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.
There is a large difference between residential use and farm use.
Indeed, and there is a difference between corollary and causation, and the studies about "hurting kids' brains" are all based on corellation, not causation. The only studies with causative evidence were with lab animals (rats) and direct exposure via spiked food and injection.
The chemical in question has been around since 1966, and in widespread farm use since not much after that. The WHO lists it as "moderately hazardous" and it is in widespread use in over 100 countries, and it is currently not under and international control for agricultural use...like anywhere in the world. A few countries have the same residential ban as the US.
Basically, there is sufficient cause to be careful round the substance, particularly farm workers who have much greater exposure concerns, but an outright ban makes no sense from any perspective other than knee jerk sensationalism. Tons of products tat enable this modern world of ours have health risks with acute or prolonged exposure, and none of them are banned and nobody cares.
A full ban on this pesticide makes no sense given the current data. That isn't "being a shill for Trump" because I would have said the same thing 5 years ago when Obama didn't ban it, or between 1992-2000 when Clinton didn't ban it, etc. There isn't enough CAUSATION evidence with humans to warrant a full outright ban.
Yep...you read that right....
Quote:
On Wednesday, the United States Environmental Protection Agency doubled down on one of the most controversial environmental deregulation moves of the Trump presidency. Under pressure from a looming court-ordered deadline, the EPA reaffirmed its 2017 decision to reject a proposal from the agency’s own scientists to ban an insecticide called chlorpyrifos that farmers use on a wide variety of crops, including corn, soybeans, fruit and nut trees, Brussels sprouts, cranberries, broccoli, and cauliflower.
I can recall Michelle Obama being trolled and bashed for advocating for her organic vegetable garden and healthy school lunches...
But what about the children? Yea it's only school lunches that are affected. btw I don't see many kids chowing down on soybeans, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, and cauliflower either. I do see adults eating that but "it's for the children" makes better headlines especially when it's coupled with school/education.
Indeed, and there is a difference between corollary and causation, and the studies about "hurting kids' brains" are all based on corellation, not causation. The only studies with causative evidence were with lab animals (rats) and direct exposure via spiked food and injection.
The chemical in question has been around since 1966, and in widespread farm use since not much after that. The WHO lists it as "moderately hazardous" and it is in widespread use in over 100 countries, and it is currently not under and international control for agricultural use...like anywhere in the world. A few countries have the same residential ban as the US.
Basically, there is sufficient cause to be careful round the substance, particularly farm workers who have much greater exposure concerns, but an outright ban makes no sense from any perspective other than knee jerk sensationalism. Tons of products tat enable this modern world of ours have health risks with acute or prolonged exposure, and none of them are banned and nobody cares.
A full ban on this pesticide makes no sense given the current data. That isn't "being a shill for Trump" because I would have said the same thing 5 years ago when Obama didn't ban it, or between 1992-2000 when Clinton didn't ban it, etc. There isn't enough CAUSATION evidence with humans to warrant a full outright ban.
To be careful around the substance? And what do you mean nobody cares when obviously there are groups that do. If Silent Spring had not been published we would likely still be exposed to DDT and the like.
Indeed, and there is a difference between corollary and causation, and the studies about "hurting kids' brains" are all based on corellation, not causation. The only studies with causative evidence were with lab animals (rats) and direct exposure via spiked food and injection.
The chemical in question has been around since 1966, and in widespread farm use since not much after that. The WHO lists it as "moderately hazardous" and it is in widespread use in over 100 countries, and it is currently not under and international control for agricultural use...like anywhere in the world. A few countries have the same residential ban as the US.
Basically, there is sufficient cause to be careful round the substance, particularly farm workers who have much greater exposure concerns, but an outright ban makes no sense from any perspective other than knee jerk sensationalism. Tons of products tat enable this modern world of ours have health risks with acute or prolonged exposure, and none of them are banned and nobody cares.
A full ban on this pesticide makes no sense given the current data. That isn't "being a shill for Trump" because I would have said the same thing 5 years ago when Obama didn't ban it, or between 1992-2000 when Clinton didn't ban it, etc. There isn't enough CAUSATION evidence with humans to warrant a full outright ban.
So it mostly affects those in the rural areas where it is used? They seem to be the ones that don't care.
Indeed, and there is a difference between corollary and causation, and the studies about "hurting kids' brains" are all based on corellation, not causation. The only studies with causative evidence were with lab animals (rats) and direct exposure via spiked food and injection.
The chemical in question has been around since 1966, and in widespread farm use since not much after that. The WHO lists it as "moderately hazardous" and it is in widespread use in over 100 countries, and it is currently not under and international control for agricultural use...like anywhere in the world. A few countries have the same residential ban as the US.
Basically, there is sufficient cause to be careful round the substance, particularly farm workers who have much greater exposure concerns, but an outright ban makes no sense from any perspective other than knee jerk sensationalism. Tons of products tat enable this modern world of ours have health risks with acute or prolonged exposure, and none of them are banned and nobody cares.
A full ban on this pesticide makes no sense given the current data. That isn't "being a shill for Trump" because I would have said the same thing 5 years ago when Obama didn't ban it, or between 1992-2000 when Clinton didn't ban it, etc. There isn't enough CAUSATION evidence with humans to warrant a full outright ban.
What does this matter? Odds are, it's hurting us in some shape or form. It's a chemical sprayed on food. If there are non toxic alternatives, which do exist, why not use them instead?
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.
btw I don't see many kids chowing down on soybeans, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, and cauliflower either. I do see adults eating that but "it's for the children" makes better headlines especially when it's coupled with school/education.
