04-28-2018, 05:15 AM
When you have conflicting reports/studies/evidence and one side is based on "irrational fears based on nothing" and the other based on corporate profits, you have to form your own "opinion" as to which is the truth. People tend to believe what they want to believe, and mostly they will regard believers of the opposite as nuts. Sometimes they even get angry or rude about it.
"Safe when used as directed". So if the directions say to wear protective masks and clothing, this is a statement from the manufacturer that it is NOT SAFE to use the product unprotected. The farmer will be protected, the people next door will not. Unless they have some notice, which is much of what the bill is about. Why the resistance to this? The only reason given in the article is cost. Is that enough?
"Safe when used as directed". So if the directions say to wear protective masks and clothing, this is a statement from the manufacturer that it is NOT SAFE to use the product unprotected. The farmer will be protected, the people next door will not. Unless they have some notice, which is much of what the bill is about. Why the resistance to this? The only reason given in the article is cost. Is that enough?