![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can anyone add to its affect in the Mid-Western US? There was a big EPA study gren グレン 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Something about the structure formula: the triazine N atoms seem missing. Have a look at [1] for comparison.
UC Berkeley prof
Tyrone Hayes found that even in very small levels atrazine was an endocrine disruptor. Ecorisk (sygenta) who funded his study attempted to prevent publication of his work. atrazine most popular herbicide. Article should reflect this.
TitaniumDreads
22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopiakuta 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Could someone that works on this article please include this study in the article.
Early Exposure To Common Weed Killer Impairs Amphibian Development ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2008) — Tadpoles develop deformed hearts and impaired kidneys and digestive systems when exposed to the widely used herbicide atrazine in their early stages of life, according to research by Tufts University biologists.
The results present a more comprehensive picture of how this common weed killer -- once thought to be harmless to animals -- disrupts growth of vital organs in amphibians during multiple growth periods.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416091015.htm Gandydancer ( talk) 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There are freakin buckets of them here. Since this list already takes up about 25% of the article, is there any way to compact this before I expand it (if it's worth expanding)? I initially was going to sort out all the capitalisations but found the extra names. I can't really see a way to reduce the list. Freestyle-69 ( talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah folks. It would be nice to know what inhibiting the photosynthesis 2 pathway does to the plant when treated. Probably only needs a sentence or two in the Uses section where this is originally described. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I came across a few major claims without citations, and I'm listing them here in case anyone gets motivated:
A very similar product to atrazine, called terbuthylazine, is used in the EU today.
II | ( t - c) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In the section under Controversy, the last sentence in the second paragraph is the statement, "However at least one study was unable to reproduce the results". I have read the link that is offered, however I do not feel that the article refutes the previous information. I'd like to remove that line, but I'd like some input first. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 23:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit removed as source does not meet wikipedia standards as an expert in this field or an acceptable source. Re Avery:
Director, Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute Advisor, American Council on Science and Health Advisor, CFACT (Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow)
Avery, a supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade, considers himself an expert on an impressive range of subjcets, including "agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, trade, and water issues." In addition to his self-professed areas of expertse, Avery comments frequently on global warming science and policy.
Avery is the author of Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic(Hudson Institute, 1995). Avery is the editor of Global Food Quarterly, the newsletter of the Center for Global Food Issues and writes a nationally syndicated weekly column for the financial newswire "Bridge News". Avery's article, "What's Wrong with Global Warming?" was published in the August 1999 issue of Reader's Digest. ( http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm#2) Avery is responsible for the erroneous and often reported "fact" that organically grown food is many times more likely to cause E. coli poisoning than conventionally grown food. For more information, view a compilation of articles at http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=48&page=1&op=1. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted the following: The European Commission (EC) excluded atrazine from a re-registration process in 2003 because the registrants did not supply sufficient water monitoring data. It is frequently asserted that atrazine has been banned in the EU. This is an incorrect interpretation of the EC decision. Atrazine has not been assessed and de-registered because of a human health or environmental concern. It is not on any EU ‘banned list” and could theoretically be reregistered in the EU should the product registrant provide all the required data. Terbuthylazine, a herbicide very closely related to atrazine is registered in the EU. [1]
which Yilloslime undid and said "colloquially, this is a "ban."
I disagree and would like feedback. We're dealing with facts here, not informal conversation. A ban is defined as an "official prohibition or edict against something." As you can see from the Australian government's data, it hasn't been prohibited. It just wasn't registered. I think that's an important differentiation.
Any comments? Thanks. Califdreamn28 16:36 21 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
If you are talking about what people think is a ban then is fine, but if you are talking about European law, use a European law link, otherwise this will be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.127.97 ( talk) 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No effects on mammals? I found this article: Suzawa M, Ingraham HA (2008) The Herbicide Atrazine Activates Endocrine Gene Networks via Non-Steroidal NR5A Nuclear Receptors in Fish and Mammalian Cells. PLoS ONE 3(5): e2117. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.127.97 ( talk) 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section under "Effect on Amphibians," the first sentence claims that "Atrazine is a suspected teratogen..." I found the following information that says the opposite. "A World Health Organisation (WHO) committee concluded, for example, in 2007 that atrazine is not teratogenic (does not cause malformations of an embryo or a foetus)." [2] So I'd like to remove the teratogen comment. Any comments? Thanks. Califdreamn28 14:50 14 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
This article is fairly out of date, with a lot of reliance on discredited science and a heavy amount of information that doesn't reflect the scientific consensus on atrazine. I'd prefer not to hack the article to bits, how should we progress? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The current introduction reads: "Atrazine, 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine, an organic compound consisting of an s-triazine-ring is a widely used herbicide."
I would argue that this sentence structure is:
(a) unnatural (b) highlights the word organic (c) fundementally misleading to a non-scientific audience
I would suggest replacing it with something more along the lines of: "Atrazine is a widely used herbicide with the chemical structure 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine."
prat ( talk) 17:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this section could benefit from the addition of a few sentences regarding common trade names for Atrazine and links to articles on the major manufacturers of the chemical (i.e., Syngenta and perhaps others?). It took me a few searches to find what company manufacturers Atrazine and this seems like information that should be in the article itself. Veronica Davé ( talk) 01:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"But a 2005 study, requested by the EPA and funded by Syngenta, one of the companies that produce atrazine, was unable to reproduce these results"
This is apparently also a very poor summary of the whole story, eg.
(a) Syngenta hired a firm to systematically pressure the EPA leadership to achieve this result (b) Downplays the significant of Syngenta as apparently either a primary or the global primary producer of atrazine
Source: New Yorker article
I would suggest replacing it with: "A 2005 study, funded by Syngenta (the most significant commercial supplier of atrazine to the US market, where it is the second most widely used pesticide, with estimated yearly sales of $x), unsurprisingly failed to reproduce these results."
prat ( talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Review articles that synthesize primary literature are generally considered more reliable than individual studies (which can show incongruence with each other and be susceptible to cherry-picking: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). The following review article should be discussed under Health and environmental effects, as it has implications for fish, reptiles, lizards, and mammals as well as amphibians. In the interest of neutrality, of course, criticism from reliable sources may be included. An op-ed piece from Jon Entine might not the most reliable source for balance (see WP:NEWSORG. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)The current reference for the words "Although it is banned in the European Union,[4]" is the APVMA and that specifically says that says "It is frequently asserted that atrazine has been banned in the EU. This is an incorrect interpretation of the EC decision. Atrazine has not been assessed and de-registered because of a human health or environmental concern. It is not on any EU ‘banned list’ and could theoretically be reregistered in the EU should the product registrant provide all the required data. Terbuthylazine, a herbicide very closely related to atrazine, is still in use in the EU and is under assessment (external site).". Consequently I will change "banned" to "not registered for use" as that would reflect that APVMA reference. Fromthehill ( talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
http://edexim.jrc.ec.europa.eu/list_annex_chemical_details.php?type=S&annex=108&id_part=1
This is EDEXIM Annex I Part 1 Substance Information and use limitation according to Annex I, Council Regulation No (EC) 689/2008 and atrazine is specifically banned for Annex 1 part 1 subcategory "pesticide in the group of plant protection products" and Annex 1 part 2 category "pesticides" lol Fromthehill ( talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the APVMA reference and added the EDEXIM link and this supports the use of the word "banned" in Wikipedia as that is what it says right there on the web page of the relevant EU authority. The APVMA can argue with the EU as to the wording used but that's not our fight. Fromthehill ( talk) 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It does not seem the EPA study should be in the lead paragraph. This article is also now likely to receive more attention as a result of Hayes story being posted to slashdot.org
If no one objects I would like to rewrite the intro with a more NPOV. I would remove the EPA study and keep it more general. Also, I suspect this article has significant issue due to corporate PR firms editing it. Would this be a candidate for more attention from admins? Beakermeep ( talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Beakermeep ( talk) 03:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP:WEIGHT being given to the toxicity risks of atrazine is really off, especially after this series of edits by User:GandyDancer today. This article is becoming a train wreck. We need MEDRS compliant secondary sources to establish WEIGHT here. Not the press. I reverted the addition of the long quote from Center for Democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
i reverted the beetle paragraph in this dif with edit note based on policy and guideline: "removed paragraph on beetles. we don't base any wikipedia content on primary sources, much less health-related content, unless there is some extraordinary reason.".. user: Gandydancer reverted in this dif with edit note stating: "this study may be included in the article)" but no basis in policy/guideline. Gandy please explain. thx Jytdog ( talk) 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This sentence was there: "Hayes was formerly part of the SAP panel, but resigned in 2000 to continue studies independently." supported by this ref: Weedkiller 'threatens frogs', BBC News. 31 October 2002. That ref says nothing about any panel nor Hayes resigning from it. The panel that Hayes resigned from ~2000 was Syngenta's, not the EPA's. I deleted the sentence. Jytdog ( talk) 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
i deleted the paragraph describing Entine's views on endocrine disruption in general and atrazine in specific in this dif, as per my edit note, we shouldn't be turning the discussion of toxicity into a partisan battleground - we should be following MEDRS compliant sources for this content, and not hanging claims on quotes from non-MEDRS sources. Jytdog ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
According to The New Yorker article of 10 February 2014, Syngenta has been employing and continues to employ various tactics aimed at suppressing information about its product, atrazine.
[Emphasis added throughout.] It is not inconceivable that the attempts to be economical with the truth are carried over to Wikipedia. Editors should be on guard for
conflicts of interest,
non-neutral points of view or attempts to
fuzzy the issue. Take care, everyone. -
The Gnome (
talk)
12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I added info from a toxicology expert and it was removed for not being RS. I won't argue that, however this same editor seems to have no problem with using a sizable section written by Jon Entine who called claims that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor a novel theory and that it is quite safe, etc., in Forbes. Gandydancer ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
...is spilling over from this article to the
Herbicide article but only being presented as half the argument...see
this, the
history and
this talk page thread.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
ShawntheGod, today you changed "As of 2001, Atrazine was the most commonly detected contaminant ..." to ""As of 2001, Atrazine has been the most commonly detected contaminant ..." in the lead and in the body. This is agrammatical. One can say "Since 2001 Atrazine has been" but not "As of". The source provides validation for this comparative fact ("the most commonly detected contaminant") "as of" 2001 which is why I used "was." I am not aware of a reliable source that provides proof for this comparative statement from 2001 to the present. If you have one, please bring it! In any case, would you please fix the grammar and keep the content in line with the source (and any new one you bring)? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 11:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Some efforts have been put into introducing bias into this article. As any experienced editor knows, refs can get lost when edits are made. It is only courteous and is certainly important for keeping an article non-biased to either add tags or look for sources rather than just right off the bat removing information that is not so out of line that it is dangerous. It is no secret that water is a well-known source of contamination for children and this information is easily available. I will look for it as soon as I have time. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this discussion is to remind you of about the only WP policy you apparently do not seem to be aware of, this one:
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{ citation needed}} template by writing {{ cn}} or {{ fact}}. There are other templates here for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{ verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{ failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.
Take special care with material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page. Gandydancer ( talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This article was mentioned today in a blog I sometimes read, by Hank Campbell:
If you search for atrazine, rather than get the actual atrazine site, the first entry is for Wikipedia and the very first citation in their entry is for that recent New Yorker article (as of April, 2014 anyway). Atrazine has been around since 1958 but the first citation in Wikipedia is a New Yorker article from February of 2014? More strangely, that same article is cited three times before you even get to the table of contents....Since the Wikipedia entry had clearly been hijacked by people promoting that New Yorker article and not science...
Congratulations on this achievement. Geogene ( talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your reverting of "Kloas study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences in 2009 concluded that" to "The paper concluded", you explained that "we don't need to attribute in this way." Who is we? This article covers a very contentious subject from different and opposing points of view. It is an excellent debate. When reading it dates and authors of certain articles and reports should be in the main text, not just in the footnotes and references. Kloas' study was in 2009 in Toxicological Sciences, Hayes study was in the same journal in 2010. Names, dates, academic journals and page numbers do need to be attributed - in some cases just in the footnotes and references but in other cases in the text itself to provide chronology, etc - to make arguments robust.oceanflynn 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A 2012 epidemiological study showed that women who lived in counties in Texas with the highest levels of atrazine being used on agricultural crops were 80 times more likely to give birth to infants with choanal atresia or stenosis compared to women who lived in the counties with the lowest levels. [2]
That is the 2nd text Jytdog ( talk) 23:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, the actual source provided is a press release. Per WP:MEDRS we do not source health-related content to press releases. This was rightfully deleted. Further, the press release was touting a soon-to-be-published paper, which now has published: PMID 23036484. This paper is a primary source, and again per MEDRS we don't base health-related content on primary sources. Jytdog ( talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In 2010, atrazine was shown to cause prostatitis and delayed puberty in rats, [1] [2] and demasculinizes male gonads producing testicular lesions associated with reduced germ cell numbers in mammals (and also in teleost fish, amphibians and reptiles). [3] Therefore the case for atrazine as an endocrine disruptor that demasculinizes and feminizes male vertebrates meets all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria. [3]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
That is the first text. Jytdog ( talk) 23:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot going on here. The first part of the first sentence "In 2010, atrazine was shown to cause prostatitis and delayed puberty in rats," is to me putting a ton of WP:WEIGHT on in vitro studies, which per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS we don't do. (as an aside, i have been meaning for a long time now to write a guidance article on Toxicology content and sourcing but haven't done it yet. That guidance will describe how to handle animal studies and toxiological claims in Wikipedia. It doesn't exist yet, so all we have is MEDMOS and MEDRS). You supported that statement with source 1 there. Source 1 is very interesting. It some scientists, talking to other scientists, trying to figure out how to do experiments and think about toxicology for endocrine-disrupting compounds. It is beautiful because you can really Science going on here - scientists being honest and strugglng to figure things out. You will note that the discussion of atrazine is a section called "Another controversial low-dose example: atrazine and amphibian sexual development" and you will notice that the discussion is careful and ends with a clear description of what the authors think scientists in the field need to figure out before they can make definitive claims. By using the source to try to make a Very Clear Statement About Reality like you have, you are really abusing the scientific process itself, and the authors' careful work. Do you see that? I am stopping here. Jytdog ( talk) 23:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
great. on a controversial topic, nuance and great sources are important. if you want your edits to "stick", always write and select sources that people who think differently (but who follow wikipedia's guidelines and policies) will be able to accept, and avoid "singing to the choir." and remember that the goal is not to "win" but to achieve consensus on great content. This is described in a useful essay WP:Controversial articles that I recommend, if you have not read it. Jytdog ( talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(moving from user talk page) I see you removed my edit, which cited both primary and 2 review studies. I now also have an EPA report [7] that confirms, so I may insert the data again. Your edit summary reads: ""Review" is mainly a polemic arguing a very controversial theory is "proven"".
I'm just interested in your interpretation of WP:MEDRS. I haven't read it for a while, but can you point me to any text that encourages editors to avoid review studies that the editor feels are "polemics? This is the first time I've seen cited material, using review studies, removed because the editor does not like the tone of the study. MLPainless ( talk) 00:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Painless: I suspected that this reversion would be controversial. I think there are two issues here
What I'm concerned about is this: As I understand it, the requirement for secondary sources is based on the need for validation of the result by an objective, third party reviewer. Third party is defined as "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." WP:3PARTY
The two reviews cited here are written by an author who is so emotionally and professionally immersed in the controversy that he has engaged in a campaign of writing harrassing letters to Syngenta scientists. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100818/full/466913a.html and http://www.atrazine.com/Amphibians/Univ_of_CA-7-19-10.pdf
My personal feeling is that he is not the best WP:3PARTY to assess the quality and validity of experiments that support his own strongly held position. Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have access to the full text of that study? (as per yr edit summary comment) MLPainless ( talk) 10:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't want to set off a firestorm here, but a purported link between atrazine and gastroschisis is popping up in multiple geographies. Has this topic been considered here before? Is there a review we can use to discuss the question? Here are some links:
Not claiming that these links are sufficient, but it would be great to talk about this somehow. Lfstevens ( talk) 08:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
ah, gotcha on the CA. thanks. so how about the proposed content and source above? Jytdog ( talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The controveries article has lots of primary sources, although their content is not presented as definitive. E.g., the section on Africa. The act of deciding which points to include/exclude in an article is also an act of OR. Here is a relevant sentence from WP:PRIMARY.
If we say "a study says X" rather than "X", or "a critic says Y" but not "Y", in the absence of secondary sources, I think we can feel like we're being true to our school. I think my two sentences avoid such interpretation. Lfstevens ( talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the thoughtful comments. I'm sure this has been hashed out elsewhere and am willing to live by those conclusions. I included the language from WP:PRIMARY because I thought it gave us a way out. And context can be provided to further qualify statements. "A study says" is an initial context in itself. Of course, secondary results are preferable, where we can find them. But WP is full of news reports that are in no way secondary. I.e., the secondary approach is in no way universally honored... Lfstevens ( talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I removed this source [1] and its content from the fish and insects section [8].
Normally I'm very borderline tending towards not using primary sources in these topics, but this one has some very odd findings that really need interpretation from other expert sources. The previous version showed that females selected beetles with intermediate exposure of atrazine and that this was a reduction in fitness. The opposite could be said too though as females could be choosing the intermediate males for increased fitness (i.e., most likely to have some resistance trait at that exposure level). Definitely an interesting study, so I'm sure folks will be commenting on it in review type articles soon, so I'm just listing the source here as a a reminder to check on it and see what's been citing in awhile down the road. Otherwise, it's a little early to try to assess any weight for this study for it's various claims, especially on the American Burying Beetle ideas. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm out for the night, but I just came across three different reviews on the topic. They should be good for replacing the primary sources currently used in relevant sections of the article. I'll see about reading over them and incorporating them, but that may not be until the weekend. Here they are for anyone interested:
The last one appears to be behind a paywall, so I'll summarize that one first so that's done. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The EPA started a new review in 2009 for re-registration purposes. We quote the Agency n the article stating "the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans"
This is taken from a longer paragraph here, where the Agency states "During the July 2011 FIFRA SAP meeting, the Panel commented that – while there are still areas of uncertainty – the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans. Reproductive effects are the most sensitive effects observed in atrazine toxicity tests and, as such, our efforts to regulate the pesticide to protect against these effects through drinking water exposure will protect against all other effects that occur at higher levels."
While I do not regard myself as a conspiracy theorist or an Agency critic, I'm not clear that the Agency's description of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel's conclusions are strictly accurate. The meeting minutes, found here contain statements along the following lines:
Page 11: "Although there was a consensus among the Panel that it is highly unlikely that the dose of atrazine under discussion (100 mg/kg for 4 days) would have adverse reproductive outcomes, itwas recognized that the outcome of repeated doses, e.g., a second dose occurring 10 days later, was unknown... There was considerable disquiet among the Panel members that despite solid evidence for the mode of action (MOA)for atrazine to attenuate the LH surge, there was a complete lack of knowledge of the underlying neural or molecular mechanisms in the hypothalamus and an absence of direct coupling of LH surge attenuation to Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP). There was a general consensus that more deta iled experimentation is required...."
Page 14: "the Panel took issue with the statement on page 71 of the EPA Issue Paper that states “the weight of the evidence supports that atrazine is not likely to be carcinogenic in the human population." First of all, there is considerable uncertainty and gaps in the toxicological evidence concerning whether atrazine is a human carcinogen. Second, EPA has not done a comprehensive “weight of the evidence” assessment; instead, the toxicological evidence appears to be used to nullify any positive evidence from the epidemiologic studies. Third, the evidence across cancer sites is mixed, not uniform, with some cancer sites having no evidence for an association whereas other cancer sites having at least suggestive evidence for a causal association."
Page 15: "Many on the Panel believed that the epidemiology data failed to provide compelling evidence that atrazine is not carcinogenic."
Page 16: "The Panel recommended adjusting the conclusion that atrazine is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans to “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential.” This category is appropriate given that an association is unlikely with some cancers, but epidemiologic evidence suggests possible associations with ovarian and thyroid cancers."
Page 16: "The inconsistency of animal mechanistic and toxicological data with results from human epidemiologic data does not mean the risk associations identified in human studies do not reflect reality, even though animal experiments are not available or do not support the epidemiologic findings because animal models do not always apply to humans even when they are available. Notable epidemiologic findings (using the framework established in February 2010) should be given greater weight in risk assessments and should suggest avenues for future mechanistic and toxicological investigations if these are lacking, as is often the case."
I'd appreciate it if some other folks could look at this and offer their opinions on whether I've correctly interpreted these two documents as contradicting each other.
Thanks Formerly 98 ( talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer: good catch on the Syngenta quote. But in removing the quote, you also took all reference to a peer reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and a review by Australia's governmental agency regulating agricultural chemicals, which was not necessary for addressing the problem you identified. I restored these, replaced the faux quote with one from the actual source document, and reduced the breadth of the claim describing the quote. Formerly 98 ( talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note to Gandydancer and Formerly 98 - there was a reference issue in the article.
That was kind of subtle but all understandable and clear - there was no bad faith editing. Jytdog ( talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a heads up on this recent revert of mine. [12] In the whole Tyrone Hayes controversy, study funding has been brought up sometimes. While most folks familiar with science may know that being funded by a company does not mean they had a say in study design, writing the paper, etc., not all readers are going to know that. It's a common trope where people dismiss an independent study funded by a company because they aren't aware of the detail I re-added in my edit. Now that's just me talking as a scientist, but taking that hat off any putting my Wikipedia hat on, we do have that COI claim come up in Tyrone Hayes/atrazine related sources. In this single case, the source specifically stating the company's involvement or lack of it is actually pretty important. In most other articles though we'd consider declaration/lack of COI statements standard and unneeded. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with KingofAces that there is no need to call out non-involvement of Syngenta in the article preparation as a "disclaimer" in the article. The fact that Syngenta paid for the study and that they were not involved in the research or writing the paper both spring from the same source, which is the paper itself. If it is reliable for one statement, it is reliable for both. Formerly 98 ( talk) 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the Hayes section at the moment. I'm discussing the Syngenta review that found many independent studies to be "poor quality". We seem to be talking at cross purposes. MLPainless ( talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
FIFRA minutes ... it's an EPA memorandum. Is that even a RS?
My feeling is that the attacks on credibility, claims of harrassment, and other attempts by each side to demonize the other are best ommitted from articles. However, there are many editors who don't agree with my opinion, especially when o m e of the parties to the dispute is a large corporation. I then find myself in the awkward position of adding negative material to create balance as it is easier to defend than removing the negative material already present. My preference is to remove all material questioning the reliability of peer reviewed research except to note the existence of conflicting findings, and to remove all other material about harassment and obscene email. But I doubt we can get consensus for that, so my second choice is to leave it as it is, with balanced shitting on both sides. Formerly 98 ( talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi hi, You reverted my changes to the Atrazine page. I fixed that reference to the primary source, hopefully this appeases you. It seems you are a sort of watchdog for these big agri companies. For me I work in pediatric genetics. We see a lot of congenital defects that can't be explained by genetics, they are not inherited. In fact perhaps only 30% of the cases are genetic, others are likely to be environmental effects. We know so little about epigenetics, in the centuries to come more and more so, but studies like this should be encouraged. They are continuously squashed by these big agri companies, the very makers of the chemical, but these are the children of our species being affected. I am a novice here and willing to learn, let me know how I can strengthen that addition to the page, because I think that study should be included (and there are more coming showing the same about this herbicide!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer please don't add science-based content based on primary sources. i reverted this. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Gandy asked me to comment here on this edit based on this 2015 source from the Journal of Insect Physiology. The abstract says: "This study suggests that atrazine exposure affects male reproductive performance in insects and future studies should aim to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the fitness effects of exposure."
I don't know anything about the particular issue and can't judge. Regarding primary sources in general, they're allowed on WP (including in articles needing MEDRS), and for certain issues, particularly in history articles, are the best sources to use so long as you're aware of the pitfalls. When it comes to individual studies in science, the danger is that they're not in any way representative or reproducible, and so what weight to give them is a problem, which is why they're best avoided. This unfortunately has the effect that WP is often out of date, but the alternative is that articles would contain whatever conclusions the authors of single studies had reached. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wuerzele - you fixed a ref with this link in this dif. I found that link too. Can you please tell me where on that page it says anything about the content it is used to support, namely "It was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination"? I didn't find it there. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 01:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following was added to the article from a 2015 ATSDR summary:
Its an odd quote to add because
I've reverted the edit for these reasons. Thanks, Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, you've added this quote to the lead:
I have several objections to this.
I've therefore reverted the addition of this text. If you have specific concerns that have been raised by Cory-Slechta and incorporated into secondary reviews on the topic, I think these would be good to add. Thanks Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 13:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Your reason for the revert is not substantive.
Atsme, I guess part of my concern here is that the EPA, the FDA, the EFSA, and similar organizations are able to throw tremendous resources at evaluating a body of registration data that no single individual could sit down and read in less than a year. So I feel to some extent that these agencies deserve a little more credence than to pull out the name of an individual researcher and go into depth as to why that person thinks EPA is wrong, unless there is a special situation, such as their views being representative of a group of like minded experts.
Think about it this way. I can find individual experts who disagree with FDAs decision to pull Vioxx off the market, to label antidepressants for suicide risk, and even one or two opposed to EPAs decision to pull DDT off the market. There will always be a dissenter, and usually at least one on the advisory panel. But unless you can pull up a handful of reviews supporting that persons view as representative of a significant minority groups position, I think simply saying that controversy exists suffices for the lead.
Just my 2 cents. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 22:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingofaces43:, @ Sciencere: I see no justification to deleting wiki-links for gastroschisis. The edit note says:
Please provide policy or guideline that makes such a claim. I have seen wiki-links in a number of references in articles you frequent which you have not deleted. You have even used wiki-links in edit notes. This leaves me to wonder if Sciencere's explanation is the real reason the wikilink was deleted [16]:
I have restored the by Sciencere. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Atrazine. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
gay frogs!
ok, transgender:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794/
Family Guy Guy ( talk) 02:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This page refers to atrazine multiple times as a pesticide, which it is not and needs further review. Much of this is taken directly from other websites and I question the credibility of those sights with such a basic misclassification. There are quotes citing the EPA for pesticides in groundwater that need to be looked at because herbicides and pesticides are completely different things. TexasBeer ( talk) 03:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Referencing Tyrone Hayes, Rachel Aviv and Danny Hakim in a serious article about science really isn't acceptable. See Ronja R ( talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC) http://academicsreview.org/2014/03/turning-science-into-a-circus-the-new-yorker-rachel-aviv-and-tyrone-hayes/
https://mylespower.co.uk/2019/02/10/is-atrazine-turning-the-freakin-frogs-gay-3/
I am puzzled by the statements on the situation in Europe because they seem to contradict the information present in the German Wikipedia article on atrazine (I provide both the German text and the translation in case someone wants to doule-check the translation).
Original text: Da Atrazin und dessen Hauptabbauprodukt Desethylatrazin auch ins Grundwasser gelangen und damit dann auch im Trinkwasser nachgewiesen werden kann, ist die Anwendung von Atrazin seit 1. März 1991 in Deutschland und seit 1995 in Österreich verboten.
Translation: Because athrazine and his main degradation product desethylatrazine may also reach the groundwater and therefore can be detected in the drinking water, the application of athrazine is prohibited in Germany since the first of march 1991 in Germany and in Austria since 1995.
One of the reasons for this prohibition was an incident of october/november 1986 that I can vividly recall because it so to say passed by my home. I live in Bonn (at that time capital of West Germany) located about 20 kilometers from Cologne on the river Rhine. This is what happened:
Original text: Am 31. Oktober 1986 gelangten etwa 400 Liter Atrazin über die Abwässer der Firma Ciba-Geigy in den Rhein, was zusammen mit einem weiteren Chemieunfall der Firma Sandoz bei Basel einen Tag später ein Fischsterben im Rhein auslöste.
Translation: On the thirty-first of october 1986 about 400 liters of atrazine reached the river Rhine in the wastwater of the Ciba-Geigy company. Together with another chemical accident at the Sandoz company in Basel it caused a fish kills in the Rhine.
The incident also influcenced the drinking water supply along the Rhine because much of the drinking water in this region is bank filtrate.
One additional remark: If the description turns out to be correct something else needs to be corrected: No country has ever discontinued atrazine use for health or environmental safety reasons, including the European Union, and is used in more than 80 countries worldwide.
This is not correct because the European Union is not a country but a supranational and intergovernmental union of twenty-seven states.
If the statements in the German WP are in one way or another incorrect please provide sources. I'll then edit that article. -- [[User:Jsde|Jsde] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsde ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The name Hayes pops up in the controvery section without a description of who he is and how his work is relevant. I am sure he is important in the section, but the section doesn't say how. Someone who knows should fix this so that it scans properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The data just released http://www.socrata.com/government/2008-Results-Atrazine-Monitoring-Program-for-Commu/5mw6-aae5 from the Huffington post could justify a new section. It shows the levels of Atrazine in drinking water in over 100 watersheds in the US. Some of the levels are quite high. Links could be added for the geocoded data from GeoCommons - Data: http://finder.geocommons.com/search?query=atrazine and maps http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/7808. Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could create this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esciar ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As reported by Phyorg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-herbicide-atrazine-spurs-reproductive-problems.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.234.195 ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Mammals section is focused exclusively on EPA and Syngenta findings, which, according to some scientists, may be biased. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can anyone add to its affect in the Mid-Western US? There was a big EPA study gren グレン 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Something about the structure formula: the triazine N atoms seem missing. Have a look at [1] for comparison.
UC Berkeley prof
Tyrone Hayes found that even in very small levels atrazine was an endocrine disruptor. Ecorisk (sygenta) who funded his study attempted to prevent publication of his work. atrazine most popular herbicide. Article should reflect this.
TitaniumDreads
22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopiakuta 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Could someone that works on this article please include this study in the article.
Early Exposure To Common Weed Killer Impairs Amphibian Development ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2008) — Tadpoles develop deformed hearts and impaired kidneys and digestive systems when exposed to the widely used herbicide atrazine in their early stages of life, according to research by Tufts University biologists.
The results present a more comprehensive picture of how this common weed killer -- once thought to be harmless to animals -- disrupts growth of vital organs in amphibians during multiple growth periods.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416091015.htm Gandydancer ( talk) 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There are freakin buckets of them here. Since this list already takes up about 25% of the article, is there any way to compact this before I expand it (if it's worth expanding)? I initially was going to sort out all the capitalisations but found the extra names. I can't really see a way to reduce the list. Freestyle-69 ( talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah folks. It would be nice to know what inhibiting the photosynthesis 2 pathway does to the plant when treated. Probably only needs a sentence or two in the Uses section where this is originally described. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I came across a few major claims without citations, and I'm listing them here in case anyone gets motivated:
A very similar product to atrazine, called terbuthylazine, is used in the EU today.
II | ( t - c) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In the section under Controversy, the last sentence in the second paragraph is the statement, "However at least one study was unable to reproduce the results". I have read the link that is offered, however I do not feel that the article refutes the previous information. I'd like to remove that line, but I'd like some input first. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 23:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit removed as source does not meet wikipedia standards as an expert in this field or an acceptable source. Re Avery:
Director, Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute Advisor, American Council on Science and Health Advisor, CFACT (Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow)
Avery, a supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade, considers himself an expert on an impressive range of subjcets, including "agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, trade, and water issues." In addition to his self-professed areas of expertse, Avery comments frequently on global warming science and policy.
Avery is the author of Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic(Hudson Institute, 1995). Avery is the editor of Global Food Quarterly, the newsletter of the Center for Global Food Issues and writes a nationally syndicated weekly column for the financial newswire "Bridge News". Avery's article, "What's Wrong with Global Warming?" was published in the August 1999 issue of Reader's Digest. ( http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm#2) Avery is responsible for the erroneous and often reported "fact" that organically grown food is many times more likely to cause E. coli poisoning than conventionally grown food. For more information, view a compilation of articles at http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=48&page=1&op=1. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted the following: The European Commission (EC) excluded atrazine from a re-registration process in 2003 because the registrants did not supply sufficient water monitoring data. It is frequently asserted that atrazine has been banned in the EU. This is an incorrect interpretation of the EC decision. Atrazine has not been assessed and de-registered because of a human health or environmental concern. It is not on any EU ‘banned list” and could theoretically be reregistered in the EU should the product registrant provide all the required data. Terbuthylazine, a herbicide very closely related to atrazine is registered in the EU. [1]
which Yilloslime undid and said "colloquially, this is a "ban."
I disagree and would like feedback. We're dealing with facts here, not informal conversation. A ban is defined as an "official prohibition or edict against something." As you can see from the Australian government's data, it hasn't been prohibited. It just wasn't registered. I think that's an important differentiation.
Any comments? Thanks. Califdreamn28 16:36 21 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
If you are talking about what people think is a ban then is fine, but if you are talking about European law, use a European law link, otherwise this will be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.127.97 ( talk) 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No effects on mammals? I found this article: Suzawa M, Ingraham HA (2008) The Herbicide Atrazine Activates Endocrine Gene Networks via Non-Steroidal NR5A Nuclear Receptors in Fish and Mammalian Cells. PLoS ONE 3(5): e2117. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.127.97 ( talk) 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section under "Effect on Amphibians," the first sentence claims that "Atrazine is a suspected teratogen..." I found the following information that says the opposite. "A World Health Organisation (WHO) committee concluded, for example, in 2007 that atrazine is not teratogenic (does not cause malformations of an embryo or a foetus)." [2] So I'd like to remove the teratogen comment. Any comments? Thanks. Califdreamn28 14:50 14 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
This article is fairly out of date, with a lot of reliance on discredited science and a heavy amount of information that doesn't reflect the scientific consensus on atrazine. I'd prefer not to hack the article to bits, how should we progress? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The current introduction reads: "Atrazine, 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine, an organic compound consisting of an s-triazine-ring is a widely used herbicide."
I would argue that this sentence structure is:
(a) unnatural (b) highlights the word organic (c) fundementally misleading to a non-scientific audience
I would suggest replacing it with something more along the lines of: "Atrazine is a widely used herbicide with the chemical structure 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine."
prat ( talk) 17:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this section could benefit from the addition of a few sentences regarding common trade names for Atrazine and links to articles on the major manufacturers of the chemical (i.e., Syngenta and perhaps others?). It took me a few searches to find what company manufacturers Atrazine and this seems like information that should be in the article itself. Veronica Davé ( talk) 01:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"But a 2005 study, requested by the EPA and funded by Syngenta, one of the companies that produce atrazine, was unable to reproduce these results"
This is apparently also a very poor summary of the whole story, eg.
(a) Syngenta hired a firm to systematically pressure the EPA leadership to achieve this result (b) Downplays the significant of Syngenta as apparently either a primary or the global primary producer of atrazine
Source: New Yorker article
I would suggest replacing it with: "A 2005 study, funded by Syngenta (the most significant commercial supplier of atrazine to the US market, where it is the second most widely used pesticide, with estimated yearly sales of $x), unsurprisingly failed to reproduce these results."
prat ( talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Review articles that synthesize primary literature are generally considered more reliable than individual studies (which can show incongruence with each other and be susceptible to cherry-picking: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). The following review article should be discussed under Health and environmental effects, as it has implications for fish, reptiles, lizards, and mammals as well as amphibians. In the interest of neutrality, of course, criticism from reliable sources may be included. An op-ed piece from Jon Entine might not the most reliable source for balance (see WP:NEWSORG. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)The current reference for the words "Although it is banned in the European Union,[4]" is the APVMA and that specifically says that says "It is frequently asserted that atrazine has been banned in the EU. This is an incorrect interpretation of the EC decision. Atrazine has not been assessed and de-registered because of a human health or environmental concern. It is not on any EU ‘banned list’ and could theoretically be reregistered in the EU should the product registrant provide all the required data. Terbuthylazine, a herbicide very closely related to atrazine, is still in use in the EU and is under assessment (external site).". Consequently I will change "banned" to "not registered for use" as that would reflect that APVMA reference. Fromthehill ( talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
http://edexim.jrc.ec.europa.eu/list_annex_chemical_details.php?type=S&annex=108&id_part=1
This is EDEXIM Annex I Part 1 Substance Information and use limitation according to Annex I, Council Regulation No (EC) 689/2008 and atrazine is specifically banned for Annex 1 part 1 subcategory "pesticide in the group of plant protection products" and Annex 1 part 2 category "pesticides" lol Fromthehill ( talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the APVMA reference and added the EDEXIM link and this supports the use of the word "banned" in Wikipedia as that is what it says right there on the web page of the relevant EU authority. The APVMA can argue with the EU as to the wording used but that's not our fight. Fromthehill ( talk) 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It does not seem the EPA study should be in the lead paragraph. This article is also now likely to receive more attention as a result of Hayes story being posted to slashdot.org
If no one objects I would like to rewrite the intro with a more NPOV. I would remove the EPA study and keep it more general. Also, I suspect this article has significant issue due to corporate PR firms editing it. Would this be a candidate for more attention from admins? Beakermeep ( talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Beakermeep ( talk) 03:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP:WEIGHT being given to the toxicity risks of atrazine is really off, especially after this series of edits by User:GandyDancer today. This article is becoming a train wreck. We need MEDRS compliant secondary sources to establish WEIGHT here. Not the press. I reverted the addition of the long quote from Center for Democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
i reverted the beetle paragraph in this dif with edit note based on policy and guideline: "removed paragraph on beetles. we don't base any wikipedia content on primary sources, much less health-related content, unless there is some extraordinary reason.".. user: Gandydancer reverted in this dif with edit note stating: "this study may be included in the article)" but no basis in policy/guideline. Gandy please explain. thx Jytdog ( talk) 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This sentence was there: "Hayes was formerly part of the SAP panel, but resigned in 2000 to continue studies independently." supported by this ref: Weedkiller 'threatens frogs', BBC News. 31 October 2002. That ref says nothing about any panel nor Hayes resigning from it. The panel that Hayes resigned from ~2000 was Syngenta's, not the EPA's. I deleted the sentence. Jytdog ( talk) 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
i deleted the paragraph describing Entine's views on endocrine disruption in general and atrazine in specific in this dif, as per my edit note, we shouldn't be turning the discussion of toxicity into a partisan battleground - we should be following MEDRS compliant sources for this content, and not hanging claims on quotes from non-MEDRS sources. Jytdog ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
According to The New Yorker article of 10 February 2014, Syngenta has been employing and continues to employ various tactics aimed at suppressing information about its product, atrazine.
[Emphasis added throughout.] It is not inconceivable that the attempts to be economical with the truth are carried over to Wikipedia. Editors should be on guard for
conflicts of interest,
non-neutral points of view or attempts to
fuzzy the issue. Take care, everyone. -
The Gnome (
talk)
12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I added info from a toxicology expert and it was removed for not being RS. I won't argue that, however this same editor seems to have no problem with using a sizable section written by Jon Entine who called claims that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor a novel theory and that it is quite safe, etc., in Forbes. Gandydancer ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
...is spilling over from this article to the
Herbicide article but only being presented as half the argument...see
this, the
history and
this talk page thread.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
ShawntheGod, today you changed "As of 2001, Atrazine was the most commonly detected contaminant ..." to ""As of 2001, Atrazine has been the most commonly detected contaminant ..." in the lead and in the body. This is agrammatical. One can say "Since 2001 Atrazine has been" but not "As of". The source provides validation for this comparative fact ("the most commonly detected contaminant") "as of" 2001 which is why I used "was." I am not aware of a reliable source that provides proof for this comparative statement from 2001 to the present. If you have one, please bring it! In any case, would you please fix the grammar and keep the content in line with the source (and any new one you bring)? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 11:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Some efforts have been put into introducing bias into this article. As any experienced editor knows, refs can get lost when edits are made. It is only courteous and is certainly important for keeping an article non-biased to either add tags or look for sources rather than just right off the bat removing information that is not so out of line that it is dangerous. It is no secret that water is a well-known source of contamination for children and this information is easily available. I will look for it as soon as I have time. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this discussion is to remind you of about the only WP policy you apparently do not seem to be aware of, this one:
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{ citation needed}} template by writing {{ cn}} or {{ fact}}. There are other templates here for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{ verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{ failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.
Take special care with material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page. Gandydancer ( talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This article was mentioned today in a blog I sometimes read, by Hank Campbell:
If you search for atrazine, rather than get the actual atrazine site, the first entry is for Wikipedia and the very first citation in their entry is for that recent New Yorker article (as of April, 2014 anyway). Atrazine has been around since 1958 but the first citation in Wikipedia is a New Yorker article from February of 2014? More strangely, that same article is cited three times before you even get to the table of contents....Since the Wikipedia entry had clearly been hijacked by people promoting that New Yorker article and not science...
Congratulations on this achievement. Geogene ( talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your reverting of "Kloas study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences in 2009 concluded that" to "The paper concluded", you explained that "we don't need to attribute in this way." Who is we? This article covers a very contentious subject from different and opposing points of view. It is an excellent debate. When reading it dates and authors of certain articles and reports should be in the main text, not just in the footnotes and references. Kloas' study was in 2009 in Toxicological Sciences, Hayes study was in the same journal in 2010. Names, dates, academic journals and page numbers do need to be attributed - in some cases just in the footnotes and references but in other cases in the text itself to provide chronology, etc - to make arguments robust.oceanflynn 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A 2012 epidemiological study showed that women who lived in counties in Texas with the highest levels of atrazine being used on agricultural crops were 80 times more likely to give birth to infants with choanal atresia or stenosis compared to women who lived in the counties with the lowest levels. [2]
That is the 2nd text Jytdog ( talk) 23:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, the actual source provided is a press release. Per WP:MEDRS we do not source health-related content to press releases. This was rightfully deleted. Further, the press release was touting a soon-to-be-published paper, which now has published: PMID 23036484. This paper is a primary source, and again per MEDRS we don't base health-related content on primary sources. Jytdog ( talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In 2010, atrazine was shown to cause prostatitis and delayed puberty in rats, [1] [2] and demasculinizes male gonads producing testicular lesions associated with reduced germ cell numbers in mammals (and also in teleost fish, amphibians and reptiles). [3] Therefore the case for atrazine as an endocrine disruptor that demasculinizes and feminizes male vertebrates meets all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria. [3]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
That is the first text. Jytdog ( talk) 23:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot going on here. The first part of the first sentence "In 2010, atrazine was shown to cause prostatitis and delayed puberty in rats," is to me putting a ton of WP:WEIGHT on in vitro studies, which per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS we don't do. (as an aside, i have been meaning for a long time now to write a guidance article on Toxicology content and sourcing but haven't done it yet. That guidance will describe how to handle animal studies and toxiological claims in Wikipedia. It doesn't exist yet, so all we have is MEDMOS and MEDRS). You supported that statement with source 1 there. Source 1 is very interesting. It some scientists, talking to other scientists, trying to figure out how to do experiments and think about toxicology for endocrine-disrupting compounds. It is beautiful because you can really Science going on here - scientists being honest and strugglng to figure things out. You will note that the discussion of atrazine is a section called "Another controversial low-dose example: atrazine and amphibian sexual development" and you will notice that the discussion is careful and ends with a clear description of what the authors think scientists in the field need to figure out before they can make definitive claims. By using the source to try to make a Very Clear Statement About Reality like you have, you are really abusing the scientific process itself, and the authors' careful work. Do you see that? I am stopping here. Jytdog ( talk) 23:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
great. on a controversial topic, nuance and great sources are important. if you want your edits to "stick", always write and select sources that people who think differently (but who follow wikipedia's guidelines and policies) will be able to accept, and avoid "singing to the choir." and remember that the goal is not to "win" but to achieve consensus on great content. This is described in a useful essay WP:Controversial articles that I recommend, if you have not read it. Jytdog ( talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(moving from user talk page) I see you removed my edit, which cited both primary and 2 review studies. I now also have an EPA report [7] that confirms, so I may insert the data again. Your edit summary reads: ""Review" is mainly a polemic arguing a very controversial theory is "proven"".
I'm just interested in your interpretation of WP:MEDRS. I haven't read it for a while, but can you point me to any text that encourages editors to avoid review studies that the editor feels are "polemics? This is the first time I've seen cited material, using review studies, removed because the editor does not like the tone of the study. MLPainless ( talk) 00:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Painless: I suspected that this reversion would be controversial. I think there are two issues here
What I'm concerned about is this: As I understand it, the requirement for secondary sources is based on the need for validation of the result by an objective, third party reviewer. Third party is defined as "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." WP:3PARTY
The two reviews cited here are written by an author who is so emotionally and professionally immersed in the controversy that he has engaged in a campaign of writing harrassing letters to Syngenta scientists. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100818/full/466913a.html and http://www.atrazine.com/Amphibians/Univ_of_CA-7-19-10.pdf
My personal feeling is that he is not the best WP:3PARTY to assess the quality and validity of experiments that support his own strongly held position. Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have access to the full text of that study? (as per yr edit summary comment) MLPainless ( talk) 10:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't want to set off a firestorm here, but a purported link between atrazine and gastroschisis is popping up in multiple geographies. Has this topic been considered here before? Is there a review we can use to discuss the question? Here are some links:
Not claiming that these links are sufficient, but it would be great to talk about this somehow. Lfstevens ( talk) 08:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
ah, gotcha on the CA. thanks. so how about the proposed content and source above? Jytdog ( talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The controveries article has lots of primary sources, although their content is not presented as definitive. E.g., the section on Africa. The act of deciding which points to include/exclude in an article is also an act of OR. Here is a relevant sentence from WP:PRIMARY.
If we say "a study says X" rather than "X", or "a critic says Y" but not "Y", in the absence of secondary sources, I think we can feel like we're being true to our school. I think my two sentences avoid such interpretation. Lfstevens ( talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the thoughtful comments. I'm sure this has been hashed out elsewhere and am willing to live by those conclusions. I included the language from WP:PRIMARY because I thought it gave us a way out. And context can be provided to further qualify statements. "A study says" is an initial context in itself. Of course, secondary results are preferable, where we can find them. But WP is full of news reports that are in no way secondary. I.e., the secondary approach is in no way universally honored... Lfstevens ( talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I removed this source [1] and its content from the fish and insects section [8].
Normally I'm very borderline tending towards not using primary sources in these topics, but this one has some very odd findings that really need interpretation from other expert sources. The previous version showed that females selected beetles with intermediate exposure of atrazine and that this was a reduction in fitness. The opposite could be said too though as females could be choosing the intermediate males for increased fitness (i.e., most likely to have some resistance trait at that exposure level). Definitely an interesting study, so I'm sure folks will be commenting on it in review type articles soon, so I'm just listing the source here as a a reminder to check on it and see what's been citing in awhile down the road. Otherwise, it's a little early to try to assess any weight for this study for it's various claims, especially on the American Burying Beetle ideas. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm out for the night, but I just came across three different reviews on the topic. They should be good for replacing the primary sources currently used in relevant sections of the article. I'll see about reading over them and incorporating them, but that may not be until the weekend. Here they are for anyone interested:
The last one appears to be behind a paywall, so I'll summarize that one first so that's done. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The EPA started a new review in 2009 for re-registration purposes. We quote the Agency n the article stating "the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans"
This is taken from a longer paragraph here, where the Agency states "During the July 2011 FIFRA SAP meeting, the Panel commented that – while there are still areas of uncertainty – the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans. Reproductive effects are the most sensitive effects observed in atrazine toxicity tests and, as such, our efforts to regulate the pesticide to protect against these effects through drinking water exposure will protect against all other effects that occur at higher levels."
While I do not regard myself as a conspiracy theorist or an Agency critic, I'm not clear that the Agency's description of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel's conclusions are strictly accurate. The meeting minutes, found here contain statements along the following lines:
Page 11: "Although there was a consensus among the Panel that it is highly unlikely that the dose of atrazine under discussion (100 mg/kg for 4 days) would have adverse reproductive outcomes, itwas recognized that the outcome of repeated doses, e.g., a second dose occurring 10 days later, was unknown... There was considerable disquiet among the Panel members that despite solid evidence for the mode of action (MOA)for atrazine to attenuate the LH surge, there was a complete lack of knowledge of the underlying neural or molecular mechanisms in the hypothalamus and an absence of direct coupling of LH surge attenuation to Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP). There was a general consensus that more deta iled experimentation is required...."
Page 14: "the Panel took issue with the statement on page 71 of the EPA Issue Paper that states “the weight of the evidence supports that atrazine is not likely to be carcinogenic in the human population." First of all, there is considerable uncertainty and gaps in the toxicological evidence concerning whether atrazine is a human carcinogen. Second, EPA has not done a comprehensive “weight of the evidence” assessment; instead, the toxicological evidence appears to be used to nullify any positive evidence from the epidemiologic studies. Third, the evidence across cancer sites is mixed, not uniform, with some cancer sites having no evidence for an association whereas other cancer sites having at least suggestive evidence for a causal association."
Page 15: "Many on the Panel believed that the epidemiology data failed to provide compelling evidence that atrazine is not carcinogenic."
Page 16: "The Panel recommended adjusting the conclusion that atrazine is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans to “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential.” This category is appropriate given that an association is unlikely with some cancers, but epidemiologic evidence suggests possible associations with ovarian and thyroid cancers."
Page 16: "The inconsistency of animal mechanistic and toxicological data with results from human epidemiologic data does not mean the risk associations identified in human studies do not reflect reality, even though animal experiments are not available or do not support the epidemiologic findings because animal models do not always apply to humans even when they are available. Notable epidemiologic findings (using the framework established in February 2010) should be given greater weight in risk assessments and should suggest avenues for future mechanistic and toxicological investigations if these are lacking, as is often the case."
I'd appreciate it if some other folks could look at this and offer their opinions on whether I've correctly interpreted these two documents as contradicting each other.
Thanks Formerly 98 ( talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer: good catch on the Syngenta quote. But in removing the quote, you also took all reference to a peer reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and a review by Australia's governmental agency regulating agricultural chemicals, which was not necessary for addressing the problem you identified. I restored these, replaced the faux quote with one from the actual source document, and reduced the breadth of the claim describing the quote. Formerly 98 ( talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note to Gandydancer and Formerly 98 - there was a reference issue in the article.
That was kind of subtle but all understandable and clear - there was no bad faith editing. Jytdog ( talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a heads up on this recent revert of mine. [12] In the whole Tyrone Hayes controversy, study funding has been brought up sometimes. While most folks familiar with science may know that being funded by a company does not mean they had a say in study design, writing the paper, etc., not all readers are going to know that. It's a common trope where people dismiss an independent study funded by a company because they aren't aware of the detail I re-added in my edit. Now that's just me talking as a scientist, but taking that hat off any putting my Wikipedia hat on, we do have that COI claim come up in Tyrone Hayes/atrazine related sources. In this single case, the source specifically stating the company's involvement or lack of it is actually pretty important. In most other articles though we'd consider declaration/lack of COI statements standard and unneeded. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with KingofAces that there is no need to call out non-involvement of Syngenta in the article preparation as a "disclaimer" in the article. The fact that Syngenta paid for the study and that they were not involved in the research or writing the paper both spring from the same source, which is the paper itself. If it is reliable for one statement, it is reliable for both. Formerly 98 ( talk) 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the Hayes section at the moment. I'm discussing the Syngenta review that found many independent studies to be "poor quality". We seem to be talking at cross purposes. MLPainless ( talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
FIFRA minutes ... it's an EPA memorandum. Is that even a RS?
My feeling is that the attacks on credibility, claims of harrassment, and other attempts by each side to demonize the other are best ommitted from articles. However, there are many editors who don't agree with my opinion, especially when o m e of the parties to the dispute is a large corporation. I then find myself in the awkward position of adding negative material to create balance as it is easier to defend than removing the negative material already present. My preference is to remove all material questioning the reliability of peer reviewed research except to note the existence of conflicting findings, and to remove all other material about harassment and obscene email. But I doubt we can get consensus for that, so my second choice is to leave it as it is, with balanced shitting on both sides. Formerly 98 ( talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi hi, You reverted my changes to the Atrazine page. I fixed that reference to the primary source, hopefully this appeases you. It seems you are a sort of watchdog for these big agri companies. For me I work in pediatric genetics. We see a lot of congenital defects that can't be explained by genetics, they are not inherited. In fact perhaps only 30% of the cases are genetic, others are likely to be environmental effects. We know so little about epigenetics, in the centuries to come more and more so, but studies like this should be encouraged. They are continuously squashed by these big agri companies, the very makers of the chemical, but these are the children of our species being affected. I am a novice here and willing to learn, let me know how I can strengthen that addition to the page, because I think that study should be included (and there are more coming showing the same about this herbicide!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer please don't add science-based content based on primary sources. i reverted this. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Gandy asked me to comment here on this edit based on this 2015 source from the Journal of Insect Physiology. The abstract says: "This study suggests that atrazine exposure affects male reproductive performance in insects and future studies should aim to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the fitness effects of exposure."
I don't know anything about the particular issue and can't judge. Regarding primary sources in general, they're allowed on WP (including in articles needing MEDRS), and for certain issues, particularly in history articles, are the best sources to use so long as you're aware of the pitfalls. When it comes to individual studies in science, the danger is that they're not in any way representative or reproducible, and so what weight to give them is a problem, which is why they're best avoided. This unfortunately has the effect that WP is often out of date, but the alternative is that articles would contain whatever conclusions the authors of single studies had reached. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wuerzele - you fixed a ref with this link in this dif. I found that link too. Can you please tell me where on that page it says anything about the content it is used to support, namely "It was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination"? I didn't find it there. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 01:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following was added to the article from a 2015 ATSDR summary:
Its an odd quote to add because
I've reverted the edit for these reasons. Thanks, Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, you've added this quote to the lead:
I have several objections to this.
I've therefore reverted the addition of this text. If you have specific concerns that have been raised by Cory-Slechta and incorporated into secondary reviews on the topic, I think these would be good to add. Thanks Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 13:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Your reason for the revert is not substantive.
Atsme, I guess part of my concern here is that the EPA, the FDA, the EFSA, and similar organizations are able to throw tremendous resources at evaluating a body of registration data that no single individual could sit down and read in less than a year. So I feel to some extent that these agencies deserve a little more credence than to pull out the name of an individual researcher and go into depth as to why that person thinks EPA is wrong, unless there is a special situation, such as their views being representative of a group of like minded experts.
Think about it this way. I can find individual experts who disagree with FDAs decision to pull Vioxx off the market, to label antidepressants for suicide risk, and even one or two opposed to EPAs decision to pull DDT off the market. There will always be a dissenter, and usually at least one on the advisory panel. But unless you can pull up a handful of reviews supporting that persons view as representative of a significant minority groups position, I think simply saying that controversy exists suffices for the lead.
Just my 2 cents. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 22:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingofaces43:, @ Sciencere: I see no justification to deleting wiki-links for gastroschisis. The edit note says:
Please provide policy or guideline that makes such a claim. I have seen wiki-links in a number of references in articles you frequent which you have not deleted. You have even used wiki-links in edit notes. This leaves me to wonder if Sciencere's explanation is the real reason the wikilink was deleted [16]:
I have restored the by Sciencere. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Atrazine. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
gay frogs!
ok, transgender:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794/
Family Guy Guy ( talk) 02:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This page refers to atrazine multiple times as a pesticide, which it is not and needs further review. Much of this is taken directly from other websites and I question the credibility of those sights with such a basic misclassification. There are quotes citing the EPA for pesticides in groundwater that need to be looked at because herbicides and pesticides are completely different things. TexasBeer ( talk) 03:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Referencing Tyrone Hayes, Rachel Aviv and Danny Hakim in a serious article about science really isn't acceptable. See Ronja R ( talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC) http://academicsreview.org/2014/03/turning-science-into-a-circus-the-new-yorker-rachel-aviv-and-tyrone-hayes/
https://mylespower.co.uk/2019/02/10/is-atrazine-turning-the-freakin-frogs-gay-3/
I am puzzled by the statements on the situation in Europe because they seem to contradict the information present in the German Wikipedia article on atrazine (I provide both the German text and the translation in case someone wants to doule-check the translation).
Original text: Da Atrazin und dessen Hauptabbauprodukt Desethylatrazin auch ins Grundwasser gelangen und damit dann auch im Trinkwasser nachgewiesen werden kann, ist die Anwendung von Atrazin seit 1. März 1991 in Deutschland und seit 1995 in Österreich verboten.
Translation: Because athrazine and his main degradation product desethylatrazine may also reach the groundwater and therefore can be detected in the drinking water, the application of athrazine is prohibited in Germany since the first of march 1991 in Germany and in Austria since 1995.
One of the reasons for this prohibition was an incident of october/november 1986 that I can vividly recall because it so to say passed by my home. I live in Bonn (at that time capital of West Germany) located about 20 kilometers from Cologne on the river Rhine. This is what happened:
Original text: Am 31. Oktober 1986 gelangten etwa 400 Liter Atrazin über die Abwässer der Firma Ciba-Geigy in den Rhein, was zusammen mit einem weiteren Chemieunfall der Firma Sandoz bei Basel einen Tag später ein Fischsterben im Rhein auslöste.
Translation: On the thirty-first of october 1986 about 400 liters of atrazine reached the river Rhine in the wastwater of the Ciba-Geigy company. Together with another chemical accident at the Sandoz company in Basel it caused a fish kills in the Rhine.
The incident also influcenced the drinking water supply along the Rhine because much of the drinking water in this region is bank filtrate.
One additional remark: If the description turns out to be correct something else needs to be corrected: No country has ever discontinued atrazine use for health or environmental safety reasons, including the European Union, and is used in more than 80 countries worldwide.
This is not correct because the European Union is not a country but a supranational and intergovernmental union of twenty-seven states.
If the statements in the German WP are in one way or another incorrect please provide sources. I'll then edit that article. -- [[User:Jsde|Jsde] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsde ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The name Hayes pops up in the controvery section without a description of who he is and how his work is relevant. I am sure he is important in the section, but the section doesn't say how. Someone who knows should fix this so that it scans properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The data just released http://www.socrata.com/government/2008-Results-Atrazine-Monitoring-Program-for-Commu/5mw6-aae5 from the Huffington post could justify a new section. It shows the levels of Atrazine in drinking water in over 100 watersheds in the US. Some of the levels are quite high. Links could be added for the geocoded data from GeoCommons - Data: http://finder.geocommons.com/search?query=atrazine and maps http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/7808. Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could create this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esciar ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As reported by Phyorg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-herbicide-atrazine-spurs-reproductive-problems.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.234.195 ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Mammals section is focused exclusively on EPA and Syngenta findings, which, according to some scientists, may be biased. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)