Talk:Pyriproxyfen

message: 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), 2014. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of confirmatory data submitted for the active substance pyriproxyfen. EFSA Journal 2014;12(8):3813, 19 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3813 PDF Aces. Jan. 13
====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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Genotoxicity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)

message: 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)
thread_title:  STOP EDITING THE PAGE 

message: 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)
replies: text: The best place for starting such a listing would be in Drinking water IMO. fgnievinski (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Other Water additives 

message: I assert whoever wrote that paper suffers from extreme financial bias. 124.169.154.80 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "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"