|
jben2north (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
We use herbicides so that we can feed more people. This has the effects of lowering food costs, supporting larger human populations, and in some cases starvation prevention. If the negative results are sufficiently low, and the positive results are sufficiently high, then it may be an acceptable risk. Myself, I would want to hear from economists, agriculture officials, health officials, biologists, chemists and so forth before making a firm decision but the risk appears acceptable so far.
xXAkridXx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
If I get cancer I'm suing everyone in the world.
talkingofmichelangel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The liberalism of Hayes' institution might lead to an unfair position on pesticides if he were, say, a professor of architecture or Russian lit, but he's not. He's a biologist, and he's making a case based on measurble, quantitative data.
And yeah, you're right. Nobody's gotten sick. Ever.
mratomix (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You are an idiot. Try and get accepted here.
WinstonSmith (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Whoo69 said: "We use pesticides all the time for crops to protect them from bugs, but not everyone is gettin sick! Only a very small fraction, like a few thousand at most, get really sick from pesticides in food." Once somebody close to you dies of cancer, you might think differently. There is plenty of evidence of connections between long term exposure to pesticides and cancer, and kids are especially vulnerable due to their size and metabolism. Just Google "cancer pesticide".
hayweird (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It's interesting that some commenters are defending pesticides as safe. These guys might not get the chance to pass the effects to future generations.
From the news yesterday...
"WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - A chemical that comes from the pesticide DDT may raise a man's risk of developing testicular cancer, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.
They found a clear link between testicular cancer and DDE, which is created when the body or the environment breaks down the pesticide DDT..."
BecauseTheTruthHurts (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Did the public know right away that tobacco was bad for you? It was around for what, at least 40 years, before anyone suspected it as harmful. Now it is known without debate that it causes cancer, in a very clear, specific, predictable way. How long have pesticides been widely used?
However, I understand the argument of not being able to know that it spans generations yet.
Again, how is this fearmongering? If it is, what could possibly be their motive?
Whoo69 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well, the leftist doomsayers, the same people that bitch about GM foods being "poisonous" and creating the term "frankenfood" have no evidence or mass deaths and sickness to prove their case, and the same goes for pesticides. It's fearmongering. I'm supposed to believe this guy JUST NOW discovered that pesticidies "effects span generations"?? in 2000-fucking-8? How come no one could see this a lot sooner if it's true? It's suspect.
BecauseTheTruthHurts (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
lol. You mean "carcinogenic"?
Only like a few thousand get really sick? Oh! Well fuck it, bring it on then!
So if it is fearmongering, what then is the motive/agenda behind it?
BecauseTheTruthHurts (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yeah, it must be that damn public ivy education that is turning them all into crazy, raving lefties! |
