פורום השדים האדומים

תשמע, אפשר לפעמים להגיד "וואלה, זה לא מה שחשבתי" (אתה אפילו לא צריך להגיד 'טעיתי', אלא בעתיד להטיל טיפת ספק...). זה רק ייצור הערכה אליך, ולא יפחית מכבודך.

תשמע, אפשר לפעמים להגיד "וואלה, זה לא מה שחשבתי" (אתה אפילו לא צריך להגיד 'טעיתי', אלא בעתיד להטיל טיפת ספק...). זה רק ייצור הערכה אליך, ולא יפחית מכבודך.

דינו, אולי זה יעניים אותך:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/health/new-research/.premium-1.2634134
זה אמנם לא בעיקר על ראונדפ, אבל הוא מוזכר שם.

תודה. יש אפשרות לקרוא ללא מנוי?

https://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2014/ ... he-poison/

(קפאין פי 25 יותר רעיל מגלייפוסט).

(הרעילות היא על עכברושים, אבל העקרון החשוב הוא שהכמות עושה את הרעל)

"The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54831/

“
“People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as ‘probably carcinogenic’, including night shifts. In the highest category of known carcinogens are ‘alcoholic beverages’ and ‘solar radiation’ (sunlight) – along with plutonium.

So yes, pesticides can be dangerous, but are many other common things which are also dangerous in sufficient amounts or over long periods of time – the dose makes the poison . While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this does seem to me to be a precautionary rather than a reactionary change.

“From a personal perspective, I am a vegetarian so I eat a lot of vegetables and I’m not worried by this report.”

“The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.

“These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm.”

Prof. Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said :

“I have served on a number of regulatory bodies for the UK, EU and WHO and I am well used to sifting wheat from chaff in the analysis of pesticides. What is missing in this new assessment is balance in the consideration of the studies.

“There are over 60 genotoxicity studies on glyphosate with none showing results that should cause alarm relating to any likely human exposure. For human epidemiological studies there are 7 cohort and 14 case control studies, none of which support carcinogenicity.

“The authors have included non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but that diagnosis is no longer used in pathology because it’s far too imprecise. Even if you do include NHL there are still 7 studies, only one of which is positive – and that one is not a good study in my view.

“The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity.

“The authors of the one study cited as ‘positive’ say the following: ‘Because 26 pesticides were evaluated for their association with NHL and its subtypes, some chance finding could have occurred. Our results showed pesticides from different chemical and functional classes were associated with an excess risk of NHL and NHL subtypes, but not all members of any single class of pesticides were associated with an elevated risk of NHL or NHL subtypes.’

“This assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one category, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data. There is nothing here to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides. This appears to be a rather selective review.”

It is the equivalent of saying a rock could kill you but not pointing out that it probably needs to be dropped on your head from a great height first

לא מבין מה האינטרס שלך להתעלם מזה שהממסד הרפואי\מדעי קבע שיש סיכוי סביר שהחומר הזה מסרטן (לא פחות, ולא יותר)

ובנוסף לכל, שוב יש מקום להעיר על רדידות הטיעונים.
אז מה אם יש כשבעים דברים בקטגוריה של "סביר שהם מסרטנים"? אז זה אומר שלא סביר שהם מסרטנים?
אז מה אם אחד הדברים האלה הוא עבודה במשמרות לילה? אז זה אומר שאפשר לזרוק לפח את כל ההמלצות של הגופים הרלוונטיים, רק בגלל שהם קבעו שיש מצב סביר שמשמרת לילה זה דבר לא בריא ולכותב (וכנראה שגם למי שמצטט אותו) זה נראה מגוחך או מטופש?