So that almost certainly means it does.
It does pose an extinction risk, atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor, and wipes out frog populations in concentrations as low as several parts per billion, causing them to be sterile and hermathroditic.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered/
typo: hermaphroditic. Otherwise you are correct. sigh.
Ah thank you, I need to turn spell check on.
The sigh at the end, not very, uh, not everyone will spell every word right all the time. I notice a pattern of people taking offense at greek words being misspelled here.
Greek is not a language that rolls of the tongue of northern europeans I’m afraid, it’s rather foreign.
I’m pretty sure the sigh is not disparaging, but pointed at how you are correct about atrazine, and that in itself is a sad fact for all of us.
You are correct. Atrazine is a big issue in my state, as there is a plume moving through ground water from a spill at a military base.
So the government will really be turning the frogs gay. I hate this timeline.
It seems there are issues with others replicating those results. US, Japanese, and Australian researchers.
Researchers hired by the chemistry council did not replicate the results? Well case closed.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
jesus. chill the fuck out.
We are talking about peer-reviewed papers from multiple countries, and an additional layer of scrutiny from this meta-analysis (the entire point of which was to identify bias in industry funded studies). It was funded directly by the government, and all authors were researchers employed by various universities. The likelihood a significant number of them have had faked funding that no one noticed is very low.
But no, your conspiracy theory with no evidence at all trumps any logic.
Chill the fuck out about the systematic poisoning of life on earth for a few multinationals to make a buck? I decline.
This isn’t a “Trump” thing, just business as usual. The US, Canada, and Australia all use atrazine and have been saying its benefits outweigh drawbacks for decades.
So feel free to spray it all over the oval office on your next visit, to help get rid of unwanted growth.
