Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
I still don't see how glyphosate is different from any other product whose misuse can cause harm.
Those that use it everyday because it is their job, doesn't qualify as misuse according the labeling on the Roundup container.
Those that use it everyday have an increased risk of contracting NHL.
Posts: 2,481
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
The studies used to determine the relative safety of glyphosate would have accounted for regular use by agricultural workers. They didn't just foolishly overlook that exposure risk.
This needs to be explained to the juror that suggested that Roundup is not safe unless you can drink it. Would he say that about the gas he puts in his car? Everything has a proper use and acceptable limit for exposure.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
If there was really a body of evidence that linked everyday use of glyphosate to an increasing risk of contracting NHL then you would be reading about Bayer settling with ‘victims’ out of the court room (arbitration). The fact that there are no settlements is a pretty clear indicator that there is no definitive evidence supporting a link between NHL and glyphosate use.
Posts: 4,846
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
"There are people who have careers where it is their job to use it daily"
The 2 people in the latest lawsuit were residential users.It was brought up at the trial that they had multiple risk factors for contracting lymphoma.
From the trial :
The company said both Alva and Alberta Pilliod had long histories of illnesses known to be substantial risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Posts: 10,987
Threads: 748
Joined: Sep 2012
Amazon Prime Video has just added “Aina” to their free streaming selection. The short (22 minutes) film includes interviews with a who’s who of Kauai residents protesting the application of herbicides such as Roundup on seed research farms.
“We can teach a whole new generation about holistic thinking, critical thinking, and the truth.”
I’m down with that.
Is it too much to ask that we include dialectics?
Preview trailer:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/aina
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
This needs to be explained to the juror that suggested that Roundup is not safe unless you can drink it. Would he say that about the gas he puts in his car?
The reason that this is not a good comparison is because you don't intentionally spray gasoline onto our crops. Onto food that we know we are going to later eat.
While I may not fully agree with the jurors statement, I can understand the mindset.
Posts: 10,987
Threads: 748
Joined: Sep 2012
you don’t intentionally spray gasoline onto our crops...
Organic farmers do however spray petroleum distillates on their crops, which are also listed as carcinogenic in California:
The next major class of organic-approved pesticides are various petroleum-based oils (mineral oil, paraffinic oil, petroleum distillates). These materials are useful for control of several "soft bodied" insect pests and powdery mildew. Again, their use rates are high (~9 lbs/acre)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavag...1da3ce6717
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
When someone posts on a subject they are highly emotionally invested in, but have absolutely zero knowledge of the subject and 32 pages later they are still confident they must be right despite repeatedly admitting (knowingly or not) their complete ignorance of the subject.
^TLDR; yet another definition of Punatic.
Posts: 2,481
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
Homeowners are not eating the weeds they spray that grow around the foundation of their house. These recent cases have primarily been about exposure during application. They got some on them as they applied it to the weeds. We all get some gas on us when we apply gas to our tanks. We would never drink gas and our cheerful use of gasoline on a daily basis is a powerful statement that we accept a certain degree of exposure as the cost of doing business because there is only a certain small degree of risk, again as long as we don't drink the stuff. This is exactly the situation for roundup except that in these recent judgements the jurors want to be able to drink the stuff. The failure of such basic reality checks is what confirms the unworthiness of these judgements.
Posts: 7,727
Threads: 684
Joined: Jun 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v....estaurants
$2,860,000.00 jury award for selling a beverage that is intended to be... a beverage. The precedent has been set- if the product is a liquid, juries will award huge cash settlements for using / misusing it.
If a cup of coffee is worth $2.86 million to a jury of idiots who don't understand the concept of hot coffee, imagine the future awards for liquids that AREN'T intended to be swallowed. Now we are expecting similar idiots to understand
cancer? When they don't understand how hot coffee works? Don't mistake jury judgements for a proper interpretation of science.
ETA: last sentences, formatting
