Comment by anenefan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anenefan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The tl;dr - even if there were reputable studies, what do the results mean or imply exactly?

There is a study [1] which was via information from the link from the parent comment. Interpretation of results though is the issue. From their method of study, to myself it's clear that storing heavy mineralised ground water in a used Glyphosate spray tank or product drum, is a not a very good idea given the results of the study. It is though a different story for the groundwater given that degradation in soil [2] [3] is measured in half lives and depends on many factors. As for detection - there may well be some complex of Glyphosate that has resisted breaking down a couple decades later, but one would expect the amount would probably be far less that the allowable or typical amount of Glyphosate found in food from crops that have been sprayed with it prior to harvest.

The other question is what breakdown complexes are they measuring for detecting Glyphosate. For years roundup was though to be still be at higher levels of use than it should have been after it was phased out in some European countries ... based on levels detected in rivers. [4] [5] and the preprint via [6] indicate that some detergents were to blame for the higher detection level.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41580968/

[2] https://pdf.benchchem.com/1263/Glyphosate_s_Fate_An_In_depth... [pdf]

[3] https://greenfieldesg.com/how-long-does-roundup-last-in-the-...

[4] https://phys.org/news/2024-07-glyphosate-european-rivers-far...

[5]https://uni-tuebingen.de/en/university/news-and-publications...

[6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378883530_Glyphosat... -> [Preprint] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3917957/v1

And to add a bit more context: there's a whole Glyphosate Griefing industry now that invents bullshit claims.

Pretty much every time you see something like "glyphosate reacts with kidneys resulting in hard water staying around for 111 years in dry soil" - you can be sure that it's this.

> The tl;dr - even if there were reputable studies, what do the results mean or imply exactly?

That it's bullshit. There are no reputable studies showing extended half-life of years.

> [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41580968/

In Zebrafish. Not even mice.

> [2] https://pdf.benchchem.com/1263/Glyphosate_s_Fate_An_In_depth... [pdf]

Half-life of weeks.

> [6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378883530_Glyphosat... -> [Preprint] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3917957/v1

Nothing to do with soil persistance.

Half life [1] in biological systems isn't quite the same as radioactive decay. Essentially what is being relayed is that after a couple of months generally they are, by measuring the product directly or the secondary and tertiary by products, deducing a time when only half of the active product is left.

Farming systems that use herbicides, are going to cycle though every few years of using Glyphosate, so there's little point IMO of creating a special study that looks into Glyphosate residues over more than a few years where they are monitoring the degree of fractional amount that could remain - there are too many variations of soil types, rainfall and temperature to be greatly useful. Any results of how long it might persist would more likely come from real life examples - areas where its use has been phased out, but the difficulty most (if not all) would not have an accurate starting point of just how much Glyphosate was applied in total, time period and weather conditions to extrapolate carefully.

Detection is different to a noteworthy amount of product that is bound to clay or other particles which has prohibited biological degradation. Many who conduct studies in complex systems are usually focused on just a small number of instances they feel might encompass most of the issue they believe to be at heart ... to the point of dismissing local / on the ground knowledge.

Yes the study used fish which can be useful ... however they tried to simulate using the raw product. It would have been better had they had some water from a month after a paddock was sprayed and used surface or underground flow. What it actually means, for example to those like myself who use it regularly, is there is certainly evidence we have to be doubly careful to ensure no or as little as possible over spray of waterways occurs which contain aquatic life.

A better study might be what results might be when groundwater that has a noteworthy amount, is then heated with bound Glyphosate and it's by products, to simulate cooking and boiling of the water.

>"Nothing to do with soil persistance."

Do you think that if soil was measured for a study it was watered only with distilled water? The purpose of mentioning was to suggest that there's an uncertainty as to what may have been measured.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

Edit: as not was

> Half life [1] in biological systems isn't quite the same as radioactive decay.

It typically is shorter, as real systems are often hyper-exponential. And if you're talking about persistance in isolated clays, then it's by definition is not a bilogical system. A sealed glass vial is technically a type of clay, and glyphosate can survive in sealed vials for decades.

There's a thing about glyphosate: it's the safest pesticide. It's non-toxic to mammals, is not carcinogenic, non persistent, and is highly useful. And this somehow triggers all the cranks because it apparently MUST be hiding something.

And glyphosate has been _extensively_ studied by legitimate scientists.

So at this point, pretty much all articles about glyphosate's harm are pseudoscience and/or transparent grifting.

Clays form a good proportion in some soil profiles in some parts of the world and very much part of the biological system even if it isn't that apparent.

Glyphosate and the by products are certainly safer than many registered herbicides currently available to much of the western world.

The wetter in the formulation of the official Roundup has certainly changed - what I used in the 1990's a few drops of the diluted ready to spray mix accidentally making skin contact would give me a bad headache even if I noticed it right away and washed it off ... when I used the official brand again (for a time, mostly 00's) they priced Roundup out of my farming budget) in the late 10's I noted that I was able to easily wash off any splash back without resulting in a bad headache.

I have been long following the twists and turns that certain big companies, one of which used to own the patent on Glyphosate until 1999 when they let it expire, with a plan to simply create a very large plant in iirc South America which would chase off the competition that have sought to produce Glyphosate for export usage. Unfortunately they put the price up (3x retail here in Australia) due to oil prices costs during the 00's and then China stepped up. I also know they have in place $$$$ BS products to suit their new patented seed which is herbicide ready which when I look over application requirements, complete 100% leaf coverage to work properly implies it is no where near as easy to use as regular roundup.

To be clear I really value Glyphosate as a herbicide as for agriculture it saves fuel, equipment wear and time when used properly. Even so since many are pointing fingers, it is important not to just gloss over any problems that using it might cause, even though I am quite sure there are worse herbicides to be had coming into use having observed this in my immediate locale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com