Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People can deny it all they want but we have always heard that these poisons probably cause cancer. I lived in an apartment complex back in the 1970s that stopped using junk like this on the lawns because the people didn't want their kids exposed to it. They said they'd rather have the dandelions.
True, it cannot be proven that this guy got cancer from Roundup. But he probably did. If nothing else, let this serve as a wake up call to people. If you want to wait until it is finally PROVEN, you may be waiting a long time. Who pays for most of the studies, after all? Monsanto is rich. You usually don't hear about the people who got cancer from their products because no one is absolutely sure that was the cause. It sure doesn't help along with everything else we're exposed to.
I'd much rather not have any of this junk on my food. I'd rather not have to walk my dog and worry about him stepping in some grass that's been poisoned. It's unbelievable how so many people want to just look the other way and laugh it off. "Everything causes cancer, hahahahah." It's best to reduce your risks.
Many "harmless" things are poisonous in strong enough concentrations or extended exposure. This man was a groundskeeper who was around this and many other chemicals as part of his livelihood. Also, it is likely he used preparations for commercial applications that are not allowed for residential use. I would not assume his exposure to be typical to that of a "hobbyist".
The plaintiff's attorneys did not have to prove that Roundup was the sole cause of his cancer, an impossible task, just that it was a substantially contributing one.
Also, it was impossible for Monsanto to prove that Roundup did not contribute to the development of the disease.
Monsanto will have to pay about $25 million annually as interest on the damages while they appeal.
Perhaps it was; but is it possible it opened the floodgates? .
We saw an analogous situation 15 yrs ago when the manufacturer of Vioxx- a COX-2 inhibitor, an analgesic similar to aspirin but without the high risk of gastric ulcers, was sued and lost a $250 million decision. The very next day over 4000 similar suits were filed against the company. Pseudo-science in the courtroom deprived us of an excellent pain killer with fewer side effects than others in use. The data used against the drug: 4 in 1000 users of Vioxx developed MI, while only 2 in 1000 users of naproxen did. Info ignored by a naive jury: 4 in 1000 not taking either drug also develop MI anyways.
The manufacturer of Vioxx couldn't stand the further legal exposure, so they withdrew the drug. We'll see the same thing with glyphosate if this decision is allowed to stand. Then farmers will start using longer enduring, more harmful herbicides to guarantee our food supply. Great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
In this case the plaintive was a grounds keeper. There will always be some people that receive higher exposures than other people.....
My thinking is that some people in transportation, warehouse workers, grounds keepers, state workers that spray guardrails, farmers, and others will be exposed or have been exposed to significant amounts of this product.
.
Those people have already been the subjects of extensive scrutiny and no evidence of increased risk of cancer has been found. That's what so unfair about this court decision. It's based on the unsubstantiated innuendo that glyphosate is harmful to human health.
It's based on the unsubstantiated innuendo that glyphosate is harmful to human health.
The question is if it makes any difference if they, the plaintiffs win? How many suits does it take to bring down a giant or take a product off the market? Even taking the product off the market would not end the blood fest.
This short video (4:41) by Dr. Michael Greger covers the issue of Roundup's toxicity. He points out that Roundup is not the same as pure glyphosate, it's main ingredient, since it contains surfactants and other chemicals that help it to penetrate and render it to be far more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Not saying it isn't toxic. Of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't kill the weeds the say it does, but the fact still remains, scientists can find something wrong with anything they want to find something wrong with. Studies also can show whatever the study wants to show. Think of all the things that were not good for us, but now are ok or visa versa. Look at the date on the study you are talking about. 4 years is a long time.
Not saying it isn't toxic. Of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't kill the weeds the say it does, but the fact still remains, scientists can find something wrong with anything they want to find something wrong with. Studies also can show whatever the study wants to show. Think of all the things that were not good for us, but now are ok or visa versa. Look at the date on the study you are talking about. 4 years is a long time.
Fortunately, glyphosate is not as toxic as table salt, and breaks down rather than being eternal like salt.
This has to do with pesticide when we lived in North FL,
A neighbor used a bug company on a schedule,not funny but observing concerning.
The truck would pull up,children playing in yard and in and out of home.
The bug man would put on rubber gloves up to his elbows,boots and spray around foundation.out about 4-5 ft and with same protective gear go in home and spray using wand.Horrible.
This has to do with pesticide when we lived in North FL,
A neighbor used a bug company on a schedule,not funny but observing concerning.
The truck would pull up,children playing in yard and in and out of home.
The bug man would put on rubber gloves up to his elbows,boots and spray around foundation.out about 4-5 ft and with same protective gear go in home and spray using wand.Horrible.
And meanwhile the children were running around barefoot walking on the sprayed surfaces. Even dried it can still be absorbed through the soles of your feet. Same with pets. And the pets lick their feet as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
