A French court on Monday said a French farmer suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Lasso weedkiller in 2004.
Well, inhaling pesticides and herbicides is bad. They are poison, even if a French court had not said so. It's what they are designed to do. That will be a real negative for Monsanto, the maker of the weedkiller, right? Maybe, maybe not. While it opens the door to short-term judgments it will be hard for anti-science hippies to continue to advocate pesticides and herbicides, the synthetic or the 'organic' kind, while irrationally blocking science that can make foods grow their own repellent that is completely harmless to humans and better for the environment.
If someone in 2012 wants to criticize Henry Ford because he didn't know everything about automobiles a century ago, it's a little silly. He knew what he knew given the science and the technology of his day - he revolutionized his field. Freud got a lot wrong about psychology but he created the only unified theory of psychology recognized by people today. Criticizing him is as quaint and pointless and irrelevant as someone criticizing a 19th century analysis of Coleridge - any researcher doing it is likely to get a "someone paid for them to write this?" response.
Efforts at obfuscation and fomenting false concerns by kooky anti-science food activists aren't working. They spent the better part of the last decade blocking science advancements in food security insisting 'the science isn't settled' and muttering Frankenfood denialist jingoisms, but it seems to be failing.
Farmland devoted to improved crops went up over eight percent last year, to 395 million acres. Agriculture strongholds like Brazil, India and Canada join the U.S. in picking science over advocacy.
"Sex education is failing to reduce adolescent birthrates in conservative states, according to a new study" begins a somber Livescience piece. Oooh, that's juicy. We all want to talk about how dumb conservatives are. And if it's a study - and it is, the writer says it right there - they are not injecting any personal bias.
The Wall Street Journal
posted a letter from 16 scientists who are critical of climate science in general and anthropogenic warming in specific. There were numerous flaws in the letter (see Robert Cooper's Denialiasm 101 piece
An Excellent Study On Denialism for the takedown) but it's an opinion piece so I took it for what it is worth; the New York Times lets Paul Krugman write on economics and that's also completely made up so opinion pieces are common and always have been.
Who has more credibility to the NPR audience, a scientist or someone who runs an organic yogurt company? It depends on the issue, of course. When it comes to global warming, science is awesome but when it comes to food security for poor people, science is evil corporations out to kill us all. So they accept the facts of the yogurt maker.
Vermont Should Stop Showing Leadership In Overruling Scientists On Farming
Evolutionary Psychology: Your Parents Income During Pregnancy Made You Gay
Oil Kept Congo From Starving - Western Academics Don't Seem To Like That
China Sells Western Progressives Solar Panels While Switching To Nuclear Power
