Glyphosate gives young boy skin lesions.

Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-200
Daps
65,120
Reppin
NULL
Support GMO's, brehs.



Skin lesion

El costo humano de los agrotóxicos (The human cost of agrotoxins) by Pablo Piovano.

Skin lesion












The image of Lucas Techeira — a three-year old boy from Misiones with a skin disease caused by his mother being exposed to glyphosate during the pregnancy — is one of the 300 photographs showcased in the annual exhibit of the Argentine Photojournalists Association (Argra), which opened on Tuesday and can be visited from Tuesday through Sunday until August 17.

All the photos in the exhibit were taken during 2014 and are divided by subject including sports, daily life, politics, environment, art, nature and entertainment. Some were previously published by media outlets, while others had not been used before. The 300 photos were selected out of more than 3,000.

In each exhibit, Argra releases a catalogue with all the pictures and the one included on the cover is considered the most relevant of the year. This time, a photo of Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo head Estela Barnes de Carlotto hugging her grandson Guido Montoya Carlotto was chosen.

Techeira’s picture, included on the catalogue’s back cover, was taken by Página/12 photojournalist Pablo Piovano, who published a photo essay called The human cost of agrotoxins after touring many of the provinces where such chemicals are regularly being used. The essay received many local and international awards and some of its photographs were included in the Argra exhibit, which has been an annual event since 1981.

A contentious debate is growing in farming communities across the country as a growing number of environmental and social groups are calling for an outright ban on the herbicide glyphosate, which has been used on the country’s crops for years, after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a probable carcinogen.

Glyphosate is used on more than 28 million hectares in Argentina, which are sprayed with about 200 million litres of glyphosate per year, according to the Doctors Network of Fumigated Towns. Even though Monsanto holds more than 30 percent of the market, it is hardly alone. Syngenta, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, Agrosciences, Atanor, YPF and Nidera also produce the herbicide.

The late Andrés Carrasco, an Argentine doctor and Conicet (state research centre) head, confirmed in 2009 that glyphosate is highly toxic and has serious effects on embryos. Intestinal and cardiac disorders, malformations and neurological damage are some of the problems caused by the herbicide, his research showed.

Recent reports have backed Carrasco’s investigation. Río Cuarto University, for example, showed evidence of children suffering genetic damage from living near crops sprayed with glyphosate. That damage made those children more susceptible to a variety of diseases, including leukemia. Similar genetic damage was reported on agricultural workers exposed to the herbicide, according to an investigation by Mendoza’s Juan Agustín Maza University.

One out of three people living in towns near crops sprayed with glyphosate die because of cancer, according to data collected by the Doctors Network of Fumigated Towns. For example, in San Salvador, a small town Entre Ríos, the population collected information showing that almost half of all the deaths there in recent years have been due to cancer, far higher than the national average of 18 percent.
Herald staff
 

newworldafro

DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
51,421
Reputation
5,282
Daps
115,952
Reppin
In the Silver Lining
According to several posters up here........GMO is ABSOLUTELY problem free.

You could show posters up here where the GMO seeds were supposed to require less pesticides, but the insects mutated into resistant populations, and now more pesticides are required, and these same posters would ignore the information like you didn't just refute a major pro-GMO talking point :martin:

Or you could show them how GMO salmon grow faster than regular salmon and when released in the wild will overtake the natural strains, and they would act like that's not annihilation of a natural species.

Or you could show them how GMO companies will sue organic farmers if a strain of their GMO seeds get into the organic variety, as if wind, rain, insects, birds don't naturally distribute seeds, and they would act like they didn't just read that.

Etc etc etc.

:scust:
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-200
Daps
65,120
Reppin
NULL
According to several posters up here........GMO is ABSOLUTELY problem free.

You could show posters up here where the GMO seeds were supposed to require less pesticides, but the pesticides mutated into resistant bugs, and now more pesticides are required, and these same posters would ignore the information like you didn't just refute a major pro-GMO talking point :martin:

The same posters who claim to be independent thinkers without influence of religion and politics but act like the pseudo science they protect and pander for is their religion and politics.
 

joeychizzle

光復香港,時代革命
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
12,078
Reputation
4,165
Daps
32,531
Reppin
852
According to several posters up here........GMO is ABSOLUTELY problem free.

You could show posters up here where the GMO seeds were supposed to require less pesticides, but the insects mutated into resistant populations, and now more pesticides are required, and these same posters would ignore the information like you didn't just refute a major pro-GMO talking point :martin:

Or you could show them how GMO salmon grow faster than regular salmon and when released in the wild will overtake the natural strains, and they would act like that's not annihilation of a natural species.

Or you could show them how GMO companies will sue organic farmers if a strain of their GMO seeds get into the organic variety, as if wind, rain, insects, birds don't naturally distribute seeds, and they would act like they didn't just read that.

Etc etc etc.

:scust:

The same posters who claim to be independent thinkers without influence of religion and politics but act like the pseudo science they protect and pander for is their religion and politics.
As a matter of personal curiosity - what would you label yourselves? Which words would you pick that you feel define you as a person?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-200
Daps
65,120
Reppin
NULL
As a matter of personal curiosity - what would you label yourselves? Which words would you pick that you feel define you as a person?

I have no labels. However this isn't about me, this is about those who ignore the problems of the world because they think life begins and ends on some scientists review paper.
 

joeychizzle

光復香港,時代革命
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
12,078
Reputation
4,165
Daps
32,531
Reppin
852
I have no labels. However this isn't about me, this is about those who ignore the problems of the world because they think life begins and ends on some scientists review paper.
Only a fool would blindly follow the findings of a learned man without additional research himself.
It is somewhat befuddling that you are quick to label others yet fail to do so for yourself.
 

AyahuascaSippin

Good Vibrations
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
555
Reputation
160
Daps
856
Only a fool would blindly follow the findings of a learned man without additional research himself.
It is somewhat befuddling that you are quick to label others yet fail to do so for yourself.
The problem is that most of these 'learned' men have more than you to lose, as many have staked their reputations and careers on 'facts' that once seemed more than plausible but now are seeming far less likely. Science is like every other industry, monopolised and full of clashing egos. The subsequent research you allude to is usually based on the 'accepted' theories before it, so rational thought turns into a small paradigm of unquestioned opinion.

So youre essentially comparing the predetermined view point of a professional who has his career, reputation and future on the line, and the fear of loss of funding, marginalisation or ridicule looming, to an average person who has read the facts and feels compelled to warn his fellow man of something sinister. One person has far more to lose in this situation, and no matter how much faith you put in his title, he is far more likely to be biased.

This guys says it best tbh, its sad that he has to preempt his message with the idea that this is all naturally occuring and predictable, and not a conspiracy, so that mindless drones like a couple mods and regular posters on this forum wont get the tin foil gifs out (they will anyway)

 
Last edited:

joeychizzle

光復香港,時代革命
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
12,078
Reputation
4,165
Daps
32,531
Reppin
852
The problem is that most of these 'learned' men have more than you to lose, as many have staked their reputations and careers on 'facts' that once seemed more than plausible but now are seeming far less likely. Science is like every other industry, monopolised and full of clashing egos. The subsequent research you allude to is usually based on the 'accepted' theories before it, so rational thought turns into a small paradigm of unquestioned opinion.

So youre essentially comparing the predetermined view point of a professional who has his career, reputation and future on the line, and the fear of loss of funding, marginalisation or ridicule looming, to an average person who has read the facts and feels compelled to warn his fellow man of something sinister. One person has far more to lose in this situation, and no matter how much faith you put in his title, he is far more likely to be biased.

This guys says it best tbh, its sad that he has to preempt his message with the idea that this is all naturally occuring and predictable, and not a conspiracy, so that mindless drones like a couple mods and regular posters on this forum wont get the tin foil gifs out (they will anyway)



What you just did was somewhat eloquently try and co-sign the ramblings of kingsmen and basically shyt on the findings of scientists (I state again, it is a fool who blindly subscribes to new findings). Without being obvious, scientists are the tried and tested number one source of innovation, improvement and discovery throughout the history of mankind. Are there flaws? Of course. But I'll take the opinions of learned men over a rambling idiotic counterintellectual who derails threads.
 

AyahuascaSippin

Good Vibrations
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
555
Reputation
160
Daps
856
What you just did was somewhat eloquently try and co-sign the ramblings of kingsmen and basically shyt on the findings of scientists (I state again, it is a fool who blindly subscribes to new findings). Without being obvious, scientists are the tried and tested number one source of innovation, improvement and discovery throughout the history of mankind. Are there flaws? Of course. But I'll take the opinions of learned men over a rambling idiotic counterintellectual who derails threads.
You just displayed equal eloquence in order to choose a permanent side in this mentally manifested battle between thekingsmen and science, when what i was saying wasnt going against science as a whole. Its really just an attempt to discern the difference between mainstream science which seeks to reduce everything to materialistic matter, removes funding from understudied yet plausible ideas and marginalises innovative thought because it doesnt fit with their predetermined view of the world. This vein of thought is a cancer on discovery and has held back progress numerous times; flat earth, plate tectonics, true age/ethnicities of ancient cultures, air travel - the list goes on.

Thekingsmen is just a messenger in essence, i refuse to debate his intellect or validity as its not necessary, the material is there for anyone to read if they like.

What youre doing is asking questions irrelevant to the thread title and subject manner in order to try and ridicule an idea, either because you dont like the idea, the posters presenting it or feel that they are an easy target for you to feel intellectually superior. This basically makes you useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Your existence has no purpose, please continue to let monolithic corporations and stagnated science think for you.
 

joeychizzle

光復香港,時代革命
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
12,078
Reputation
4,165
Daps
32,531
Reppin
852
You just displayed equal eloquence in order to choose a permanent side in this mentally manifested battle between thekingsmen and science, when what i was saying wasnt going against science as a whole. Its really just an attempt to discern the difference between mainstream science which seeks to reduce everything to materialistic matter, removes funding from understudied yet plausible ideas and marginalises innovative thought because it doesnt fit with their predetermined view of the world. This vein of thought is a cancer on discovery and has held back progress numerous times; flat earth, plate tectonics, true age/ethnicities of ancient cultures, air travel - the list goes on.

Thekingsmen is just a messenger in essence, i refuse to debate his intellect or validity as its not necessary, the material is there for anyone to read if they like.

What youre doing is asking questions irrelevant to the thread title and subject manner in order to try and ridicule an idea, either because you dont like the idea, the posters presenting it or feel that they are an easy target for you to feel intellectually superior. This basically makes you useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Your existence has no purpose, please continue to let monolithic corporations and stagnated science think for you.
shyt.. are you his alias?

I already mentioned that scientists aren't perfect with their craft. I don't follow everything they say simply because. I mentioned that. But you seem to be unable to understand that I don't fully stand on one side. I rather lean towards one while definitely acknowledging possible flaws and inaccuracies. Your friend, on the other hand, dismisses all findings at lightning speed. Am I to believe that a man who thinks fossils are fake is worth debating and an intellectual equal? By no means do I consider myself intellectually superior - in fact, I am fully aware of how much I don't know - but your defense of this poster - along with your attempt to commiserate with science despite subtly channeling his train of thought - tells me more than I need.

Let me say this one last time - science is heavily flawed in many areas. Like all systems and industries, as you mentioned, there are things holding it back. But if we were to dispute and refute the vast majority of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs as @kingsmen does.. we wouldn't be getting very far. Please don't try the 'giant corporations and conformist thinking' trope - I am all too aware of it. So cliche.

Our existences serve no purpose if you think about it. We accumulate all this knowledge, this skill, this experience, and then we die in 70,80 years. We aren't even here for a purpose. We just happen to be the dominant lifeform on a habitable planet, in a very average solar system.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-200
Daps
65,120
Reppin
NULL
shyt.. are you his alias?

I already mentioned that scientists aren't perfect with their craft. I don't follow everything they say simply because. I mentioned that. But you seem to be unable to understand that I don't fully stand on one side. I rather lean towards one while definitely acknowledging possible flaws and inaccuracies. Your friend, on the other hand, dismisses all findings at lightning speed. Am I to believe that a man who thinks fossils are fake is worth debating and an intellectual equal? By no means do I consider myself intellectually superior - in fact, I am fully aware of how much I don't know - but your defense of this poster - along with your attempt to commiserate with science despite subtly channeling his train of thought - tells me more than I need.

Let me say this one last time - science is heavily flawed in many areas. Like all systems and industries, as you mentioned, there are things holding it back. But if we were to dispute and refute the vast majority of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs as @kingsmen does.. we wouldn't be getting very far. Please don't try the 'giant corporations and conformist thinking' trope - I am all too aware of it. So cliche.

Our existences serve no purpose if you think about it. We accumulate all this knowledge, this skill, this experience, and then we die in 70,80 years. We aren't even here for a purpose. We just happen to be the dominant lifeform on a habitable planet, in a very average solar system.
If there is no purpose in life, why are you defending so passionately useless products, ideas and information? Why is a useless lifeform even online speaking about his useless and pointless view if there is no purpose?
 

joeychizzle

光復香港,時代革命
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
12,078
Reputation
4,165
Daps
32,531
Reppin
852
If there is no purpose in life, why are you defending so passionately useless products, ideas and information? Why is a useless lifeform even online speaking about his useless and pointless view if there is no purpose?
Why am I even responding to the both of you?:mindblown:
Thread ignored.
 
Top