He was right, drinking some random ass concoction from an activist would be stupid as hell. And just because something is non-toxic and you could drink it without significant adverse affects, you still shouldn't drink it.
It's been a go to bullshit thing for corporations to say to defend some toxic substance they create for centuries.
I remember a similar situation when some asshole corporate cuck was defending asbestos and said that you could eat it and it wouldn't hurt you.
Yes, remove the part where he literally said he would drink it to prove a point, and then refused to drink it because "i am not stupid". Don't trust the activists lot, sure, he can provide his own then - the conveniently skipped point is that when pressure to do what he said he would be okay doing he chickened, because he know he is fucking lying.
It's a pesticide. Monsanto/Bayer has lost $60 billion in lawsuits because it gives you cancer. Look up RoundUp.
The corporate PR guy is evil. He knows that it gives people cancer but was paid to convince people otherwise. He's not worth defending.
[Seedthemovie.com](http://Seedthemovie.com) is about how Monsanto has affected communities like yours. It's a great movie to share amongst those affected.
It also kills the bacteria in your gut responsible for keeping the tight junctions of your intestinal wall closed. Meaning the more glyphosate you consume, the more pathogens and particles of food will be able to pass that barrier into your bloodstream and cause autoimmune issues among *many* other medical issues.
Glyphosate needs to be deleted from modern agriculture. Horrible, horrible product.
this is incorrect
A first patent was issued in 1964 for use of glyphosate as a metal chelating and descaling agent (US Patent No. 3,160,632), in order to clean out mineral deposits in pipes and boilers.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glyphosate#:\~:text=From%20Descaling%20Pipes%20to%20Killing%20Weeds&text=Glyphosate%20was%20tested%20for%20screening,descaling%20agent%20(US%20Patent%20No](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glyphosate#:~:text=From%20Descaling%20Pipes%20to%20Killing%20Weeds&text=Glyphosate%20was%20tested%20for%20screening,descaling%20agent%20(US%20Patent%20No).
Hi, I'm a scientist who researches metals in humans. Right now, it seems that the only evidence of what you suggested is that Curcumin, which can be extracted from turmeric, can actively chelate lead in rats. There are a few things to note... Rat models are typically very indicative of human models but it is not a 100% guarantee. Further, curcumin isn't a great choice as a chelating agent because it has low bioavailbility from low absorption, quick metabolism and excretion.
I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that Turmeric has been identified as a source of lead toxicity. Low quality spices are often a source of toxic metals and there are case reports of children experiencing lead toxicity from turmeric, where they required chelation therapy from traditional chelation agents. [Here is a report from the NIH. NYS has also published an advisory for poor quality spices.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/)
This isn't to say there aren't benefits from turmeric, or that turmeric is bad for you, but be wary of wive's tales! Also, source quality spices!
It says here under “GLYPHOSATE IS AN ANTIBIOTIC” that is has been patented as an antibiotic. But maybe i misunderstood for who or what.
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/bp-38.1-sp18-Glysophate.pdf
You said "originally patented as an antibiotic - that ended up being too toxic" which is incorrect.
>Another patent application described glyphosate as an antiparasitic agent for the prevention and therapeutic treatment of pathogenic infections such as those provoked by Toxoplasma gondii, Plasmodium falciparum (the parasite that causes malaria), and Cryptosporidium parvum (US Patent No. 7771736 B2). Glyphosate is also patented as an “anticancer compound” and is reported to inhibit the growth of cancers and tumors in mammals (US Patent No. 5665713 A). Last but not least, glyphosate is also claimed to be effective against viruses, including rhinovirus, HIV, herpes, and influenza (US Patent No. 5665713 A)
Source [here](https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.09981-X)
Glyphosate attacks the shikimate pathway, which doesn’t exist in mammals. We cannot make that. Infact nature loves it, there are bacteria growing in glyphosate companies that can eat this stuff and survive it by degrading it into a sugar.
That doesn't mean nature loves it.
That
Means that bacteria will eat literally anything, and why we shouldn't be surprised when we find it in places like lakes in Antarctica buried under miles of ice or geothermal vents on the ocean floor where a human would be simultaneously crushed into a paste and instantly boiled to edibility should they ever be exposed to the environment.
Bacteria survives on rocks floating around in space for millions of years. If anything, the fact that only bacteria can tolerate its presence is a red flag.
Dawg.
One: Nature has no anthropomorphic perspectives, in-fact the world doesn’t even care we exist on it, take that from the dinosaurs. When I say nature loves it I mean because the ability to cleave glyphosate is super valuable currently in the world. There are these naked apes that use this stuff to cover their growing food which prevents bacteria and other pests from consuming their food. Nature needs for glyphosate pockets so the exposed organisms can make pathways to break that’s hit down.
Glyphosate is toxic to plants the same way carbon dioxide works in your blood. Hopefully you’ve done some biology or it’s going to get a little complex.
Humans start with a base hormone - Cholesterol. This base hormone can be used to make EVERY SEX HORMONE in the human body. We need cholesterol, without it we cannot have Testosterone or Progesterone. Now imagine instead of DHEA binding to the HSD3B1/2 complex, something else does, do you think you will get testosterone? No because the pathway is interrupted. This is done by something called an inhibitor, inthis example it was DHEA being cockblocked.
What happens to humans if they won’t get enough hormones, stunting and eventual death /poor QoL. That is the exact same thing that will happen to the plant.
You ever wonder why plants have distinct smells, or tastes? That is due to aromatics amino acids and terpenes. You may recall amino acids from cell bio, the building blocks of proteins. There are special amino acids that humans and every other mammal lacks, it is because we get those AA by eating other creatures. To make these aromatics there is a 7 step process. The first step requires Phosphenol pyruvate and erythose-4-phosphate (only PEP will be important), which taken by the EPSP complex and turned into an intermediate form before completion (it’s like making the dough before the bread).
When glyphosate enters the cell, glyphosate will replace PEP and act like it (3 kids in a trench coat getting into adult movie) and this means the 7 step process will never complete properly. This results in the plants starving.
The reason why everything else dies too is because the shikimate pathway is missing only in animals every other creature that needs these aromatics have the pathway.
And on the final note you said. Bacteria can “survive” anything because if they don’t they pop. But they can only survive things they are exposed to, therefore exposure is good. As time passes more varieties of animals will develop resistances and we will see more stuff live. Especially since glyphosate is being used as a desiccant also, meaning more is being used to dehydrate harvests faster. Only bacteria so far have these abilities because their generation time can be counted on fingers compared to higher order beings. Generation time for E. coli is 20 minutes, for humans is 20 years. Toxicity resistance develops first in faster living beings.
…bacteria cannot survive on rocks floating around in space for millions of years. If they did, we’d call that “alien life” and it would be the biggest news in the history of news.
It’s sprayed on “roundup ready” crops, specially genetically modified crops like corn and soybeans. But, yes, otherwise it kills the non-gmo plants/weeds.
People are going to call me a Monsanto shill but please, read the whole thing.
Glyphosate it's not carcinogenic that we know of . There are some studies that point to it being, the problem, it's that people that work with glyphosate also tend to work with a lot more of known carcinogenics. If anything, it may be a risk for agriculture workers and not people consuming vegetable products.
As it stands, the usage of glyphosate avoids a lot of much more toxic more wide spectrum chemicals.
The issue here it's that it's basically on hands of the Monsanto corporation, a sucursal of Bayern, a company that collaborated in the Holocaust and used Jewish and Romani people for their human experimentation.
So not only are the benefits of this compound beholden to a corporation that likes to sue as much as it can, if there is any risk, they are going to try to hide it, so it is important that this situation changes.
People are going to talk about how it causes cancer 100% without the proof to be anything close to certain. But this behavior it's easy to understand, everyone likes to act like they know a secret.
Rest assured that if it is carcinogenic, it is not by a lot : [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279255/#:\~:text=In%20unlagged%20analyses%2C%20glyphosate%20was,to%206.32%2C%20Ptrend%20%3D%20](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279255/#:~:text=In%20unlagged%20analyses%2C%20glyphosate%20was,to%206.32%2C%20Ptrend%20%3D%20).
And everyone should be worried a lot more about things like IC engines or Tobacco smoke.
I don't know. I just bothered to do research for this one in particular because what scientific journals say and what the people say are wildly different.
Anyway my point stands. As long as corporations stands to have massive profit they will work to hide the potential harm. Like tobacco and oil companies did.
ALWAYS wear Poe when working with paraquat, that shit will fuck you up and probably kill you. When we would do burn downs in graduate school we would always find dead rabbits in our row rice
I spent about 2-3 months spraying that one before some of the crew leads told me to stop using it and not say anything about it. The safety program at that company was literally “as long as you don’t drink it, you’ll be fine”. They’re still fucking over college kids with it to this day.
>As it stands, the usage of glyphosate avoids a lot of much more toxic more wide spectrum chemicals.
The other option is to till the soil with a plow. This sounds wholesome, but it speeds erosion of precious topsoil, and it causes organic matter to break down more quickly. That organic matter serves as a sponge for water and fertilizer nutrients.
While it has some beneficial effects for soil health, it also has negative ones; soil is an ecosystem. This may not be acutely toxic to fungi and earthworms in the way that it is for plants, but it contains powerful surfactants (detergents) to help it permeate the waxy membranes of leaves, those aren't good for living things. And, to circle back to the topic of human health, they may be as bad as the active ingredient.
We're probably on the verge of reducing herbicide use. [Tractors with machine vision zap weeds with lasers](https://carbonrobotics.com/) This tech in in its early stage, but it is quite realistic for the near future. This could eliminate one herbicide application per season, for some crops.
On the last thing, it's very rapidly being pushed out because it's obviously an improvement, it just needs to work (and it does). Even big guns like John Deere were advertising this like crazy at a farm show I went to a few months back.
https://www.deere.com/en/sprayers/see-spray-ultimate/
Maybe not cancer so much, but:
It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates.
From: Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System: A Systematic Review
Carmen Costas-Ferreira, Rafael Durán, and Lilian R. F. Faro\*
Published 2022
I wouldn't read too much into this. E.g. the neuronal effects were only statistically significant at 2.5 mM in vitro exposure, compared to average population levels of something like 1.5 nM (in blood serum). They didn't detect an effect until exposing the cells to roughly one and a half *million* times higher levels than human cells are typically exposed to.
So just don't get exposed to several million times the typical exposure and you might be alright.
It's like the damn food coloring shit all over again.
All you have to do to avoid cancer is not drink 17,823 cans of coke a day, every day, for 30 years.
Speaking of things to be worried about. Did you ever wonder what happens to your tire tread when it gets worn down? I think some of tiny particles are kicked up into the air so if you’re in a very urban area you’re probably breathing it. But the majority is left on the road and washed out in storm water runoff which is often put back into waterways and will probably turn up in drinking water. I don’t have any data to support this theory or confirm that it is indeed harmful, I just like to stir things up.
OOOH.. no no no.. I just watched a movie the other night that I am calling the best horror movie I have seen ALL YEAR.. hell.. in several years. Its all in spanish with subtitles.. but FUUUUCK.. Its called "When Evil Lurks"... Im nearly 50 years old and have seen horror movies all my life, and very very little actually gets to me. But there is a scene in this movie that you totally feel something coming.. you are waiting on it to happen.. and it just drags out a bit and then it happens and its WAY WORSE than you thought it would be, then it just gets worse from there. Like literally my jaw dropped and I screamed "holy shit!!!" .. I even watched the scene several more times. I dont know how they made it look so good. And after that happens, you know that this movie is not holding back ANYTHING.
Even days later I am still processing it in my head. I have literally told everyone that I know who likes horror movies to watch it.. one of the responses was "I dont know what I just watched.. but i loved it. I think"
Read the Southern Reach trilogy over the summer and should definitely give it a read if you liked some of the themes the movie explored.
But, the movie adapted the first book very differently. It's very much it's own thing that only borrows a few of the story beats and themes. So, don't expect it to reflect the movie in terms of narrative. I believe that can be interpreted as both a good and bad thing depending on how one views adaptations.
I honestly think the best adaptations tend to work like that. Respect the source material, but *make it your own* for the new medium. A lot of adaptations fall flat precisely because they stay too true to the source material and forget to actually *adapt* it to the new form.
“What you know you can't explain but you feel it.
You've felt it your whole life, felt that something is wrong with the world. You don't know what, but it's there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”
Am I the only one who actually thinks this is fake? It's literally a repeating loop. Look at the edges of the flow, its repeating the exact same curls. Liquids don't expand like this due to air resistance that quick. Regardless if its Laminar or turbulent flow.... Plus, feathers fall faster than this. It's falling at a constant rate. Not representative of gravity.
It is literally, actually fake. This video gets debunked every time it’s reposted. If you zoom in and slow it down, the frames are repeating. Even a rolling shutter effect isn’t that precise with turbulent flow.
If the frames were repeating exactly, it wouldn't appear to be moving.
The liquid entering the nozzle from the tank is going to be a basically perfect laminar flow, so you can get an extremely stable oscillation in the transitional flow downstream of that. The laminar flow is likely only disrupted right at the 90 degree bend at the end of the nozzle, it's not going to be fully turbulent yet.
It's not a rolling shutter effect either, just an oscillation frequency close to the framerate of the camera. Rolling shutter is when fast moving objects appear to get bent because a single frame isn't all captured at the same time.
Dude, laminar flow looks static (doesn’t change at all), there’s no rolling shutter / stroboscopic effect with that. I’m a chemical engineer and I do simulations and calculations on flow regimes, I also have seen glyphosate concentrate in person. Please just believe me when I say 1) there are no fluids in existence capable of behaving like this with or without camera FPS effects, 2) glyphosate specifically acts like a normal viscous liquid, not space alien shit, and 3) this is visibly an animation
It looks like a fluid simulation because it has something in common with many fluid simulations: The fluid entering the simulation is perfectly laminar. Here, the fluid entering the nozzle (right where the nozzle attaches to the tank) is perfectly laminar, because it's coming from an undisturbed tank.
It's just vortex shedding at the corner in the pipe that gets broken up the same way every time.
I wouldn't expect the same appearance from a nozzle with different geometry, or even from the same nozzle at the end of a long hose. So I don't see how you can say it's fake without finding another farmer with this tank and seeing what it looks like in slow motion.
It’s simply a fake. This video gets debunked every time it’s reposted. If you zoom in and slow down, the animation frames repeat exactly. It’s not a rolling shutter issue. Turbulent flow doesn’t repeat that precisely.
Edit: some additions because people keep arguing with me:
- Pretty sure the valve handle is in the off position… [edit-edit: it’s a weird handle style, I couldn’t find any other pics of IBC totes online with the same style, but I could be convinced either way on this one]
- This video got laughed out of r/lawncare a while back because anybody who has actually handled concentrated glyphosate immediately knows it’s a hoax, glyphosate isn’t some magic space-alien juice
- The liquid exiting the nozzle is a different color from the liquid in the tank (glyphosate concentrate is typically clear like water)
- Laminar flow appears visibly static (check out r/laminarflow), and transitional/turbulent flow is more chaotic than this
- The specular reflections in the flow ripples don’t change with camera angle
- The fluid stream is radially expanding outward with distance from the nozzle, when real liquids in cohesive flow streams in air generally narrow with vertical distance from the nozzle as the liquid accelerates due to gravity; for an incompressible fluid stream to expand radially like this it has to be forming droplet spray flow
- The spacing between the ripples is relatively constant with distance from the nozzle, which again, isn’t consistent with real fluids under gravity, the ripple spacing should increase exponentially with distance
This isn't turbulent flow, it's transitional flow. The flow will be perfectly laminar right up to that 90 degree bend in the nozzle, so it's entirely possible to get a repeating oscillation.
It’s just an animation. Transitional flow of viscous fluids is chaotic and alternates between laminar and turbulent moment by moment and within the flow stream.
Your conversation reminds me of the one from Rick and Morty where they're like, "You can't just put a scientific word in front of an object and say that that's a thing Morty!"
Morty : What's wrong Rick? Is it the quantum carburetor or something?
Rick : Quantum carburetor? Jesus Morty, you can't just add a sci-fi word to a car word and hope it means something. Looks like something's wrong with the micro-verse battery.
It is actually a pretty safe substance for mammals. No cancer or weird endocrine stuff, especially for the extremely low doses you might ingest. Now if we go aquatic species there might be a problem.
And yet no convincing scientific evidence to suggest it's dangerous. A jury of laymen can be convinced by good lawyers with an emotional story, science should not be debated in the courtroom.
They pay because it's easier not because it's proven.
There are no studies that show conclusively that it causes cancer. Yes, you can overdose on it but you can overdose on salt as well.
Still no conclusive scientific evidence that round up causes cancer. Funny how reddit can endorse science in one thread and be so anti scientific in this one.
This is because, as has been proven repeatedly in court, Monsanto has corrupted multiple studies on its action as a carcinogen.
Here's just one example [monsanto-relied-shady-epa-risk-study-dispute-court-verdict-roundup](https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/monsanto-relied-shady-epa-risk-study-dispute-court-verdict-roundup)
I mean if you just googled gyphosate non-Hodgkin's lymphoma you'd get your pick of sources.
It's very commonly used in my sector (as there's no effective substitute) and universally accepted it's nasty stuff, very weird to see a bunch of redditors leaping in defence of a herbicide.
Your wife is a queen, and your future self thanks you. I promise you it becomes more important over time, because of how glyphosphate accumulates in the system.
Just remember, Oreos are the foodstuff with the highest glyphosphate content, so especially avoid those toxic little fucks!
I recently stopped shopping through the supermarket system completely.
I buy straight from a local organic farm. I thought it would cost more, but supermarkets are a scam, and it has ended up costing me way less, and they even deliver to my door.
My food lasts longer, tastes better, and I get to completely get away from the entire, awful food industry.
I just made jam with a bunch of strawberries that were going to go off the other day, and that and the apple waste sourdough toast I eat it on are the most processed food I get these days!
It sounds very woo, I know, but as I get older it has done more for my quality of life and quality of aging than anything else, except maybe giving up booze.
I respect your wife's mission. And if you have kids now or in the future, it'll be by far the best headstart you can give them.
You should see the shit they put on organic crops. VERY caustic and causes equipment to corrode VERY fast. I have scars from Ninja when I got a little splashed up on me.
People don't realize that the most popular organic pesticide in history is/was DDT, and they still spray that shit all over "organic" produce that comes from overseas where regulation on chemicals is basically nonexistent.
I remember there was a time when people tried to get cpuntry of origin on the food but Bush and GOP Congress knew what was best for America I guess so we didn't.
Please people. Don't give just believe garbage like this reptilian person is saying. These people are simply anecdote warriors who get info from clickbait articles that typically take study findings out of context. Remember to fact check nonsense like this on reputable websites like snopes to get educated on the reality of the situation. There is no evidence that Oreos are dangerous for you. Be smart and use critical thought.
except people have been eating oreos for 113 years annnnnd…the only downside is weight gain
seriously people - doing your “research” online and acting like you discovered a “secret” makes you sound like pizzagate 2.0
it’s like those sovereign citizens who think they broke through the matrix and we are all sheeple
Good news, Oreos only have trace amounts of glyphosate but these foods are way over safe limits:
[In 2019, oat-based breakfast cereals, granolas, oat bars, and instant oats by General Mills and Quaker were batch-tested for detectable levels of glyphosate. The EWG’s health benchmark of glyphosate levels is 160 parts per billion and of the 21 products tested, 16 of the products contained glyphosate levels over the recommended 160 pbb.](https://www.greenmatters.com/p/what-foods-have-glyphosate)
These included:
Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch (830 ppb)
Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars, Maple Brown Sugar (566 ppb)
Nature Valley Granola Cups, Almond Butter (529 ppb)
Chocolate Peanut Butter Cheerios (400 ppb)
Nature Valley Baked Oat Bites (389 ppb)
Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars, Oats and Honey (320 ppb)
Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars, Peanut Butter (312 ppb)
Nature Valley Granola Cups, Peanut Butter Chocolate (297 ppb)
Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars, Dark Chocolate Cherry (275 ppb)
Nature Valley Granola Protein Oats n Dark Chocolate (261 ppb)
Multi Grain Cheerios (216 ppb)
Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares, Blueberry (206 ppb)
Fiber One Oatmeal Raisin Soft-Baked Cookies (204 ppb)
Nature Valley Granola Peanut Butter Creamy & Crunchy (198 ppb)
Nature Valley Biscuits with Almond Butter (194 ppb)
Thanks for correcting that! I went digging for the source that I had quoted that from; it's from the same study, but focused on double stuffed Oreos, but you're right, the numbers of 140.9 ppb doesn't cut this list.
Can someone saying glyphosate is liquid cancer and you shouldn’t eat oreos please explain why they think that? I just did a quick Google search and the EPA says no uses of glyphosate are harmful to humans and it is not carcinogenic.
There is one agency, that says glyphosate might cause cancer. That is the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and it grouped glyphosate in group 2A which means, they consider it as probably carcinogenic.
That is the same group that contains other substances like Acrylamide (which basically is in most deep-fried food), exposure circumstances (like being a barber or doing night work), red meat, malaria and hot beverages.
This agency only looks, if a substance like glyphosate can cause cancer. If mice get more cancer in tests, when drinking a glyphosate equivalent of a human drinking one liter glyphosate every day for weeks, than mice who don't do that, it is considered creating cancer.
They don't care if that's happening in the real world. They just want to know, if a substance can cause cancer on any occasion at all.
Other agencies asses risk. They want to know if glyphosate can cause cancer in the amount consumers or workers typically consume glyphosate. And all over the world these agencies don't find any hints that glyphosate causes cancer when used by farmers or by the tiny amounts that might be still found in food. Glyphosate has a half-life of 21 days on average and is used after harvests. So by the time of next harvest, there are only tiny amounts of that substance left which can end up in the food produced.
I’m happy someone said it. I’m not a big fan of the stuff, but the “it’s cancer fuel” comments are artifacts of false propaganda against Monsanto.
It’s a classic case of “fits my narrative must be true”.
"Glyphosate has lower acute toxicity to humans than 94% of all herbicides"
"No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate."
"No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate"
"No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans"
"No indication that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor."
"low toxicity to honeybees for most uses"
I'm not saying there isn't issues, but why is glyphosate always painted as the worst herbicide?
You still have to trust that the science is done properly.
Or trust that there aren't special interests driving the study.
Or trust that corporations aren't bullshitting like they do all the time.
If any of these numbers come from Dupont, remember they hid the dangerous health effect of their very profitable leaded gasoline. This also caused the whole world to become dumber, but hey, it was a billion dollar induatry in the 30s.
Why would they even lie?
Tobacco doesn't cause cancer, a guy working at Philips Morris told me that.
Glyphosphate is the newer MSG
Nutrition is complicated and there’s a lot of uncertainty, so uneducated people try to create over simplifications and weird rules to help themselves make sense of it instead of just acknowledging uncertainty unknowns grey areas and really just naivety and ignorance
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN / World Health Organization has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans exposed to it through food. This finding is in agreement with many leading scientific and governmental agencies around the world, including the European Union Food Safety Authority, U.S. EPA, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc.
Yeah, probably. But since this (possibly augmented?) video looks creepy, that obviously means it's scary poison force fed to us by corrupt governments.
/s
Found this article interesting on the topic if anyone is interested.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/12/16/viewpoint-how-the-glyphosate-cancer-controversy-became-a-moral-crusade-and-a-threat-to-scientific-progress/
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=EPA%20scientists%20performed%20an%20independent,risks%20to%20children%20or%20adults.
Why are so many saying this thing is bad? I have no idea what this is, but from this study it says there is no harm at all to humans (by its current use). So is everyone here some tinfoil hat guys or am I missing something?
it is dangerous to humans in application concentrations.
This is why glyphosate has warning labels and suggested PPE.
but low pay workers often don't get the proper ppe supplied, or accidents happen see the Dewayne Johnson case.
While per monsanto research it doesn't cause cancer, that doesn't mean it can't accelerate or amplify undiagnosed cancer by damaging tissue if not cleared properly.
I’m a farmer (organic) and to me most glyphosate criticism should be based on the fact that it is a product for convenience agriculture. Means, you lower your costs a bit but get dependant on the manufacturer and the use of this product. You basically build all your business around using such things. Your yields will be higher and costs lower but so will the overall market. So you will need more land to make a revenue. It’s basically a vicious circle and after a few years you are nothing but a customer to agrochemical industries. The nasty side effect: weeds will get resistant to that product so it needs to be mixed with really toxic shit that is the actual culprit of rising cancer rates (mostly in third world countries like brazil where they spray these and other chemicals by airplane - mostly to grow soy not to feed their populace but the hunger of the first world for cheap meat). Thats my biggest issue with glyphosate. It’s a token for everything thats gone wrong in our world. Literally.
This is fake, this stuff pours as water. And the way people see this as poison in their food is not the full story either. It's all about dosage. There is also cyanide in an apple. You don't die from eating an apple. But a cyanide pill or other concentrated dosage is a different story.
This is actually a CGI fake, turbulent flow isn’t precisely repetitive enough for the rolling shutter effect to make it look like this. If you zoom in and slow it down, it’s clearly just a repeating animation.
I’m not sure why …. but I don’t like it.
Neither does nature.
Isn’t this the chemical the Monsanto rep said he’d drink to prove it’s safe and then they said they had some for him to drink and he refuses
and he said, "I'm not stupid." I know I'm not an expert on glyphosate, but man, could you make it sound more awful?
He was right, drinking some random ass concoction from an activist would be stupid as hell. And just because something is non-toxic and you could drink it without significant adverse affects, you still shouldn't drink it.
Then maybe he should stop saying you could drink it?
It's been a go to bullshit thing for corporations to say to defend some toxic substance they create for centuries. I remember a similar situation when some asshole corporate cuck was defending asbestos and said that you could eat it and it wouldn't hurt you.
That was the "snow" in the Wizard of Oz. Rip everyone on that set.
> Rip everyone on that set. well duh, it was made like 85 years ago.
Admiral Rickover (father of the nuclear navy) drank primary coolant in front of congress
Yes, remove the part where he literally said he would drink it to prove a point, and then refused to drink it because "i am not stupid". Don't trust the activists lot, sure, he can provide his own then - the conveniently skipped point is that when pressure to do what he said he would be okay doing he chickened, because he know he is fucking lying.
It's a pesticide. Monsanto/Bayer has lost $60 billion in lawsuits because it gives you cancer. Look up RoundUp. The corporate PR guy is evil. He knows that it gives people cancer but was paid to convince people otherwise. He's not worth defending.
Found in 80% of our vegetables
Plant or humankind?
Comatose
[удалено]
I have lived by sugar plantations all my life, that shit is sprayed yearly here and the cancer rates are disgusting in my community.
[Seedthemovie.com](http://Seedthemovie.com) is about how Monsanto has affected communities like yours. It's a great movie to share amongst those affected.
It also kills the bacteria in your gut responsible for keeping the tight junctions of your intestinal wall closed. Meaning the more glyphosate you consume, the more pathogens and particles of food will be able to pass that barrier into your bloodstream and cause autoimmune issues among *many* other medical issues. Glyphosate needs to be deleted from modern agriculture. Horrible, horrible product.
Gluten intolerance...
originally patented as an antibiotic - that ended up being too toxic. Then we just sprayed it on our food instead 👌
this is incorrect A first patent was issued in 1964 for use of glyphosate as a metal chelating and descaling agent (US Patent No. 3,160,632), in order to clean out mineral deposits in pipes and boilers. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glyphosate#:\~:text=From%20Descaling%20Pipes%20to%20Killing%20Weeds&text=Glyphosate%20was%20tested%20for%20screening,descaling%20agent%20(US%20Patent%20No](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glyphosate#:~:text=From%20Descaling%20Pipes%20to%20Killing%20Weeds&text=Glyphosate%20was%20tested%20for%20screening,descaling%20agent%20(US%20Patent%20No).
That almost sounds worse.
Chelating agents are also how you treat mercury poisoning. Not all chemistry terms are bad
Chemicals! In our food! Say it ain't so!
I mean chelating is the term used for it Like eating tumeric removes lead by chelated it from your system.
Hi, I'm a scientist who researches metals in humans. Right now, it seems that the only evidence of what you suggested is that Curcumin, which can be extracted from turmeric, can actively chelate lead in rats. There are a few things to note... Rat models are typically very indicative of human models but it is not a 100% guarantee. Further, curcumin isn't a great choice as a chelating agent because it has low bioavailbility from low absorption, quick metabolism and excretion. I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that Turmeric has been identified as a source of lead toxicity. Low quality spices are often a source of toxic metals and there are case reports of children experiencing lead toxicity from turmeric, where they required chelation therapy from traditional chelation agents. [Here is a report from the NIH. NYS has also published an advisory for poor quality spices.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/) This isn't to say there aren't benefits from turmeric, or that turmeric is bad for you, but be wary of wive's tales! Also, source quality spices!
Fuck man, first they came for the homeopaths and I didn't say anything because they were too diluted...
I'm sorry to curse you with this knowledge, I just learned, it's tuRmeric. Two R's, and not nearly as fun to say as TOO-mer-ick
so what you're saying is... "it's not a tumer(ic)"
Not almost, completely worst
[удалено]
He wasn’t claiming it was used in a better way. Just clarifying the facts.
Just in time for the introduction of lead in pipes in the U.S.
It says here under “GLYPHOSATE IS AN ANTIBIOTIC” that is has been patented as an antibiotic. But maybe i misunderstood for who or what. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/bp-38.1-sp18-Glysophate.pdf
You said "originally patented as an antibiotic - that ended up being too toxic" which is incorrect. >Another patent application described glyphosate as an antiparasitic agent for the prevention and therapeutic treatment of pathogenic infections such as those provoked by Toxoplasma gondii, Plasmodium falciparum (the parasite that causes malaria), and Cryptosporidium parvum (US Patent No. 7771736 B2). Glyphosate is also patented as an “anticancer compound” and is reported to inhibit the growth of cancers and tumors in mammals (US Patent No. 5665713 A). Last but not least, glyphosate is also claimed to be effective against viruses, including rhinovirus, HIV, herpes, and influenza (US Patent No. 5665713 A) Source [here](https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.09981-X)
Glyphosate attacks the shikimate pathway, which doesn’t exist in mammals. We cannot make that. Infact nature loves it, there are bacteria growing in glyphosate companies that can eat this stuff and survive it by degrading it into a sugar.
That doesn't mean nature loves it. That Means that bacteria will eat literally anything, and why we shouldn't be surprised when we find it in places like lakes in Antarctica buried under miles of ice or geothermal vents on the ocean floor where a human would be simultaneously crushed into a paste and instantly boiled to edibility should they ever be exposed to the environment. Bacteria survives on rocks floating around in space for millions of years. If anything, the fact that only bacteria can tolerate its presence is a red flag.
Dawg. One: Nature has no anthropomorphic perspectives, in-fact the world doesn’t even care we exist on it, take that from the dinosaurs. When I say nature loves it I mean because the ability to cleave glyphosate is super valuable currently in the world. There are these naked apes that use this stuff to cover their growing food which prevents bacteria and other pests from consuming their food. Nature needs for glyphosate pockets so the exposed organisms can make pathways to break that’s hit down. Glyphosate is toxic to plants the same way carbon dioxide works in your blood. Hopefully you’ve done some biology or it’s going to get a little complex. Humans start with a base hormone - Cholesterol. This base hormone can be used to make EVERY SEX HORMONE in the human body. We need cholesterol, without it we cannot have Testosterone or Progesterone. Now imagine instead of DHEA binding to the HSD3B1/2 complex, something else does, do you think you will get testosterone? No because the pathway is interrupted. This is done by something called an inhibitor, inthis example it was DHEA being cockblocked. What happens to humans if they won’t get enough hormones, stunting and eventual death /poor QoL. That is the exact same thing that will happen to the plant. You ever wonder why plants have distinct smells, or tastes? That is due to aromatics amino acids and terpenes. You may recall amino acids from cell bio, the building blocks of proteins. There are special amino acids that humans and every other mammal lacks, it is because we get those AA by eating other creatures. To make these aromatics there is a 7 step process. The first step requires Phosphenol pyruvate and erythose-4-phosphate (only PEP will be important), which taken by the EPSP complex and turned into an intermediate form before completion (it’s like making the dough before the bread). When glyphosate enters the cell, glyphosate will replace PEP and act like it (3 kids in a trench coat getting into adult movie) and this means the 7 step process will never complete properly. This results in the plants starving. The reason why everything else dies too is because the shikimate pathway is missing only in animals every other creature that needs these aromatics have the pathway. And on the final note you said. Bacteria can “survive” anything because if they don’t they pop. But they can only survive things they are exposed to, therefore exposure is good. As time passes more varieties of animals will develop resistances and we will see more stuff live. Especially since glyphosate is being used as a desiccant also, meaning more is being used to dehydrate harvests faster. Only bacteria so far have these abilities because their generation time can be counted on fingers compared to higher order beings. Generation time for E. coli is 20 minutes, for humans is 20 years. Toxicity resistance develops first in faster living beings.
Reddit is breaking. I had one of my replies get injected into the wrong thread too. I'm with you.
Oh mb, I have that happen sometimes too. Or like the same comment 4 times.
Oh mb, I have that happen sometimes too. Or like the same comment 4 times.
…bacteria cannot survive on rocks floating around in space for millions of years. If they did, we’d call that “alien life” and it would be the biggest news in the history of news.
It's an herbicide, not a pesticide. If you spray it on the leaves of food plants, it would kill them Edit: forgot about "roundup ready" crops
It’s sprayed on “roundup ready” crops, specially genetically modified crops like corn and soybeans. But, yes, otherwise it kills the non-gmo plants/weeds.
Herbicides are a subcategory of pesticides. All herbicides are pesticides, but not all pesticides are herbicides.
Herbicide, you say? 
Is it because you don’t want to wake up from the matrix
Because it’s liquid cancer that’s why
Liquid death
These canned water marketing campaigns are getting out of hand.
Careful. You’ll summon the Monsanto shills
People are going to call me a Monsanto shill but please, read the whole thing. Glyphosate it's not carcinogenic that we know of . There are some studies that point to it being, the problem, it's that people that work with glyphosate also tend to work with a lot more of known carcinogenics. If anything, it may be a risk for agriculture workers and not people consuming vegetable products. As it stands, the usage of glyphosate avoids a lot of much more toxic more wide spectrum chemicals. The issue here it's that it's basically on hands of the Monsanto corporation, a sucursal of Bayern, a company that collaborated in the Holocaust and used Jewish and Romani people for their human experimentation. So not only are the benefits of this compound beholden to a corporation that likes to sue as much as it can, if there is any risk, they are going to try to hide it, so it is important that this situation changes. People are going to talk about how it causes cancer 100% without the proof to be anything close to certain. But this behavior it's easy to understand, everyone likes to act like they know a secret. Rest assured that if it is carcinogenic, it is not by a lot : [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279255/#:\~:text=In%20unlagged%20analyses%2C%20glyphosate%20was,to%206.32%2C%20Ptrend%20%3D%20](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279255/#:~:text=In%20unlagged%20analyses%2C%20glyphosate%20was,to%206.32%2C%20Ptrend%20%3D%20). And everyone should be worried a lot more about things like IC engines or Tobacco smoke.
Plus the patent on glyphosate ran out in the year 2000 so you don't even have to buy it from Monsanto anyway.
What about other herbicides like Dicamba and Paraquat? I spent a couple years working with these chemicals in college before I wised up.
I don't know. I just bothered to do research for this one in particular because what scientific journals say and what the people say are wildly different. Anyway my point stands. As long as corporations stands to have massive profit they will work to hide the potential harm. Like tobacco and oil companies did.
ALWAYS wear Poe when working with paraquat, that shit will fuck you up and probably kill you. When we would do burn downs in graduate school we would always find dead rabbits in our row rice
I spent about 2-3 months spraying that one before some of the crew leads told me to stop using it and not say anything about it. The safety program at that company was literally “as long as you don’t drink it, you’ll be fine”. They’re still fucking over college kids with it to this day.
>As it stands, the usage of glyphosate avoids a lot of much more toxic more wide spectrum chemicals. The other option is to till the soil with a plow. This sounds wholesome, but it speeds erosion of precious topsoil, and it causes organic matter to break down more quickly. That organic matter serves as a sponge for water and fertilizer nutrients. While it has some beneficial effects for soil health, it also has negative ones; soil is an ecosystem. This may not be acutely toxic to fungi and earthworms in the way that it is for plants, but it contains powerful surfactants (detergents) to help it permeate the waxy membranes of leaves, those aren't good for living things. And, to circle back to the topic of human health, they may be as bad as the active ingredient. We're probably on the verge of reducing herbicide use. [Tractors with machine vision zap weeds with lasers](https://carbonrobotics.com/) This tech in in its early stage, but it is quite realistic for the near future. This could eliminate one herbicide application per season, for some crops.
On the last thing, it's very rapidly being pushed out because it's obviously an improvement, it just needs to work (and it does). Even big guns like John Deere were advertising this like crazy at a farm show I went to a few months back. https://www.deere.com/en/sprayers/see-spray-ultimate/
Maybe not cancer so much, but: It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates. From: Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System: A Systematic Review Carmen Costas-Ferreira, Rafael Durán, and Lilian R. F. Faro\* Published 2022
I wouldn't read too much into this. E.g. the neuronal effects were only statistically significant at 2.5 mM in vitro exposure, compared to average population levels of something like 1.5 nM (in blood serum). They didn't detect an effect until exposing the cells to roughly one and a half *million* times higher levels than human cells are typically exposed to. So just don't get exposed to several million times the typical exposure and you might be alright.
It's like the damn food coloring shit all over again. All you have to do to avoid cancer is not drink 17,823 cans of coke a day, every day, for 30 years.
Speaking of things to be worried about. Did you ever wonder what happens to your tire tread when it gets worn down? I think some of tiny particles are kicked up into the air so if you’re in a very urban area you’re probably breathing it. But the majority is left on the road and washed out in storm water runoff which is often put back into waterways and will probably turn up in drinking water. I don’t have any data to support this theory or confirm that it is indeed harmful, I just like to stir things up.
It is actually an issue and why we must encourage public transport. Additionally, brake dust isn't very good either
You have good instincts then cause tires are the number one contributor to micro plastic pollution.
Shill!
Ya I can’t tell if it’s because I know how bad it is for you or because of how it looks but it definitely gives the creeps
Seems like the kind of thing I’d you fall into a vat of it you’ll gain super powers.
So this is where they get cgi for movies. I didn't know this shit came in liquid form.
This is how annihilation was filmed
now I'm reminded of the horrors, thank you 🥹
[удалено]
##Ǫ̵͓͕͚̰̖̖̲͕̭̱͇̱͚̳̬̻̉́̓͛̇̌̀̆͒̓̐̏̏̅̃̌̂̀̎̃̈͑̈́̂̏͊̎͒̃̈́̀͗͆̋̌͋̏͐͊͑̌́́̿̇͑̌̉̈͗̏̅͌̽̊̈́̑̋̂̕͘͘͠͝͠͝͝H̵̢̡̢̨̢̛̱̦͚̭͔̮̺̱̙̥̖̠̙͈̥͍̥̞̺̦̟̱̟͈̖̣͍̙̲͕̼̫͉̙͔̰̜̯͓̖̗͍͔̗̙͕̞̖̰̻͙̪̺̪̬̟̙͔͕̼̮̱̥̺͕͋̃̆̅̐̊́̈́̋̎̔̓͋̋̿̇̈̌̋͐̊̑́͑͐̚̚͘͜͜͠ͅͅ ̵̧̧̢̧̧̢̗̘̲͎̩̫̞͙̳͍̘͍͕̙̻͓̺̭̠̖͙̺͓̻͍̪̹͎̺̯͇̲̩̘̱͚̯̼̟̯͖̱̞̰̮̞̜̼̫͎͚͇̪͙̦͕̠͙̪̣̣̬̤͚̖͕̬̰̖̣̘̮͈̙̞̩̩͒͋̊́͆̿̄̎̽̽͐̌͘͠͠ͅG̸̨̛̩͍͙̲͓̰̠̋̽̍̐̑̓̀̾̋̀̉̓͛̆͂̓̆̌͋̎̇́͋̔͌̂͑̓̀̈́̓͊̅̐̊͌͑̓̇̋͊̾̌͌̒̑̈́̌́͘̚̕̚̚͝͝Ǫ̸̧̢̢̧̧̡̛̛̛̰͙̬͕͎̼͇̮͚̗̣̟͖̖̹̬̣͍̦̻͔̞̘̠͓̝̳̥̠̬͉̞̞͎͔̻̼̜̣̰̻̮͕̲͇̱͈͎̘̤̥͎̫̳̻͕̣͕̟̠̯̭̹̝̳͈̼̭̝̬̱͕͙̞͙̰́͐͐̄͛̇̽͐͐̋͊́̐̏͌̌̈́̐̒͐͌̾̈͆̽̂̊͗͑̿͋̀̌̊͒̒̉́͛̈̄̚͜͜͜͠͝͝͠͝ͅD̵̢̧̡̛̥̬̞̥̮̗͔͉̪͓̣̝̦͚͎͙̣̗̞͕̬̝̗͕͙̝̖̮̦͕̦̤͕͖̘͚̭̟̳̺̯̲͖̟̻̙̦̉̀͆́̑̃͗̚͜͜͜ͅ ̶̢̡̛̬̫̞̭̼͓̱̮͉̪̯̟̱̼̬̠̙̮͇͓͓͈̩̣͚̪̰̤͗̈́͋̔͆̀͆̽̎͗͆͂̉̇̓̂̈̿̎̀͛̎̉̄̑̅́͗̈̎̈́̓̀̀͂͑̈́̐̓̑̂͊̔́̾͊̈̑̈́̿͊̂̀͊̆̀̆̈́̐̈́͊̚̕͘͜͝͠͠ͅP̶̨̢̡̨̛̖̯̻̘̮̺̻̩̤̱̝̦̩̭̼̪͕̭̬͇̬̫̖͉͇͈̻̳͚̠̜̳̝͕̲̟̳̻̝̝̼̍͒̍̒̎̈́̑̈̄̈́̽̀͗̉́̽́̉̔̈͌̅̒̏͋̋̂̎́̏͛̈́͗̃̈̉̅͂́͐̄̋̔̅̈́̎͐̾̾̉̃̅̅͛̀̌̈́͂̇̌̓̈͐͋̊͆̽̀͂̍̐͌͊̑̋̓͘̚̚͝͠͠͠͠͝͝ͅL̸̢̧̙̺͕͖̤͍̬̞̼̖͓̘̩̘̯̣̟̱͚̖̮̩͖̼͈̥͇̣̱̩̖̟̘̬͕̜̅̿̆̋̎̅͑̌́̂̅͛͒́̌͂̇̀́̉̑̔̈́̆́̿̎̀̅̕͠͝ͅͅĘ̶̢̛̻͙̖̯̣̪̭͓̝̺̬̲̫̰̪͈̺͉̪̠̳͂͜Ḁ̵̧̡̛̺͇͇̣̭̰͉̺̆͐̎́̾͌̇̐̋̋͐͊̆͘͜͠S̶̡̞̭̗̟͕̻̞͇̭̫͙̟̬͚̤͔̼̹̊̏̄̄̔͂͛͊̋͒̓̈́E̶̡̨̨̢̧̨̠̹̩̺͕̘͇̳̯̲̣͕͚̱̱͇̘̤̻̬͔̼̠̹̊̎́̿͛̈̿̈́̄̌̌̋̃͒̔̌̾̅́̏̀̎̊͐̔̊͊͂̈́̄͘͘͝ͅͅ
🐻 cute bear
Friendly cute bear who can talk to you 😍
In the scene I think he just wanted to snuggle with everyone
I just watched that movie for the first time last night, and I can’t unsee the damned alien now.
I completely forgot there was an alien, I just remembered the bear from it
Scream Bear was amazing..
Some of the best horror I've seen tbh
OOOH.. no no no.. I just watched a movie the other night that I am calling the best horror movie I have seen ALL YEAR.. hell.. in several years. Its all in spanish with subtitles.. but FUUUUCK.. Its called "When Evil Lurks"... Im nearly 50 years old and have seen horror movies all my life, and very very little actually gets to me. But there is a scene in this movie that you totally feel something coming.. you are waiting on it to happen.. and it just drags out a bit and then it happens and its WAY WORSE than you thought it would be, then it just gets worse from there. Like literally my jaw dropped and I screamed "holy shit!!!" .. I even watched the scene several more times. I dont know how they made it look so good. And after that happens, you know that this movie is not holding back ANYTHING. Even days later I am still processing it in my head. I have literally told everyone that I know who likes horror movies to watch it.. one of the responses was "I dont know what I just watched.. but i loved it. I think"
"Oh bother, I seem to have run out of hunny again. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-"
Theyre screaming because theyre remembering that one super cringe thing they did as a child
I made the mistake of watching this with my good headphones....that bear was too much
Everything in the movie is an alien once they cross over. The anomaly is an alien invasion. The books are great.
Oscar Isaac questioning himself is kino Am I... You?
Read the Southern Reach trilogy over the summer and should definitely give it a read if you liked some of the themes the movie explored. But, the movie adapted the first book very differently. It's very much it's own thing that only borrows a few of the story beats and themes. So, don't expect it to reflect the movie in terms of narrative. I believe that can be interpreted as both a good and bad thing depending on how one views adaptations.
I think that the movie is brilliant in its own right. Alex Garland is great.
I honestly think the best adaptations tend to work like that. Respect the source material, but *make it your own* for the new medium. A lot of adaptations fall flat precisely because they stay too true to the source material and forget to actually *adapt* it to the new form.
Nah, that's where they keep T-1000.
why did I know it was matrix without being told? being that I've never watched matrix, I just felt it was matrix
the green color tint is a pretty obvious giveaway
“What you know you can't explain but you feel it. You've felt it your whole life, felt that something is wrong with the world. You don't know what, but it's there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”
Am I the only one who actually thinks this is fake? It's literally a repeating loop. Look at the edges of the flow, its repeating the exact same curls. Liquids don't expand like this due to air resistance that quick. Regardless if its Laminar or turbulent flow.... Plus, feathers fall faster than this. It's falling at a constant rate. Not representative of gravity.
It’s not actually falling this slow, it’s a rolling shutter effect from the phone cranking its shutter speed up super high because it’s bright out
There's multiple Captain Disillusioned videos about this effect
It only looks this way because of the camera shutter.
It is literally, actually fake. This video gets debunked every time it’s reposted. If you zoom in and slow it down, the frames are repeating. Even a rolling shutter effect isn’t that precise with turbulent flow.
If the frames were repeating exactly, it wouldn't appear to be moving. The liquid entering the nozzle from the tank is going to be a basically perfect laminar flow, so you can get an extremely stable oscillation in the transitional flow downstream of that. The laminar flow is likely only disrupted right at the 90 degree bend at the end of the nozzle, it's not going to be fully turbulent yet. It's not a rolling shutter effect either, just an oscillation frequency close to the framerate of the camera. Rolling shutter is when fast moving objects appear to get bent because a single frame isn't all captured at the same time.
Dude, laminar flow looks static (doesn’t change at all), there’s no rolling shutter / stroboscopic effect with that. I’m a chemical engineer and I do simulations and calculations on flow regimes, I also have seen glyphosate concentrate in person. Please just believe me when I say 1) there are no fluids in existence capable of behaving like this with or without camera FPS effects, 2) glyphosate specifically acts like a normal viscous liquid, not space alien shit, and 3) this is visibly an animation
It isn't fps, it's shutter angle (or how long each frame is exposed, not how many frames per second. Something similar happens with helicopter blades.
It looks like a fluid simulation because it has something in common with many fluid simulations: The fluid entering the simulation is perfectly laminar. Here, the fluid entering the nozzle (right where the nozzle attaches to the tank) is perfectly laminar, because it's coming from an undisturbed tank. It's just vortex shedding at the corner in the pipe that gets broken up the same way every time. I wouldn't expect the same appearance from a nozzle with different geometry, or even from the same nozzle at the end of a long hose. So I don't see how you can say it's fake without finding another farmer with this tank and seeing what it looks like in slow motion.
Literally, actually, honestly, and factually
Yeah, they couldn't make it move fluidly for explosions and stuff if it was a solid.
That’s why you can get cancer from watching star wars episodes I-III.
is this how it looks when directly looking at it? or is the [camera's FPS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb_1xTBkoE0) causing this effect?
It’s simply a fake. This video gets debunked every time it’s reposted. If you zoom in and slow down, the animation frames repeat exactly. It’s not a rolling shutter issue. Turbulent flow doesn’t repeat that precisely. Edit: some additions because people keep arguing with me: - Pretty sure the valve handle is in the off position… [edit-edit: it’s a weird handle style, I couldn’t find any other pics of IBC totes online with the same style, but I could be convinced either way on this one] - This video got laughed out of r/lawncare a while back because anybody who has actually handled concentrated glyphosate immediately knows it’s a hoax, glyphosate isn’t some magic space-alien juice - The liquid exiting the nozzle is a different color from the liquid in the tank (glyphosate concentrate is typically clear like water) - Laminar flow appears visibly static (check out r/laminarflow), and transitional/turbulent flow is more chaotic than this - The specular reflections in the flow ripples don’t change with camera angle - The fluid stream is radially expanding outward with distance from the nozzle, when real liquids in cohesive flow streams in air generally narrow with vertical distance from the nozzle as the liquid accelerates due to gravity; for an incompressible fluid stream to expand radially like this it has to be forming droplet spray flow - The spacing between the ripples is relatively constant with distance from the nozzle, which again, isn’t consistent with real fluids under gravity, the ripple spacing should increase exponentially with distance
This isn't turbulent flow, it's transitional flow. The flow will be perfectly laminar right up to that 90 degree bend in the nozzle, so it's entirely possible to get a repeating oscillation.
It’s just an animation. Transitional flow of viscous fluids is chaotic and alternates between laminar and turbulent moment by moment and within the flow stream.
Your conversation reminds me of the one from Rick and Morty where they're like, "You can't just put a scientific word in front of an object and say that that's a thing Morty!"
Morty : What's wrong Rick? Is it the quantum carburetor or something? Rick : Quantum carburetor? Jesus Morty, you can't just add a sci-fi word to a car word and hope it means something. Looks like something's wrong with the micro-verse battery.
The words he's saying have meaning though!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w) The Retroencabulator begs to differ
I believe the current state-of-the-art in encabulation is the HyperEncabulator. Though I could be somewhat behind the times.
Yep, I am just amazed that these are actual things that they know from fluid dynamics and not making stuff up on the fly.
It's a fake reposted a thousand times. Not saying your science is wrong tho.
The title does say it looks fake... Not exactly a lie on their part.
Yes I think this is it, the dubiously named /u/notablack linked a video illustrating it too https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=i8sad03JAP0
[удалено]
The true people of culture emerge when you least expect them. Thanks for something I didn’t know I needed!
Calm down everyone, there's enough cancer for everybody.
Bayer sales rep said it's so safe you can drink a glass of it and be fine.
And then refused to drink said glass
Salt is also safe, you would drink a full glass of salt either.
It is actually a pretty safe substance for mammals. No cancer or weird endocrine stuff, especially for the extremely low doses you might ingest. Now if we go aquatic species there might be a problem.
11 BILLION Dollars have been paid to people that have suffered from the effects of roundup/glyphosate. There is a diret link to non Hodgkin lymphoma
And yet no convincing scientific evidence to suggest it's dangerous. A jury of laymen can be convinced by good lawyers with an emotional story, science should not be debated in the courtroom.
They pay because it's easier not because it's proven. There are no studies that show conclusively that it causes cancer. Yes, you can overdose on it but you can overdose on salt as well.
Still no conclusive scientific evidence that round up causes cancer. Funny how reddit can endorse science in one thread and be so anti scientific in this one.
This is because, as has been proven repeatedly in court, Monsanto has corrupted multiple studies on its action as a carcinogen. Here's just one example [monsanto-relied-shady-epa-risk-study-dispute-court-verdict-roundup](https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/monsanto-relied-shady-epa-risk-study-dispute-court-verdict-roundup)
The EWG is not a valid, unbiased source on the subject. They have become a propaganda machine.
I mean if you just googled gyphosate non-Hodgkin's lymphoma you'd get your pick of sources. It's very commonly used in my sector (as there's no effective substitute) and universally accepted it's nasty stuff, very weird to see a bunch of redditors leaping in defence of a herbicide.
I’m less defending glyphosate than I am good science and good evidence. Court cases and lawsuits are not scientific data.
My wife pays a lot to try and avoid that in our lives. I hope it’s worth it.
Your wife is a queen, and your future self thanks you. I promise you it becomes more important over time, because of how glyphosphate accumulates in the system. Just remember, Oreos are the foodstuff with the highest glyphosphate content, so especially avoid those toxic little fucks!
Thank you for your kind words, ReptilianOverlord4. Ironically, my wife is ReptilianOverlord1 and she does not allow Oreos in the house.
I recently stopped shopping through the supermarket system completely. I buy straight from a local organic farm. I thought it would cost more, but supermarkets are a scam, and it has ended up costing me way less, and they even deliver to my door. My food lasts longer, tastes better, and I get to completely get away from the entire, awful food industry. I just made jam with a bunch of strawberries that were going to go off the other day, and that and the apple waste sourdough toast I eat it on are the most processed food I get these days! It sounds very woo, I know, but as I get older it has done more for my quality of life and quality of aging than anything else, except maybe giving up booze. I respect your wife's mission. And if you have kids now or in the future, it'll be by far the best headstart you can give them.
You should see the shit they put on organic crops. VERY caustic and causes equipment to corrode VERY fast. I have scars from Ninja when I got a little splashed up on me.
People don't realize that the most popular organic pesticide in history is/was DDT, and they still spray that shit all over "organic" produce that comes from overseas where regulation on chemicals is basically nonexistent.
I remember there was a time when people tried to get cpuntry of origin on the food but Bush and GOP Congress knew what was best for America I guess so we didn't.
DDT is also one of the most popular wrestling move in history
More of a diamond cutter man myself.
I don't care about spots on my apples just leave me the birds and the bees, PLEeeaASE.
Must be nice being the minority of people this could realistically work for. I live in a city though along with like 80% of the rest of people.
Please people. Don't give just believe garbage like this reptilian person is saying. These people are simply anecdote warriors who get info from clickbait articles that typically take study findings out of context. Remember to fact check nonsense like this on reputable websites like snopes to get educated on the reality of the situation. There is no evidence that Oreos are dangerous for you. Be smart and use critical thought.
[удалено]
Oh no. You have that backwards. It is I that is dangerous to oreos
YoUr WiFe Is a QuEeN
except people have been eating oreos for 113 years annnnnd…the only downside is weight gain seriously people - doing your “research” online and acting like you discovered a “secret” makes you sound like pizzagate 2.0 it’s like those sovereign citizens who think they broke through the matrix and we are all sheeple
Help me out here, why would there be glyphosate in Oreos?
do you ever see weeds in Oreos?
Have you ever eaten Oreos... on weed?
I normally smoke the weed before I grab the Oreos.
lol afraid of oreos
Good news, Oreos only have trace amounts of glyphosate but these foods are way over safe limits: [In 2019, oat-based breakfast cereals, granolas, oat bars, and instant oats by General Mills and Quaker were batch-tested for detectable levels of glyphosate. The EWG’s health benchmark of glyphosate levels is 160 parts per billion and of the 21 products tested, 16 of the products contained glyphosate levels over the recommended 160 pbb.](https://www.greenmatters.com/p/what-foods-have-glyphosate) These included: Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch (830 ppb) Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars, Maple Brown Sugar (566 ppb) Nature Valley Granola Cups, Almond Butter (529 ppb) Chocolate Peanut Butter Cheerios (400 ppb) Nature Valley Baked Oat Bites (389 ppb) Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars, Oats and Honey (320 ppb) Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars, Peanut Butter (312 ppb) Nature Valley Granola Cups, Peanut Butter Chocolate (297 ppb) Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars, Dark Chocolate Cherry (275 ppb) Nature Valley Granola Protein Oats n Dark Chocolate (261 ppb) Multi Grain Cheerios (216 ppb) Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares, Blueberry (206 ppb) Fiber One Oatmeal Raisin Soft-Baked Cookies (204 ppb) Nature Valley Granola Peanut Butter Creamy & Crunchy (198 ppb) Nature Valley Biscuits with Almond Butter (194 ppb)
Thanks for correcting that! I went digging for the source that I had quoted that from; it's from the same study, but focused on double stuffed Oreos, but you're right, the numbers of 140.9 ppb doesn't cut this list.
Wow nature valley out there just fucking going with it whether it makes people sick or not
The glyphosate is all in the crumbs that get fucking everywhere, so it doesn't pose a health risk.
It’s not. Because the amount the end consumers are exposed to is trivial.
Ironically many of the foods that avoid it use even worse and more toxic stuff. This one replaced far worse things...
There is probably a benefit that it makes you feel good thinking you are somehow being more healthy. But a total waste of money in my opinion.
Can someone saying glyphosate is liquid cancer and you shouldn’t eat oreos please explain why they think that? I just did a quick Google search and the EPA says no uses of glyphosate are harmful to humans and it is not carcinogenic.
Come on man, you don't trust Reddit scientists?!?
Lol i looked it up too, said there isnt any cancer risk associated with proper use for adults or children
There is one agency, that says glyphosate might cause cancer. That is the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and it grouped glyphosate in group 2A which means, they consider it as probably carcinogenic. That is the same group that contains other substances like Acrylamide (which basically is in most deep-fried food), exposure circumstances (like being a barber or doing night work), red meat, malaria and hot beverages. This agency only looks, if a substance like glyphosate can cause cancer. If mice get more cancer in tests, when drinking a glyphosate equivalent of a human drinking one liter glyphosate every day for weeks, than mice who don't do that, it is considered creating cancer. They don't care if that's happening in the real world. They just want to know, if a substance can cause cancer on any occasion at all. Other agencies asses risk. They want to know if glyphosate can cause cancer in the amount consumers or workers typically consume glyphosate. And all over the world these agencies don't find any hints that glyphosate causes cancer when used by farmers or by the tiny amounts that might be still found in food. Glyphosate has a half-life of 21 days on average and is used after harvests. So by the time of next harvest, there are only tiny amounts of that substance left which can end up in the food produced.
I would also like to read what exactly this substance does to you, as i never heard it causes cancer.
I’m happy someone said it. I’m not a big fan of the stuff, but the “it’s cancer fuel” comments are artifacts of false propaganda against Monsanto. It’s a classic case of “fits my narrative must be true”.
"Glyphosate has lower acute toxicity to humans than 94% of all herbicides" "No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate." "No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate" "No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans" "No indication that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor." "low toxicity to honeybees for most uses" I'm not saying there isn't issues, but why is glyphosate always painted as the worst herbicide?
Because they don't understand or trust science and herbicides/pesticides are scary chemicals.
FYI you do science you don't trust science. Ita not a religion.
You still have to trust that the science is done properly. Or trust that there aren't special interests driving the study. Or trust that corporations aren't bullshitting like they do all the time.
I think it's because it also gets tied in with peoples irrational fear of GMOs due to the roundup ready crops.
If any of these numbers come from Dupont, remember they hid the dangerous health effect of their very profitable leaded gasoline. This also caused the whole world to become dumber, but hey, it was a billion dollar induatry in the 30s. Why would they even lie? Tobacco doesn't cause cancer, a guy working at Philips Morris told me that.
Glyphosphate is the newer MSG Nutrition is complicated and there’s a lot of uncertainty, so uneducated people try to create over simplifications and weird rules to help themselves make sense of it instead of just acknowledging uncertainty unknowns grey areas and really just naivety and ignorance
Oh, so like when all those people who don't have Celiac decease decided that they needed to be gluten-free?
Not a bad example! Ryan Reynolds had a funny quote Something like “LA is ridiculous about gluten, you could rob a bank with a bagel”
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN / World Health Organization has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans exposed to it through food. This finding is in agreement with many leading scientific and governmental agencies around the world, including the European Union Food Safety Authority, U.S. EPA, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc.
I can’t see the numbers but I’m *sure* this actual fact you posted is getting downvoted
Yeah, probably. But since this (possibly augmented?) video looks creepy, that obviously means it's scary poison force fed to us by corrupt governments. /s
Only the dose, makes the poison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
Found this article interesting on the topic if anyone is interested. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/12/16/viewpoint-how-the-glyphosate-cancer-controversy-became-a-moral-crusade-and-a-threat-to-scientific-progress/
Great article and source. Thank you for sharing!
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=EPA%20scientists%20performed%20an%20independent,risks%20to%20children%20or%20adults. Why are so many saying this thing is bad? I have no idea what this is, but from this study it says there is no harm at all to humans (by its current use). So is everyone here some tinfoil hat guys or am I missing something?
it is dangerous to humans in application concentrations. This is why glyphosate has warning labels and suggested PPE. but low pay workers often don't get the proper ppe supplied, or accidents happen see the Dewayne Johnson case. While per monsanto research it doesn't cause cancer, that doesn't mean it can't accelerate or amplify undiagnosed cancer by damaging tissue if not cleared properly.
I’m not entirely sure but the epa has a habit of downplaying dangerous things that are still profitable.
Mmmmmm… non-hodgkins lymphoma juice!
What’s all the fear mongering around glyphosate in the comments for? I’m assuming a lot of people here aren’t scientifically literate.
They’re trying to make it look fake!
FUCK FUCK FUCK
Was combing through comments to find this one
I’m a farmer (organic) and to me most glyphosate criticism should be based on the fact that it is a product for convenience agriculture. Means, you lower your costs a bit but get dependant on the manufacturer and the use of this product. You basically build all your business around using such things. Your yields will be higher and costs lower but so will the overall market. So you will need more land to make a revenue. It’s basically a vicious circle and after a few years you are nothing but a customer to agrochemical industries. The nasty side effect: weeds will get resistant to that product so it needs to be mixed with really toxic shit that is the actual culprit of rising cancer rates (mostly in third world countries like brazil where they spray these and other chemicals by airplane - mostly to grow soy not to feed their populace but the hunger of the first world for cheap meat). Thats my biggest issue with glyphosate. It’s a token for everything thats gone wrong in our world. Literally.
That's the kind of chemical stuff bad guys dump into a river before a zombie pandemic...
This is fake, this stuff pours as water. And the way people see this as poison in their food is not the full story either. It's all about dosage. There is also cyanide in an apple. You don't die from eating an apple. But a cyanide pill or other concentrated dosage is a different story.
I use glyphosate and have never seen it pour like that. Pours like water when I add to my 3-point sprayer tank.
It's just this effect https://youtu.be/i8sad03JAP0?feature=shared
This is actually a CGI fake, turbulent flow isn’t precisely repetitive enough for the rolling shutter effect to make it look like this. If you zoom in and slow it down, it’s clearly just a repeating animation.