5 ms·

I can't help but think of the movie Erin Brockovich: Erin Brockovich: By the way, we had that water brought in specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hin

I can't help but think of the movie Erin Brockovich: Erin Brockovich: By the way, we had that water brought in specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley. Ms. Sanchez: [Puts down the glass, without drinking] I think this meeting is over. Ed Masry: Damn right it is. Would you personally spray Roundup directly on your skin? Because if you've ever treated a large area of your plot with weed killer with a spray indicator, it's clear as day that stuff is getting all over you with the slightest breeze.

bpodgursky 2y ago
I've used roundup on weeds around my house and not been especially fussed when it gets on my skin.
- justatdotin 2y ago
  sure: hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck Critically, it appears the surfactants in Roundup are the nasty bit, not glyphosphate. To my knowledge, they don't permeate the skin. But if you're inhaling it, it's in your blood stream. It shouldn't be shocking that a chemical your body isn't used to designed to keep organic compounds apart messes with at least some of your biochemistry.
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I have a friend that suffered the exact type of lymph cancer that Roundup is supposed to cause. He used Roundup in his properties for years. When I was a bench tech, back in the early eighties, we had gallon jugs of trichlor, all over the building. Each tech had a bottle at their bench. We were explicitly told, by management, that it was completely harmless.
- andrewmcwatters 2y ago
  Yep. I don't buy it.
  - memkit 2y ago
    Fair. I don't believe the company that bribed the head of the EPA gives a sh*t about "science" or the health of their customers. This affects my view of how safe their product is. This is the real world, not a philosophical sandbox. I understand that a person's character should be ontologically castrated from their argument in a philosophical sandbox. But 99% of the time that a company does evil shit like this in the real world, they have very strong reason to do so. It's increasingly likely that Monsanto/Bayer don't want the scientific process to run its natural course. They feel the need to intervene. Why?

bpodgursky 2y ago

I've used roundup on weeds around my house and not been especially fussed when it gets on my skin.

justatdotin 2y ago
sure: hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck Critically, it appears the surfactants in Roundup are the nasty bit, not glyphosphate. To my knowledge, they don't permeate the skin. But if you're inhaling it, it's in your blood stream. It shouldn't be shocking that a chemical your body isn't used to designed to keep organic compounds apart messes with at least some of your biochemistry.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

I have a friend that suffered the exact type of lymph cancer that Roundup is supposed to cause. He used Roundup in his properties for years. When I was a bench tech, back in the early eighties, we had gallon jugs of trichlor, all over the building. Each tech had a bottle at their bench. We were explicitly told, by management, that it was completely harmless.

andrewmcwatters 2y ago
Yep. I don't buy it.
- memkit 2y ago
  Fair. I don't believe the company that bribed the head of the EPA gives a sh*t about "science" or the health of their customers. This affects my view of how safe their product is. This is the real world, not a philosophical sandbox. I understand that a person's character should be ontologically castrated from their argument in a philosophical sandbox. But 99% of the time that a company does evil shit like this in the real world, they have very strong reason to do so. It's increasingly likely that Monsanto/Bayer don't want the scientific process to run its natural course. They feel the need to intervene. Why?