Talk:Atrazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Atrazine in Europe[edit]

I am puzzled by the statements on the situation in Europe because they seem to contradict the information present in the German Wikipedia article on atrazine (I provide both the German text and the translation in case someone wants to doule-check the translation).

Original text: Da Atrazin und dessen Hauptabbauprodukt Desethylatrazin auch ins Grundwasser gelangen und damit dann auch im Trinkwasser nachgewiesen werden kann, ist die Anwendung von Atrazin seit 1. März 1991 in Deutschland und seit 1995 in Österreich verboten.

Translation: Because athrazine and his main degradation product desethylatrazine may also reach the groundwater and therefore can be detected in the drinking water, the application of athrazine is prohibited in Germany since the first of march 1991 in Germany and in Austria since 1995.

One of the reasons for this prohibition was an incident of october/november 1986 that I can vividly recall because it so to say passed by my home. I live in Bonn (at that time capital of West Germany) located about 20 kilometers from Cologne on the river Rhine. This is what happened:

Original text: Am 31. Oktober 1986 gelangten etwa 400 Liter Atrazin über die Abwässer der Firma Ciba-Geigy in den Rhein, was zusammen mit einem weiteren Chemieunfall der Firma Sandoz bei Basel einen Tag später ein Fischsterben im Rhein auslöste.

Translation: On the thirty-first of october 1986 about 400 liters of atrazine reached the river Rhine in the wastwater of the Ciba-Geigy company. Together with another chemical accident at the Sandoz company in Basel it caused a fish kills in the Rhine.

The incident also influcenced the drinking water supply along the Rhine because much of the drinking water in this region is bank filtrate.

One additional remark: If the description turns out to be correct something else needs to be corrected: No country has ever discontinued atrazine use for health or environmental safety reasons, including the European Union, and is used in more than 80 countries worldwide.

This is not correct because the European Union is not a country but a supranational and intergovernmental union of twenty-seven states.

If the statements in the German WP are in one way or another incorrect please provide sources. I'll then edit that article. -- [[User:Jsde|Jsde] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsde (talkcontribs) 21:25, 5 May 2007‎ (UTC)

Needs a description of who Hayes is and relevance to section[edit]

The name Hayes pops up in the controvery section without a description of who he is and how his work is relevant. I am sure he is important in the section, but the section doesn't say how. Someone who knows should fix this so that it scans properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talkcontribs) 12:33, 24 August 2008‎ (UTC)

New Section on Recently Released Data[edit]

The data just released http://www.socrata.com/government/2008-Results-Atrazine-Monitoring-Program-for-Commu/5mw6-aae5 from the Huffington post could justify a new section. It shows the levels of Atrazine in drinking water in over 100 watersheds in the US. Some of the levels are quite high. Links could be added for the geocoded data from GeoCommons - Data: http://finder.geocommons.com/search?query=atrazine and maps http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/7808. Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could create this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esciar (talkcontribs) 11:30, 23 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Herbicide atrazine spurs reproductive problems in many creatures[edit]

As reported by Phyorg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-herbicide-atrazine-spurs-reproductive-problems.html

Herbicide atrazine spurs reproductive problems in many creatures November 28, 2011

An international team of researchers has reviewed the evidence linking exposure to atrazine – an herbicide widely used in the U.S. and more than 60 other nations – to reproductive problems in animals. The team found consistent patterns of reproductive dysfunction in amphibians, fish, reptiles and mammals exposed to the chemical.

Atrazine is the second-most widely used herbicide in the U.S. More than 75 million pounds of it are applied to corn and other crops, and it is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of groundwater, surface water and rain in the U.S.

The new review, compiled by 22 scientists studying atrazine in North and South America, Europe and Japan, appears in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

The researchers looked at studies linking atrazine exposure to abnormal androgen (male hormone) levels in fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals and studies that found a common association between exposure to the herbicide and the "feminization" of male gonads in many animals.

The most robust findings are in amphibians, said Val Beasley, a University of Illinois emeritus professor of comparative biosciences and co-author of the review. At least 10 studies found that exposure to atrazine feminizes male frogs, sometimes to the point of sex reversal, he said.

Beasley's lab was one of the first to find that male frogs exposed to atrazine in the wild were more likely to have both male and female gonadal tissue than frogs living in an atrazine-free environment. And in a 2010 study, Tyrone Hayes, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley and lead author of the review, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that atrazine exposure in frogs was associated with "genetic males becoming females and functioning as females," Beasley said.

"And this is not at extremely high concentrations," he said. "These are at concentrations that are found in the environment."

The new review describes the disruptions of hormone function and sexual development reported in studies of mammals, frogs, fish, reptiles and human cells exposed to the herbicide. The studies found that atrazine exposure can change the expression of genes involved in hormone signaling, interfere with metamorphosis, inhibit key enzymes that control estrogen and androgen production, skew the sex ratio of wild and laboratory animals (toward female) and otherwise disrupt the normal reproductive development and functioning of males and females.

"One of the things that became clear in writing this paper is that atrazine works through a number of different mechanisms," Hayes said. "It's been shown that it increases production of (the stress hormone) cortisol. It's been shown that it inhibits key enzymes in steroid hormone production while increasing others. It's been shown that it somehow prevents androgen from binding to its receptor."

The review also consolidates the evidence that atrazine undermines immune function in a variety of animals, in part by increasing cortisol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.234.195 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)

some recent edits...[edit]

Some efforts have been put into introducing bias into this article. As any experienced editor knows, refs can get lost when edits are made. It is only courteous and is certainly important for keeping an article non-biased to either add tags or look for sources rather than just right off the bat removing information that is not so out of line that it is dangerous. It is no secret that water is a well-known source of contamination for children and this information is easily available. I will look for it as soon as I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop with the accusations of bad faith. I am asking you politely; this is the last time I will ask so please do consider my request. To the content, information not supported by sources may be removed. That is not a big deal nor is it uncommon. When you find a source on the content about children, please do re-introduce it! Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Since you seem to care so much about who contributes to what, please be aware that you are the #1 contributor to this article; please do not act as though you WP:OWN it. Content you contribute, like anyone's, must be supported by reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I found the source for the children content and added it back.Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is a big deal and no it is not common and for one that is constantly reading policy, you know this quite well. Other than bios or cases of obvious error, most editors ask for a source rather than delete material in cases similar to the one in which you deleted information. Sources often get lost when new edits are done and other times a revision in which there were several sources, the "wrong" source may be deleted leaving info not in the remaining source--most editors leave a note saying "info not in source". You know very well that if you went through this encyclopedia and deleted everything that is not sourced a huge chuck of it would disappear. Selective deletion is a good way to bias an article if one wants to go that route. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
not sure what the purpose of this discussion is. the content is there again, and now is sourced. you are aware that there are "deletionists" and "inclusionists" and that this is a long running debate - both sides have good arguments. neither is completely wrong and accusations of bad faith are only unhelpful. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is to remind you of about the only WP policy you apparently do not seem to be aware of, this one:

Tagging a sentence, section, or article[edit]

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. There are other templates here for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are again behaving as though things are black and white, and they are not. The text that you quoted says "Material that fails verification may be tagged with [not in citation given] or removed." (emphasis added). I agree that I could have handled it differently but I did nothing wrong. In any case, the material is back in the article, and I don't understand how this is worth your time or mine to keep discussing. I also would appreciate it if you would stop saying negative things about me - it seems like you are now trying to find some way to "bust" me. I am working here in good faith and what mistakes I make, I acknowledge. Live and let live, eh? Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No I am not trying to "bust" you and I find the suggestion that I'm trying to bust you very odd. I am asking that we keep this and all articles fair to both sides of a controversy. For an experienced editor that is very familiar with policy I'm surprised that you defend removing information that you considered "controversial and negative" rather than leaving a "source needed" note for a few weeks as most other editors do. This is especially true if you saw the information as negative rather than neutral because it introduces bias into an article when information you don't like is deleted.
If you reread the sourcing guidelines you will note that removal is the last resort, not the first. I can only hope that you are not editing in this fashion at the Monsanto articles because you are not correct to call it "no big deal" and not worth discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
We are not talking about the content of this article anymore so there is nothing more to say here. as i have said before, if you want to discuss my editing, my Talk page is open to you. I will say it one last time - my editing is not biased and I would appreciate it you stop making accusations that it is. thanks Jytdog (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I will say what I see and in my experience editors do not automatically delete information that they question, unless it is obviously false they tag it or question it on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
after all the above, this was a bit surprising. i think the edit was fine, of course. but it was surprising. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
What is so surprising? It was not in the source offered and it was not in a source I found when I googled it. Besides the fact that it is of little importance anyway--it's not like I removed the fact that atrazine is the number one pollutant found in drinking water in the US, for instance. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
please bring a source for your claim that it is a fact that "atrazine is the number one pollutant found in drinking water in the US". the source, dated 2001, says atrazine was the most common pesticide contaminant in the US, not the most common overall contaminant at that time, and says nothing about now, 13 years later. and in any case now i am doubly surprised since you spoke quite absolutely above about tagging, not deleting, unsourced material. your principles are more flexible than they seemed to be. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh for christ's sake, this is NOT the article and I did not bother to look up the wording EXACTLY. I think that most people would get that rather than turn it into a big deal and question my principles. I really just can't stand to deal with this anymore. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who started with the questioning of principles, said that these principles were a big deal, and pushed it. For christ's sake indeed. And facts do matter. I wanted to end this discussion a long time ago; am glad it is over. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention of this Article[edit]

This article was mentioned today in a blog I sometimes read, by Hank Campbell:

If you search for atrazine, rather than get the actual atrazine site, the first entry is for Wikipedia and the very first citation in their entry is for that recent New Yorker article (as of April, 2014 anyway). Atrazine has been around since 1958 but the first citation in Wikipedia is a New Yorker article from February of 2014? More strangely, that same article is cited three times before you even get to the table of contents....Since the Wikipedia entry had clearly been hijacked by people promoting that New Yorker article and not science...

Congratulations on this achievement. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)