy make agencies in a variety of countries all come to the same findings?
Was it nefarious cover-up that researchers keep posting studies of animals being exposed to lifelong glyphosate with no ill effects?

Any discerning mind should be able to tell the difference between a cover-up in spite of scientific evidence, and people making spurious allegations. Ask yourself what the scenarios would look like
If Monsanto was trying desperately to censor the evil truth that "roundup causes cancer", then with all the litigation and research into it over a half a century, someone would have conclusively proven it. There would be some hard studies that would establish it. Not "drown a rat in 10x its bodyweight of a substance and it suffocates" or "there's a 41% statistical uptick in cases of non-hodgkins lymphoma in a population that's much older than our control population and doesn't die from gun violence in the inner cities so they instead have higher rates of cancer because they live long enough to get cancer". If there was an actual causation, someone would have figured out the mechanics. The wikipedia article would have no choice but to say how glyphosate does X, X impacts Y, Y causes cancer. Except that isn't the case, because nobody even has a credible theory.

The fact is that anti-science is easy on the masses. People love to believe in conspiracy theories and refuse to believe the hard science of how things work, whenever anything is more complicated than the superficially obvious. Nuclear power gets hamstrung by unnecessary levels of radiation because 'NUCLEAR ENERGY SCARY!". GMO foods like roundup-resistant crops? 2spooky. Covid vaccines!? That's how they sterilize the masses. Chemtrails? Turns the frogs gay.


Roundup: Totally safe.
Also Roundup: wear protective mask, eye protection, gloves do NOT ingest, breathe or touch, seek medical attention immediately, considered hazardous toxic substance that is designed to kill plant life.

Goomshill will you drink the water or you are going to keep shillmaxxing?
Member
Posts: 9,164
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
Jun 25 2026 08:26pm
Are my paper straws still saving the world though ?
Member
Posts: 57,280
Joined: Oct 14 2010
Gold: 55,946.92
Jun 25 2026 10:02pm
Banning drug users from owning guns is kind of a no brainer.
Unless they pulled one of the "Kick it down to the states" type deal.

You could argue the same for alcohol abusers but no one would get reelected running on that.
Them drunk cowboys gotta have their guns.
Member
Posts: 50,971
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jun 26 2026 04:13am
Roundup: Totally safe.
Also Roundup: wear protective mask, eye protection, gloves do NOT ingest, breathe or touch, seek medical attention immediately, considered hazardous toxic substance that is designed to kill plant life.

Goomshill will you drink the water or you are going to keep shillmaxxing?


There are plenty of dangerous chemicals in roundup formulations that aren't glyphosate, you realize right? POEAs are mild poisons and irritants, safe enough in small doses but there's no reason to expose yourself to them
Less than 2-4D exposure at any rate. Or you go buy yourself the Triclopyr formulation and find out its way more toxic with a lot longer half-life, way more dangerous to both humans and plants because of this very nonsense
Member
Posts: 9,164
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
Jun 26 2026 05:17am
There are plenty of dangerous chemicals in roundup formulations that aren't glyphosate, you realize right? POEAs are mild poisons and irritants, safe enough in small doses but there's no reason to expose yourself to them
Less than 2-4D exposure at any rate. Or you go buy yourself the Triclopyr formulation and find out its way more toxic with a lot longer half-life, way more dangerous to both humans and plants because of this very nonsense


If you lived on 10 acres and drank from a well would you spray this all around your property?

Your not wrong on the science, but the chemical applications in the US aren't mutually exclusive. When you spray chemicals, it's leeches into the surrounding environments, your neighbors well perhaps, and then their body. Same goes with many other Chemicals, PFAS. .... It's a hard situation to reconcile, private nuisance, trespass, chemical drifts. Like 3M poison a whole watershed in cities near Cottage Grove.

Member
Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Jun 26 2026 05:31am
There are plenty of dangerous chemicals in roundup formulations that aren't glyphosate, you realize right? POEAs are mild poisons and irritants, safe enough in small doses but there's no reason to expose yourself to them
Less than 2-4D exposure at any rate. Or you go buy yourself the Triclopyr formulation and find out its way more toxic with a lot longer half-life, way more dangerous to both humans and plants because of this very nonsense


Yes 2-4D is more toxic (about 10 times) than glyphosate, so what's your point? A knife wound is less serious than being blown up by a missile therefore getting stabbed doesn't qualify for justfied compensation?

Shillmaxxing
Member
Posts: 50,971
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jun 26 2026 06:02am
If you lived on 10 acres and drank from a well would you spray this all around your property?

Your not wrong on the science, but the chemical applications in the US aren't mutually exclusive. When you spray chemicals, it's leeches into the surrounding environments, your neighbors well perhaps, and then their body. Same goes with many other Chemicals, PFAS. .... It's a hard situation to reconcile, private nuisance, trespass, chemical drifts. Like 3M poison a whole watershed in cities near Cottage Grove.


As far as chemicals go its very low drift because of its strong bonding and breaks down easily, its not a real wellwater concern. It doesn't really get into water unless you're spraying it on the surface water, and even then its mostly just harmful to the aquatic life it can kill, and still doesn't affect most marine life. On top of all the decades of testing for it as potential poison or carcinogen, glyphosate is also heavily tested as a contaminate. Its sprayed all around our state and routine testing includes both glyphosate and its breakdown acid, neither of which are ever detected in groundwater.

Yes 2-4D is more toxic (about 10 times) than glyphosate, so what's your point? A knife wound is less serious than being blown up by a missile therefore getting stabbed doesn't qualify for justfied compensation?

Shillmaxxing


Its like comparing getting shot by a 50 bmg, getting shot by a 9mm, getting shot by a nerf gun, and standing in the rain.
The acute and chronic toxicity of 2-4d is already extremely minor, whereas glyphosate is effectively non-existent.
Member
Posts: 93,039
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Jun 26 2026 06:32am
Acute toxicity is on par with vinegar. Salt. Water. Any substance is going to be toxic when you consume ludicrous levels of it and either drown in it or replace all your nutrition with something you can't metabolize. To consume 10,000 mg/kg of glyphosate, a human would have to eat several pounds of pure glyphosate, which is approximately 150 lbs of liquid roundup. And for chronic exposure at the realistic levels humans can theoretically consume it, glyphosate had no biological effects in all the animal studies. Hell, the equivalent of downing a gallon of roundup a day relative to body mass had no biological effect on mice. The statistical linking studies get exposed as p hacking when they're subject to critical examination, like ;
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10369247/



Its probably the single most studied chemical as a potential carcinogen, I'm not sure how much more they could beat the dead horse before they give up on it jolting to life
It boils down to:

  • There's no explicable method of action for it to be carcinogenic, and nobody can come up with a coherent theory, because its biologically inert in mammals.
  • The claims that it has any statistical link to lymphoma get nullified as bias and p-hacking when actually examined in detail
  • Decades of animal testing showed it had absurdly large bounds for intake with no observable biological consequences for either individuals or generations of subjects
  • Acute exposure LD50 is higher than eating the grass itself
  • Studies have repeatedly ruled out other biological interactions like endocrine disruption


At some point you have to ask, how could any chemical be proven more safe, if you can't prove a negative?
Its the archetypal "Don't trust the science". The US EPA and German BfR and EU EFSA and various other national agencies all find it to be noncarcinogenic. But they're bought and paid for, that's why. Its a conspiracy. Nobody can find the evidence of the conspiracy either, but we just don't trust them. And one scientist at the IARC publishes a study saying its possibly carcinogenic when he disregards all existing datasets, and we find out he was paid $160k by lawyers representing civil cases against Monsanto. But that one wasn't a conspiracy.

The spooky chemicals that actually are hazardous to humans have easily explicable mechanisms once we understand them. They can block sodium ion channels and brick us. They can rip apart our tissues and cause nonstop replication to heal it. They can mutate our DNA by radiation. And so on. By roundup has to be the first where we say, we just don't trust it because


The bolded simply isn't true. I'm not saying the theories about HOW it can be a carcinogen are correct, but they do exist. You're falsely painting this as if scientists just sampled people who had more exposure (ag workers, golf course mowers, etc) and observed their increased prevalence of cancer, then attributed it to roundup with zero explanation of how it could happen. The literature is pretty clear as far as a method, genetic alterations of white blood cells which can cause in some people non-hodkins lymphoma. they also speculate that some people are genetically predisposed to this and could be getting uncommon results on the cellular level compared to most people. and genotoxic effects of roundup exposure at low doses have been observed in both animal and human studies.

overall you may be right that it's mostly safe, and that it's widlely tested, but you overstep. you're not just discounting but ignoring entirely studies that point to risks. there is a working theory on how it can cause cancer, what cancers it can cause (mostly NHL, but potentially leukemia), and there are increased risk groups identified. it's a theory still, but it does exist.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll