Author Topic: Episode #684  (Read 3747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ted Apelt

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Group Organizer of Pasco Activists
    • Pasco Activists
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2018, 01:33:16 AM »
This is part of the transcript from the show:

BRENT WISNER: Lee is just an amazing man. He started working at the Benicia School District in 2012. He was actually promoted. Originally, he was just sort of running mail around the school, and then he became an integrated pest manager. As part of that job, he was spraying Roundup on these various school campuses as part of the school district. He would spray upwards of 150 gallons a day trying to handle the weed situation. During that time, he was exposed repeatedly, repeatedly. Prior to that, he had perfect skin. After that, he started developing these tumors on his skin. They didn’t know what it was at first, and they discovered it was a rare type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that manifests in the skin. And the cancer got worse. It got worse. It got worse.

Mr. Johnson actually reached out to Monsanto while he was spraying to ask them, “Hey, is there some connection between this product and this cancer that I’m getting?” And they said they would call him back and then they never did. Then he called back a second time and he continued to spray, waiting to hear back from Monsanto and they never called. And what we learned was that his cancer, while he was spraying, it transformed. It went from a relatively controllable type of cancer to one that is essentially a death sentence. The fact that Monsanto has never called him back and the fact that they never warned him deprived him of the ability to make an informed choice. And Mr. Johnson, when he finally put two and two together, he called us up and we took it to trial and sort of history was made.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read the statement of Monsanto. We reached out to the agribusiness giant to join us. They weren’t available, but they did provide us with a statement that said they plan to appeal the verdict and insisted glyphosate does not cause cancer and did not cause Dewayne Lee Johnson’s cancer. This is the statement from Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge, who said, “We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family. Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews—and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world—support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer. We will appeal this decision and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective and safe tool for farmers and others.” Your response to that, Brent Wisner?

BRENT WISNER: There are really three points that are worth mentioning. The first is this idea that there is 800 studies that test Roundup and say that it’s safe is just a fabrication. The studies he is talking about are largely not related to cancer. We’re talking about skin irritation, eye irritation, things that really have nothing to do with the issues here. When you talk about cancer, we’re talking about 20 or so studies. Six or seven of them are in humans; the rest are in animals. And those studies, as the jury was shown, are almost completely positive. So that is just fact number one incorrect.

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/8/14/historic_ruling_against_monsanto_finds_company

I will say this.  The way the SGU handled this story is very disturbing, and very much against the way they usually deal with extremely complicated matters such as this.  There is a lot to this story, and I highly recommend that everyone who is concerned about this issue to watch the video I linked to.  It is from a source that is usually very good about getting facts straight, and they bring up a lot of important facts that the SGU either ignored or was unaware of.
 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 01:51:10 AM by Ted Apelt »
"Often, people cling all the harder to an idea precisely because the reality is so different and becoming more different."
Richard Wolff quoting his wife

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2327
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2018, 02:12:10 AM »
Just two syllables in hectare(s).


I kept wondering what a "hectari" was. (as Steve said it)  I thought it was like 1000 hectares or something.

Steve mispronounces it on purpose. Cara has called him out on it before. I can't remember why he does it.  ???

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2018, 07:27:49 PM »
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/8/14/historic_ruling_against_monsanto_finds_company

I will say this.  The way the SGU handled this story is very disturbing, and very much against the way they usually deal with extremely complicated matters such as this.  There is a lot to this story, and I highly recommend that everyone who is concerned about this issue to watch the video I linked to.  It is from a source that is usually very good about getting facts straight, and they bring up a lot of important facts that the SGU either ignored or was unaware of.

Here's Steve's article on Science Based Medicine.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

Offline Ted Apelt

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Group Organizer of Pasco Activists
    • Pasco Activists
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2018, 07:43:55 PM »
I just read it, and it is all about glyphosate, glyphosate, and glyphosate.  GLYPHOSATE IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!

Yes, glyphosate is reasonably safe.  The problem is all the other junk that is in Roundup.

Let me put it this way.  Suppose I dissolved a teaspoon of laundry detergent in a glass of gasoline and you got sick after drinking it and my reply was that your illness had nothing to do with the mixture you drank because laundry detergent could not possibly cause the symptoms you experienced.  That's the situation we have here.
"Often, people cling all the harder to an idea precisely because the reality is so different and becoming more different."
Richard Wolff quoting his wife

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8998
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2018, 07:48:49 PM »
I just read it, and it is all about glyphosate, glyphosate, and glyphosate.  GLYPHOSATE IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!

Yes, glyphosate is reasonably safe.  The problem is all the other junk that is in Roundup.

That's what the lawyers are claiming, anyway, since they can't win on the science.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2018, 07:50:37 PM »
I just read it, and it is all about glyphosate, glyphosate, and glyphosate.  GLYPHOSATE IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!

Yes, glyphosate is reasonably safe.  The problem is all the other junk that is in Roundup.

Let me put it this way.  Suppose I dissolved a teaspoon of laundry detergent in a glass of gasoline and you got sick after drinking it and my reply was that your illness had nothing to do with the mixture you drank because laundry detergent could not possibly cause the symptoms you experienced.  That's the situation we have here.

"According to reports of the case, Johnson’s attorney had to overcome the actual science showing glyphosate is safe and not associated with cancer. He did this by claiming that Roundup as a whole may cause cancer, even though glyphosate alone does not. While not impossible, this is an implausible claim that is still lacking in evidence. This was an act of simply moving the goalpost to avoid the more definitive scientific evidence. The ploy worked."

Got any evidence for the claim that "all that other junk" is the problem - i.e. causing cancer? 

Offline Ted Apelt

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Group Organizer of Pasco Activists
    • Pasco Activists
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2018, 07:59:33 PM »
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html is from the National Pesticide Information Center, and is based on science.


About NPIC
NPIC provides objective, science-based information about pesticides and pesticide-related topics to enable people to make informed decisions about pesticides and their use. NPIC is a cooperative agreement between Oregon State University and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The objectives of NPIC are:
To serve as a factual source of information for diverse professional and public audiences on pesticide-related issues;
To operate a toll-free, bi-lingual telephone information service for all callers in the United States and its territories, Monday through Friday at least 4 hours per day, with accessibility to voicemail during closed hours, and ability to address inquiries through e-mail and social media;
To develop and maintain English and Spanish websites accessible to broad audiences and host NPIC original content, state-of-the-art information technology tools and links to unbiased and authoritative sources of information about pesticides;
To collect robust pesticide incident data through systematic protocols and to disseminate the information through scheduled reporting and by request from U.S. EPA and partner agencies;
To conduct our service professionally, with an emphasis on teamwork, integrity and accountability, and a strong commitment to collaboration and exceptional customer service.

http://npic.orst.edu/about.html

If Steve and the SGU are going to say that NPIC doesn't know what it is talking about, they need to do a much better job of presenting their case.

I would like to say that the SGU is normally spot on in what they say.  However, no one is perfect, and this time they slipped up.  I look forward to their retraction in a future podcast.
"Often, people cling all the harder to an idea precisely because the reality is so different and becoming more different."
Richard Wolff quoting his wife

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2018, 08:28:11 PM »
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html is from the National Pesticide Information Center, and is based on science.


About NPIC
NPIC provides objective, science-based information about pesticides and pesticide-related topics to enable people to make informed decisions about pesticides and their use. NPIC is a cooperative agreement between Oregon State University and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The objectives of NPIC are:
To serve as a factual source of information for diverse professional and public audiences on pesticide-related issues;
To operate a toll-free, bi-lingual telephone information service for all callers in the United States and its territories, Monday through Friday at least 4 hours per day, with accessibility to voicemail during closed hours, and ability to address inquiries through e-mail and social media;
To develop and maintain English and Spanish websites accessible to broad audiences and host NPIC original content, state-of-the-art information technology tools and links to unbiased and authoritative sources of information about pesticides;
To collect robust pesticide incident data through systematic protocols and to disseminate the information through scheduled reporting and by request from U.S. EPA and partner agencies;
To conduct our service professionally, with an emphasis on teamwork, integrity and accountability, and a strong commitment to collaboration and exceptional customer service.

http://npic.orst.edu/about.html

If Steve and the SGU are going to say that NPIC doesn't know what it is talking about, they need to do a much better job of presenting their case.

I would like to say that the SGU is normally spot on in what they say.  However, no one is perfect, and this time they slipped up.  I look forward to their retraction in a future podcast.

Is there something in that article that you think counts as evidence that "other stuff" in Roundup causes cancer? 

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7907
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2018, 09:26:47 PM »
As far as I’m aware, the primary ingredients in Roundup besides the issopropylamine salt of glyphosate and water are a surfactant and some excess isopropylamine.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Ted Apelt

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Group Organizer of Pasco Activists
    • Pasco Activists
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2018, 09:54:25 PM »
Is there something in that article that you think counts as evidence that "other stuff" in Roundup causes cancer?

The problem is that we just simply don't know.  It depends on what the other ingredients are.

"And the last thing is, and this is really important, is that Mr. Partridge doesn’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer; he says glyphosate. And he does that intentionally, because he knows that glyphosate is different than Roundup. Now, glyphosate is part of Roundup, but Roundup is a combined product of glyphosate plus a bunch of other chemicals that make glyphosate significantly more potent. And one of the things that the jury really focused on, this jury in this case, was that there is a synergistic effect of the glyphosate and the other chemicals. And the simple fact is, Monsanto has never tested the carcinogenicity of the combined product."

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.  I am not saying that we know for sure that the other ingredients caused cancer.  I am saying that we are not properly looking at this possibility and instead are devoting way to much attention to glyphosate, and glyphosate alone.  We need to look at the entire picture.
"Often, people cling all the harder to an idea precisely because the reality is so different and becoming more different."
Richard Wolff quoting his wife

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2018, 08:24:00 AM »
Is there something in that article that you think counts as evidence that "other stuff" in Roundup causes cancer?

The problem is that we just simply don't know.  It depends on what the other ingredients are.

"And the last thing is, and this is really important, is that Mr. Partridge doesn’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer; he says glyphosate. And he does that intentionally, because he knows that glyphosate is different than Roundup. Now, glyphosate is part of Roundup, but Roundup is a combined product of glyphosate plus a bunch of other chemicals that make glyphosate significantly more potent. And one of the things that the jury really focused on, this jury in this case, was that there is a synergistic effect of the glyphosate and the other chemicals. And the simple fact is, Monsanto has never tested the carcinogenicity of the combined product."

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.  I am not saying that we know for sure that the other ingredients caused cancer.  I am saying that we are not properly looking at this possibility and instead are devoting way to much attention to glyphosate, and glyphosate alone.  We need to look at the entire picture.

I see.  You sounded more sure about it a couple of posts up. 
You started by suggesting that the SGU was way off base in their discussion of this topic.  Are you suggesting that this kind of argument from ignorance should be sufficient to win the court case?

Offline Ted Apelt

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Group Organizer of Pasco Activists
    • Pasco Activists
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2018, 03:06:26 PM »
The only thing I have ever been sure of is that we need to look at EVERYTHING, and we have not been doing that.  I don't want to form a conclusion (for example "what a crock") without first looking at all the facts.
"Often, people cling all the harder to an idea precisely because the reality is so different and becoming more different."
Richard Wolff quoting his wife

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4881
  • mooh
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2018, 10:04:17 AM »
I just read it, and it is all about glyphosate, glyphosate, and glyphosate.  GLYPHOSATE IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!

Yes, glyphosate is reasonably safe.  The problem is all the other junk that is in Roundup.

Let me put it this way.  Suppose I dissolved a teaspoon of laundry detergent in a glass of gasoline and you got sick after drinking it and my reply was that your illness had nothing to do with the mixture you drank because laundry detergent could not possibly cause the symptoms you experienced.  That's the situation we have here.

"According to reports of the case, Johnson’s attorney had to overcome the actual science showing glyphosate is safe and not associated with cancer. He did this by claiming that Roundup as a whole may cause cancer, even though glyphosate alone does not. While not impossible, this is an implausible claim that is still lacking in evidence. This was an act of simply moving the goalpost to avoid the more definitive scientific evidence. The ploy worked."

Got any evidence for the claim that "all that other junk" is the problem - i.e. causing cancer? 

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html is from the National Pesticide Information Center, and is based on science.


About NPIC
NPIC provides objective, science-based information about pesticides and pesticide-related topics to enable people to make informed decisions about pesticides and their use. NPIC is a cooperative agreement between Oregon State University and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The objectives of NPIC are:
To serve as a factual source of information for diverse professional and public audiences on pesticide-related issues;
To operate a toll-free, bi-lingual telephone information service for all callers in the United States and its territories, Monday through Friday at least 4 hours per day, with accessibility to voicemail during closed hours, and ability to address inquiries through e-mail and social media;
To develop and maintain English and Spanish websites accessible to broad audiences and host NPIC original content, state-of-the-art information technology tools and links to unbiased and authoritative sources of information about pesticides;
To collect robust pesticide incident data through systematic protocols and to disseminate the information through scheduled reporting and by request from U.S. EPA and partner agencies;
To conduct our service professionally, with an emphasis on teamwork, integrity and accountability, and a strong commitment to collaboration and exceptional customer service.

http://npic.orst.edu/about.html

If Steve and the SGU are going to say that NPIC doesn't know what it is talking about, they need to do a much better job of presenting their case.

I would like to say that the SGU is normally spot on in what they say.  However, no one is perfect, and this time they slipped up.  I look forward to their retraction in a future podcast.

Here is what that article has to say:

Quote
What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body?

In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate that is absorbed or ingested will pass through the body relatively quickly. The vast majority of glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical.

Is glyphosate likely to contribute to the development of cancer?

When high doses were administered to laboratory animals, some studies suggest that glyphosate has carcinogenic potential. Studies on cancer rates in people have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer. Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

So they do talk about cancer risk, but it's all about glyphosate again, and the SGU talked about those conflicting results. As far as I can tell, the article says literally nothing at all about the "other junk" they/you claim is the problem.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8767
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2018, 02:27:21 PM »
On the show, Steve does address the "other stuff" issue. Apparently there's no evidence that Roundup, in its entirety, causes cancer. The "all chemicals are bad" crowd, having lost on the science of glyphosate, are now saying "Well, maybe the 'other stuff' causes cancer." But they seem to have no evidence that it does.

There has to be a risk-benefit analysis. The benefit of pesticides is that farmers can produce more food for a hungry world with a growing population. Roundup, even if it has some very low level of risk, is safer than the alternatives. And zero-chemicals is not an alternative unless you want a couple of billion people to starve.

We need to use chemicals, so lets use the safest ones. The science says that Roundup is one of the safest ones.

FWIW, I did a 180 on this whole issue. I was opposed to the use of pesticides and opposed to GMOs. I still think that in the very early years of GMOs there was reason for caution. But the science is in: Organic produce is no healthier, and GMOs are as safe as crops produced in more traditional ways. I'd really like to try a fish-mato.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7503
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #684
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2018, 08:57:51 PM »
I blew my daughter's mind with pictures of chimeric cats with (IIRC) sea-jelly DNA making them fluorescent under UV light. We had a giggle trying to name it. Jellycat won the day.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't