Talk:Pyriproxyfen

Genotoxicity

Based on the available evidence - experimental studies of genotoxicity (Ames test; in vitro chromosome aberration and gene mutation tests; chinese hamster cells test; in vitro DNA repair study using human epithelioid cells), it was concluded that pyriproxyfen has no genotoxic potential.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/publications

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/about/corporatedocs

--Costa Paulo Pedro P. R. (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

is the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) a reliable source?

Hi, Paulo. I'm pretty sure you are good in adding that information to the article. I saw that you added it before, to counter some conspiracy theory that was added, and you got reverted. I'm fairly certain the user who reverted you (an IPv6 user) was trying to revert the addition of the conspiracy theory, and included your edit because it was made in the context of that conspiracy theory. If you want to re-add that info, all you need to do is provide some context, such as creating a safety section, or explaining why the EFSA was motivated to test for genotoxicity in the first place. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Alleged relation to microcephaly

I have just added a section to the page about the alleged connection to microcephaly in Brazil. I see that similar sections have been deleted before. In light of the fact that a major Brazilian state (Rio Grande do Sul) has stopped using Pyriproxyfen because of this alleged connection (as cited now on the page), I think the edit is now important enough to stand. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.92.69 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. In fact the phrase "Rumor of link to..." is too weak. It should read "Alleged link to..." "Rumor" makes it sound as though it has been debunked, which it has not. There is obviously much more science to be done, but the allegation against pyriproxyfen has been made by a scientifically credible body, and the correct term is either "alleged" or "proposed" or "possible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.172.22 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Rumor" makes it sound as though it has been debunked, which it has not. Yes it has. Thoroughly. Look at the section above this one: Pyriproxyfen has been shown to not be genotoxic for years. It physically cannot be the cause of microcephaly.

...the allegation against pyriproxyfen has been made by a scientifically credible body, No, it hasn't. It was made by yet another anti-Monsanto fear-mongering group with a history of making easily debunked claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

STOP EDITING THE PAGE

For crying out loud, I have two RSs to add and can't do it because a couple people keep tweaking their grammar. Knock it off! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've managed to squeeze in: This is "alleged", not "Hypothesized." There's a huge difference, and you need to compare the terms if you don't know this. There is now some external criticism from David Gorski. There is also a link to the WHO's published info on the chemical. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Water additives

A rant follows: how the heck can any government add anything to drinking water? I do not care if it is not teragenic. It should not be done as a matter of principle. Let us link this article to other backhand additives: Water fluoridation springs to mind. Zezen (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)