Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Having held my mothers hand as she received chemo for her Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma I can tell you this... if there is a even a tiny chance using Roundup increases the risk of the disease it isn't worth it.

This is a difficult position to maintain when we promote many activities that kill many people every day (e.g., driving). Sometimes the profound benefits of certain activities are worth the the "tiny chance" of downside risk. Whether this is one of those is up for debate, but it doesn't seem you're attributing any value to using glyphosate, which there doubtless is some.

There are lots of other things that have much higher chance of causing cancer. Almost everything is carcinogenic, so if you start living by that argument, Roundup is not high on the list at all.

For instance, drinking beer or wine. Alcohol is known to be carcinogenic for certain whereas with Roundup we're still talking about that tiny chance. There's always a tiny chance that a molecule from car exhaust or microparticle from a rail increases the risk of cancer, so will you say that the risk of being in a proximity of a car or a bus or a train isn't worth it?

It is important to be able to put things into context and assess the orders of magnitude. Things like beer are for certain a much bigger cancer risk than Roundup, not to mention tobacco. Still, there is much more talk about banning Roundup than beer.

I'm sorry for your loss. But what if the alternatives are generations trapped in back breaking manual labour, or impoverished people starving?

Cost benefit calculations are rarely as obvious as they seem to those grieving the cost.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact