Do you have more info? Why do you feel he's discredited?
Yeh that's fair. I guess my point is more that IARC rulings are only useful to a specific set of experts in cancer research and epidemiology, and are basically useless to the layperson who wants to reduce their cancer risk
-
-
They are most useful to farmers who lose friends and colleagues to NHL,hairy cell leukemia because until IARC finding we were told by ag researchers, weed experts and pesticide salesmen Glyphosate was so safe you could drink it...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which specific set of experts do you mean? IARC monographs not too hard for lady farmer like me. I reckon I belong to a very "specific set of experts" determined to keep rural children safe from pesticide exposure. Did GLP or ACSH inform you they were republishing your blog?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In one way they might actually help. Avoiding exposure to any classified compound is always a good idea. On the other hand, they don't help as they don't provide the means to compare between different compounds with the same classification. Or with un-evaluated chemicals.
-
Definitely disagree there. Hairdressing, for example, is a category 1 carcinogen, confirmed to cause cancer. Not useful in the least for assessing risk to the individual
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.