Talk:Pyriproxyfen

Genotoxicity
Based on the available evidence - experimental studies of genotoxicity (Ames test; in vitro chromosome aberration and gene mutation tests; chinese hamster cells test; in vitro DNA repair study using human epithelioid cells), it was concluded that pyriproxyfen has no genotoxic potential.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/publications

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/about/corporatedocs

--Costa Paulo Pedro P. R. (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

is the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) a reliable source?


 * Hi, Paulo. I'm pretty sure you are good in adding that information to the article. I saw that you added it before, to counter some conspiracy theory that was added, and you got reverted. I'm fairly certain the user who reverted you (an IPv6 user) was trying to revert the addition of the conspiracy theory, and included your edit because it was made in the context of that conspiracy theory. If you want to re-add that info, all you need to do is provide some context, such as creating a safety section, or explaining why the EFSA was motivated to test for genotoxicity in the first place. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Alleged relation to microcephaly
I have just added a section to the page about the alleged connection to microcephaly in Brazil. I see that similar sections have been deleted before. In light of the fact that a major Brazilian state (Rio Grande do Sul) has stopped using Pyriproxyfen because of this alleged connection (as cited now on the page), I think the edit is now important enough to stand. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.92.69 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. In fact the phrase "Rumor of link to..." is too weak. It should read "Alleged link to..." "Rumor" makes it sound as though it has been debunked, which it has not. There is obviously much more science to be done, but the allegation against pyriproxyfen has been made by a scientifically credible body, and the correct term is either "alleged" or "proposed" or "possible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.172.22 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rumor" makes it sound as though it has been debunked, which it has not. Yes it has. Thoroughly. Look at the section above this one: Pyriproxyfen has been shown to not be genotoxic for years. It physically cannot be the cause of microcephaly.
 * ...the allegation against pyriproxyfen has been made by a scientifically credible body, No, it hasn't. It was made by yet another anti-Monsanto fear-mongering group with a history of making easily debunked claims. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No it has not been debunked. And genotoxic is not even the right concept. Teratogenic is the right word and pyriproxyfen is teratogenic. It physically can be the cause of microcephaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.200.201 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Try reading the sources before making claims. It usually helps one avoid being as completely wrong as your are. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not being nice. You are being snotty to people. Why are you being like this way? And yes the chemical is teratogenic, it causes deformations in animal tests of developmental effect. I have researched this with reliable sources like TOXNET and it really is the case. Why can you act like this? Why do you be snotty to people? ElectraGrrl (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is you who should be more careful what you say. I have stated a simple fact, and in response you have taken that as an excuse to make a personal attack against me. Regarding the issue, genotoxicity is the only viable mechanism by which microcephaly might be induced through exposure to Pyriproxyfen. Pyriproxyfen has been found not to be genotoxic. Therefore, it cannot be the cause of microcephaly. Furthermore, it has been studied extensively for toxicity. These studies have found that it is extremely non-toxic. It would take an exceedingly large dose of pyriproxyfen to cause any ill effect. You can see the sources used on the article page and read them to understand this.
 * Now that I've said it in wordier terms, I'll not say it again. If either of you continue to use this talk page to argue against the consensus of reliable sources, or to make further personal attacks, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Please read WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL for more information regarding WP's policy with respect to conduct and the use of talk pages. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

STOP EDITING THE PAGE
For crying out loud, I have two RSs to add and can't do it because a couple people keep tweaking their grammar. Knock it off! MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  22:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've managed to squeeze in: This is "alleged", not "Hypothesized." There's a huge difference, and you need to compare the terms if you don't know this. There is now some external criticism from David Gorski. There is also a link to the WHO's published info on the chemical. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  22:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Other Water additives
Let us link this article to other water additives: Water fluoridation springs to mind. Does such a list exist? (I have searched for it in vain in WP) Zezen (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The best place for starting such a listing would be in Drinking water IMO. fgnievinski (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. The page of one additive (one which works completely differently than flouridation and is added for a completely different reason) is not the place to start this. Drinking water is a better place. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"the group hasn’t done any lab studies or epidemiological research to support its assertions, but it argues that using larvicides may cause human deformities"
I assert whoever wrote that paper suffers from extreme financial bias. 124.169.154.80 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)