The spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity said Roundup isn’t safe, as did several juries. The EPA says scientific studies around the world say it isn’t, when used as directed.
What ‘proof’ has the Global Warming Hoax supporters in the C4BD offered in support of their claim? None, according to this article.
Others who have joined the C4BD include the World Health Organization (WHO?), and several class-action plaintiffs attorneys… who have offered no substantive proof… merely speculation.
Finally, only California state courts agreed with the plaintiffs attorneys, per the article. Were there other state courts ruling in favor of the plaintiffs? I doubt there were many, if any.
One thing I always thought was compelling about it was that it only works for a brief time then it breaks down, or that ‘s what I thought. It’s purpose is to stop photosynthesis for a period of time which then kills the plant — is what we were told. It saves millions of barrels of oil a year, due to less mechanical weed cultivation being necessary during the growing period.
But any chemical like that in concentrated form could certainly make a person sick, like that groundskeeper who got accidentally exposed and called the company’s 800 number to find out what to do.
Years ago studies indicated that Round-Up does not break down in the soil. That’s one of the problems with it. I think it’s been outlawed in European countries for some years now.
you need to get the Super Strength Concentrated Industrial Formula, then use double the amount recommended. make sure you don’t get it on your skin or clothes, as it’s essentially napalm. It’s pretty toxic, but no more weeds!
I used Roundup for a long time and NEVER noticed that the grass or weeds came right back up. Roundup kills the roots and if you leave the plant undisturbed it really does kill the roots. It will not come back unless you pull the weed before it’s had time to kill. You apply it by spraying the plant and you have to leave the plant alone for several days for it to kill. Organic gardeners and landscapers stopped it many years ago because of the research. They detoxify the soil by applying fine textured humates or activated charcoal with zeolites to absorb the poison.
That’s simply not true. It breaks down in the ground, it even breaks down in the container after it has been exposed to air. You can treat an area with roundup and then (after the prescribed time period) go to the same place and replant.
Which studies? Name them and provide links. Outlawed in Europe?!… based on which studies? Who cares what Socialist Euronations do? (A: no one who understands scientific reasoning).
Ah, yes. The Superior Scientific Expertise of . . . juries.
C’mon. The writer of this article must be about 12 years old. Everyone in America knows the civil justice system is a just a lottery based on the sympathetic nature of the injured person who is the focus of the trial.
If the writer were a (what’s that old-fashioned word?) journalist, he would focus on the credibility of the science against other science. Roundup was deemed safe by dozens of international studies until lawyers found someone in the scientific community to say the opposite. The EPA under Obama found it safe!
Instead, the writer of the article quotes someone from the “Center for Biological Diversity”. The name alone is hilariously revealing about the bias (for some reason, they left out of their name the words sustainability and intersectionality).
I think the jury verdicts are newsworthy from an insurance perspective. It really doesn’t matter what the science says if a jury will award high verdicts based on pseudoscience.
Even if you disagree with the Center for Biological Diversity the quoted source quoted has some credibility. He’s a PhD in developmental biology and works for the University of Oregon’s Environmental Toxicology dept.
The point of the article is that while the EPA asserts that it is safe, juries based on alternative scientific research or even pseudoscience are still awarding high verdicts.
Actually, that is a good point. But going forward the bigger issue has to do with the merits of the science. If all of the EPA studies in the past and all of the other independent studies are wrong, what is the science that will back that up, that will cause more and more juries to rule the same going forward?
Had a client a number of years ago that was worried about lawsuits by stupid consumers. We put a LARGE disclaimer on the product that said, ” By using this product, you agree that any and all disputes arising out of use will be settled by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act”. I have the case law to back it up. Take a look at your phone agreement, credit cards etc. Recent case in Texas where a consumer tried to sue the cell phone company for failing to warn that usage could be addictive. That was after they and a serious at fault accident while texting.
certainly, if you think trusting the EPA or any government body is the right thing to do you haven’t been paying attention to all the relaxation by the EPA on a slew of environmental regulations in favor of business exploitation.. lol …. what a moron you are… go drink a glass of that fluoridated water and zone out for us why don’t you, and let the business of righting the wrongs in this world carry on..
Everyone needs to do their own research, but because of my recently diagnosed auto-immune disease, I’ve done a lot of digging and reading. And none of it is from the government! I just don’t believe they’re qualified to make decisions for me.
The increased number of diseases and the increased number of people affected since the middle of the last century would blow your mind away. I’m not sure about cancer, but why do we want to eat chemicals?? Why are there so many more people with compromised immune systems in the last 75 years?? And what’s the FDA’s stand on all of this…not that I trust them either!
Science is never “settled”, no matter what climate doomers say. Science has given us an amazing lifestyle in terms of food availability and cost, advanced medical treatments, ability for millions and millions to live like kings of 300 years ago.
I am sorry about your condition. I have my own horrific experience with the limits of scientific knowledge and the arrogance of researchers. But we have to start with the assumption that if a majority of scientific studies find the same conclusion, it is logical to trust that conclusion. We also need to be skeptical of environmental zealots in the same way we are skeptical of industry sources. (But usually, the press treats the environmental folks as sacrosanct.)
Linda, prior to 75 years ago, I doubt if science had the ability to diagnose ‘auto immune disease’, along with a number of other maladies. One thing we do know is that the average life span has increased dramatically over that same 75 year period.
Go figure.
I have several auto-immune issues myself (some of which can be very debilitating) and the doctors feel I have had most since I was a child, they just went undetected. As science and medicine evolve and advance I think we are seeing a rise in diseases and diagnosis because they are able to find these things that the couldn’t years ago. Yes there are more chemicals in use now than before and people are being diagnosed with more now than in past but is that because the chemicals are evil and causing the issues or is it because it is easier to detect illness today than it was 75 years ago……..just another side of the coin to look at and think about…..
Okay, I’ll agree to no more lawsuits on this chemical if the EPA workers and the Executives drink an 8 ounce glass a day, or even once a week, or at minimum once a month forever. If they are so confident it doesn’t cause cancer, put your money where your mouth is. If they don’t agree, then we know the money is going to the EPA to get the “okay it’s safe” stamp.
Ludicrous comment. It is safe if used as directed. If you drink an 8 ounce glass of mouthwash every day you will probably get cancer. But that’s not how people use mouthwash.
And the trial lawyers shake with outrage at the audacity of someone to tell the truth ! “Who was responsible for paying off the EPA ?” bellowed the head of the trial lawyers from his corner of the septic tank !!
EPA is a joke department, just like the USDA & CDC with departments filled with individuals that are industry insiders looking to sell more chemicals and disease causing agents.
It’s like asking the industry to police themselves, ain’t going to happen. And yea, I don’t know how many of you idiots out there voted for Trump because you thought he was a good business man and would drain the swamp, but thanks.. It appears you’ve set us back again decades in any environmental progress and yea, likely they be getting another war started because that’s what republicans do
The spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity said Roundup isn’t safe, as did several juries. The EPA says scientific studies around the world say it isn’t, when used as directed.
What ‘proof’ has the Global Warming Hoax supporters in the C4BD offered in support of their claim? None, according to this article.
Others who have joined the C4BD include the World Health Organization (WHO?), and several class-action plaintiffs attorneys… who have offered no substantive proof… merely speculation.
Finally, only California state courts agreed with the plaintiffs attorneys, per the article. Were there other state courts ruling in favor of the plaintiffs? I doubt there were many, if any.
One thing I always thought was compelling about it was that it only works for a brief time then it breaks down, or that ‘s what I thought. It’s purpose is to stop photosynthesis for a period of time which then kills the plant — is what we were told. It saves millions of barrels of oil a year, due to less mechanical weed cultivation being necessary during the growing period.
But any chemical like that in concentrated form could certainly make a person sick, like that groundskeeper who got accidentally exposed and called the company’s 800 number to find out what to do.
Years ago studies indicated that Round-Up does not break down in the soil. That’s one of the problems with it. I think it’s been outlawed in European countries for some years now.
Stupid question but if Roundup doesn’t break up, why does it only work for a few weeks and the weeds come right back in my gravel? ELI5.
you need to get the Super Strength Concentrated Industrial Formula, then use double the amount recommended. make sure you don’t get it on your skin or clothes, as it’s essentially napalm. It’s pretty toxic, but no more weeds!
It has to come in contact with the plant leaf to work.
I used Roundup for a long time and NEVER noticed that the grass or weeds came right back up. Roundup kills the roots and if you leave the plant undisturbed it really does kill the roots. It will not come back unless you pull the weed before it’s had time to kill. You apply it by spraying the plant and you have to leave the plant alone for several days for it to kill. Organic gardeners and landscapers stopped it many years ago because of the research. They detoxify the soil by applying fine textured humates or activated charcoal with zeolites to absorb the poison.
That’s simply not true. It breaks down in the ground, it even breaks down in the container after it has been exposed to air. You can treat an area with roundup and then (after the prescribed time period) go to the same place and replant.
Which studies? Name them and provide links. Outlawed in Europe?!… based on which studies? Who cares what Socialist Euronations do? (A: no one who understands scientific reasoning).
Perplexed, our darling from the Bronx was amazed that plants grow right out of the soil.
Ah, yes. The Superior Scientific Expertise of . . . juries.
C’mon. The writer of this article must be about 12 years old. Everyone in America knows the civil justice system is a just a lottery based on the sympathetic nature of the injured person who is the focus of the trial.
If the writer were a (what’s that old-fashioned word?) journalist, he would focus on the credibility of the science against other science. Roundup was deemed safe by dozens of international studies until lawyers found someone in the scientific community to say the opposite. The EPA under Obama found it safe!
Instead, the writer of the article quotes someone from the “Center for Biological Diversity”. The name alone is hilariously revealing about the bias (for some reason, they left out of their name the words sustainability and intersectionality).
So, who should we trust? Juries, I guess.
I think the jury verdicts are newsworthy from an insurance perspective. It really doesn’t matter what the science says if a jury will award high verdicts based on pseudoscience.
Even if you disagree with the Center for Biological Diversity the quoted source quoted has some credibility. He’s a PhD in developmental biology and works for the University of Oregon’s Environmental Toxicology dept.
The point of the article is that while the EPA asserts that it is safe, juries based on alternative scientific research or even pseudoscience are still awarding high verdicts.
Actually, that is a good point. But going forward the bigger issue has to do with the merits of the science. If all of the EPA studies in the past and all of the other independent studies are wrong, what is the science that will back that up, that will cause more and more juries to rule the same going forward?
But your point is a good one.
Had a client a number of years ago that was worried about lawsuits by stupid consumers. We put a LARGE disclaimer on the product that said, ” By using this product, you agree that any and all disputes arising out of use will be settled by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act”. I have the case law to back it up. Take a look at your phone agreement, credit cards etc. Recent case in Texas where a consumer tried to sue the cell phone company for failing to warn that usage could be addictive. That was after they and a serious at fault accident while texting.
certainly, if you think trusting the EPA or any government body is the right thing to do you haven’t been paying attention to all the relaxation by the EPA on a slew of environmental regulations in favor of business exploitation.. lol …. what a moron you are… go drink a glass of that fluoridated water and zone out for us why don’t you, and let the business of righting the wrongs in this world carry on..
Everyone needs to do their own research, but because of my recently diagnosed auto-immune disease, I’ve done a lot of digging and reading. And none of it is from the government! I just don’t believe they’re qualified to make decisions for me.
The increased number of diseases and the increased number of people affected since the middle of the last century would blow your mind away. I’m not sure about cancer, but why do we want to eat chemicals?? Why are there so many more people with compromised immune systems in the last 75 years?? And what’s the FDA’s stand on all of this…not that I trust them either!
Science is never “settled”, no matter what climate doomers say. Science has given us an amazing lifestyle in terms of food availability and cost, advanced medical treatments, ability for millions and millions to live like kings of 300 years ago.
I am sorry about your condition. I have my own horrific experience with the limits of scientific knowledge and the arrogance of researchers. But we have to start with the assumption that if a majority of scientific studies find the same conclusion, it is logical to trust that conclusion. We also need to be skeptical of environmental zealots in the same way we are skeptical of industry sources. (But usually, the press treats the environmental folks as sacrosanct.)
Population control.
Amen, Linda!
Linda, prior to 75 years ago, I doubt if science had the ability to diagnose ‘auto immune disease’, along with a number of other maladies. One thing we do know is that the average life span has increased dramatically over that same 75 year period.
Go figure.
I have several auto-immune issues myself (some of which can be very debilitating) and the doctors feel I have had most since I was a child, they just went undetected. As science and medicine evolve and advance I think we are seeing a rise in diseases and diagnosis because they are able to find these things that the couldn’t years ago. Yes there are more chemicals in use now than before and people are being diagnosed with more now than in past but is that because the chemicals are evil and causing the issues or is it because it is easier to detect illness today than it was 75 years ago……..just another side of the coin to look at and think about…..
Okay, I’ll agree to no more lawsuits on this chemical if the EPA workers and the Executives drink an 8 ounce glass a day, or even once a week, or at minimum once a month forever. If they are so confident it doesn’t cause cancer, put your money where your mouth is. If they don’t agree, then we know the money is going to the EPA to get the “okay it’s safe” stamp.
Ludicrous comment. It is safe if used as directed. If you drink an 8 ounce glass of mouthwash every day you will probably get cancer. But that’s not how people use mouthwash.
They didn’t say it wasn’t poisonous, you simpleton. Sounds to me like you’ve been nipping at a bottle of something……..
Hyperbole and hysteria are the tools of those with no other options.
Says the guy who told us that Tramp speaks in hyperbole all the time.
And the trial lawyers shake with outrage at the audacity of someone to tell the truth ! “Who was responsible for paying off the EPA ?” bellowed the head of the trial lawyers from his corner of the septic tank !!
Nice one Jax!
EPA is a joke department, just like the USDA & CDC with departments filled with individuals that are industry insiders looking to sell more chemicals and disease causing agents.
It’s like asking the industry to police themselves, ain’t going to happen. And yea, I don’t know how many of you idiots out there voted for Trump because you thought he was a good business man and would drain the swamp, but thanks.. It appears you’ve set us back again decades in any environmental progress and yea, likely they be getting another war started because that’s what republicans do