I just received this video about a farm worker who handled glyphosate (maybe she has already been posted on econology? ...):
https://www.facebook.com/20hFrance2/videos/1654787071211525/UzpfSTExNDQzNTI0OTg6MTAyMTY5NTYzNDM2Nzc4NjY/
Fakenews or reality?
There is so much contradictory information that we do not know what to believe anymore.
Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
- Grelinette
- Econologue expert
- posts: 2007
- Registration: 27/08/08, 15:42
- Location: Provence
- x 272
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
0 x
Project of the horse-drawn-hybrid - The project econology
"The search for progress does not exclude the love of tradition"
"The search for progress does not exclude the love of tradition"
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
you are right, without proof no guilt. But judges rely not only on evidence but on strong presumptions, not a simple A4 slip given the sheer number of cases for each case and therefore the time it takes to establish it. These presumptions allow for the removal of "murderers, rapists, and others" from the middle of the population. "Of course there may be mistakes and innocent people are wrongly accused.there you speak pleadings, you always forget the principal, the proofs, without proof not guilty, although now with a good dose of catastrophism one carries the adhesion of the most credulous or sensitive and the effect of mass does the rest
Glyphosate (as a victim product, not the industrial product itself) may actually be part of it, but let the courts judge, not the manufacturers, nor the users who are too involved professionally and financially.
Yes, but that's the rule. If a child educator, a priest (since it is in the news) is ONLY suspected of touching, parents ask that the supposed be removed from their offspring (may be wrong, as the courts will decide) this is called a precautionary principle, unless you have no children or the fate of those children does not interest you. And that's valid for anything that poses a probable or certain risk to humans, (not to vegetation and the rest of the living which is another aspect of the problem.)glyphosate is not condemned for what it causes, but for what it could cause, because the prosecution still does not bring evidence but manipulates opinion, by fear the other side of belief we always come back to it
without proof, we must believe
Indeed, in a court of law THIS IS A LIVING ONE who is presumed innocent, not an industrial product. The presumed innocence in question will concern the industrialists, not the products (for example with the famous lawsuit against the tobacco manufacturers who have been condemned, not on the dangerousness of the product, but on the lies and transgression of the oath to tell the truth, even if they knew, knew, that they add addictive products to tobacco, not the tobacco itself [*]) So the courts are placed before a decision to be made that does not concern the product itself (This is the business of the state) but the effects produced on human health and the knowledge that manufacturers had.in a court of law one is always presumed innocent and it is the charge of proving guilt, for the glyphosate, he was presumed guilty from the beginning, but one still does not bring proof of his Guilt, but it has already been condemned, should not justice be the same for everyone?
[*] it is the medical community that decides and we see that tobacco has not been eliminated (neither prohibition nor constraints have ever worked), but the medical profession in total no longer defends and no longer justifies its consumption, but on the contrary condemns it on the health plan (not on the social level). it's called the separation of powers, fortunately!
Which brings us back to what you wrote above: " although now with a good dose of catastrophism we win the support of the most credulous or sensitive and the mass effect does the rest " this catastrophism on tobacco, which has lasted for centuries, has ended up paying off with a condemnation without appeal on its dangerousness, measurable by the damage on the bodies, but strangely the alcohol which makes even more victims profits from a privileged situation because it is a huge business in France and you have to save goat and cabbage. Ah, human nature and its quirks!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5830
- Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
- Location: boundary between North and Aisne
- x 957
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
So some people have decided that glyphosate has caused them to be twisted, maybe because they use it badly or without special precautions and from there we extrapolate, a little too easily, because in the USA won a lawsuit against a big firm it's often the jackpot
so for me we make a false trial of glyphosate, or rather a trial of intent, the precautionary principle I am for but must not be too eager to brandish it, or to brandish it a little too easily
for the precautionary principle, to review the trial of Outreaux, we went much further than the precautionary principle, to end up on real miscarriages of justice, so to handle also with care
yesterday report on a "real" scandal in the USA, there the drugs have already killed more than 300 people, there is no photo, glyphosate we are still at possible links
so for me we make a false trial of glyphosate, or rather a trial of intent, the precautionary principle I am for but must not be too eager to brandish it, or to brandish it a little too easily
for the precautionary principle, to review the trial of Outreaux, we went much further than the precautionary principle, to end up on real miscarriages of justice, so to handle also with care
yesterday report on a "real" scandal in the USA, there the drugs have already killed more than 300 people, there is no photo, glyphosate we are still at possible links
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
(of me)
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
Again, justice does not rely on unacknowledged desires, rumors and even less money on the back because most firms are equipped with a regiment of lawyers of all kinds highly paid and so if they are condemned is good because the product is considered dangerous.So some people have decided that glyphosate has caused them twitches, maybe because they use it badly or without special precautions and from there we extrapolate, a little too easily,
not in France!because in the USA won a lawsuit against a big firm it's often the jackpot
A lawsuit is not about the product, but about its effects. It is necessary to leave this obsession aimed at a product itself, but to focus on its effects on the human.so for me we make a false trial of glyphosate, or rather a trial of intent, the precautionary principle I am for but must not be too eager to brandish it, or to brandish it a little too easily
Except that the trial of Outreaux was not about a product, but about human behavior.for the precautionary principle, to review the trial of Outreaux, we went much further than the precautionary principle, to end up on real miscarriages of justice, so to handle also with care
Which ?yesterday report on a "real" scandal in the USA, there the drugs have already killed more than 300 people, there is no photo,
just waiting for a real civil suit or penal and we will have a final answer. Meanwhile the precautionary principle prevails over everything else and it is more authorized to get rid of it, only on 5 years max and it is already prohibited to non-professionals.the glyphosate we are still at possible links
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5830
- Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
- Location: boundary between North and Aisne
- x 957
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
I will compare the process done with glyphosate to that made at the large gauge canal Rhine Rhône, to stay in France
in 1981 the ecolo (political movement) come to power and declare that this channel project is anti-ecological and it is stopped, now we are mired in a carbon tax to reduce the number of trucks on our roads, while this channel was a solution
(At the time, we were talking about the degradation of the landscape and the environments, whereas the same ones show us today that a wind turbine does not harm the landscape, a yes, but 30 or 35 on a line of crest, it is something else)
there with the glyphosate one makes the same kind of error, without real proofs, say on the principle of precaution it is prohibited and in a few years I hope that one will not discover that the products of substitutions made more than badly or that the remedies of grandmothers relayed by the net, use of salt, vinegar, or other will have not, degraded more
in 1981 the ecolo (political movement) come to power and declare that this channel project is anti-ecological and it is stopped, now we are mired in a carbon tax to reduce the number of trucks on our roads, while this channel was a solution
(At the time, we were talking about the degradation of the landscape and the environments, whereas the same ones show us today that a wind turbine does not harm the landscape, a yes, but 30 or 35 on a line of crest, it is something else)
there with the glyphosate one makes the same kind of error, without real proofs, say on the principle of precaution it is prohibited and in a few years I hope that one will not discover that the products of substitutions made more than badly or that the remedies of grandmothers relayed by the net, use of salt, vinegar, or other will have not, degraded more
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
(of me)
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
a little more. glyphosate, we must not be mistaken is only a small part of the health problem of our countries whether in agriculture or medicine, the mechanisms are the same.
To meditate moreover, this video of DR Delépine which exposes well the framework of the administrative decisions which replace the real problems of grounds ... biological obviously! And it's a classic pediatric oncologist, not alternative medicine.
We find ourselves there with the same confusion between various subjects. Wind turbines spoiling the landscape, it can not please anyone, but a nuclear power plant or a landfill site, it's not fun either. But this is only about more or less aesthetic materials that are wind turbines, no lives in danger.
For the danger of substitution products, the question is again poorly posed:
or the chemicals present dangers in the short, medium or long term (and in the long term nobody has elements to oppose for their safety)
or one seeks to substitute a chemical for other chemicals with effects as badly and not at all known. Clearly replace a one-eyed one of the left eye with a one-eyed one of the right eye. And that does not excuse other means that are hardly more satisfactory. For all that, without excusing it, vinegar is an acidifier that hinders flora and disorganises wildlife, but safe for human populationsHere again and the salt is not new salt, since the waters will dilute the content, again without presenting a danger for human lifewhich is the only thing important for ... humans of course!
To meditate moreover, this video of DR Delépine which exposes well the framework of the administrative decisions which replace the real problems of grounds ... biological obviously! And it's a classic pediatric oncologist, not alternative medicine.
there with the glyphosate one makes the same kind of error, without real proofs, say on the principle of precaution it is prohibited and in a few years I hope that one will not discover that the products of substitutions made more than badly or that the remedies of grandmothers relayed by the net, use of salt, vinegar, or other will have not, degraded more
We find ourselves there with the same confusion between various subjects. Wind turbines spoiling the landscape, it can not please anyone, but a nuclear power plant or a landfill site, it's not fun either. But this is only about more or less aesthetic materials that are wind turbines, no lives in danger.
For the danger of substitution products, the question is again poorly posed:
or the chemicals present dangers in the short, medium or long term (and in the long term nobody has elements to oppose for their safety)
or one seeks to substitute a chemical for other chemicals with effects as badly and not at all known. Clearly replace a one-eyed one of the left eye with a one-eyed one of the right eye. And that does not excuse other means that are hardly more satisfactory. For all that, without excusing it, vinegar is an acidifier that hinders flora and disorganises wildlife, but safe for human populationsHere again and the salt is not new salt, since the waters will dilute the content, again without presenting a danger for human lifewhich is the only thing important for ... humans of course!
Last edited by Janic the 23 / 02 / 19, 10: 29, 1 edited once.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5830
- Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
- Location: boundary between North and Aisne
- x 957
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
Janic wrote:a little more. glyphosate, we must not be mistaken is only a small part of the health problem of our countries whether in agriculture or medicine, the mechanisms are the same.
To meditate moreover, this video of DR Delépine which exposes well the framework of the administrative decisions which replace the real problems of grounds ... biological obviously! And it's a classic pediatric oncologist, not alternative medicine.
that's what I say when policies are replacing scientists, we're going towards problems, so when the general public, even less to the facts of scientific and political problems, gets involved, we go to something
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
(of me)
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
Yes and no! One category of individuals can not be left to decide for the rest of the population, even if they are right. So it is necessary that all the parameters are examined, not only scientific, not only administrative, not only medical, not only political, etc. That is why, once again, it is the majority of the information currently available that allows to make a decision that will not satisfy everyone obviously. Hence the successive questioning as more information, knowledge is updated. Hence all health scandals related to drugs, vaccines and other phytosanitary, when they can no longer be hidden from the general public and decision-makers.that's what I say when policies are replacing scientists, we're going towards problems, so when the general public, even less to the facts of scientific and political problems, gets involved, we go to something
Now we must not be confused LA science with DE science, especially as these sciences are compartmentalized and with almost imperceptible links in the eyes of the various specialists. Hence the need to involve other specialists, not involved, who will have a more detached view of the subject (and especially without links of interest) and likely to perceive the qualities or defects [*]: jurists, philosophers, humanists, etc ... who count as much, see more than the rants of a laboratory.
[*] no producer of any product whatsoever, does not highlight the defects of its products, but only and only its qualities and therefore no manufacturer can be judge and party at the same time, yet it is simple to understand.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5830
- Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
- Location: boundary between North and Aisne
- x 957
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
Janic wrote:Yes and no! One category of individuals can not be left to decide for the rest of the population, even if they are right.that's what I say when policies are replacing scientists, we're going towards problems, so when the general public, even less to the facts of scientific and political problems, gets involved, we go to something
so it is once again a question of ego, because why go against it if they are right, just because it upsets the ego of this or that decision-maker, the one who wants to leave his name in the little story, the one who will have "done", even if in his time he passes for the "great" decision maker, and that several years later with the decline, he will be the one who made THE "big" bullshit, or made THE "bad decision, the one who decided to stop the large gauge canal, should not boast of his feat nowadays, and yet at the time it was presented as an ecological victory
so like today, everyone wants to be the one who has had the head of the glyphosate, but in 20 years if the substitutes of this glyphosate do worse, will see them still strut, will they hold the same speeches
when one becomes an elected one, one feels oneself invested with a supreme power and one must have an opinion on everything, even and especially if one does not have the knowledge
science always scares the "ignorant", so they feel obligated to submit them
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
(of me)
Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate
This is exactly the talk that "we" have with respect to vaccines, chemical medicines and phytosanitary chemicals, as many situations are alike, except that the vaccination scandal has lasted since Pasteur in France and despite its millions of Victims around the world, policymakers continue to strut too.so like today, everyone wants to be the one who has had the head of the glyphosate, but in 20 years if the substitutes of this glyphosate do worse, will see them still strut, will they hold the same speeches
Re same thing! The current minister [*]who believes himself invested with a supreme power, imposed with its LREM 11 vaccines while the commission (almost which vaccinalists) opposed it. So what's the good of having established this one if it was to scorn his opinion?when you become an elected, we think we are invested with a supreme power and we must have an opinion on everything, even and especially if we do not have the knowledge
And here it was not ignorant but a nice skewer of PRO VACCINS toubibs opposed to an obligation (illegal), and have not been listened to by this politician, conflicts of interest with the industry of the drug. If you contest the political decisions, here is a beautiful one!science always scares the "ignorant", so they feel obligated to submit them
[*] the previous did not know anything!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 101 Replies
- 73478 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
24/06/21, 13:37A subject posted in the forum : Garden: landscaping, plants, garden, ponds and pools
-
- 12 Replies
- 23436 views
-
Last message by Did67
View the latest post
29/12/12, 16:17A subject posted in the forum : Garden: landscaping, plants, garden, ponds and pools
Back to "Garden: landscaping, plants, garden, ponds and pools"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 118 guests