Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

Organize and arrange your garden and vegetable garden: ornamental, landscape, wild garden, materials, fruits and vegetables, vegetable garden, natural fertilizers, shelters, pools or natural swimming pool. lifetime plants and crops in your garden.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by izentrop » 12/08/18, 00:41

Christophe wrote:http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/glypho ... 850088.php
"The jury condemned him" is more emotional than scientific. As usual, we first agree with the people, for fear of excesses (The witch hunt always has many followers.) And then it feeds the crates to make it last.
I bet the verdict will change on appeal. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79115
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by Christophe » 12/08/18, 13:38

I expected this kind of response from you ...

Hold this complaint will also please you then: climate-change-co2 / latest-figures-of-warming-climate-t13878-130.html # p343626 : Cheesy:
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by izentrop » 13/08/18, 20:54

I'm not alone in thinking that ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79115
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by Christophe » 13/08/18, 21:27

Yes yes and the lobbies do not make the Laws either ... It is well known! : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

ps: to make me the advocate of bayer, I am convinced that there has (been) much worse than glyphosate ...
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by izentrop » 13/08/18, 21:46

Christophe wrote:Yes yes and the lobbies do not make the Laws either ... It is well known! : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
"lobbies" or alterglobalists, same fight.
Better decisions would be taken and less public money wasted if decision-makers allowed themselves to be less influenced by each other and more confident in science, the real one, not those of Séralini, "environmental" NGOs ...
I am convinced that there has (been) much worse than glyphosate ...
Yes, the alternatives: vinegar, salt, thermal Image
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79115
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by Christophe » 13/08/18, 21:56

Ah ah ah very draule !! No no I was talking about the worst carcinogen !!!

Like Chloredecone ... don't mess around!

Health-pollution-prevention / hunting-for-disrupting phthalates-endocrine-open-t10833.html
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by izentrop » 13/08/18, 23:22

I understood well :) You will excuse me for having diverted your thinking a little : Mrgreen:

For chlordecone you must also take and leave
Doctor Dominique Belpomme, 73, introduces himself as a whistleblower in health and the environment. He became known to the general public in the 2000s, defending the idea that organochlorine pesticides, especially chloredecone, were responsible for many cancers in the West Indies. He considers, overall, that the environment, in the broadest sense of the term, is the cause of most cancers. ...
The World Health Organization (WHO) World Cancer Report 2014 anticipates 22 million annual cancer cases in 2030, compared to 14 million today, but not at all due to environmental degradation . The three main causes of the increase in the number of cancers cited by the WHO are the increase in the world population, the increase in life expectancy and the spread of smoking in developing countries. http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article2641
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by Janic » 14/08/18, 09:48

Ah, this dear sect of pseudo science and its mania to truncate, distort, the reality of the facts to satisfy the ego of its readers. : Cheesy:
For example:
The three main causes of the increase in the number of cancers cited by the WHO are the increase in the world population, the increase in life expectancy and the spread of smoking in developing countries.

False reasons.
In fact, it is not possible to compare, globally, societies as disparate as highly developed countries (and its pollutants) and so-called developing societies where the same pathologies gradually appear as other countries, which really allows valid comparisons
Then the increase in life expectancy AT BIRTH only shows a significant drop in infant mortality (already seen). But there, indeed, the cancers which hardly affected small children exploded. But it is still necessary to have elements of comparisons between the various layers of populations and their way of life in the same country and even of regions.
Finally, if it is true that the spread of smoking worldwide is an indisputable fact. Again this is extremely disparate because without comparing, for example, the consumption, Western, of tobacco which will be maximum in large cities and minimum in the rest of a territory, that means nothing.

Another example :
"From cancer plan to cancer plan, we are predicted for a better future, while far from receding the scourge persists and even increases".
The keystone of Dominique Belpomme's alarmist speech, this assertion does not hold water. Here is what can be read on the website of the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance (INVS). In France, "the number of new cases of cancer increased considerably between 1980 and 2012 in men and women (+ 107,6% and + 111,4% respectively)", but "this increase is explained by largely by the increase in the population, which mechanically increases the number of cases, and by its aging, the majority of cases occurring in the elderly ”. More systematic screening also plays a role. "The risk of dying", meanwhile, "decreased significantly" between 1980 and 2012! The standardized mortality rate, adjusted for the effects of age and population increase, "decreased on average by 1,5% per year for men and by 1% for women over the period 1980 -2012 ". Epidemiologist and biostatistician, specialist in the study of the frequency and causes of cancer, Catherine hill provides an update on this issue in issue 316 of SPS (April 2016).




Ms. Hill is right on this point. There are recognized cancer factors, without question now after being denied, like tobacco and alcohol which by their importance and predominance hide the rest. And she insists on the multiplication of the factors which appear especially in the populations aging with accumulation (with other environmental factors) today minimized as were tobacco and alcohol, asbestos recently and vaccines and chemical drugs since the industrial era; it is a whole! 8)
From 1980 to 2012, the population increased from 53 M to 63 M, i.e. 20% more, while cancers increased by more than 100%. The mechanical increase follows normally, without any particular external intervention, in the same proportions (but Belpomme precisely questions this exterior) and most cases occur in the elderly it is a bad analysis precisely because it is only an effect whose origins are well in advance and whose cumulative effects are felt more particularly at the end of the journey and not because a more age class particular would be targeted.

http://www.e-cancer.fr/ressources/cance ... ce/#page=1

So this article, like all the others in this sect, is in keeping ... as usual. : Evil:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by Ahmed » 14/08/18, 10:27

Izentrop, you write:
Better decisions would be made and less public money wasted if decision-makers were less influenced by each other and more trusted in science, the real one, not that of ralini, "Environmental" NGOs ...

As if "Science" lived in zero gravity, completely detached from the usual contingencies! And, even if, by a thought experiment, we disregard this aspect, in what way would a society led by science be positive, knowing that the latter (science) covers only part of the domains that contribute to the aspirations of the members of this society? How would a scientist be better able to know what a good life would be like? This is a purely technocratic vision.
As for the "decision-makers", they are the transmission belts of the ideology of the growth of abstract value and, as such, systematically privilege what goes in this direction, without consideration for the other criteria ... because of the science arises from the possibility of an increased action on the world, therefore of power over it and the capacity to be able to dominate others.
Justice, by a surprising anachronism, often goes against the current (which does not however prejudge the validity of its judgments) instead of practicing as do the other institutions and rallying to the highest bidder ... :D

The process of insisting on shades of gray plays on the limit effect, to understand the rhetorical side (because there are white and black), we must refer to the paradox of Zeno and the arrow which does not never reaches its target ... 8)
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate




by izentrop » 15/08/18, 00:07

Janic wrote:Ah, this dear sect of pseudo science and its mania to truncate, distort, the reality of the facts to satisfy the ego of its readers. : Cheesy:
What Catherine Hill says is not in contradiction with WHO or AFIS, on the other hand Belpomme is a malicious storyteller.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Garden: landscaping, plants, garden, ponds and pools"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 131 guests