51–60 of 95 posts
This is so ridiculous, the science points to the fact that the claim that it causes cancer is not true... I really don't like the american justice system. We literally live next to coal plants that put chemicals in the air 24/7 that are certainly certainly causing cancer for people later... You can find studies showing certain meats are correlated with cancer, can we sue the grocery stores?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is so ridiculous, the science points to the fact that the claim that it causes cancer is not true. I just Kagi'd it and UW says non-hodgkins up by 40% with roundup exposure. I guess the question would be "whose science".
I don’t understand why this comment is downvoted. The studies do show a link between non Hodgkin’s lymphoma and roundup. And if you want to dispute the studies, fine. But Monsanto settled for $10B on the round up lawsuits. That should tell you something.
If it’s cheaper to just settle than fight it out, you settle.
Waiting for upcoming news about Monsanto spinning off the Roundup division into a new company that suddenly files for bankruptcy.
I assume this comment is a reference to Purdue Pharma preemptively filing for bankrupcy after losing a bunch of lawsuits due to the (surely!) criminal way in which they--and the Sackler family that owns it--sold opiods. However, as much as I hate the Sacklers, I have to pipe in here out of a respect for the truth (Gell-Mann Amnesia style). The Purdue bankruptcy was not some sort of Machiavellian "get out of jail free…
I feel like we need to acknowledge that 12 average jury pool members are probably not the best panel of scientific experts to determine whether a chemical is carcinogenic. Much less calculate the damages involved. Like at this point it would be more scientific to run a Facebook poll. Jury trials are a great system for criminal justice but kinda need to admit this is not the same.
The jurors have spent many, many hours personally hearing testimony and examining evidence, all of which is vetted to meet courtroom standards.
Do you consider yourself fit to serve on such a jury?
Watched the movie Michael Clayton this morning which seems to be basically about Monsanto and Roundup. I know about the cases and it's always distressing to me because my dad was a farmer who grew round up ready canola and I grew up drinking water from a well on this farm. My dad is cancer free ATM, but it is unsettling to think about.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. The global and national cancer trends don't track Roundup entering the food system or the agricultural sector. To the extent it might be a carcinogen, it's not a dominant environmental carcinogen relative to other forces.
Pull a weed? No, spray a crop. We could polish a thing thing but instead we will apply a coating. And so forth. Now, "pulling weeds" doesn't spread. It doesn't end up in water and going downstream. The act of polishing doesn't end up in food.
I am beginning to think that chemical design should include facets like "breaks down with such and such a halflife at STP" (and then the same rules apply to the breakdown products) and "everyone involved who wants to say it is safe, down to the CEO, needs to bathe in this crap for ten years before accepting any kind of financial benefit."
Then again, I also spend a lot of time wondering how much of the "cide market" (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, et al) could be replaced by wee robots trundling their way through rows of vegetables, detecting weeds and yanking them, applying small and targeted blasts of fungicide here and there, plucking away insects and their eggs, and so on. Would such robots be affordable? Could they break even against the chemical approach? Or would they cost more and would we collectively decide to pay that price?
I have a sciences degree, and I'm not a complete weenie about some of the downright amazing things we have accomplished, but some time ago it occurred to me -- and I haven't really been able to rid myself of it -- that we have replaced some previously "mechanical" processes with chemicals, which we then haven't developed a good set of strictures around developing. Pull a weed? No, spray a crop. We could polish a thin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is so ridiculous, the science points to the fact that the claim that it causes cancer is not true. I just Kagi'd it and UW says non-hodgkins up by 40% with roundup exposure. I guess the question would be "whose science".
"up by 40%" only on a study of people living on or near farms where glyphosate is sprayed. Actual probability you will get NHL from roundup if the figures are accurate (again, limited study results, no causation found), in the worst case, goes from 2% chance to 2.8% chance. Amazingly, none of this considers the additives to roundup that aren't glyphosate, which everyone agrees are much more likely to hurt you. The ca…
I have a sciences degree, and I'm not a complete weenie about some of the downright amazing things we have accomplished, but some time ago it occurred to me -- and I haven't really been able to rid myself of it -- that we have replaced some previously "mechanical" processes with chemicals, which we then haven't developed a good set of strictures around developing. Pull a weed? No, spray a crop. We could polish a thin…
Given infinite money, is it possible to build a robot /today/ that can do all the things you list, in a reliable manner, capable of scaling up to industrial farm levels?
I have a sciences degree, and I'm not a complete weenie about some of the downright amazing things we have accomplished, but some time ago it occurred to me -- and I haven't really been able to rid myself of it -- that we have replaced some previously "mechanical" processes with chemicals, which we then haven't developed a good set of strictures around developing. Pull a weed? No, spray a crop. We could polish a thin…
Given infinite money, is it possible to build a robot /today/ that can do all the things you list, in a reliable manner, capable of scaling up to industrial farm levels?