EPA forced to study Glyphosate, finds pesticide could injure or kill 93% of endangered species.

submitted by HibikiBlackCaudillo from childrenshealthdefense.org

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well since Bayer/Monsanto's products have caused a lot of issues to the point of being sued by people many times in the past, I wanted to share the results of an EPA study.

An EPA study found how Glyphosate could be deadly for most types of endangered species. I've heard a lot of stories about how bugs were usually found in the grass in the US but it has become much more rare in the last decades.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

Anti-vax site. I think I would trust a jehovah's witness about scientific issues over this site.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

So instead of judging the claims based on the evidence (they literally link to the EPA paper) you look at the reputation of the site and judge the validity based on that?! How do you not see how stupid that is?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Unless you are Polio, vaccines are good.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

What does that have to do with Glyphosphate? And how does that justify the insanely ignorant mentality of plugging your ears and covering your eyes because you don't like something about the speaker? Even a flat earther can be right about other things.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

antivax has no authority about what is healthy whatsoever. antivax could tell me that smoking cigarettes is bad and I would ignore that. (I wouldn't ignore others who say smoking is bad). Glyphosate is probably bad. I wouldn't drink it. But I am not letting antivax define the extent to which it is unsafe. You also have to keep in mind how dangerous the alternatives to glyphosate are. Including an agriculture whose food is so expensive people starve. Or an agriculture that has to contend with climate change.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

You are literally proud of being ignorant, that is pathetic. There is nothing intelligent about your policy. Nothing of value in it. You are a slave to the appeal to authority fallacy and manipulated by the ad hominem.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

When you begin with "vaccines cause autism" type of a "science", you can go almost anywhere. They are worse than flat earthers. You can say I am ignorant. But being anti-anti-vax is not ignorant. Knowing climate change is real in not ignorant. Maybe one could make the case against glyphosate? These fools are not qualified to do so.

[–]Velocity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Your anti science quackery has no power here. You're like a flat earther

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I am anti-science because I am pro vaccine?

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

If you actually studied the topic instead of parroting your precious high priest pharmaceutical employees words. You would clearly see that the subject is in great dispute. I'm guessing you're a masktard too. Maybe just put your muzzle on and keep your head down. Obviously thinking isn't your strong point.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That kind of pseudo intellectual argument can be used to discredit literally anyone without any evidence. For example: When you begin with "trans women are real women" type of science you can go almost anywhere. So now anyone who agrees with the leftist propaganda is not credible in any scientific capacity. That includes all the mainstream sources you worship. No one in mainstream science is standing up to leftist propaganda. They deny IQ science. They Support giving preteens hormone blockers. And that doesn't even begin to address outright financial corruptions where corporations fund science to produce results they want regardless of reality. All of that is done by mainstream scientists and you don't apply that same one strike and you're out bullshit to them. You have a double standard and that standard is that if it is a mainstream source they can do no wrong and if it isn't all you have to do is dig through the trash to find one fault on which you can claim they must be wrong because of some unrelated flaw. This is pure retarded sheep logic.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't begin with 'trans women are women' as a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis. 'trans women are women' is more of a cultural issue. The actual science behind androgyny is fascinating. Look up 'complete androgen insensitivity syndrome'.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Needs to be more class action lawsuits against Monsanto for all the damage they've done. They should go bankrupt.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Get some clean food today: https://detoxproject.org/certification/glyphosate-residue-free/certified-products/

[–]md_saidit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hokum. Glyphosate has been proven safe many times over.