4 ms·
All good points. Another topic lost in these debates is _very real alternatives_. People lament fields soaked in glyphosate or neonics. True, there are real pro
by kickout 5y ago
All good points. Another topic lost in these debates is _very real alternatives_. People lament fields soaked in glyphosate or neonics. True, there are real problems with these actives. Unfortunately, these chemicals largely replaced _even more dangerous_ chemicals like DDT and other nasty organs-phosphates (I think sarin gas was discovered while searching for pesticides?).
It's unfortunate people don't have complete information and make the assumption of glyphosate/whatever or nothing when that reality never really ever existed.
- jimbob45 5y agoDDT was never that dangerous. Rachel Carson was simply the Andrew Wakefield of her generation and her sackless colleagues in the field wouldn’t call her out, unlike the medical field coming together to stand up to Wakefield’s racket today. Hell, she had a degree in Marine Science, not Biochemistry. https://studiomatters.com/the-toxic-legacy-of-rachel-carson https://studiomatters.com/the-toxic-legacy-of-rachel-carson
- kickout 5y agoEh, slight disagree. DDT at that scale is problematic. No comment on silent spring, but to clearly struck a cord with public perception— real or baseless