Maplewood could ban non-organic cosmetic lawn chemicals
bub said:
Your post is more hysterical (not in the ha ha sense) than the ones you claim to be attacking. No one is quoting scripture or reading the entrails of squirrels to support the conclusion that Roundup is dangerous. There is scientific evidence pro and con about it.
I don't doubt that there has been a big upside to the chemical. That's the dilemma we have about a lot of substances that we have a greater awareness of now than we first started using them.
For the modern economy, plastic is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important things ever created. It's also undoubtedly a growing environmental disaster. It is destroying the oceans. Look into the Pacific Gyre/garbage patch. Frightening.
This is all to say that we have dilemmas and, hopefully, we will make changes to improve the safety of problematic products or replace them with safer products.
Jackson_Fusion said:
tourn said:
Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell.
Been in use for 45 years. Time told.
But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.
Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.
Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!
Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.
Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...
So you co-sign on the "bees butterflies and lymphoma" comment. Great! Let's see the evidence. TIA.
Nobody is arguing that bad products, or poor environmental outcomes, should be ignored, so other than its utility as a straw man I am not clear on the point of your Pacific Gyre comment.
Specifically, a claim is being made about the impact of a herbicide on "bees butterflies and lymphoma."
Glyphosphate has had enormous benefits in terms of food production. It's not a zero-sum proposition to do away with it. There is a cost. The cost is higher food prices. That's a regressive impact in terms of income levels most harmed.
If the material is demonstrably dangerous that is a major issue. So far it does not appear to be, despite all the fear mongering and ambulance chasing (yes, the lawsuits are already being solicited).
Jackson_Fusion said:
tourn said:
Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell.
Been in use for 45 years. Time told.
But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.
Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.
Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!
Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.
Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...
You, like others, only choose to look at data that supports your pre conceived view. Show proof that Roundup has been such a boon to humanity, food production, etc. There are studies that show that organic farming practices based on soil science produce higher yields than GMO Roundup based systems. Roundup use leads to the destruction of soil and its productivity and sustainability. Monsanto's own research states a productivity of 2 or 3 bushels of corn per acre over more standard industrial agriculture.
However, butterflies need milkweed which is destroyed by spraying Roundup everywhere. It destroys the soil which is left bare and devoid of microbial life. Studies do show a link to certain cancer. It is hazardous to aquatic life. Read the label. It breeds super weeds which nothing can kill and which overtake everything else creating a vicious cycle of increased use or potency.
Out of curiosity, what credentials do you have to support your "scientific" analyses, your holier than thou knowledge and superior credibility? The vast use of Roundup is only a decade old, twenty years at the most. But you feel confident that the few studies not conducted by industry insiders over the past 10 years is knowledge enough to risk your grandkids health? Good for you.
DaveSchmidt said:
Can we dispense with the cosigns and get on with the tangents?
Cosines 
tourn said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
tourn said:
Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell.
Been in use for 45 years. Time told.
But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.
Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.
Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!
Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.
Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...
You, like others, only choose to look at data that supports your pre conceived view. Show proof that Roundup has been such a boon to humanity, food production, etc. There are studies that show that organic farming practices based on soil science produce higher yields than GMO Roundup based systems. Roundup use leads to the destruction of soil and its productivity and sustainability. Monsanto's own research states a productivity of 2 or 3 bushels of corn per acre over more standard industrial agriculture.
However, butterflies need milkweed which is destroyed by spraying Roundup everywhere. It destroys the soil which is left bare and devoid of microbial life. Studies do show a link to certain cancer. It is hazardous to aquatic life. Read the label. It breeds super weeds which nothing can kill and which overtake everything else creating a vicious cycle of increased use or potency.
Out of curiosity, what credentials do you have to support you "scientific" analyses, your holier than thou knowledge and superior credibility? The vast use of Roundup is only a decade old, twenty years at the most. But you feel confident that the few studies not conducted by industry insiders over the past 10 years is knowledge enough to risk your grandkids health? Good for you.
Weeds nothing can kill! Nothing! Not even fire! Not even Gaia!
Cute measure- more production per acre- but you shifted your argument to GMO, for which your (fake) stat would be damning... but roundup isn't fertilizer. Why would per acre yield be the metric to look at? What a slight of hand! All in the service of the greater good, I'm sure!
More production with less inputs = cheaper food.
I don't need or care to convince you, tourn. I just want to counter your anti-science fear mongering.
I know some will not trust this source- and since we've already heard about how Reuters is in Monsanto's pocket, obviously these well known corporate lackies are too.
Enough for this episode- until the next time tourn goes on his threadbump campaign!
Monsanto does claim much higher yield increases from their GMO's, btw. 2-3 bushels would be 2%-ish. They claim 20% on the low end.
Where did you see the 2% number, from Monsanto as you claim? Thanks!
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber...
Enough for this episode- until the next time tourn goes on his threadbump campaign! Wouldn't it be more productive to spread the BS on a field though?
Jackson:
First of all, it's spelled glyphosate.
Second, the state of California has determined it's carcinogenic.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/...
Jackson_Fusion said:
bub said:
Your post is more hysterical (not in the ha ha sense) than the ones you claim to be attacking. No one is quoting scripture or reading the entrails of squirrels to support the conclusion that Roundup is dangerous. There is scientific evidence pro and con about it.
I don't doubt that there has been a big upside to the chemical. That's the dilemma we have about a lot of substances that we have a greater awareness of now than we first started using them.
For the modern economy, plastic is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important things ever created. It's also undoubtedly a growing environmental disaster. It is destroying the oceans. Look into the Pacific Gyre/garbage patch. Frightening.
This is all to say that we have dilemmas and, hopefully, we will make changes to improve the safety of problematic products or replace them with safer products.
Jackson_Fusion said:
tourn said:
Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell.
Been in use for 45 years. Time told.
But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.
Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.
Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!
Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.
Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...
So you co-sign on the "bees butterflies and lymphoma" comment. Great! Let's see the evidence. TIA.
Nobody is arguing that bad products, or poor environmental outcomes, should be ignored, so other than its utility as a straw man I am not clear on the point of your Pacific Gyre comment.
Specifically, a claim is being made about the impact of a herbicide on "bees butterflies and lymphoma."
Glyphosphate has had enormous benefits in terms of food production. It's not a zero-sum proposition to do away with it. There is a cost. The cost is higher food prices. That's a regressive impact in terms of income levels most harmed.
If the material is demonstrably dangerous that is a major issue. So far it does not appear to be, despite all the fear mongering and ambulance chasing (yes, the lawsuits are already being solicited).
First, thank you for the spell check. I blame my iPhone- when in doubt, blame others. If that fails, blame equipment. You'll note I'm sure that I got it right elsewhere but thanks for the red pen!
Second- welcome to the thread. You pointed out the casus belli that compelled tourn to thread-bump a few dozen posts ago.
yahooyahoo said:
Jackson:
First of all, it's spelled glyphosate.
Second, the state of California has determined it's carcinogenic.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/...
Jackson_Fusion said:
bub said:
Your post is more hysterical (not in the ha ha sense) than the ones you claim to be attacking. No one is quoting scripture or reading the entrails of squirrels to support the conclusion that Roundup is dangerous. There is scientific evidence pro and con about it.
I don't doubt that there has been a big upside to the chemical. That's the dilemma we have about a lot of substances that we have a greater awareness of now than we first started using them.
For the modern economy, plastic is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important things ever created. It's also undoubtedly a growing environmental disaster. It is destroying the oceans. Look into the Pacific Gyre/garbage patch. Frightening.
This is all to say that we have dilemmas and, hopefully, we will make changes to improve the safety of problematic products or replace them with safer products.
Jackson_Fusion said:
tourn said:
Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell.
Been in use for 45 years. Time told.
But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.
Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.
Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!
Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.
Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...
So you co-sign on the "bees butterflies and lymphoma" comment. Great! Let's see the evidence. TIA.
Nobody is arguing that bad products, or poor environmental outcomes, should be ignored, so other than its utility as a straw man I am not clear on the point of your Pacific Gyre comment.
Specifically, a claim is being made about the impact of a herbicide on "bees butterflies and lymphoma."
Glyphosphate has had enormous benefits in terms of food production. It's not a zero-sum proposition to do away with it. There is a cost. The cost is higher food prices. That's a regressive impact in terms of income levels most harmed.
If the material is demonstrably dangerous that is a major issue. So far it does not appear to be, despite all the fear mongering and ambulance chasing (yes, the lawsuits are already being solicited).
Today's news may be of interest in this discussion, with caveats included:
Traces of Controversial Herbicide Are Found in Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream
Start here. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
Yes, I know it is only an independent peer reviewed study and not just Monsanto publicity. But it might be worth reading. Also see https://www.scientificamerican...
Or how about http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and...
And another one.. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_...
http://extension.psu.edu/plant...Do you consider Penn State Extension a liberal biased source?
DaveSchmidt said:
Today's news may be of interest in this discussion, with caveats included:
Traces of Controversial Herbicide Are Found in Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream
JacksonF has determined based on his scientific analyses that Roundup is totally harmless. So, one would assume he won't mind eating it in his ice cream.
I think Fusion's main function here is to remind us that some people will simply be unreachable and that our plans will have to work around them.
Klinker said:
I think Fusion's main function here is to remind us that some people will simply be unreachable and that our plans will have to work around them.
Right. So how to get the town moving on this?
Klinker said:
I think Fusion's main function here is to remind us that some people will simply be unreachable and that our plans will have to work around them.
Look man, I really don't like seeing things go personal like you just took it, but... when your analysis is "it's like cigarettes!" I would think that most people who can fog a mirror would not be persuaded to endorse your "plan", whatever it is. A badge of honor for the mirror foggers I suppose.
tourn said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Today's news may be of interest in this discussion, with caveats included:
Traces of Controversial Herbicide Are Found in Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream
JacksonF has determined based on his scientific analyses that Roundup is totally harmless. So, one would assume he won't mind eating it in his ice cream.
I'm willing to be convinced that any substance causes cancer. YOU are the one agitating for a ban in a town you have zero connection to, and you've been nothing but dodgy and hyperbolic. It is YOUR job to give evidence. You haven't done so. All you've done is satisfied your need for putting in "work" for your slacktivism.
No matter whether there's a town meeting or not, one thing is clear- you won't be in town.
/threadkill
I think the takeaway here is two dudes on this board really hate Roundup. One such dude may or may not actually live here.
That and Cherry Garcia may cause genital warts.
Jackson_Fusion said:
I really don't like seeing things go personal like you just took it, but... when your analysis is "it's like cigarettes!" I would think that most people who can fog a mirror would not be persuaded to endorse your "plan", whatever it is. A badge of honor for the mirror foggers I suppose.
Its not personal its just that you seem relatively well informed, you have read much of the info I have read and you have come to a different conclusion and/or stacked your priorities differently. Sometimes, it just isn't worth arguing. From what I have seen here, you and I probably stack our priorities differently on most issues.
Jackson_Fusion said:
Klinker said:
I think Fusion's main function here is to remind us that some people will simply be unreachable and that our plans will have to work around them.
Look man, I really don't like seeing things go personal like you just took it, but... when your analysis is "it's like cigarettes!" I would think that most people who can fog a mirror would not be persuaded to endorse your "plan", whatever it is. A badge of honor for the mirror foggers I suppose.
tourn said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Today's news may be of interest in this discussion, with caveats included:
Traces of Controversial Herbicide Are Found in Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream
JacksonF has determined based on his scientific analyses that Roundup is totally harmless. So, one would assume he won't mind eating it in his ice cream.
I'm willing to be convinced that any substance causes cancer. YOU are the one agitating for a ban in a town you have zero connection to, and you've been nothing but dodgy and hyperbolic. It is YOUR job to give evidence. You haven't done so. All you've done is satisfied your need for putting in "work" for your slacktivism.
No matter whether there's a town meeting or not, one thing is clear- you won't be in town.
/threadkill
Actually, I think the whole country should ban it and other dangerous lawn chemicals used purely for "aesthetic " reasons. If Canada can do it, we can too. You think science is "dodgy and hyperbolic?" The IARC, a reputable research agency considers Roundup a probable carcinogen and that's good enough for me. If you feel so strongly, why don't you attend the next meeting? Actually, everyone reading this who thinks Roundup, glyphosate, should not be in their water or ice cream should attend the next meeting!
Klinker said:
Robert_Casotto said:
That and Cherry Garcia may cause genital warts.
A convenient excuse, I'm sure.
It's called defamation per se under NJ law. I invite you to recant or delete.
I wouldn't worry too much if I were you, Klinker. I'm not a lawyer -- I believe Robert_Casotto is the one with a law degree and the best high school education around -- but he or she has taken this tack before, and unless he or she can show that he or she is identifiable and has suffered damage, I think your barb is safe.
If not, I'm confident that the future Democratic Republic of California will grant you sanctuary.
Robert_Casotto said:
Klinker said:
Robert_Casotto said:
That and Cherry Garcia may cause genital warts.
A convenient excuse, I'm sure.
It's called defamation per se under NJ law. I invite you to recant or delete.
Oh. I MOST certainly didn't mean an excuse for you. Odd that you would take it that way....
DaveSchmidt said:
I wouldn't worry too much if I were you, Klinker. I'm not a lawyer -- I believe Robert_Casotto is the one with a law degree and the best high school education around -- but he or she has taken this tack before, and unless he or she can show that he or she is identifiable and has suffered damage, I think your barb is safe.
If not, I'm confident that the future Democratic Republic of California will grant you sanctuary.
Indeed. Robert Casotto (Bobby Darin) died in 1973 and is probably well past the point where he could be defamed.
Except Bobby Darin's high school would have spelled it Cassotto.
isn't he simply admitting his suffering and defaming BEN & Jerry's by blaming it?
tourn said:
How about Autism and Roundup?! https://www.omicsonline.com/op...
How about it?
That link is your standard of evidence? Short extract from the paper below. The paper proposes a hypothesis, but does not test it or conclude on it. It just proposes an idea and asks others to investigate further. Lots of things might be linked to autism, and who knows, maybe glyphosate is the culprit. But the linked 'research' is meaningless from a current policy perspective. How can one react to it? Like people reacted to the faked research that vaccines cause autism?
One of the real "gotcha" tables in the paper is typical of such pseudo-science. It shows a correlation between Roundup use and the number of students identified with autism served under the federal IDEA law. It completely ignores the fact that much of the increase in autistic students served under IDEA is simply due to higher student identification rates as doctors and school districts began to better recognize autism as a distinct disorder and as the definition of those on the autism "spectrum" became much more broad. To ignore such an obvious variable in order to back a claim is simply unscientific and misleading.
From the link:
"We recognize that this paper is speculative, but we hope it will
inspire others to conduct research to test the validity of our proposed
hypothesis. If our ideas are validated, it is imperative for governments
to take regulatory action against the practice of widespread glyphosate
usage on food crops"
Speculative, hope, inspire others, "if"......
Now that's iron-clad science.
ice said:
tourn said:
How about Autism and Roundup?! https://www.omicsonline.com/op...
How about it?
That link is your standard of evidence? Short extract from the paper below. The paper proposes a hypothesis, but does not test it or conclude on it. It just proposes an idea and asks others to investigate further. Lots of things might be linked to autism, and who knows, maybe glyphosate is the culprit. But the linked 'research' is meaningless from a current policy perspective. How can one react to it? Like people reacted to the faked research that vaccines cause autism?
One of the real "gotcha" tables in the paper is typical of such pseudo-science. It shows a correlation between Roundup use and the number of students identified with autism served under the federal IDEA law. It completely ignores the fact that much of the increase in autistic students served under IDEA is simply due to higher student identification rates as doctors and school districts began to better recognize autism as a distinct disorder and as the definition of those on the autism "spectrum" became much more broad. To ignore such an obvious variable in order to back a claim is simply unscientific and misleading.
From the link:
"We recognize that this paper is speculative, but we hope it will
inspire others to conduct research to test the validity of our proposed
hypothesis. If our ideas are validated, it is imperative for governments
to take regulatory action against the practice of widespread glyphosate
usage on food crops"
Speculative, hope, inspire others, "if"......
Now that's iron-clad science.
Didn't say it was anything other than what it is. And I agree that research should be done. It raises several very interesting hypotheses. It obviously caught your attention. But maybe you don't want to know if Roundup causes autism, or cancer, or anything else? Maybe it's more important to you to be able to easily kill the weeds that "mar" your walkway or curb?
Jackson_Fusion said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Can we dispense with the cosigns and get on with the tangents?
Cosines
tourn said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
tourn said:
Bees, butterflies, lymphoma, what other damage might Roundup have caused over the past 10 to 20 years of its intensive use? Only time will tell.
Been in use for 45 years. Time told.
But hysteria , fear mongering and astroturfing does damage in real time.
Thankfully, comically executed message board spamming slactivism in a community you've never even visited does not.
Please share your evidence regarding "bees butterflies and lymphoma". Boo!
Glycophate has been called as important to food production globally as penicillin is to fighting disease.
Why do you hate science? Why do you hate the people who have secure food supplies due to advances in science? Don't they matter to you? Where is your humanity?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/...
You, like others, only choose to look at data that supports your pre conceived view. Show proof that Roundup has been such a boon to humanity, food production, etc. There are studies that show that organic farming practices based on soil science produce higher yields than GMO Roundup based systems. Roundup use leads to the destruction of soil and its productivity and sustainability. Monsanto's own research states a productivity of 2 or 3 bushels of corn per acre over more standard industrial agriculture.
However, butterflies need milkweed which is destroyed by spraying Roundup everywhere. It destroys the soil which is left bare and devoid of microbial life. Studies do show a link to certain cancer. It is hazardous to aquatic life. Read the label. It breeds super weeds which nothing can kill and which overtake everything else creating a vicious cycle of increased use or potency.
Out of curiosity, what credentials do you have to support you "scientific" analyses, your holier than thou knowledge and superior credibility? The vast use of Roundup is only a decade old, twenty years at the most. But you feel confident that the few studies not conducted by industry insiders over the past 10 years is knowledge enough to risk your grandkids health? Good for you.
Weeds nothing can kill! Nothing! Not even fire! Not even Gaia!
Cute measure- more production per acre- but you shifted your argument to GMO, for which your (fake) stat would be damning... but roundup isn't fertilizer. Why would per acre yield be the metric to look at? What a slight of hand! All in the service of the greater good, I'm sure!
More production with less inputs = cheaper food.
I don't need or care to convince you, tourn. I just want to counter your anti-science fear mongering.
I know some will not trust this source- and since we've already heard about how Reuters is in Monsanto's pocket, obviously these well known corporate lackies are too.
Enough for this episode- until the next time tourn goes on his threadbump campaign!
Monsanto does claim much higher yield increases from their GMO's, btw. 2-3 bushels would be 2%-ish. They claim 20% on the low end.
Where did you see the 2% number, from Monsanto as you claim? Thanks!
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber...
Enough for this episode- until the next time tourn goes on his threadbump campaign! Wouldn't it be more productive to spread the BS on a field though?
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
Ha. Ha. Ha! I like that last part of your diatribe. Unfortunately Roundup ready seeds and the Roundup sprayed on them cost a lot of money. It's the benefit of having a monopoly and creating a cradle to grave system designed to sell chemicals at a high price. Show me where GMO crops are cheaper than conventional. Not having weeds produces higher yields, nothing to do with fertilizer. But to do away with the weeds you need to spray a very expensive chemical and use very expensive seed and then add more fertilizer to the now dead soil. Anti science? Ha! There is science and there is Monsanto science. I guess the entire country of Canada, Europe, and others do not believe in YOUR "science." But you apparently know better. All for the sake of that terrible ugly weed (plant) sprouting upon your fragile psyche.
Industrial agriculture produces only 30% of the worlds food supply but uses 70 precent of fossil fuels. See http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture#.WYkfMbEpChA
Roundup is the most used industrial agriculture chemical.
Ha. Ha. Ha! I like that last part of your diatribe. Unfortunately Roundup ready seeds and the Roundup sprayed on them cost a lot of money. It's the benefit of having a monopoly and creating a cradle to grave system designed to sell chemicals at a high price. Show me where GMO crops are cheaper than conventional. Not having weeds produces higher yields, nothing to do with fertilizer. But to do away with the weeds you need to spray a very expensive chemical and use very expensive seed and then add more fertilizer to the now dead soil. Anti science? Ha! There is science and there is Monsanto science. I guess the entire country of Canada, Europe, and others do not believe in YOUR "science." But you apparently know better. All for the sake of that terrible ugly weed (plant) sprouting upon your fragile psyche.
When did Canada ban Roundup? When did the EU ban it? A 3 minute Google search revealed that they haven't. The EU in fact has recently re-licensed it as being safe. Canada passed legislation requiring the label on Roundup to be changed (I don't have specifics) and said it was safe to use if used with guidelines provided on that label. Perhaps your source of information on this issue is not so reliable and you do your arguments a disservice when they use statements that can be so easily looked into and found Trumpian.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Math Tutoring with Certified Teacher
May 7, 2024 at 7:16pm
-
On call house cleaning service
May 6, 2024 at 7:17pm
-
May 6, 2024 at 10:11am
-
Experienced Summer Nanny Available: Thursdays & Fridays ;)
May 6, 2024 at 8:56am
-
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
May 5, 2024 at 7:35pm
-
May 5, 2024 at 11:14am
-
May 4, 2024 at 1:08pm
Help Wanted
-
CF583 PT Nanny for 2 (July Start)
May 7, 2024 at 2:07pm
-
May 7, 2024 at 7:32am
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
Lessons/Instruction
Featured Events
Advertisement
Your post is more hysterical (not in the ha ha sense) than the ones you claim to be attacking. No one is quoting scripture or reading the entrails of squirrels to support the conclusion that Roundup is dangerous. There is scientific evidence pro and con about it.
I don't doubt that there has been a big upside to the chemical. That's the dilemma we have about a lot of substances that we have a greater awareness of now than we first started using them.
For the modern economy, plastic is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important things ever created. It's also undoubtedly a growing environmental disaster. It is destroying the oceans. Look into the Pacific Gyre/garbage patch. Frightening.
This is all to say that we have dilemmas and, hopefully, we will make changes to improve the safety of problematic products or replace them with safer products.