Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
1–10 of 231 posts
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#2Still probably the safest herbicide, mainly because the competition (organophosphates, etc.) is so much worse.
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#3Still probably the safest herbicide, mainly because the competition (organophosphates, etc.) is so much worse.
What point are you trying to illuminate with this comment?
A 22 caliber is safer than a 40 caliber. But, I still wouldn’t a hole made in me from either.
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#4Still probably the safest herbicide, mainly because the competition (organophosphates, etc.) is so much worse.
What point are you trying to illuminate with this comment? A 22 caliber is safer than a 40 caliber. But, I still wouldn’t a hole made in me from either.
The alternative is mass starvation.
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#5Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
What point are you trying to illuminate with this comment? A 22 caliber is safer than a 40 caliber. But, I still wouldn’t a hole made in me from either.
The alternative is mass starvation.
No, mass starvation would not ensue from having to fight weeds using mechanical means. It would take more work and more fuel, but it is eminently doable if the need is there. Especially if the change would be gradual.
Making do without artificial fertilizer would be a lot harder.
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is mass starvation.
No, mass starvation would not ensue from having to fight weeds using mechanical means. It would take more work and more fuel, but it is eminently doable if the need is there. Especially if the change would be gradual. Making do without artificial fertilizer would be a lot harder.
Increased work and fuel means increased costs, increased costs means increased prices, increased prices means less food available for purchase by those on the margins, less food means starvation.
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#8Still probably the safest herbicide, mainly because the competition (organophosphates, etc.) is so much worse.
What point are you trying to illuminate with this comment? A 22 caliber is safer than a 40 caliber. But, I still wouldn’t a hole made in me from either.
That people would be on the whole less healthy had glyphosate not been on the market, because other herbicides, all of which were and are in common use, are worse.
It's not a complicated argument.
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, mass starvation would not ensue from having to fight weeds using mechanical means. It would take more work and more fuel, but it is eminently doable if the need is there. Especially if the change would be gradual. Making do without artificial fertilizer would be a lot harder.
Increased work and fuel means increased costs, increased costs means increased prices, increased prices means less food available for purchase by those on the margins, less food means starvation.
So anything that effects food prices, regardless of magnitude, causes mass starvation?
Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case
#10[dead]