|
| True science is unbiased. Someone performs an experiment, gets results, and publishes the study. Importantly the study needs to be repeatable and others must get the same result.
Government doesn't really need to be involved in the research but can be. Often if the research is for public safety, then gov might fund.
I struggle with the fact that most people have bias though. It makes my very first sentence hard in real life. And the comingling of environmentalism and health gets murky with agendas. I've asked it before, how exactly do pro organic people reconcile the environmental impact of organic corn and beans specifically? Could be different for other crops, but those are the crops I have knowledge in. Yet I see propaganda masquerading as science claiming organic corn is actually better for the environment. So an arbiter of truth isn't really there and I'm not sure people trust the government enough to fill that role. I dont think I do either. It's a tough one for sure.
Back when my Dad died of cancer many people blamed it on farm chemicals. So I did a lot of reading. Farmers have lower rates of cancer overall than the general population. It is thought that a more active lifestyle has lower rates of obesity and diabetes (which cause a lot of cancers). Farmers do have higher rates of skin cancer and a couple other cancers. These are thought to be due to more UV exposure and general cuts / infections introducing bacteria, viruses, etc. There really isn't any true scientific correlation on pesticides. What little there is, is shaky at best as it is hard to say how people were handling the chemicals. It is pretty safe to say that if you use common sense around them, the risks are relatively small. Now if you are reckless, that is different.
But the demonization of roundup specifically is wild. Go to Facebook things weird. | |
|
How many arms this guy have?
