The government's ugly foutage

[Remundo]

Otherwise, on the news, they specified the size of the protection zones around the houses:

- 5 meters for products spread on the ground,
- 10 meters the products sprayed in the air ...

we are reassured, at 9,99 m, we are in danger, while at 10,01 m, it is safety.

not to mention the wind blowing, which as everyone knows, does not spread the aerosols on more than one micrometer.

and without any distinction on the said chemicals, which as everyone knows, are perfectly identical to each other ...

but what level of bullshit: Long live the Gourverne-Ment !!

[Did67]

When you see the farmers in jumpsuits in their tractor, it's still a bit afraid to treat 0m a school.

Of course it's scary!

As scary strollers in town, flush with the exhaust!

It is difficult to change our systems, for the farmer member of the FNSEA as for the city-dweller happy to have found a job at the other end of the city and to a sequence of 3 public transport that take 1h 20, prefers his car which takes only 30 mn (of which 20 mn of cap where it only pollutes without advancing).

So everyone continues to commit suicide and commit suicide without knowing it.

Where society becomes complex is that the second reproach to the first to kill! Without sweeping in front of his door. Difficult then to escape the invectives. To direct actions (see the violent actions of anti-specalists). Unable to move forward together - what a civilization normally does.

[Grelinette]

The farmer of the video is not very clever who gives, with aplomb, as argument to justify a zone of spraying pesticides of 0 meter around the houses:

"When we see what is consumed on the plate of the French today, we ask ourselves questions ..." (at 2 mn of the interview).

That's true, since we already eat food dégeux ... bin why it poses a problem to poison them too? ...

[GuyGadebois]

The farmer of the video is not very clever who gives, with aplomb, as argument to justify a zone of spraying pesticides of 0 meter around the houses:

"When we see what is consumed on the plate of the French today, we ask ourselves questions ..." (at 2 mn of the interview).

That's true, since we already eat food dégeux ... bin why it poses a problem to poison them too? ...

Yes, indeed, and there is a good chance that what is consumed in the plate of the French, it is in part him who produces it!

[Did67]

we are reassured, at 9,99 m, we are in danger, while at 10,01 m, it is safety.

not to mention the wind blowing, which as everyone knows, does not spread the aerosols on more than one micrometer.

and without any distinction on the said chemicals, which as everyone knows, are perfectly identical to each other ...

but what level of bullshit: Long live the Gourverne-Ment !!

Hard to disagree.

And yet !!!

There is no such thing as a "fair settlement". Or "perfect":

a) To regulate is to set limits. But it is setting verifiable limits (an unverifiable regulation is not applied, so is not a regulation!)

b) therefore a "public" regulation, applying to a people, of 60 million citizens, or here 2 or 300 000 farmers, with as many situations, involves its dose of arbitrariness.

This is true for GSM emissions as well as for road speeds as for the dose of radioactivity as for the maximum level of nitrates in the water ... This is true for driving alcohol or for the schedule limit to make noise in the evening (10 hours) or the maximum decibel in a theater (105 DB, I think: why? At 104 we would hear nothing, 106 we become deaf ??? Your reasoning on the limits makes ridiculous the most reasonable measure!) etc etc etc etc ... The list is endless.

Rejecting a settlement on this basis is risky. Which alternatives:

a) everyone decides for him according to his real situation, taking into account the complexity of the situation ??? Utopia: we know that the majority will eat! Will put himself in danger. And will endanger the neighbors ...

b) no regulation ??? Anarchy. We can try ... I doubt that it goes far ...

On the present case, it remains that 10 m, you're right, it's ridiculous. Just because politically, the government does not want to bribe farmers on the street. So we try to make 10 believe that it is a courageous measure, in the hope that the citizens will swallow it. And that farmers do not flinch.

Yes, the proposed non-measure, one can, one must criticize it.

The real drama, in my opinion, is a public power incapable of acting. We would have a solid public power, with a few billion to spend, we could consider expropriating with serious compensation (because the majority of farmers are not in an easy situation, let's not close our eyes by pure bobology) 300 m around the housing estates, schools, hospitals. To set up "organic" or "more than organic" producers even, with precise specifications. Set up a protective belt, which would be a market gardening or "agro-ecological" production area ... There's no more money. So we take ridiculous "scoops". This is how I see it.

[GuyGadebois]

There's more money. So we take ridiculous "scoops". This is how I see it.

Is there more money?
See how much it costs us, the CAP, to fatten these bastards of poisoners ...

[Did67]

When you see the farmers in jumpsuits in their tractor, it's still a bit afraid to treat 0m a school.

We must not fight with false or specious arguments: the farmer manipulates the pure product, before dilution. On his tractor, he is in the center of the cloud for several hours. We can not compare his situation (and the measures he happily takes to protect himself) with a passage on the other side of your garden ...

I do not defend.

I'm just saying: no naive arguments, it's not effective! It turns easily.

[Grelinette]

... Where society becomes complex, it is that the second reproach to the first to kill! Without sweeping in front of his door. ...

Without falling into the sacrosanct "precautionary principle" so controversial, the problem comes certainties asserted by some who violently hit the doubts and anxieties of others.

We still have trouble understanding and believing farmers who say mordicus with some provocation, that there is no danger with pesticides, while some of them make the headlines of the world media with their declared diseases and the poisoning trials at the pesticide manufacturers!

Small nostalgic advertising souvenirs: (sources)

radioactive products.jpg (173.65 KIO) Accessed 2593 times

By the way, would anyone have tried the Bayer Glyphosate Facial, I hesitate a little before buying it ...

[Remundo]

in fact I would say "at first glance" that to sufficiently limit aerosol inhalations, it takes 100 m, and that some are not necessarily dangerous.

But the debate is not even there. The bottom line is that we have millions of townspeople and rurban people who want to eat well without paying too much (and I am part of it), and especially without ever putting their feet or hands in the ground.

Agricultural production is therefore devolved to less than 5% of the active population, which can only respond to this challenge by mechanized agriculture and over-stimulated by chemical inputs ... some of which are small poisons ...

in the Middle Ages, there was not all that, but 90% of the population was in the field, even demolished by the physical hardness of the task, and despite this, famines occurred.

I do not have the solution, I just ask a few paradigms to ponder.

[perseus]

Hello,

in fact I would say "at first glance" that to sufficiently limit aerosol inhalations, it takes 100 m, and that some are not necessarily dangerous.

As much as 5 or 10m that is ridiculous. But 150m is not nothing. Without even talking about the impact on farms (organic and non-organic use "pesticides"), the consequences on other parameters can be significant. For example this would put a hell of a box in the PLUs of towns and villages in rural areas.
There are still other points that the legislator could consider before: choice of crops at the level of "contact zones", confined spraying, windbreak hedges, compliance with rules in case of wind ... And if a product is so dangerous that at 150m we ask ourselves questions, so it is also the prohibition of the said product that becomes an issue ...

But the debate is not even there. The bottom line is that we have millions of townspeople and rurban people who want to eat well without paying too much (and I am part of it), and especially without ever putting their feet or hands in the ground.

Agricultural production is therefore devolved to less than 5% of the active population, which can only respond to this challenge by mechanized agriculture and over-stimulated by chemical inputs ... some of which are small poisons ...

in the Middle Ages, there was not all that, but 90% of the population was in the field, even demolished by the physical hardness of the task, and despite this, famines occurred.

I do not have the solution, I just ask a few paradigms to ponder.

I share these questions.
There is still some schizophrenia in our societies on these issues.
We want local but not too much, and we still want to travel far.
The peasants are wanted, but no treatment, no animals, no tractors, no nuisance etc.
5% of the guys have to feed the rest but with ever more demanding constraints and the majority still have to pay as little as possible for their basket at the local supermarket .....