Woodcutter wrote: Christophe wrote:[...] in the long term pesticides could have (serious) consequences on the health of these new inhabitants of the fields!
Pkoi a real estate project does not take this into account?[...]
Toutafé dakor, but how does a farmer have a responsibility in the greed of a promoter who does not take into account all the data of the problem (it is too expensive and it can make the business collapse .. .
) when he is setting up a real estate project?
There are several parameters to take into account:
1 ° The regions encourage rural communes to create housing estates so that the communes and all the educational, commercial, associative fabric, etc. do not collapse. This was the case in my commune and the subdivisions were made by the commune and not by a promoter.
2 ° First-time buyers and more specifically first-time buyers, ie the class of employees / workers often choose to come to rural areas in the first place because of the price of the much more accessible land; they therefore choose to have to go on the road to do their shopping or go to work; but without this compromise no homeownership.
3 ° These newcomers, neorurals, are gradually discovering the world surrounding their "little home", with the advantages and disadvantages; it could be the same in urban areas. It just so happens that there is a fair respect to be adopted between neighbors and that if this farmer is not aware of the danger he poses to others, which is quite possible given the agricultural policy on pesticides, it is good to let him know our concerns, whether we come from town or not.
I had a neighbor who used to wash his sprayer 6 m from my house and at that time we still had hints of glyphosate in the house; I just had to tell him that he understood and that he stopped doing it.
Woodcutter wrote:bham wrote:[...] My summary of your words is so different from what you say so that you can say: "you allow yourself to think for me"?
Yes.
I say "
It is not him [Farmer]
who went to "pesticide" the city dwellers at home, they are the ones who came to live "in the countryside" ... "
And you answer me
bham wrote:[...]
I see that you take up the argument of nono, the bad city dwellers only have to stay in town
; [...]
I will summarize for you: "had only to stay at home".
[...]
your reaction is the opposite of an econological objective which could aim to denounce the use of pesticides as being dangerous for health.
[...]
but to do so, it would already be necessary to admit that there could be danger. [...] ".
It seems to me that you tend to lend me words that I have never made, without even making assumptions.
I have a little trouble with this kind of "slippage" ...
In this case excuse me, although for me the difference is very slight.
When you say :"
It is not him [Farmer]
who went to "pesticide" the city dwellers at home, they are the ones who came to live "in the countryside" ... "It is obvious but you cannot stop there, on this simple observation. The proof is that you add further:
"Once again, and I will repeat myself: I am not defending agriculture in what it has most detestable (pesticides and excessive fertilizers) but this is a classic example of the" city dweller "who comes to live in the countryside and who complains ... "
We would therefore be tempted to think that, according to you, the city dweller has no right to complain; and it seems that I am not the only one to extrapolate in the same way.
So if my extrapolation is wrong, what I really want, tell me what conclusion you give to your sentence.
) extrapolate a little too quickly ...
