That said, 126% increased odds sounds like a lot but if the odds are 1 in 1000 and the study size contains only 9000 individuals then the usual odds would be 9 cases but 10 cases would represent a 900% increase.
I think you should check your calculation again. A 900% increase from 9 expected cases would be 90 cases.
Also the abstract already explains your questions:
Findings This case-control study found the greatest risk of PD within 1 to 3 miles of a golf course, and that this risk generally decreased with distance. Effect sizes were largest in water service areas with a golf course in vulnerable groundwater regions.
Exposures Distance to golf courses, living in water service areas with a golf course, living in water service areas in vulnerable groundwater regions, living in water service areas with shallow municipal wells, and living in water service areas with a municipal well on a golf course.
So if the local waterplant is extracting ground water where pesticides leach in, that increases the effects, which is to be expected.
Finally there is plenty of harmful chemicals that are known to be harmful but thanks to lobbying remain legal decades after the fact is established. See PFAS and Glyphosate for current examples.
To add to your chemical point, once the aquifer (the water under the ground) is contaminated with chemicals, it is nearly impossible to clean up and must be treated as it is pumped out for use. It isn’t like a lake that can heal from damages over time with plants and animals accumulating the toxins. They are stuck there forever until they are either pumped out of a well or flow through the aquifer until it reachs a spring where the water reachs the surfaces, which could be 100s of kms away and take 100s of years for the water to get there.
If you’ve ever seen an old gas station fenced off with random posts/metal poles around the site, it is probably an array of monitoring wells to track the concentration and movement of contaminated water.
I’m kind of glad about that water thing because there’s a golf course about a mile downhill and I don’t know where they get their water but ours is piped in from an uphill reservoir quite far in the other direction. Which might have all kinds of other unknowns in it, of course, but I’m so old I’m probably mostly microplastics and carcinogens by now.
There is no evidence that glyphosate has any negative health effects. It’s like MSG, just because you hear it, it doesn’t mean it true. This is what we have science for, and a good 30 years of research.
Glyphosate is toxic to aquatic lifeforms and insects. The rapid decline in insect life and increasing damage to aquatic biomes is threatening human life even if the substance itself is not toxic to humans.
Furthermore the studies for humans are looking at typical exposure rates with higher exposure having adverse health effects. Finally the problem with toxicity is also that a substance by itself might not be toxic enough to be causing health effects at common exposure levels. However we are exposed to thousands of such substances which in sum do become toxic, even if every single one is way below their threshold.
There is plenty of evidence that the full chemical formulation in roundup is toxic - which is why they try to focus on the “active ingredient” glyphosate.
Plus it’s already been linked to fatty liver disease.
I think you should check your calculation again. A 900% increase from 9 expected cases would be 90 cases.
Also the abstract already explains your questions:
So if the local waterplant is extracting ground water where pesticides leach in, that increases the effects, which is to be expected.
Finally there is plenty of harmful chemicals that are known to be harmful but thanks to lobbying remain legal decades after the fact is established. See PFAS and Glyphosate for current examples.
To add to your chemical point, once the aquifer (the water under the ground) is contaminated with chemicals, it is nearly impossible to clean up and must be treated as it is pumped out for use. It isn’t like a lake that can heal from damages over time with plants and animals accumulating the toxins. They are stuck there forever until they are either pumped out of a well or flow through the aquifer until it reachs a spring where the water reachs the surfaces, which could be 100s of kms away and take 100s of years for the water to get there.
If you’ve ever seen an old gas station fenced off with random posts/metal poles around the site, it is probably an array of monitoring wells to track the concentration and movement of contaminated water.
I’m kind of glad about that water thing because there’s a golf course about a mile downhill and I don’t know where they get their water but ours is piped in from an uphill reservoir quite far in the other direction. Which might have all kinds of other unknowns in it, of course, but I’m so old I’m probably mostly microplastics and carcinogens by now.
There is no evidence that glyphosate has any negative health effects. It’s like MSG, just because you hear it, it doesn’t mean it true. This is what we have science for, and a good 30 years of research.
Glyphosate is toxic to aquatic lifeforms and insects. The rapid decline in insect life and increasing damage to aquatic biomes is threatening human life even if the substance itself is not toxic to humans.
Furthermore the studies for humans are looking at typical exposure rates with higher exposure having adverse health effects. Finally the problem with toxicity is also that a substance by itself might not be toxic enough to be causing health effects at common exposure levels. However we are exposed to thousands of such substances which in sum do become toxic, even if every single one is way below their threshold.
deleted by creator
There is plenty of evidence that the full chemical formulation in roundup is toxic - which is why they try to focus on the “active ingredient” glyphosate.
Plus it’s already been linked to fatty liver disease.
I see no reference to that link