I read Stephen Hayes book last month and he said despite the controversy over glyopho he attributes it to being one of the single most important products he has used to create his successful orchard over in the UK.
1 Like
I meant to comment on that. It actually appears to be a major oversight of this study that they didnāt include data on the children of these farmers- what a missed opportunity that is. While it can probably be assumed that most of these farmers were also raised on farms with relatively large amounts of pesticide residue in their homes and that a childās worse health problems often follow them into adulthood we are left without evidence about things like autism or other conditions that might prevent children from becoming farmers.
My largest fear as a sprayer is exposing children to unknown risks. Fortunately almost none of the orchards I manage are very close to the homes on the property- one of the benefits of being an orchard keeper for the very rich.
Hereās an interesting article that contains some history about the development of herbicides and their use in the U.S., although its focus is on their use in Vietnam.
proof is too long, specially when I am visiting south america and internet is slow. but proof is not difficult to find, just look at cholesterol and its epidemiological studies, saturated fat and associated studies, diabetes 2 and ā¦, cancer as a genetic disease.
it really is rather arbitrary. And yes, am a skeptic about the stuff we introduce to the air as well, be it pesticides, paint fumes, exhaust, etcā¦
also, there will always be skeptics. It wonāt be a meaningful correspondence if we were all yes-men. Should we stop being skeptics because one study says it has no firm link to cancer? And if true that it has no link, arenāt there other things(apart from other cancer studies) that we should be vigilant about and should consider? If my other concerns arenāt worth considering, then will have to sign off, as this probably wonāt make this exchange meaningful. As @Drew51 mentioned, nothing more than straw-hat
yes, it is not possible. While happy to see āno firm linkā to cancer, i still have to consider other cancer studies and other scenarios(environment, metabolic syndromes, etc).
and as for religion, we probably should shift it to another thread, since it is totally irrelevant to this thread. Was merely responding to what was posted about religion and irrefutable evidence.
The European food safety authority declared roundup unlikely to cause cancer also. Just heard that today. Donāt know specifics? The Aussie EPA also said itās safe.
Iāll offer a short comment on this thread precisely because I donāt want to start a Lounge thread on this topic (although someone else is free to). A full fledged discussion on religion is as polarizing as politics, and is rarely useful.
The religion I adhere to (Christianity-though I donāt accept all the dogma taught) has followers who likely had first-hand evidence of their Diety, and likely irrefutable. But for most, religious evidence (like historical evidence, and unlike most scientific evidence) is not black and white, or irrefutable. Itās more like a continuum, of not likely to highly likely.
For my part, the first disciples of Christianity probably saw first-hand irrefutable evidence (at least in their minds) because some of them very likely chose to die excruciating deaths for their beliefs. Many have done the same for many different faiths, but the disciples Iām referring to were fairly unique in that they were in a position to know for certain whether or not what they saw was true or not. I think this might qualify as one of the few exceptions to the implied point that no one has first-hand irrefutable evidence of their Deity.
Iām not proselytizing anyone, and it really doesnāt matter much to me what people on the forum believe (as far as religion goes). Just offering a comment on the question.
2 Likes
i agree, and neither will i try start a thread, but will gladly engage if anyone will do so. Have to say though that it could be useful, since it broadens peopleās perspectives(be it believer/non-believer/agnostic). Also, the rationales and points to ponder shouldnāt be as lengthy as politics-- at least from my end.
1 Like
I think that trying to justify religious beliefs with rational arguments is an absolute waste of time. There is a reason they call it faith.
Anyway, can you think of any topic that is more influenced by emotional need and motivated reasoning?
Once again.
2 Likes
A science based explanation of how people choose their religious (political and other) beliefs is that it is a social choice that enforces cooperative tribal behavior. After such beliefs are adopted we use our āreasonā to justify our choices. Most individuals will not accept this theory-discription of belief formation for themselves but easily accept it as an explanation of people who have chosen different beliefs.
HERE IS A FACT THAT CHANGED MY MINDā¦
The fact that my back wonāt let me do it, changed my mind about planting another 50 trees I very badly wanted to plant.
BUT, I negotiated with it and made a deal to try to graft those 50 ( and 25 or so more) .
I am such a good negotiator yeah!!! 
Mike
Thank you for the thoughtful seriatim reply with the patient finesse you were able to bring t the table
Thanx
Mikel
1 Like