this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
126 points (99.2% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2958 readers
337 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you should check your calculation again. A 900% increase from 9 expected cases would be 90 cases.
Also the abstract already explains your questions:
So if the local waterplant is extracting ground water where pesticides leach in, that increases the effects, which is to be expected.
Finally there is plenty of harmful chemicals that are known to be harmful but thanks to lobbying remain legal decades after the fact is established. See PFAS and Glyphosate for current examples.
To add to your chemical point, once the aquifer (the water under the ground) is contaminated with chemicals, it is nearly impossible to clean up and must be treated as it is pumped out for use. It isn't like a lake that can heal from damages over time with plants and animals accumulating the toxins. They are stuck there forever until they are either pumped out of a well or flow through the aquifer until it reachs a spring where the water reachs the surfaces, which could be 100s of kms away and take 100s of years for the water to get there.
If you've ever seen an old gas station fenced off with random posts/metal poles around the site, it is probably an array of monitoring wells to track the concentration and movement of contaminated water.
I'm kind of glad about that water thing because there's a golf course about a mile downhill and I don't know where they get their water but ours is piped in from an uphill reservoir quite far in the other direction. Which might have all kinds of other unknowns in it, of course, but I'm so old I'm probably mostly microplastics and carcinogens by now.
There is no evidence that glyphosate has any negative health effects. It's like MSG, just because you hear it, it doesn't mean it true. This is what we have science for, and a good 30 years of research.
Glyphosate is toxic to aquatic lifeforms and insects. The rapid decline in insect life and increasing damage to aquatic biomes is threatening human life even if the substance itself is not toxic to humans.
Furthermore the studies for humans are looking at typical exposure rates with higher exposure having adverse health effects. Finally the problem with toxicity is also that a substance by itself might not be toxic enough to be causing health effects at common exposure levels. However we are exposed to thousands of such substances which in sum do become toxic, even if every single one is way below their threshold.
There is plenty of evidence that the full chemical formulation in roundup is toxic - which is why they try to focus on the “active ingredient” glyphosate.
Plus it’s already been linked to fatty liver disease.
I see no reference to that link