Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 162 of 162

Thread: Glyphosate

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Labette Kansas USA

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    The federal government and the industry selling a product provide all the information necessary to make informed decisions. That's not how I was raised. With that thought process I'd be broke ten times over.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Lee\'s Summit, MO

    Default Re: Glyphosate

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    The timeframe I gave was 3 generations, which varies from creature to creature. For humans that is about 76 and a half years of testing to prove safety of GMO's and synthetic toxin safety. (Again, if it cannot be tested, it should not be released in my opinion. There is simply no reason to release a potentially dangerous product that cannot, by law, be tested on its intended consumers.)
    76.5 years per generation and 3 generations? Okay... let's assume the 1st generation reproduces at age 22 and the 2nd one reproduces at 22 as well. So around 110 years of testing with 3 completed generation life cycles and the following necropsy testing and you'd finally be satisfied? Can you imagine what scientific, technological and medical advances would still be shelved if we had that type of thinking? Upside, penicillin testing would be coming to a close. Downside, we'd be living with 1907 technology.

    I much better understand why many who demand more testing were reluctant to give actual timeframes that would satisfy their criteria. Even they realize their expectations are foolhardy.

    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post

    So a couple hundred thousand birds would cause the entire industry to take a serious hit, in your opinion, but hundreds of millions of human deaths due to a suspicious rise in cancer obviously has no effect on the industry whatsoever, because it continues to grow. I just don't agree with the logic there. Hundreds of millions of humans being at risk gets me excited about fighting back, a few hundred thousand birds...

    Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of birds dying either, but what is the bigger fish to fry? Hundreds of millions of cancer deaths or a few hundred thousand birds... I think you can now see where I am coming from on this issue.
    Okay, Slowly... read what you wrote... with DDT in mind.

    Millions died as malaria and other mosquito borne diseases came back with a vengeance as DDT was pulled of the market because of claims (that were later found to be false) all to supposedly save some birds. With the logic above you're now okay with rushing DDT back to market because of the millions of people who'd be saved. Yet you want Glyphosate and undoubtedly (GMO's Neonics and whatever other boogiemen) removed for more (110 years worth) testing?

    As for your concern
    Quote Originally Posted by McBain View Post
    "So a couple hundred thousand birds would cause the entire industry to take a serious hit."
    So now you care about industry as long as it's "green" in your eyes? It's okay to ignore known deaths caused by one industry (wind) but not another (chemical)? Interchange windpower and DDT between "entire" and "industry" in your quote above to see how convoluted your thinking is.

    I'd swear you're trolling but you just seem to not only step in it you seem to like to roll around in it making your arguments look more foolish that anyone else could do.
    Ninja, is not in the dictionary. Well played Ninja's, well played...

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts