Talk:Daminozide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


This is one of those controversies that's hard for me to take a side on. I wouldn't hesitate to eat an alar-treated apple merely because giving a mouse 200,000 times as much (per body weight) as one apple contains, produced 1 tumor in study of 45 mice. But it raises the interesting question of toxicity and the slogan "the dose makes the poision".

So, I tried to write the article dispassionately and give external links to pro and con sides. Is this not the epitome of NPOV?

Pesticide?[edit]

I think it is in a wrong category. A plant growth regulator is not a pesticide. Where should it belong instead? --Shaddack 11:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is Category:Plant hormones, but since daminozide is synthetic, I don't know if it fits there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the product was registered by the Food and Drug Administration from 1963 to 1989. It was actually registered (originally) by the US Department of Agriculture and then by US Environmental Protection Agency (when they took over the pesticide registration function in the early 1970s). Daminozide is a plant growth regulator, but can be called a "pesticide" also, as it meets one of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act's definitions ("...any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant...") and is regulated as such by EPA.Mrgrtwtrs1 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Describing the sides[edit]

Should we take the liberal side and say that Alar really was dangerous ("myth" of Alar scare)?

Or should we endorse the conservative side and say that Alar "problems" were exaggerated?

  • In laboratory tests, the amount fed to mice before any effect was noted was equivalent to an average adult eating 28,000 pounds of Alar-treated apples each year for 70 years, or a 10-pound infant eating 1,750 pounds per year. [1]
No one can ever eat that much, or drink that much equivalent juice, yet the article cites that "the human lifetime cancer risk to be 5 per million". If it really took an impossible quanitity to ingest, then the lifetime cancer risk would be 0 per million, or per any number you want. Clearly, we as non-experts don't know how to intrepret any of this. However, I'd be suspicious of a site called "heartland" on scientific matters. The name sounds too similar to polically oriented sources that put out a lot of BS on wide varieties of topics. I just want straight science; I don't want any nonsense about "sides". At the time, the industry boosters were quick to compare risk of cancer from peanut butter to Alar. Is it possible to get a reputable source that allows direct comparison of substances and foods in terms of risk? As far as peanut butter goes, the toxin involved there now averages under 2 parts per billion, but I don't know how that translates to how much quantity required to be eaten to get cancer, or lifetime risk in per million people terms. I sure as hell won't trust a site called "heartland" regardless. 207.189.227.82 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What do the Wikipedia:science standards say about this sort of thing? Is there even a controversy about this, or is one side so obviously right that the other side is simply politicizing the issue?

There is a known cancer risk. The standard is to not use synthetics with known cancer risks, I imagine. But political commentators will gladly talk about it political terms because that what they do. 207.189.227.82 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be giving Wikipedia:equal validity to say that there was a controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daminozide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Current Views[edit]

This section seems to be slanted towards one point of view a little more than Im comfortable with. Im not disputing anything the facts say here but It just doesnt seem Neutral point of view to me. Interested in others opinion on this.Gamekeeper7 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daminozide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daminozide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)