Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Sunday July 28 2024, @08:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the scientist-judge-rules dept.

There is not enough evidence to prove an ingredient used in a popular weed killer causes cancer, a Federal Court judge has found:

Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgement in the class action against widely-used herbicide Roundup on Thursday afternoon.

The case, launched by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, claims Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate caused the cancer of more than 800 Australian non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Justice Lee ruled there is not enough current evidence to say glyphosate is carcinogenic and capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans.

The judge only needed to consider the question of general causation – not the specific claims of lead applicant Kelvin McNickle or the other class action group members.

Justice Lee ordered the proceedings be dismissed.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup's producer Monsanto in 2018, has previously stated glyphosate-based herbicides have been rigorously tested in hundreds of studies and it is safe when used as directed.

Related:
    •Study First to Link Weed Killer Roundup to Convulsions in Animals
    •US Supreme Court Rejects Bayer's Bid to End Roundup Lawsuits
    •Bayer Loses Appeal of Ruling That its Weed Killer Causes Cancer
    •Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Preterm Births


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday July 28 2024, @07:43PM (3 children)

    by VLM (445) on Sunday July 28 2024, @07:43PM (#1366025)

    Well don't leave us in suspense, LOL... what did it smell like?

    Its vapor pressure is close enough to zero that an open jar of dry crystals shouldn't evaporate away faster than it'll get covered by dust; however maybe if it's really warm etc.

    I never messed with that in ochem lab, and apparently, you did, but every technical resource I look up claims its completely odorless... HOWEVER you can buy it as a sodium salt or other salts, which I bet are odorless, or if you buy as a monoammonium, I bet the breakdown products could smell very faintly like ammonia. The isopropylamine salt "should" smell vaguely ammonia-like also if it breaks down. Its not going to break down fast. But if you had a giant container and stuck your nose in it after a "long time" I bet it smelled faintly ammonia-like, from the ammonia.

    If you figure water has a vapor pressure in the "meh twenties mm" at room temp and the data sheets say glyphosate is around 10-8 so figure it evaporates (sublimates) about a billion times slower than water. So I think it plausible an open jar would crust over with settled outside air dust before it sublimated away. In a fume hood maybe it would sublimate away but its gonna take awhile...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Monday July 29 2024, @04:31PM (2 children)

    by quietus (6328) on Monday July 29 2024, @04:31PM (#1366189) Journal

    I've never seen them in salt form. What I used was a pure white liquid with high viscosity; the smell reminded of paint. To further dilute, distilled water was used.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 29 2024, @09:25PM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) on Monday July 29 2024, @09:25PM (#1366239)

      It's a crystalline solid, although it's pretty soluble so they could have dissolved it in near anything.

      the smell reminded of paint

      Huffing the paint solvent fumes is very likely more dangerous than the glyphosate itself. Paint chems are probably a "good" idea for killing weeds; some kind of viscosity lowering stuff so its easier to spray and something that works into pores like a penetrating oil and maybe something to slow evaporation and probably some kind of interesting pH buffer to keep the above list happy; generally none of that stuff is good for people, of course.

      • (Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday July 30 2024, @11:48AM

        by quietus (6328) on Tuesday July 30 2024, @11:48AM (#1366331) Journal

        This was a project for Monsanto; as far as I can recall, you couldn't buy this product as an end-user. If there was a solvent used other than water, I should have known about that.