Jury orders Monsanto to pay nearly $290M in Roundup trial

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
10,921
8,571
1,743
38
Fairmont, MN
#2
If roundup causes cancer I'm a dead man. 10 years from now taking the easy way out on the fire pit area of the back yard or fucking with my neighbor because his weed control abilities are limited are going to seem small.

Dammit the ex harped on natural remedies for crap like that-if I'm on my death bed and she gives me a tsk tsk tsk look as she shoos the kids away from my soon to be rotting carcass I'm gonna die really pissed.
 
Jul 20, 2018
159
36
28
58
77539
#3
If roundup causes cancer I'm a dead man. 10 years from now taking the easy way out on the fire pit area of the back yard or fucking with my neighbor because his weed control abilities are limited are going to seem small.

Dammit the ex harped on natural remedies for crap like that-if I'm on my death bed and she gives me a tsk tsk tsk look as she shoos the kids away from my soon to be rotting carcass I'm gonna die really pissed.
It doesn't cause cancer. They just found 10 morons in San Franfreako that wanted to stick it to a big chemical company. Monsanto will appeal the decision.

Roundup has probably been studied more than any other chemical.

It's idiotic cases like this that makes it so difficult for us to control pests in our country. Greenies are ruining the world. Because of them, DDT was outlawed and malaria is running rampant. DDT was overused, however, it's been found that it can be used safely in moderation.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,441
21,023
1,743
#8
Does anyone still remember when it was widely believed breast implants can cause cancer? Two billion was paid out before scientific studies showed that it does not cause cancer or other maladies. Courts do stuff like this...
Round up is different than anything in baby powder or fake tits. It makes sense round up would cause cancer if not used correctly the shit will kill any plant on earth that isn’t modified to resist it. Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Safe if used the way directed and Monsanto has probably known it isn’t as safe as they say for years. This guy doesn’t deserve $289 if they poured cancer on his head and Monsanto is one the shittiest most ruthless companies on the planet.
 
Jul 20, 2018
159
36
28
58
77539
#9
Round up is different than anything in baby powder or fake tits. It makes sense round up would cause cancer if not used correctly the shit will kill any plant on earth that isn’t modified to resist it. Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Safe if used the way directed and Monsanto has probably known it isn’t as safe as they say for years. This guy doesn’t deserve $289 if they poured cancer on his head and Monsanto is one the shittiest most ruthless companies on the planet.
Just because a chemical kills something doesn't mean that it causes cancer. Salt kills slugs. Does salt cause cancer?

If you don't like Monsanto, stop purchasing products that were sprayed with Monsanto chemicals. They're a good company that provide benefits to us all
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,441
21,023
1,743
#10
Just because a chemical kills something doesn't mean that it causes cancer. Salt kills slugs. Does salt cause cancer?

If you don't like Monsanto, stop purchasing products that were sprayed with Monsanto chemicals. They're a good company that provide benefits to us all
Ok so now we are comparing round up to salt...... I’ll make a statement as stupid as yours if it’s so safe go mix up a glass and drink it I mean you can eat salt straight right? See how dumb that was..... like I said it’s somewhere in the middle.

And I’m not calling for a boycott on Monsanto but they are far from a “good” company. They have a global history of driving out small farms, rigging markets, hiding environmental impacts of tests, monsanto sites make up 28% of all labeled superfund sites, they have promised pay to farmers to use unapproved seed and when it fails approval don’t pay promised amounts wiping the farmers, they have been caught manipulating carcinogenic studies with their own experts before, the list is a mile long.....Hey I still buy round up cause nothing works better but Monsanto would have to be ranked among the worst global companies not “good”.
 
Jul 20, 2018
159
36
28
58
77539
#11
Ok so now we are comparing round up to salt...... I’ll make a statement as stupid as yours if it’s so safe go mix up a glass and drink it I mean you can eat salt straight right? See how dumb that was..... like I said it’s somewhere in the middle.

And I’m not calling for a boycott on Monsanto but they are far from a “good” company. They have a global history of driving out small farms, rigging markets, hiding environmental impacts of tests, monsanto sites make up 28% of all labeled superfund sites, they have promised pay to farmers to use unapproved seed and when it fails approval don’t pay promised amounts wiping the farmers, they have been caught manipulating carcinogenic studies with their own experts before, the list is a mile long.....Hey I still buy round up cause nothing works better but Monsanto would have to be ranked among the worst global companies not “good”.
No. We're not comparing Roundup to salt. Try to concentrate. Just because something can kill, doesn't mean it will cause cancer. In fact, EVERYTHING can kill if the dose is high enough.

There are 1322 superfund sites in the U.S. Monsanto does NOT have 370 superfund sites. That's just stupidity. They have 5.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
10,921
8,571
1,743
38
Fairmont, MN
#12

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
10,921
8,571
1,743
38
Fairmont, MN
#15
Water, perhaps the deadliest chemical on the planet.
You can OD on it. I'd go with plutonium personally but if you are frozen in your opinion I think you have a solid argument.

I remember a professor in college who used glucose as an example of anything can kill you if you get enough of it.

I'm of the opinion anything can give you cancer. You could die in a car accident tomorrow but it's likely most of us will see our 80's so there is no point in worrying about stuff that will kill us. Live life. Drink the beer. Do the kiki challenge. Spray that hazardous chemical and finish the job before taking a shower. Tomorrow isn't promised so live your life.
 
Feb 6, 2007
4,384
4,810
1,743
Ardmore, Ok.
#16
There is a difference between toxicity (measured as LD50; lethal dose to kill 50% of a population) and chronic health risks (measured as RfDs "Reference Doses"; the daily amount that can be consumed without harmful effects). However, caffeine, table salt, and aspirin, among many other common substances, are all more toxic and harmful than glyphosate, the active ingredient in 'Roundup'.
The jury's decision and award is a baseless witch hunt and money grab.

Conclusions
We started this discussion with the premise that RfDs, not LD50s, are the appropriate comparison for chronic toxicity. Using RfDs, how do caffeine and glyphosate compare? Keeping in mind, the LOWER the number, the HIGHER the toxicity.
EPA RfD for glyphosate: 0.1 mg/kg/day​
EPA RfD for caffeine: 0.0025 mg/kg/day​
0.1 ÷ 0.0025 = 40​
This means that caffeine is 40 times more toxic than glyphosate. However, this is only a useful number if we know our typical exposures. The exposure numbers above show that we don’t give a second thought to consuming caffeine at levels hundreds of times higher than the oral RfD, but are simultaneously worried about exposures to glyphosate that are 100 times lower than the RfD. In discussions of toxicity, we must use the correct data to back up our points to step outside the cycle of misinformation.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2017/04/13/gl...e-and-chronic-toxicity-assessments-explained/
 
Last edited:

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,441
21,023
1,743
#17
No. We're not comparing Roundup to salt. Try to concentrate. Just because something can kill, doesn't mean it will cause cancer. In fact, EVERYTHING can kill if the dose is high enough.

There are 1322 superfund sites in the U.S. Monsanto does NOT have 370 superfund sites. That's just stupidity. They have 5.
Actually it’s exactly what you did you made a analogy with two substances one round up one salt. It was stupid. So pointed out how stupid it was by something equally dumb in an attempt to get the conversation back on track instead of comparing something a small amount of could kill you to salt or water. And as pointed out in the post above there is a difference anyway in the two. But as I pointed out they have been proven in court to ghost write studies of Round Up (glyphospates) impacts so be really careful what study you post since Monsanto will manipulate it.

You are dead on right about the superfund sites. I meant to put 28 based on a quick search and got off thought and put 28% which of course is inaccurate. So I looked and the number is actually 41. That’s a ridiculous number. Been in the power business for 20 years been around coal and even trash burning power plants and ash disposal I’ve toured superfund sites and studied how they went from clean ground to toxic. To get to superfund status three things will cover 99% of all of them discharge of something decades ago that we didn’t know how bad it was and now we do, accident if some kind causing huge realease of something (most times this is due to poor operations and containment procedures), or years of just not caring. Not being willing to spend the money or time it takes to not dump something bad where it doesn’t belong. The first two don’t happen 41 times to the same guy. Hell superfund doesn’t happen 41 times to the same guy if they give even half a shit.

So round up probably is a carcinogen. Lots of research of by groups like the WHO (should be noted that the WHO will not go as far as to say it causes cancer but “probably” based on new oncology data) starting to point that way. Could be more studies will point that way when they aren’t being ghost written by Monsanto. Again guy doesn’t deserve 289 million and there is some jury activism. Monsanto is morally bankrupt. If I’m an attorney I would have pointed out just a few of the dozens of times they have been. I’m sure that helped turn a few million into 289.
 
Jul 20, 2018
159
36
28
58
77539
#18
Actually it’s exactly what you did you made a analogy with two substances one round up one salt. It was stupid. So pointed out how stupid it was by something equally dumb in an attempt to get the conversation back on track instead of comparing something a small amount of could kill you to salt or water. And as pointed out in the post above there is a difference anyway in the two. But as I pointed out they have been proven in court to ghost write studies of Round Up (glyphospates) impacts so be really careful what study you post since Monsanto will manipulate it.

You are dead on right about the superfund sites. I meant to put 28 based on a quick search and got off thought and put 28% which of course is inaccurate. So I looked and the number is actually 41. That’s a ridiculous number. Been in the power business for 20 years been around coal and even trash burning power plants and ash disposal I’ve toured superfund sites and studied how they went from clean ground to toxic. To get to superfund status three things will cover 99% of all of them discharge of something decades ago that we didn’t know how bad it was and now we do, accident if some kind causing huge realease of something (most times this is due to poor operations and containment procedures), or years of just not caring. Not being willing to spend the money or time it takes to not dump something bad where it doesn’t belong. The first two don’t happen 41 times to the same guy. Hell superfund doesn’t happen 41 times to the same guy if they give even half a shit.

So round up probably is a carcinogen. Lots of research of by groups like the WHO (should be noted that the WHO will not go as far as to say it causes cancer but “probably” based on new oncology data) starting to point that way. Could be more studies will point that way when they aren’t being ghost written by Monsanto. Again guy doesn’t deserve 289 million and there is some jury activism. Monsanto is morally bankrupt. If I’m an attorney I would have pointed out just a few of the dozens of times they have been. I’m sure that helped turn a few million into 289.
It's only stupid if you don't understand basic toxicology. Lethality of a substance is completely different than the substance's genotoxicity, ability to cause oxidative stress, and cell viability. The only study that concluded glyphosate to be carcinogenic was one from IARC in 2015 which concluded it was a "likely human carcinogen". A 2016 study that included WHO actually said that it was "unlikely" a human carcinogen.

I've been studying the health effects of chemicals for over 30 years. I haven't simply toured a superfund site, I've worked at them. Most superfund sites are the result of past sins that occurred prior to the 80's. It was very common in many industries to dump wastes of many different types on land owned by a company. Generally speaking, it was legal to do so at the time. Just like everything else, more and more information and knowledge becomes available and something that was thought to be fine at the time turns out to be a problem. Monsanto has been a company since the early 1900's. I'd challenge you to find one chemical company, refinery, etc. that has been around since the early 1900's that has not had a superfund site.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
13,678
4,930
1,743
Katy, TX
#19