[slowking2]

The dose makes the poison. It’s possible for a chemical to be perfectly safe if ingested in low quantities but dangerous in extremely high quantities. The duration of exposure for the same dose matters a lot too. Drinking glyphosate could be a much larger acute exposure so it’s perfectly reasonable to say it’s safe as normally used but not want to drink it. For example, you need trace amounts of copper to live, but very large doses can damage the liver. You’d need to take actual measurements to determine at what dose glyphosate becomes dangerous, and compare that to actual use. The whole “I could drink it” thing is just bullshitting, but so is the reverse.

[IncRnd]

> Drinking glyphosate could be a much larger acute exposure so it’s perfectly reasonable to say it’s safe as normally used but not want to drink it.

It's a short video. But, you are commenting without even having watched it.

The executive said that glyphosate is so safe that it is safe to drink. When the interviewer then said that they have a glass of glyphosate and asked if the exec would like to drink it, the executive replied, "No. I'm not stupid." He said that twice.

[whimsicalism]

? I don't see how that in any way diminishes what the GP said.

[IncRnd]

He is refuting what was said in the video but in the process has completely mistated what was said in that same video.

[slowking2]

No. I did watch the video before I posted. Thus the last sentence of my first post about drinking it (or not) being bullshitting in both directions. You are the one not reading or understanding.

[slowking2]

Did you read the last sentence of my post? I literally said the executive was bullshitting when he said he could drink it…

[saiya-jin]

I dare you to ingest small amount of Caesium-137 every day if you truly stand by your reasoning.

I can argue with list of names of firemen that didn't die from radiation poisoning while putting off fire in Chernobyl.

[slowking2]

Different chemicals have different dangerous doses. What’s your point? I specifically said that I don’t know what the toxic dose of glyphosate is. My point is whether or not you can literally drink a highly concentrated version of it doesn’t tell you much.

[anonuser123456]

People already do take in small amounts of Caesium-137 every day and it is harmless.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2015934/

[mistrial9]

this is outdated thinking. LD50 is a measure of poison in testing, but since then it is acknowledged that there are cumulative over a lifetime effects, there are endocrine disrupting effects, and there may be effects from small doses that tip balancing systems in the body significantly.. those are from memory, not a specialist here.

[slowking2]

Alcohol has cumulative effects too. The long term effects are still dose dependent. My point is you can’t just eyeball it by being like “well that guy bullshitted then refused to drink it”. You need to do a bunch of hard work taking measurements. You know it’s not super toxic as typically used or huge swathes of people would be keeling over dead. But it could be long term toxic at the doses a farmer or landscaper is exposed too. It could have small absolute effects on everyone that could be detected in mass population statistics although that’s much much harder to untangle.

[whimsicalism]

Water also has an LD50 but you wouldn't say there are cumulative over lifetime harms from drinking water.

[mistrial9]

water tainted with lead may be more to the point