Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredguy123
You must have had a bad lawyer.
The lawyers who sued Roundup for causing cancer won, even though it doesn't cause cancer.
The lawyers who sued for diseases caused by silicone breast implants won, even though no one else could prove that it caused any disease.
|
Always nice to see an expert opinion on carcinogenic potential from you. The lawyers didn't win, the plaintiffs won. If you want to actually get informed on the relative risk of lymphoma from high exposure to Roundup you can start
HERE where the most recent meta-analysis of the data resulted in an estimated up to 41% increased risk of lymphoma. Now you can quibble about whether 41% increased risk is a big deal seeing as it related to high exposure not usual household exposure.
That is much stronger data than that against agent orange which every Vietnam vet, even those who never left a ship or an office space in Saigon can claim has damaged them. It is a much stronger association than the increased risk over the general population of heart disease in firefighters and cops who get occupation related disability payments for life if they have a heart attack.
It certainly is higher than the risk from the water at Camp Lejune. But the point is that you can never tell which one person would not have gotten the lymphoma if they had not been exposed. Most of us would be just fine if they never mandated seat belts.
Is sunshine a carcinogen? Sure, but all of us don't get melanomas. A low incidence of a bad outcome where most of the people exposed do just fine is not evidence of safety. Risk is relative. Roundup is relatively safe. People also die because of Roundup.