Commonly used weed-killing chemical found in 80% of urine samples

submitted by [deleted] from (dailymail.co.uk)

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Daily Mail for the mfing Pulitzer Prize! Ya'll are being poisoned daily.

[–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The thing they don't say about Roundup is that we're the ones it's rounding up.

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

All of the government agencies are ambivalent on the question except California, where literally everything is known to cause cancer and fuck those guys anyway.

From the article:

In March 2015, the World Health Organization found that the herbicide was 'probably carcinogenic to humans'.

See how they put weasel-wording in there? Because it's not proved.

But, in April 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reaffirmed that glyphosate does not cause cancer.

Because it doesn't. Greens hate it because it enables people to grow food and greens want fewer people. Remember: YOU are the carbon they want to reduce!

That some yayhoo was able to swindle a jury and get a declaration it does cause cancer is not a sign of anythingbut the lack of intelligence of the average person who can't get out of jury duty.

Anyway the headline sounds like bullshit so I clicked a few links. The article refers to a survey which is also bullshit-smelling. Exactly one of the references in the survey links to the actual study in question that all this noise is about.

Abstract

...We developed a method ...for quantification in urine of 6 O,O-dialkylphosphates, metabolites of organophosphorus insecticides, and glyphosate.... To assess the suitability of the method in real exposure scenarios, we analyzed samples collected anonymously from subjects with suspected exposure to pesticides (n = 40) or who had been on an organic diet (n = 50). We detected glyphosate in 80% of subjects reporting an organic diet and in 78% of those with suspected glyphosate exposure; concentrations ranged from <0.2 to 28.6 μg/L. Median concentrations were 0.39 μg/L for the organic diet group and 0.40 μg/L for individuals with suspected exposure. ...These data suggest that the method meets typical validation benchmark values and is sensitive to investigate background exposures in the general population.

Did you see that "and glyphosate" in there? This isn't only testing for roundup. They looked at people who are exposed to pesticides and found pesticide in their urine. SHOCK! They looked at people who eat overpriced plants and found pesticides there too, SHOCK!

They think their new method of detecting these chemicals in urine is valid. That's what you can take away from that paper with confidence.

They found MICROGRAMS PER LITER. The decimal moves FIVE places to get to this amount of contamination. Let alone that the testing method reads from about 0.2 to 0.8 ng/L as a minimum and they are quoting numbers that include lower levels than this. You are being told that digital noise is a statistically meaningful result here.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So we should just bury our heads in the sand and hope it's safe? Send a Christmas card to Bayer to thank them?

What is the safe level of glyphosate in your body?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Or you could not worry about things that won't hurt you. Your choice.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Did you see the picture of the groundskeeper that won in CA? His skin was falling off because he accidentally spilled it on himself. And we spray that on our food. Way to shill for your own death.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bruh I'll do you one better than that. If you put your flesh in water it will literally disintegrate after enough time passes.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

glyphosate is as safe as water, you heard it here first. thanks rabbi.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You smoked too many drugs, buddy

[–]SoCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree this is sketchy. This study is evaluating a testing method, not evaluating public health with an established and trusted test. It does also seem to lump a lot of things vaguely together int its test, but that may be hard to avoid. Not to disagree, but to add some useful context...

Glyphosate is a type of organophosphorus and they generally breakdown into dialkylphosphates. RoundUp products frequently contain several forms of the glyphosate chemical, such as the salt, isopropylamine salt, and ammonium salt forms. These all breakdown into different chemicals over time. Also, once you consume these chemicals, your body breaks them down into metabolites of those chemicals. The point is, testing for RoundUp, may require testing for a wide variety of chemicals in the organophosphorus family, their decompositions, and metabolites. The FDA's established allowable limits in foods establish most these chemicals all together, as well.

The contradiction is, that weaponized nerve gas is a organophosphorus. We should be careful not to lump many chemicals together too blindly, as they can be very different, despite relation to a chemical family of compounds.

They tell us the median concentrations found, so I'm not sure what the concern about the range is, but yes despite the five decimal points and tiny numeric value, this is a significant concentration...depending on context.

The five decimal places bit, is overblown. 0.40 μg/L is 20 times over the FDA allowable limit for these chemicals in horse meat, for a fun example.

First, we should know that micro-grams per Liter (μg/L) are one-to-one equivalent with parts per billion (ppb), which most LD and FDA limits are expressed in. This makes unit comparison not a problem, yet there is no way to compare concentrations in urine to FDA food limits. Also, I don't think there is a limit of concerning urine concentration established specifically for glyphosate, as the FDA has routine declared it perfectly safe in almost every way with questionably contradicted study one after another.

So the organic dieters' urine concentration of 0.40 μg/L isn't really comparable with anything; we can't quantify if that is high or not.

To try to ball park very loosely what a significant urinary concentration might possible be near, I found this one, which makes the 0.40 μg/L seem to be a bit low....

Urinary DAP metabolites reported for the general population range from 3 × 102 to 2 × 103 ng/L {1}

Diethyl phosphate Diethylphosphate (DEP) is a product of metabolism and of environmental degradation of a commonly used insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Its detection in urine is generally regarded as an indication of exposure to some kind of organophosphate insecticide.

  • 1 Nanograms(ng) = 0.001 Micrograms(μg)

  • 3 × 102 = 300

  • 2 × 103 = 2000

So the general public's reported background Diethylphosphate metabolite urine concentration is 3μg/L to 20μg/L, quite a bit above the 0.40 μg/L.

[–]rubberbiscuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

so this is why peeing on weeds works