patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,258,052 comments by 15,013 users - Blue, desertguy, FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden online now
Irresponsible Journalsim, Scientific Practice Promotes Fear.
invite response
2013 Apr 28, 5:27am 1,184 views 2 comments
Comments 1 - 2 of 2 Search these comments
You see, even if the theory is correct, you would have to consume quite the amount of Round up (glyphosphate) to have these situations occur.
That's the problem, nobody knows, you can make these statements all day but you don't know. Same goes for radioactivity. There is the theory of hormesis which basically says it is beneficial for you up to a certain point, but it's hard to prove. and with herbicides /pesticides you have accumulation from different sources of herbicides and pesticides. There are also natural herbicides/pesticides which mostly selectively target only abnormal cells in humans and can be used to deter/kill pests/parasites. I simply see no reason or need whatsoever to use those that would justify the potential health risks. You can grow all sorts of stuff with little impact of pests/parasites when avoiding mono-cultures. I see a growing trend back to sustainable, smaller farming inside whole small eco-systems. Fuck people use this shit to kill dandelion, which is not only yummy, but super-healthy. Eat your weed(s) instead of dousing it with pesticides! ;)
New Renter
2013 Apr 28, 6:33am
Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year! They oughta have 'em, too.
J. Frank Parnell, Repo Man, 1984
Got to climb back on my soapbox here.
Here is another study suggesting Round-up (a thinly veiled shot at GMO's) causes just about every disease of a modern, western diet.
Another example of extreme prognostication based on theory and data crunching, performed by an "independent scientist" with no affiliation to any public or private institution publishing in a journal with an impact factor of 1.183.
As a reference, the most read (and hence impactful) journals you may have heard of are Nature 29.273 and Science: 30.927.
More or less this scientist may a have sound theory, and in my mind's eye, would have ample ability to conduct actual experiments that would support his theory. However, affiliating one's self with a reputable institution for which one could conduct research, and applying for the grants to gain the resources possible, is a tough task.
In this day and age it is just as easy to publish something slamming GMO's or Herbicides, or Monsanto and saying it causes just about every disease to modern man.
You see, even if the theory is correct, you would have to consume quite the amount of Round up (glyphosphate) to have these situations occur.
If you know anything, you know that roundup is applied at the seedling stage to help the crop outcompete weeds during early stages of growth. By the time the crop is bearing fruit, it has no part that resembles the seedling left. Additionally, this takes about 1 to 2 months. Glyphospate breaks down in as little as 3 days, and at the most a month.
Here is an example of how to be a prognosticator and win. No actual science. Speculation and theory, yet down the line I will have to object to the validity of these studies when they are used in arguments about technology in agriculture.
It's such a shame.
Paper Link:
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
Picture of press reporting it.