Talk:Atrazine

Atrazine in Europe

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 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 May 2007‎ (UTC)

Needs a description of who Hayes is and relevance to section

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 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 August 2008‎ (UTC)

New Section on Recently Released Data

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 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 September 2009‎ (UTC)

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

As reported by Phyorg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-herbicide-atrazine-spurs-reproductive-problems.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.234.195 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Deborah A. Cory-Slechta quote

Atsme, you've added this quote to the lead:

"The way the E.P.A. tests chemicals can vastly underestimate risks.” The professor has studied atrazine’s effects on the brain and serves on the E.P.A.’s science advisory board. She further stated, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about atrazine."

I have several objections to this.

• The lede needs to reflect the body of the article, but this material has been added to the lede only
• We need MEDRS compliant sources to make statements about human health, but all we have here are quotes in newspaper articles. I"m not quite sure why the Tyrone Hayes articles are also cited here, I did not see any research by Cory-Slechta in these articles.
• The criticism is extraordinarily vague. "The EPA does not test chemicals adequately" and "there is much that is not known about atrazine" are unrebuttable statements ("weasel words") because she has not said anything specific. They don't really add anything to the article except the information that Cory-Slechta (who is a former EPA Adcom member, not a current one as stated in the text) doesn't like atrazine.

I've therefore reverted the addition of this text. If you have specific concerns that have been raised by Cory-Slechta and incorporated into secondary reviews on the topic, I think these would be good to add. Thanks Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reason for the revert is not substantive.

1. That paragraph currently reads: EPA's review has been criticized, and the safety of atrazine remains controversial.
2. I added a reason why the EPA has been criticized using inline text attribution that quotes a member of the EPA's science advisory board. You made a mistake reverting, so I reverted it back because it belongs in the article as much as the statement that the EPA's review has been criticized. Atsme☯^Consult 13:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is a tough case. If the citations support the statement "the FDA review has been criticized",that would not need medrs compliant sourcing. But if you start adding specific criticisms of the EPA review to the text, and such statements bear on the issue of human health effects, I think that may need to be medrs compliant, even if attributed. Surely Cory-Slechta has done some research on this subject that has been quoted in a review article somewhere? Also, my objection to the lede not matching the text is not addressed in your response. Thanks, Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that MEDRS is relevant for criticism of the EPA. The quote seems OK to me. it just can't be in the lead and not in the body. i moved it to the body. the broadside quote is UNDUE In the lead, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the section on Mammals? The EPA is discussed throughout that section, so please self-revert and stop whitewashing the lead. In fact, more information should be included in the lead to fill a complete paragraph. I'm not convinced a paragraph comprising a single sentence is inline with MOS, not to mention the sentence appears to be incomplete and well...dorky sounding. We don't have to repeat verbatim in the body of the article what the lead states but I have no objection to repeating her quote twice if you think it needs to be included in both places. The criticism of the EPA (and in this case statement of fact by an academic who is on the science board of the EPA) belongs in the lead with inline text attribution. Nice try, but your argument for reverting lacks substance. Atsme☯^Consult 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I guess part of my concern here is that the EPA, the FDA, the EFSA, and similar organizations are able to throw tremendous resources at evaluating a body of registration data that no single individual could sit down and read in less than a year. So I feel to some extent that these agencies deserve a little more credence than to pull out the name of an individual researcher and go into depth as to why that person thinks EPA is wrong, unless there is a special situation, such as their views being representative of a group of like minded experts.

Think about it this way. I can find individual experts who disagree with FDAs decision to pull Vioxx off the market, to label antidepressants for suicide risk, and even one or two opposed to EPAs decision to pull DDT off the market. There will always be a dissenter, and usually at least one on the advisory panel. But unless you can pull up a handful of reviews supporting that persons view as representative of a significant minority groups position, I think simply saying that controversy exists suffices for the lead.

Just my 2 cents. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 22:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Deborah A. Cory-Slechta's quote about the EPA was in the NYTimes (see footnote #13 of the 4 cited). Before I had a chance to fix the paragraph's footnotes, my edits were wrongfully reverted. You are now aware that MEDRS does not apply in this instance, and that Wikipedia:MOS/LEAD is not being followed as the lead is currently written per the following highlights:

1. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them.
2. summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
3. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows.
4. calls for well-composed paragraphs.

Deborah A. Cory-Slechta [1] is not some off-the-wall critic from lands unknown. The women is an accomplished expert in her field, a scholar, served on the science board for the EPA, and also served on numerous national review and advisory panels of the NIH, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the FDA, the National Center for Toxicological Research, the EPA, the NAS, the Institute of Medicine, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the CDC. In addition, she has served on the editorial boards of the journals Neurotoxicology, Toxicology, Toxicological Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Neurotoxicology and Teratology, and American Journal of Mental Retardation. She has held the elected positions of President of the Neurotoxicology Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology, and President of the Behavioral Toxicology Society. Atsme☯^Consult 01:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, and an outlier. if her POV were shared by the EPA, the EPA would be different. You cannot treat her voice like it is The Most Important One. It is not the mainstream view. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The woman is mainstream - she was on the EPA Board when she was quoted. You can't just discount what an expert scholar says because you don't agree with it. Everything she said is mainstream. Atrazine is BANNED in the EU and it's controversial in the US. It is currently being re-evaluated, too. Yours is not the mainstream view. You're whitewashing important information that readers need to know. No sir, what you're doing is not right. You are not following MOS/Lead, or NPOV. You do not own this article, so unless you can present a substantial reason for your reverts, please stand down. Atsme☯^Consult 01:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll also agree that we shouldn't be picking out a single person like this when we're dealing with sources available at this level like reviews and government agencies. It does not sound like this person represents the mainstream view. Comments alluding to whitewashing are not helpful here and are ignoring the issues editors are actually bringing up with including the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-links to gastroschisis deleted.

@Kingofaces43:, @Sciencere: I see no justification to deleting wiki-links for gastroschisis. The edit note says:

Wikilinks are generally not used in references. Best to leave them for article text instead.

Please provide policy or guideline that makes such a claim. I have seen wiki-links in a number of references in articles you frequent which you have not deleted. You have even used wiki-links in edit notes. This leaves me to wonder if Sciencere's explanation is the real reason the wikilink was deleted [2]:

This is my second attempt at linking the medical term "gastroschisis" to the Wikipedia page for that birth defect. It appears that someone doesn't want that link to work, probably due to the fact that it's a frightening birth defect that...

I have restored the edit by Sciencere. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)