THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER
The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby
Also: Tetrachlorvinphos is banned in the European Union. In the USA, it continues to be used on livestock and companion animals, including in pet flea collars. No information was available on use in other countries.
Relevant to Boquete because glyphosphate is sprayed just about everywhere.
Here is the link http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
Replies
to be scientific about it, what is the kill 50? That is one of the amount that is determined to be the dose where half of those experimental animals die and half recover. Of course there are some ethical concerns if this type of study is done on humans. (some have concerns if we do it to mice) But there is always the concern that what is seen in animal models may not hold true in humans.
I had used pyrethan dust to control asparagus beetles, walking in the yard later that day, my 4 year old called me over. there was a mouse lying on its back, seizing and pissing itself. pyrethian powder had been advertised as a safe, organic insect control. I no longer considered it safe after that. (of course that was not very scientific of me, one observation is not enough for a scientist to make a statement of causality)
Katherine, the LD50 for glyphosate is 5600.
"Glyphosate has a LD50 of 5600 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats, according to EPA assessments (PDF), placing it in Toxicity Category III. The EPA ranks chemicals in four categories, I being the most toxic and IV being the least. The EPA has also found that glyphosate does not cause cancer. To compare, caffeine has a much lower LD50 of 192 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats."
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/30/is-glyphosate-used-wit...
So according to this data, glyphosate is over ten times less toxic than caffeine.
While it may not have been very scientific of you it would have been enough for me to decide It wasn't safe to use around my 4 year old either.
Shouldn't you have stated "While it may not be very scientific of me..."?
And what would most scientific sources state about this? When used as directed, there is negligible danger to human health. Do you dispute that?
Gordon, NO, I was responding to Kathrine and what she said in her post. So I said exactly what I intended to say. lol
My mistake. But you didn't answer my question.
Gordon, this is not a test or a contest. I didn't CHOOSE to answer because I don't use any of those products because I CHOOSE not to. I really don't care what the scientist say because they will say whatever they want to keep the grant money rolling in. There. . .that's my opinion.
From their credentials and disclosures, I couldn't see that many if any of these scientists had conflicts of interest.
Obviously we all make our own decisions here about risk tolerance for ourselves and our loved ones.
But we also are so surrounded by fears, fanned by the media, that IMO it does help that people are willing to add perspective.
And differences of opinion and discussions like this are giving us all valuable perspective.
IMO, if a person chooses to be anti-science, or place no trust in it, their choices, and their opinions speak for themselves.
Indeed they do!