Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="netlife007" data-source="post: 16357967" data-attributes="member: 79514">The Chronic Kidney Disease and Chronic PrognosesMr Bodhi Danapala (BD) should be congratulated for his well   articulated rejoinder in The Island’s Opinion Column of !st March in  response to  the previous day’s proclamations of Dr Channa Jayamsumana  (CJ)and Dr Navin de  Soyza of the General Committee of the GMOA,  reported in The Island news paper,  that the cause of the chronic kidney  disease (CKD) is now known to be glyphosate,  a widely used herbicide.  CKD is a highly sensitive subject and its etiology is  hitherto not  fully understood. Any public pronouncement on its etiology must be   based on sound scientific evidence and not on conjecture that can  mislead the  public..     Be that as it may, let us come to  the crux of the matter. As  also pointed out by BD, in an open access  article By CJ et al in the  Int.J.Environ.Res.Public Health: 2014,  11,2125-2147 titled "Glyphosate, hard  water and nephrotoxic metals: Are  they the culprits behind the epidemic of  chronic kidney disease of  unknown etiology in Sri Lanka?", it is hypothesized  that metal  complexes with glyphosate is the cause of CKD. The word "hypothesis"  is  printed at the very title of the paper. So how can the authors claim to  have  found the cause if it is yet a hypothesis! To quote from the  article: "Although  glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of the  CKD it seems to have acquired  the ability to destroy renal tissues of  thousands of farmers when it forms  complexes with hard water and  nephrotoxic metals". It goes on to say that  glyphosate chelates with  calcium and other metals in the hard water to become  the causative  agent of CKD. Basic chemistry tells us that metal complexes/chelates  of  glyphosate should be far less soluble than glyphosate alone, hence  rendering  it less absorbable by living organisms. In other words,  glyphosate should be  less toxic to living organisms in hard water than  in soft water. It should have  been preferable if these researchers had  presented at least some analytical  evidence to support their  hypothesis. Did they analyze any samples of water from  CKDU affected  areas before hypothesizing? We know that glyphosate complexes do  not  render themselves to easy analysis, but at least glyphosate levels in   non-hard water samples from water sources in the areas should have been   indicative of the chemical levels in the region. For example, other  countries  have such analytical data based on which US and EU has  established glyphosate  allowable limits as 0.7 and 0.2 ppm respectively  in drinking water.</blockquote>

Verification: Payakata winadi keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom