Talk:Glyphosate

Formula

change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right

Pesticide resistance

Ponydepression has reverted this content [1] a couple times now, but the issue isn't particularly clear. The wikilink goes to the pesticide resistance article, which is exactly what glyphosate resistance plants are. Given, the article itself does need an addition for non-pest resistance, but we still call it pesticide resistance regardless of what is resistant. Could you explain what you're seeing as the issue is here? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

while the initial reason given was wrong (statement that "herbicide is not a pesticide" is incorrect) the wikilinked article Pesticide resistance is about the development of resistance by weeds (e.g. "superweeds"), not the genetically engineered resistance of crops to pesticide. wrong reason, but correct edit. I removed the wikilink. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see why you made the change reading over it a bit now. I was mainly going by the first sentence, "Pesticide resistance describes the decreased susceptibility of a pest population to a pesticide that was previously effective at controlling the pest." That was close to what we should have for a general definition that I thought could be tweaked relatively easily, but it looks like the rest of the page needs to be generalized a bit when I read the rest of it. It doesn't need to be a pest in question, but obviously that's the predominant example. If we are just going by the article name, the article would need to be generalized to include crop glyphosate resistance, but that's not a discussion for here. I'll try tackling that reorganizing at some point, and readd the wikilink once things mesh up better. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

we're on same page :) Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

B-cell lymphoma?

Came across this review: [2] whose abstract includes " B cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicides and the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate." Should this go in? Lfstevens (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

oh god it is another article in an MDPI journal which also published that bad Seneff article. i'll have a look! Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I looked at this closely, and looked for commentary on it. Seems OK. It is about occupational exposures and was a meta-anlysis of epidemiological studies. So correlative. It found that workers exposed to glyphosate are twice as likely to get a subtype of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, namely B cell lymphoma. B cell lymphomas account for almost all NHL. That's twice as likely, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.1–3.6. Overall, according to the NCI, around 2.1 percent of adults are diagnosed with NHL at some point during their lifetime - that includes everybody. I'll add some content to our article. Nice find! Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a contrary, earlier review: [3]

actually not necessarily contrary. the 2012 review you cite is not limited to occupational exposure. There is no signal in that population. I'll add this too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

seneff source again

please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Sentence " The classification mainly pertains to industrial use of the compound rather than use in gardens."

I support this diff by @49.184.30.180:. I have been meaning to come back and delete that sentence. There is nothing in the study that says anything about "industrial formulations." David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Originally I deleted the sentence above for the reasons I struck out above, namely that it was not in the study. Now, I see it is in the other article mainstream article from U.S. News & World Report about the study, rather than from the study itself. That makes me reconsider my opposition to the sentence. I am happy to support adding it back, as long as we are clear about this: Is it indeed okay for material written about scientific studies in sources that are neither written by scientists nor published in a scientific journals when they report on that study? If so, the sentence would be acceptable. I am adding another sentence from the same article, assuming the answer is yes. David Tornheim (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Strangely, articles about reports are considered more reliable than the reports themselves. As long as the source is reliable, it should overrule the (potentially self-serving) original. Lfstevens (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

^Is this from WIki-Policy, -Guideline, or -Essay? Or from outside Wikipedia? Are you saying this is true of scientific studies, in particular? That non-scientists writing about scientific work from the mainstream press (if deemed "reliable") are more reliable than the work published by scientists in a peer reviewed journal? David Tornheim (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's about the preference for secondary sources. Lfstevens (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:MEDPOP and thus should be excluded. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosphate now ( "20 March 2015 " ) stated by WHO to "probably cause cancer"

"IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides" ( 20 March 2015 ) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

"Health Agency Says Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic - Herbicide, glyphosate, is sold by Monsanto under Roundup brand " March 20, 2015 5:05 p.m. ET http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547