2 ms·
> According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection
by grecy 7y ago
> According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection and water quality policies.' Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action.
And how many years ago would they have recommended dumping Roundup in places to fix a weed problem?
How many years ago did doctors actually recommend smoking cigarettes to help with breathing problems?
How many years ago did we intentionally spray ourselves with DDT?
All of those things were done on the advice of 'Experts who make this their livelihood'. But now we've learned better, and that advice is now seen to be utterly terrible.
The very name of the thing, 'rat poison' should give us a fairly good understanding of what we will learn in the coming decades about how short-sighted of a suggestion this is, just like all the others I have listed.
- trixie_ 7y agoArmchair expert case in point. If you think you know a better way, then do the work and propose a rational solution to the problem at hand. Saying, 'experts have been wrong therefore my opinion is just as valid' is a poor contribution to a rational discussion.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- grecy 7y agoAs with all the examples I listed, doing nothing would be better than pouring on massive amounts of toxic chemicals. I'm not saying "experts have been wrong, therefore listen to me", I'm saying "Using toxic chemicals to fix a problem is often a very, very bad idea".
- trixie_ 7y agoI wonder if you were in a room with Fish and Wildlife employees, how long it would take you to realize that you are way out of your depth.