SCRAWLYMPICS PHASE ONE RESULTS → http://darkusblack.com/ffa/discussion/809/

Comments

  • There are alternatives available in the US, but with planting season right around the corner in Brazil, might not be logistically possible to get Liberty Link soybean seed to Brazil and I don't know if the quantities are available to replace Brazil's typical volume of Roundup Ready seed. Dicamba is also available in the US but if a Brazilian judge has issues with glyphosate, Dicamba won't be an option.

    I'm curious to find out more about this judge. CIA operative? Trump minion? A "substitute" judge, in a single ruling who is able to devastate Brazilian agriculture, it doesn't smell right.
  • https://www.maritimeprofessional.com/news/brazil-companies-mull-buying-trucks-320273

    With the current global trading conditions, Brazil should be poised to take full advantage of any Asian tariffs. It should have been perfect timing to help their struggling economy but instead of taking advantage of the unique opportunity, they are doing what they can to screw it up.
  • In glyphosate related news

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_80754.shtml

    No link to the cancer this guy has but he wins a settlement anyway. God bless America
  • Cowpoker wrote: »
    In glyphosate related news

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_80754.shtml

    No link to the cancer this guy has but he wins a settlement anyway. God bless America

    no way this holds, in my opinion.
    you can't decide science from the bench, which is essentially what this judgement does. it is attempting to state that glyphosate causes cancer directly, which I don't buy. it's definitely a nasty chemical, but glyphosate has been used in various capacities for, what, 40 years? if there as the direct link that this judgement tries to imply, A LOT more farmers would have been developing cancer in that time.
  • Venkman wrote: »
    Cowpoker wrote: »
    In glyphosate related news

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_80754.shtml

    No link to the cancer this guy has but he wins a settlement anyway. God bless America

    no way this holds, in my opinion.
    you can't decide science from the bench, which is essentially what this judgement does. it is attempting to state that glyphosate causes cancer directly, which I don't buy. it's definitely a nasty chemical, but glyphosate has been used in various capacities for, what, 40 years? if there as the direct link that this judgement tries to imply, A LOT more farmers would have been developing cancer in that time.

    To my knowledge, the closest thing to an actual link is the World Health Organization study that found that it MIGHT be a human carcinogen.

    Also, as far as herbicides are concerned, glyphosate is by far the least concerning to me. I've been exposed to large quantities of Roundup or in the last decade the generic versions of glyphosate since I was 9 years old so more than 3 decades. All over the skin, in your mouth, you name it. More toxic than water, less toxic than a Big Mac.

    It is alarming that a jury of 12 would make that determination.
  • Cowpoker wrote: »
    Venkman wrote: »
    Cowpoker wrote: »
    In glyphosate related news

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_80754.shtml

    No link to the cancer this guy has but he wins a settlement anyway. God bless America

    no way this holds, in my opinion.
    you can't decide science from the bench, which is essentially what this judgement does. it is attempting to state that glyphosate causes cancer directly, which I don't buy. it's definitely a nasty chemical, but glyphosate has been used in various capacities for, what, 40 years? if there as the direct link that this judgement tries to imply, A LOT more farmers would have been developing cancer in that time.

    To my knowledge, the closest thing to an actual link is the World Health Organization study that found that it MIGHT be a human carcinogen.

    Also, as far as herbicides are concerned, glyphosate is by far the least concerning to me. I've been exposed to large quantities of Roundup or in the last decade the generic versions of glyphosate since I was 9 years old so more than 3 decades. All over the skin, in your mouth, you name it. More toxic than water, less toxic than a Big Mac.

    It is alarming that a jury of 12 would make that determination.

    'Sciencing' from the bench is a scary precendent
  • CowpokerCowpoker BabyGroot
    Venkman wrote: »
    Cowpoker wrote: »
    Venkman wrote: »
    Cowpoker wrote: »
    In glyphosate related news

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_80754.shtml

    No link to the cancer this guy has but he wins a settlement anyway. God bless America

    no way this holds, in my opinion.
    you can't decide science from the bench, which is essentially what this judgement does. it is attempting to state that glyphosate causes cancer directly, which I don't buy. it's definitely a nasty chemical, but glyphosate has been used in various capacities for, what, 40 years? if there as the direct link that this judgement tries to imply, A LOT more farmers would have been developing cancer in that time.

    To my knowledge, the closest thing to an actual link is the World Health Organization study that found that it MIGHT be a human carcinogen.

    Also, as far as herbicides are concerned, glyphosate is by far the least concerning to me. I've been exposed to large quantities of Roundup or in the last decade the generic versions of glyphosate since I was 9 years old so more than 3 decades. All over the skin, in your mouth, you name it. More toxic than water, less toxic than a Big Mac.

    It is alarming that a jury of 12 would make that determination.

    'Sciencing' from the bench is a scary precendent

    Yeah but I get how it happens, confirmation bias and all and having absolutely no experience with herbicides. Add a complete lack of perspective on the scope of what it means, pretty easy to dupe 12 people.
  • CowpokerCowpoker BabyGroot
    Especially liked the quote "sometimes handled hundreds of gallons at a time" and I can imagine some gasps from the court room. To put that statement in some perspective, if it's not windy in the first week of June, I'll "handle" 20,000 gallons of glyphosate in a single week and for the last 6 years, I usually spike it with something. I'll run hundreds of gallons a day through my ATV sprayer just killing weeds around farm buildings. What the hell is my settlement going to look like?

    Hoses break, sprayers tips plug, sediment screens plug, you are a sticky mess from head to toe after applying herbicide for a day.
  • There is not even an objective view to give a reasonable view to the perspective
  • CowpokerCowpoker BabyGroot
    Venkman wrote: »
    Cowpoker wrote: »
    In glyphosate related news

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_80754.shtml

    No link to the cancer this guy has but he wins a settlement anyway. God bless America

    no way this holds, in my opinion.
    you can't decide science from the bench, which is essentially what this judgement does. it is attempting to state that glyphosate causes cancer directly, which I don't buy. it's definitely a nasty chemical, but glyphosate has been used in various capacities for, what, 40 years? if there as the direct link that this judgement tries to imply, A LOT more farmers would have been developing cancer in that time.

    It held up after the first test.

    https://phys.org/news/2018-10-slashes-award-verdict-monsanto-cancer.html

    I feel confident in saying that the cancer research has established that farmers have a higher risk of developing non hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia and various skin cancers. The skin cancer one seems easy, hours and hours of sun exposure. They haven't locked down the cause of the other types of increased cancer rates but suspect it is a combo of pesticides, diesel emmissions and other solvents. There were early studies about an increase in prostate cancer but after hundreds of more studies, they could not duplicate the same results.
Sign In or Register to comment.