There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Source for later
Get this stuff
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3uwt8w/whats_your_take_on_gmos/cxprp5o FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I attached two links that examine the research and conclusions of the IARC regarding glyphosate. Frankly, it is alarming how bad it is, and amazing how these professionals let this slip.
Should we elaborate on the IARC monograph in more detail and examine when and where it falls apart, as my two sources did? And if so, should a separate article be made for that, or just fit it all on this article? Feredir28 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Depends how much detail you want. If you're going for a side-by-side or something similar, make a new article; if you just want to summarize and then cite rebuttals, here fits. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think a side-by-side piece is necessary, unless anyone here insists on that option. The monograph is not long, but a brief general summary of each key points along with rebuttals should be enough IMO. I guess we can start there, and if this grows over time, then we can decide later what to do. Feredir28 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)