Talk:2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

removing the term ecotoxicity, moving data and source

a trio of editors (2 with well known pro agrobusiness bias) continue to erode the neutrality of this article, in what appears to be white-washing:

• the term ecotoxicity was deleted
• an emergency room phycician equated ecotoxicity with the term "health effects" in his edit summary, which is incorrect besides being a biology question outside his competence, stated interest/ anthropocentric expertise.
• The single sentence about ecotoxicity of 2,4D was "moved" (really: sequestered) to the bottom of the section near invisibility under a redundant paragraph of usage instructions (which doesnt exist for any other pesticide).
• making a single sentence a subdivision is not reommended per WP:MOS.

The editor equating ecotoxicity with "health effect" makes an example of inefficient section proliferation above, yet cites efficiency in other places renamed antibiotic resistance into antimicrobial resistance deleting the latter, ignorant about the microbiological distinction, while refusing discussion. I cannot see any good in these edits, which IMO follow a political agenda. I restored the version.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right. Ecotoxity seems to naturally fall under environmental behaviour.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the various WP:TPG violations above, the edit warring was over the term ecotoxicity, which two editors deemed unnecessary because the content at the time was focusing on health effects, not so much overall ecotoxicity. If we combined the health effects and environmental behavior sections, then we'd be in a position to call the section ecotoxicity, but that would lose focus on the two main areas currently being outlined. The current layout concisely focuses in on what will interest the reader where they know what they will be reading about right away. Ecotoxicity becomes of a bit of a jargon term in that context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Am happy with its move to the "environmental behavior" section. And believe we should keep the two sections separated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed

Numerous factual inaccuracies, cherry picking, and a slough of red herrings

I came upon this article because I wanted to check the facts on the herbicide before I used it to kill the dandelions on my lawn. Since I often edit Wiki articles and am a stickler for balance and accuracy in articles, I was horrified by what I saw. I got a chemistry degree in my youth, and later designed a hazardous waste management system for the oil industry (I also got a computer science degree), so I feel qualified to criticize.

2,4-D is a possible carcinogen per WHO... What the WHO actually said per the reference in the body was:

The herbicide 2,4-D was classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on inadequate evidence in humans and limited evidence in experimental animals.... However, epidemiological studies did not find strong or consistent increases in risk of NHL or other cancers in relation to 2,4-D exposure.

and highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life. What the EPA really said was:

2,4-D generally has moderate toxicity to birds and mammals, is slightly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, and is practically nontoxic to honeybees.

• The ester forms of 2,4-D can be highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
• Carefully follow label directions to avoid harmful effects.

2,4-D was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the herbicide widely used during the Vietnam War.... According to the EPA:

2,4-D is not Agent Orange.

Agent Orange was a mixture of two different herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D (as well as kerosene and diesel fuel).

• 2,4,5-T contained high levels of dioxin, a contaminant, found to cause cancer and other health problems in people.
• 2,4-D does not contain detectable levels of dioxin.
• We canceled all uses of 2,4,5-T in 1985 and no longer allow its use in the United States.

There are a lot of red herrings and cherry picking of reference material in this article (see Wikipedia guidelines), so I detect a definite political agenda at work, especially with the allusion to the Vietnam War, which ended 40 years ago and is irrelevant and immaterial, as the lawyers say. I am beginning to come around to the opinion of Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and author of "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" when he said:

To a large extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalism than with science or ecology.

I get the impression, based on some comments about DOW employees here, that having worked and consulted for giant multinational oil companies (designing systems to track and dispose of hazardous waste without damaging the environment), that some of the anticapitalism and antiglobalism activists will consider me to be the Antichrist. Note that I have never worked for DOW, only for companies that were sued by DOW and lost. One of my brothers-in-law used to work for DOW, doing safety management, but they pensioned him off early and he's now a university professor. However, I'm going to start cleaning up this article when I get time.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You comment on the content "2,4-D was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the herbicide widely used during the Vietnam War." That content is accurate, and i think it's very relevant to an article about this chemical, and i would ask you in all seriousness not to delete that content. If i were a novice reader, i would want to know that when i came to this article. It's true, and it's crucial part of the history of this chemical. However, it may be good for the article to explain that the more toxic (to humans) component of Agent Orange was 2,4,5-T, which carried with it a by-product, dioxin.

When i check the Lancet source for the WHO classification, i find the report to end with the sentence "In considering all the relevant scientific data, the Working Group classified 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B)." That agrees with the content in the article that you have an issue with. If you want to talk about cherry-picking, it seems you've cherry-picked a quote from that article. Their conclusion was to classify the chemical as a possible human carcinogen, which is what this article reports.

Lastly, it appears you're right about the effects on aquatic life. In that case, I suggest modifying the article so that it points out that the ester form is highly toxic to aquatic life, and not 2,4-D in general. The ester form of 2,4-D is also covered by this article.

So, out of three points you made, i see one error in the article, which is the need to specify which form of the chemical is highly toxic to aquatic life. I'm concerned about your being "horrified" by what you see as inaccuracies in the article, and your listing of your credentials to evaluate the "truth" about this chemical. I have credentials as well, but i don't give them on Wikipedia, and it's not up to us as editors to interpret reality as experts, as we're assumed to not be experts but instead we need to use reliable sources to support content if it's challenged. Those reliable sources provide the expertise, and we are evaluators and gatherers of knowledge from these sources. I'd suggest being careful to not push an agenda in the article. Perhaps you're concerned that you think that too much negative-sounding content is in the article? It's not like the three points you touched above are actually incorrect (except the point about the ester form needing to be specified) but perhaps you think that the article shouldn't sound so negative? If so, then that could be fair topic for discussion. But if content is accurate then it can't be removed for inaccuracy. SageRad (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, i saw your edit which inserted various citation needed tags, and then i added proper sourcing for the claim that 2,4-D is one ingredient in Agent Orange, corrected the claim about high toxicity to specify some ester forms, and sourced the WHO classification of 2,4-D to The Lancet Oncology. SageRad (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 2,4-D was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, but the other was 2,4,5-T, and it was the one responsible for the toxicity of the stuff since it was contaminated with dioxins, which are seriously toxic. 2,4-D had nothing to do with it, and thus its presence in the compound is irrelevant and immaterial. It had nothing to do with the compound's toxicity. Besides that, the Vietnam War was over 40 years ago and the vast majority of combatants were killed by bullets, bombs, and napalm. Defective defoliants were the least of their worries when they were being carpet-bombed by B-42's. It falls into the "Other" category of things they could die of. Why bother even mentioning it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That is how the article currently reads. It clearly explains that 2,4-D was not the ingredient with the most serious effects on human health. On the other hand, i think its inclusion in Agent Orange is still a significant part of the history of this chemical and needs to be in the article. It's important enough to be included in the NPIC fact sheet. As for your "why bother" or "who cares" sentiment, i care, for one. And i know a person who is currently dying of cancer probably caused by his exposure to Agent Orange in the 60s when he was a child. He was adopted from Vietnam when he was orphaned, and now he has nasal cancer, likely a result of exposure. So i care for that reason alone, and others also do care. We are collaboratively working on these articles. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to look up the Wikipedia articles on Cherry picking (fallacy) and Red herring (fallacy). They are both logical fallacies, and thus not legitimate debating techniques. There are a lot of both of them in this article. The citations do not support the conclusions and thus it is heavily biased, unscientific, and not encyclopedic. I'm challenging the article on those grounds.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "You need to..." RockyMtnGuy your tone is uncalled for.

What if someone told you "You need to look up the Wikipedia articles on sourcing the lede"? How does that feel? Look up wikipedian.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what cherry picking means, and your opinion about what is cherry picking may be different from another person's. It's a concept that is judged relatively by point of view, and i can sense that you have a certain kind of point of view that is different from mine. The citations discussed here do seem to support the conclusions, though. I think what you're getting at is that you think the article is written in a way with an agenda to demonize 2,4-D and you'd like it to look more positive in regard to the impression that it gives about the chemical. Is that a correct sense? SageRad (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC) We have room for completeness here. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody likes to be told to "look up" something, but I don't see the problem with RockyMtnGuy's tone. As for the Lead, it's supposed to summarize the article. This one doesn't, it's more like a collection of the most negative content in the article, placed in as conspicuous a location as possible. I don't know how, why, or when that happened, or by whom, but it did, and should be fixed so it's more representative of the body. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Geogene your first time appearance here, as in several other instances (Talk:P. Robinson Fur Cutting Company, P. Robinson Fur Cutting Company, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Housatonic River) looks like WP:hounding of SageRad and myself. Because you are not contributing anything to the article, please keep your comments of this page. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn...this is why I normally stay away from environmental science articles. Happy editing. Geogene (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind Geogene's comment. This is also my first edit to this page, i believe. I just happened to be reading this page yesterday when RockyMtnGuy made his edit. I do think the lede could use editorial attention. My issue here with RockyMtnGuy's edits were that he's trying to do so by challenging sourcing, and yet these points are well sourced now. (We did make the one technical correction, and that is good progress.) If we wish to discuss the lede editorially, then let's do so explicitly, instead of using sourcing as a proxy for that discussion as RockyMtnGuy was doing. In fact, i just removed the last "citation needed" tag there, to bring the editorial discussion to this talk page instead of using those tags as proxy for expressing concerns. The content was sourced in the body of the article.

I happen to think the lede is fairly good, but that perhaps the WHO report and aquatic toxicity of some esters is out of place there. I think the Agent Orange mention is good, as that's a big part of the historical significance of this chemical, but then if it must carry the disclaimer afterward in another sentence then it becomes gangly for the lede. I think that the chemical's use in a GMO HT seed and chemical combo technology is very significant and does belong in the lede. I don't buy the argument RockyMtnGuy put in the "citation needed" tag (which was "this is a red herring to use the loaded words genetically modified"). The use of 2,4-D in a new class of herbicide-tolerant crop combo is *not* a red herring. It's very significant, and the most important recent event in the history of this chemical. And "genetically modified is *not* a loaded word. It's a common factual term for a technological process. If it scares some people then it's because some people are scared of it. We can also mention spiders in an article even though some people are scared of spiders. It's not there to scare people. It's just fact and significant regarding the chemical 2,4-D in human society. SageRad (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the sourcing, I'm challenging the chemistry and the logic. As any good chemist will tell you, 2,4-D is only moderately toxic, so calling it very toxic is a factual misrepresentation. And as any good courtroom judge will tell you, it doesn't matter if a fact is true if it is irrelevant and immaterial - he will throw it out on those grounds. The EPA said, straight up so that it was totally clear to everyone, that 2,4-D is not Agent Orange so that is what the article should say. The fact that 2,4-D was a component in Agent Orange is irrelevant and immaterial because as everyone who has studied logic should know, correlation does not imply causation. Logically speaking, fallacious logic will lead to false conclusions even if the basic statements are true. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and unbiased, and that is what I am striving for. On the other hand, this article apparently is biased to a radical political agenda and that is what I am against because the political types have used loaded language and fallacious logic to lead the readers to false conclusions of their own choosing. My background is in chemistry and computer science (i.e. logic). With my science background, I don't like to see BS (i.e. Bad Science) in articles about chemistry. And before someone introduces ad hominem reasoning about my motives, keep in mind that it is normally categorized as an informal fallacy and that I have been around Wikipedia for a while and can be ruthless to people who present fallacious arguments. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The NPIC said straight up that 2,4-D was in Agent Orange so you're distorting things with a bias when you report only that the EPA said it's not Agent Orange. Both are true, and the article reports the reality. What i sense is that you'd like every mention of Agent Orange to be struck from the article or located in a footnote. That's an editorial position, not a factual question, and i disagree with it.

In your opening salvo, you quoted Patrick Moore with a conspiracy theory on the motivations of people who care about the environment. I find your accusations to be out of line regarding this page. You keep making reference to logic, but what i hear is you saying that this page doesn't read favorably enough for 2,4-D for your taste, and you think this page has been taken over by communists. SageRad (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think this article could use some good editorial work, but i don't think it will be possible with your presence here being this contentious and pulling so hard in one ideological direction. SageRad (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Round 2: Logical fallacies

You clearly don't understand what I am talking about, and I am not here to give a course in Logic 101, but I provided links so just RTFWA (Read The Wikipedia Articles). The ones on logical fallacies are quite good and there are a lot of them, there is a lot of great reading to do. It's not about my taste, it's about the logical fallacies and incorrect chemistry, or BS (Bad Science) as I like to call it. This is written as a highly political article and politicians and similar types are fond of using fallacious arguments to support their point of view. Or lying without getting caught, as some people interpret it (e.g. "I did not have sex with that woman"). "Vietnam War" and "Agent Orange" are loaded language intended to bias the reader, but have nothing to do with the chemistry of 2,4-D. In this article, it is true that 2,4-D is IN agent Orange and it is also true that 2,4-D is NOT Agent Orange, but only the latter statement is relevant and material. The former is a Red herring (fallacy) because in the rules of logic, correlation does not imply causation. That is a key logical fallacy that many people don't understand so you shouldn't use it in an article. Correlation is irrelevant because 2,4-D was not the cause of the toxicity of Agent Orange, it was the dioxin in the mixture (and dioxin contamination of the 2,4-D samples was also a factor in some flawed cancer studies as well). The references are true but involve Cherry picking (fallacy) of the text to arrive at invalid conclusions and therefore should not be used to support the contentions in this encyclopedia article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention that I got much of my training in identifying logical fallacies from editing articles about tobacco. It really brings the paid corporate shills out of the woodwork, and you can't beat them for distorted and perverse logic. They will argue that black is white and down is up and smoking is good for you and it actually prevents cancer. Just ignore the judges' opinions and the hundreds of billions of dollars in damage settlements. For less adventurous fun, mention General Motors streetcar conspiracy in an article about GM. They will argue that it never really happened, it wasn't really a conspiracy, the words "streetcar" and "conspiracy" don't really mean anything, and that buying up and shutting down streetcar systems was what the public really wanted them to do. Hours of fun. Greenpeace and some other groups I could name aren't in the same league but they are just amateurs in the logic-chopping business.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Round 3: Greenpeace

I mentioned Patrick Moore (environmentalist) book "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" because my wife was reading it and since I have a degree in chemistry she kept asking me, "Honey, is this true?" and I had to keep saying, "Yes Dear, that is true." Moore was a founder of Greenpeace and president of it for a while, although nowadays they don't return his phone calls and deny he was ever important. Moore has a PhD in ecology from the University of British Columbia, so he's more on the hard scientific end of the spectrum. He said that he left Greenpeace because it took a sharp turn to the political left and evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Where they really lost him was their campaign to ban anything containing chlorine. It is actually a life threatening idea, Chlorine is the cheapest way to sterilize drinking water, and ordinary table salt is sodium chloride. His reaction was that if 3rd world countries ban chlorine, millions of people are going to die. Which is true.

I had some personal experience with this with the Alpine Club of Canada. We took over the Kokanee Glacier Chalet from BC Parks because we could run it cheaper than them. Normally, to control bacteria and viruses in alpine huts, although we use pure natural spring water for drinking, boiled if we have doubts about it, we put a few drops of chlorine bleach into the dishwater - which is very effective at killing pathogens. However, apparently having gotten the memo from Greenpeace that CHLORINE IS BAD, BC parks had banned chlorine bleach. Somebody came in with a norovirus, they coughed on the dishes, and within a few days, everybody in the building (about 20 people) was sick as a dog, coughing and puking. Noroviruses are extremely hardy so to get rid of them you have to evacuate the building send in a team with masks, rubber gloves and protective clothing, and bleach every surface in site. So we had to present the option to BC Parks: do you want to allow us to use bleach, or do you want us to shut this multimillion dollar edifice down permanently because it's unfit for human habitation? So now they allow bleach. And as far as sodium chloride is concerned, I worked with a guy who heard that SALT IS BAD, so he completely eliminated salt from his diet. He ended up in the Intensive Care Unit with acute kidney failure because human beings need to eat sodium chloride to survive. If you don't get at least a little salt in your diet, you will die. So, I completely agree with Moore, bad science (BS) can kill people.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)