quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
The EPA still shills for the highest dollar.

FTFY

I hope he don’t get cancer.

Guys let me say this: I farm, I use Round-up,it original purpose was as a industrial cleaner. Yeah a soap. Now let me tell we use stuff way worse than Round-up!

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

I'm sickened when I hear the agent orange claims...which are bullshit. Agent Orange was better known as 2,4,5-T, which is a defoliant, used widely in the USA for many years, cousin to the most widely used ag chemical in the US for decades, 2,4-D, both of which I've used extensively as an aerial applicator.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That comment is going to piss off a lot of Vietnam vets. There are clear claims of Agent Orange causing birth defects, infertility and chloracne. I have seen these guys. Look up Operation Ranch hand, and read the story of Admiral Zumwalt's son. For the most part, proper precautions were not taken and lots of people were soaked with the stuff.

The evidence with Roundup is MUCH less definitive at this point in time.

LINK to Zumwalt story:

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/m...ii-and-john-pekkanen

I'm VERY familiar.

I'm also VERY familiar with those who spend decades using the stuff, in daily contact, soaked in it, without effect vs. those who got it on them briefly...I'm one of them.

Claims have been made about all kinds of chemicals, and eventually the chemical provider gets beaten down by law suits until the chemical gets pulled. "Agent Orange" wasn't a special chemical used by the military that had special additives; it was 2,4,5-T. It was used all over the USA, and internationally, for a long time, and nearly every US citizen was exposed, for decades...but most didn't know it, and the claims of those who had brief casual contact in Vietnam made far better press. Evil, deadly "dioxins" that were put into the military version and all that (no different than what was used in the US). Operation Ranch Hand was a brief moment in time, as opposed to those who handled the chemicals and applied them for a living, year round, for decades...

I'm not a big fan of the paranoia. I started handling those chemicals as a teen, and there was nothing new under the sun then, either.

Did you read the linked story? Of course not EVERYONE who was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam developed these issues. The government took a long time to compensate these guys and the science was pretty clear for them to pay the claims they did. I think you need to do some more research when it comes to Dioxin. The government spent MILLIONS cleaning up the dioxins left on the local Navy base from Agent Orange.
I am a fan of Science not paranoia. You are fortunate that you suffered no ill effects. You kind of sound like the Russian bureaucrats who told the folks at Chernobyl there was no threat from radiation.
Roundup is a TOTALLY different matter, and if you knew the science you would agree. You sound more like an apologist for Monsanto than an airline pilot. Do you drink bottled water from Flint, Michigan or maybe the water contaminated with rocket fuel at Camp Lejeune?

I'll take a little more time to consider it. I've only been working with it professionally since I was a teen.

Guys, you really can't look at these cases from 40,000 feet. Details matter.

I used to practice in mass torts and I would attend all of the mass tort conferences where plaintiff lawyers update each other on these cases. I've been to dinner and partied with the lawyers leading this litigation and I have seen the evidence in this case.

Monsanto knew since at least the 90's that RoundUp causes non-hodgkins lymphoma. Their own scientists warned the company of the risks of exposure without proper safety equipment. Monsanto produced e-mails in discovery where they basically threatened their own people with termination if they revealed this. They knew and they covered it up willfully.

No one wants RoundUp banned. The problem is real people have died and will die because Monsanto chose to advertise their product as "safe as table salt" when they damn well knew it was not. All the law requires is that you warn the public about known safety risks so they can make an educated decision as to whether to undertake a risk and if that's an acceptable risk.

The reason you are seeing billion dollar verdicts in these cases is because of the cover up of known risks.

Also, these are not class action cases. Each case is tried individually but are consolidated into mass tort courts to streamline the discovery and motion practice process.

Lessee... Last season I used Ground Clear (Triox), Weed B Gon, Speedzone, and Tenacity. My wife used Roundup.

Thing is: We treat the stuff like the toxins they are (wear gloves, etc.) and don't apply on breezy days.

This is the hot coffee debacle all over again <smh>

quote:

I'll take a little more time to consider it. I've only been working with it professionally since I was a teen.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for not addressing the science. Stick to flying crop dusters and leave the study of Agent Orange to professionals in that field. The fact that you have been exposing yourself to Dioxin without concern is a credit to stupidity. Perhaps if you attended law school the professors would have taught you relevant logic. You might take the time to study the research on Dioxin and visit with some of the Vietnam veterans who live with these disabilities on a daily basis. Perhaps you could present your theories to a Veterans group. If you had taken basic science in that college degree that you just completed, scientific studies consist of LARGE groups of subjects, not just one guy.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Lessee... Last season I used Ground Clear (Triox), Weed B Gon, Speedzone, and Tenacity. My wife used Roundup.

Thing is: We treat the stuff like the toxins they are (wear gloves, etc.) and don't apply on breezy days.

This is the hot coffee debacle all over again <smh>

The oft-misunderstood and misquoted McDonald's coffee case always comes up. Read the facts of that case. Hundreds of people received horrific burns but McDonalds made a cost cutting decision to keep their coffee unreasonably hot (190 degrees) because they could brew less cups in a day. The poor woman received third degree burns, was hospitalized for 8 days and underwent skin grafts. She was permanently disfigured and disabled for two years.

The verdict in that case was equal to like one or two days of coffee sales for McDonalds. This is what it took for them to adopt a reasonable policy and it prevented thousands of other people from receiving similar injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by fnforme:
Guys, you really can't look at these cases from 40,000 feet. Details matter.

Chemtrails are from Glyphosate being spread at 40,000 feet.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Class action suits are big money for attorneys, therfore all the ads for various products and the use of pseudoscience to back up the claims. Cause and effect are pretty much tossed to the wind for emotional arguments and dramatic presentations of victims with various ailments.

I think that pretty much sums it up, notwithstanding common sense and following directions when handling all kinds of chems. Brake cleaners, gun cleaners, paint thinners, lacquer thinners, acetone, the list is endless. So the gubmint will outlaw the most effective and economical herbicide w/out strong evidence.

I heard a radio personality say the way the Gubmint operates is to 1) break your leg, 2) give you a crutch, and 3) compliment themselves for helping people.

We are the Government and we're here to help.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

I'm sickened when I hear the agent orange claims...which are bullshit. Agent Orange was better known as 2,4,5-T, which is a defoliant, used widely in the USA for many years, cousin to the most widely used ag chemical in the US for decades, 2,4-D, both of which I've used extensively as an aerial applicator.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That comment is going to piss off a lot of Vietnam vets. There are clear claims of Agent Orange causing birth defects, infertility and chloracne. I have seen these guys. Look up Operation Ranch hand, and read the story of Admiral Zumwalt's son. For the most part, proper precautions were not taken and lots of people were soaked with the stuff.

The evidence with Roundup is MUCH less definitive at this point in time.

LINK to Zumwalt story:

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/m...ii-and-john-pekkanen

I used to shoot clays with a Command Master Sargent who spent lots of time in Vietnam. His legs from the knees down were covered in red with boils, and the VA told him it was agent orange, which he said he walked through a lot in combat. This man also took more than a few AK rounds, more than once, from the enemy. I asked him about it, and he said it was not cancer... yet, but he was positive it was agent orange. I have never before or since seen anything like it. He said the medical community had no treatment or cure, and in large part didn't really know how to handle his case. But the rest of him was good. He was large and strong, and extremely friendly. But I know he was also the kind of man that if you fucked with his family or friend, you'd could find yourself in a heap of trouble. He always had a field worn and utterly reliable 1911 45 either on him or in his front seat when driving. He and his wife had walked out of a restaurant once a few minutes before a perp came in a murdered a bunch of patrons in a mass shooting.l He said ever since then he was always armed, period, and that he would never let any criminal ever do that to anyone again. I don't know about him these days, but he was the best America had to offer. I always felt bad about his legs, we all wore shorts in the summertime shooting clays and in the dove fields. He was a master class sporting clays shooter to boot.

So yea, after seeing that shit, I most sincerely believe agent orange was bad ju ju.

quote:

Originally posted by fnforme:
Guys, you really can't look at these cases from 40,000 feet. Details matter.

I used to practice in mass torts and I would attend all of the mass tort conferences where plaintiff lawyers update each other on these cases. I've been to dinner and partied with the lawyers leading this litigation and I have seen the evidence in this case.

Monsanto knew since at least the 90's that RoundUp causes non-hodgkins lymphoma. Their own scientists warned the company of the risks of exposure without proper safety equipment. Monsanto produced e-mails in discovery where they basically threatened their own people with termination if they revealed this. They knew and they covered it up willfully.

No one wants RoundUp banned. The problem is real people have died and will die because Monsanto chose to advertise their product as "safe as table salt" when they damn well knew it was not. All the law requires is that you warn the public about known safety risks so they can make an educated decision as to whether to undertake a risk and if that's an acceptable risk.

The reason you are seeing billion dollar verdicts in these cases is because of the cover up of known risks.

Also, these are not class action cases. Each case is tried individually but are consolidated into mass tort courts to streamline the discovery and motion practice process.

A voice of reason. Good post.

I bought a metal pistol part recently that had a warning that CA has determined it may be hazardous to my health by causing cancer. Maybe there was good reason people lived in caves for thousands of years.

quote:

Originally posted by JD DRIVER:
Guys let me say this: I farm, I use Round-up,it original purpose was as a industrial cleaner. Yeah a soap. Now let me tell we use stuff way worse than Round-up!

Do you have a source for that? I can’t find anything about this.

I don't like pesticide use in general and I really don't like its' use in big ag. In this thread lots of folks mentioned how careful and responsible they are in their selective use of herbicides. That is commendable.

In 2016 big ag used 300 million pounds of glyphosate on crops grown for human consumption and the use is growing higher each year. There are more and more chemical resistant weeds popping up because you know, nature... It is now showing up in very measurable levels at the end of the food chain. Common sense was that it was only a matter of time.

The general public sees themselves squirting a little here and a little there. What they don't see is the food crops they eat being drenched in it. The worst development has become the pre-harvest drench. This is a final bath of chemical applied to make it easier to harvest and in the case of wheat, to kill it to harvest.

It is also used on many more crops than just wheat and corn. Grapes, apples, asparagus, and green beans are just a few of the crops being drenched in glyphosate.

We raise and sell chicken, pork, turkey, and beef. It isn't really an issue with the beef because they are grass fed and (importantly) finished. The other animals get grain every day. It is non-gmo and soy free.

The farmer I buy my feed from has a bit over 300 acres under cultivation. He sprays zero herbicide at any stage. His yield averages about 1.5 times per acre over conventional farming and his profit is almost double. He also isn't forced to buy Monsanto seed at their insane pricing. If he could get more land he would like to double in size but there aren't any large fields close enough to him that are at least a mile away from someone growing conventionally. He has to be at least that far away due to the way corn pollinates.

It is a ludicrous situation.

glyphosate use

drenching


Maek

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pilots go through extensive training in biochemistry, microbiology, and the effect of toxins on the human body. According to Bill Nye, Science Guy.

NIMBY.

(Not in my back yard)

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:
Yes,
I’m not able to post a pic (because I’m not savvy enough), but there was just a post on social media I’d read from the “Environmental Working Group” (not sure of their legitness or affiliations, but nonetheless, taking everything else together, it was concerning):

Regular Cheerios was 729 ppb
Honeynut was 147ppb



Children’s benchmark is 160 ppb

Www.ewg.org

Here we have a case where some numbers are tossed out. What exactly does “Children’s benchmark is 160 ppm” mean? What is being measured and where is the research. The EWG website pretty much claims everything is harmful.

What do other sources say?

“The Environmental Working Group (EWG) uses an authoritative sounding name to peddle scientific half-truths and outright fabrications. Along with Greenpeace and PETA, it is beloved by activists but detested by scientists.

Several years ago, George Mason University surveyed 937 members of the Society of Toxicology, an association of professional toxicologists. Nearly 4 out of 5 (79%) of those responding said that EWG -- as well as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) -- overstate the health risks of chemicals.

Despite this vote of no confidence in EWG by the scientific community, the organization manages to scare enough people to operate a $12.5-million budget. Telling people that unseen dangers lurk in their food and inside their homes is a lucrative business.”
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017...ink-poorly-you-11323

“Environmental “Worry” Group
EWG has overseen a Reign of Error lasting more than two decades

If you’ve picked up a newspaper during the last twenty years, odds are you’ve come across a breathlessly written news report warning against some item that is secretly poisoning you. “Sunscreen is causing cancer” the headlines might scream. “Why your baby’s bottle is poison,” says the local newscaster. “Non-organic vegetables are covered in toxins,” another report might ominously warn. If you actually read the story that accompanies these attention-grabbing headlines, you’ll notice that many of them come from the same source: the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and related organizations like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.”
https://www.activistfacts.com/...ental-working-group/

“When experts review the EWG’s consumer guides, the findings often come up short. In their Dirty Dozen list, the EWG publicizes what they call “dirty” pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables without mentioning that what they describe as “dirty” pesticide residue levels are actually safe because they're well below "tolerance" levels set by the EPA. In their most recent sunscreen guide, the EWG warns consumers to avoid sunscreens containing oxybenzone and retinyl palmitate, but the U.S. Skin Cancer Foundation and many toxicologists disagree. The EWG recommends that consumers avoid GMOs despite the scientific consensus on their safety. Their warnings about formaldehyde in baby products got Johnson & Johnson to remove a preservative from their baby shampoo formulation, even though the amount of formaldehyde was miniscule and not associated with any elevated cancer risk.”
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/..._heres_why_i_refuse/

quote:

Originally posted by fnforme:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
This is the hot coffee debacle all over again <smh>

The oft-misunderstood and misquoted McDonald's coffee case always comes up. Read the facts of that case. Hundreds of people received horrific burns but McDonalds made a cost cutting decision to keep their coffee unreasonably hot (190 degrees) because they could brew less cups in a day. The poor woman received third degree burns, was hospitalized for 8 days and underwent skin grafts. She was permanently disfigured and disabled for two years.
The verdict in that case was equal to like one or two days of coffee sales for McDonalds. This is what it took for them to adopt a reasonable policy and it prevented thousands of other people from receiving similar injuries.

I'm glad someone remembers what the McDonalds coffee case was about.
That lady was SEVERLY burned in her crotch, buttocks and thighs - one of 700+ cases of this happening in the 10 yrs prior to this lady getting burned.

When I first heard about it, I thought "freaking ambulance chasers are at it again" like many people did.
The facts of the case were horrible - both the injuries that the lady had and the complete "fug it" attitude McDonalds had in response to the injuries reported to the company to HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE OVER THE PREVIOUS 10 YEARS.