• acosmichippo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It seems there are issues with others replicating those results. US, Japanese, and Australian researchers.

    • bedwyr@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Researchers hired by the chemistry council did not replicate the results? Well case closed.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        some yes, not all.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26694022/

        39 studies tested environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine (11 industry sponsored, 24 non-industry sponsored, 4 with no funding disclosures). Non-industry sponsored studies (12/24, 50.0%) were more likely to conclude that atrazine was harmful compared to industry sponsored studies (2/11, 18.1%) (p value=0.07).

        So even in the confirmed non-industry funded studies, only 50% found atrazine was harmful.

        • bedwyr@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Get the fuck out of here, you pretending like they can’t disguise the sources of these fucking studies what were you born yesterday? Seriously I’m asking are you that deluded or are you on the side of the enemy of Life on earth?

          I seriously want to know. Are you deluded, or are you the enemy? Of Life on earth.

        • danekrae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          So even in the confirmed non-industry funded studies, only 50% found atrazine was harmful.

          So if “only” 50% of doctors report that their patients are falling like flies because of a drug…

          We need nature. It’s not something you want to gamble with.

          • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            So if “only” 50% of doctors report that their patients are falling like flies because of a drug…

            Well, how essential is the drug? People need to eat, and killing weeds is part of making that happen. If we stop using one of our most effective and safe herbicides, there will be an impact to humans with increasing food prices, even more toxic herbicides, tilled farming (which releases CO2), or all three.

            Do you want to tell poor/food insecure people they need to be even poorer and more food insecure because maybe some frogs have reproductive issues? This isn’t a black and white issue, it’s complicated with drawbacks on both sides. We need to make decisions based on solid evidence.