The future is unhealthy: selling environmental protection

The use of pesticides was under deep discussion in the 60's/70's. I remember my father talking about it and to watch the " explosion " in cases of cancer in the future.

I remember DDT when that first came out it was supposed to be brilliant. According to the “experts”
We all know what happened then.
Experts are paid by multi national corporations I don’t trust ant of them

Well, DDT was brilliant at the time, in terms of what is could do. That was an advance. The experts were not wrong, they were just superseded by other experts who had the benefit of further knowledge. The drawbacks of a new thing are not seen until it has been used for a while, and those developing are not psychic, they don't know all the effects that it may have, so that they can for them all.

Reversing safety protection already in place is NOT good, though, and is going backwards on years of progress, all because of a rapacious President of a country geared to the almighty dollar.

anthea Experts are not ALL in the employ of multinational companies. Many of them are doing independent research in Universities and laboratories all round the world.

If you don't trust ANY experts, how can you ever know the truth about anything? You can't collect all the data yourself and analyse it, and relying on "science columns" in poular papers, written by journalists who know as little as you do about the research in question, gives you only the sensationalist angle that will sell copies.

You need to know who first made a particular claim about the safety/danger of a product, what evidence that was based on, and how much knowledge and experience he/she has.

I've found pesticides terrifying ever since I saw farmers were getting cancer from dipping their sheep.
We knew in 2016 that many safeguards would be removed by withdrawing from EU.

Anthea Would you be happy to let anyone treat you when you are ill or do you feel safer with a doctor who has studied medecine and is an expert in his field?

What people forget, that the number of people's lives saved by the use of DDT, far exceeds the number oif people damaged by it. I do not say this to dismiss the suffering of those who suffered, or condone it. The wider damage DDT had on the environment was, and continues to be severe, but in condemning these thinks for the negative affects, people tend to forget that their introduction often immensely improved and save many people's lives.

There is undoubtedly a balance to be struck, but that their is a balance needs to be understood.

Our environmental standards were always under threat from Brexit. We knew this from the beginning.

it was then known as Project Fear

Elegran, I agree: you have to give some information credence, otherwise, as you say, you either do all the research yourself (impossible) or trust the media to report accurately. Following the money is a good thing, but not enough. Look at what's happened with smoking - the cigarette companies knew all about the damage it does but spent a lot of money, on setting up fake studies and marketing, trying to discredit genuine academic and health research. The oil companies did (and are still doing) the same thing around global heating. We'll get the same thing with food now: lots of people trying to say "oh, don't worry about hormone disrupting chemicals", "don't worry about pesticides", "don't worry that bees are dying" etc etc. I don't want my granddaughter exposed to these things. Look at this: it says "contamination of human milk by the presence of environmental toxicants is widespread through the past decades due to inadequately controlled pollution". But these pesticides get into animals as well, build up, and then we eat them. What on earth are we doing to ourselves? Do we want to get rid of our environmental protections at any cost?

I’d prefer my health to be in the hands of a qualified doctor. But I would have misgivings about a doctor who was funded by a drug company. And I do worry about the way drug companies seek to influence doctors.

That article is by three people studying at Sussex University, Chloe Anthony, Ffion Thomas and Emily Lydgate. No reference to their qualifications. There could well be other people at Sussex University who disagree with them.

There is nothing to say it is not fake news.

I think we can trust our own government to ensure safety of products used in farming. And activists in this country are not known for keeping quiet when safety is breached.

Do we really think that our own experts are going to allow us to go back to pre-sixties times?

That gave me a laugh, Gonegirl ... "trust our own government". I wouldn't trust any of them further than I could throw them when it came to looking after their own interests!

Whitewavemark2 Our environmental standards were always under threat from Brexit. We knew this from the beginning.

Oh dear I have got it all wrong when I thought that the EU was protecting the UK from banning hazardous chemicals from other countries who are very happy now that they can export to the UK with more clout.

You all might be interested to know that, surprise surprise, at least two of the authors of the article are members of the idiotic Extinction Rebellion shower.

Take what they say with a huge pinch of salt.

It's unfair to suggest it is fake news. The paper referred to explains specifically that scientific evidence is only required at the minister's discretion, and gives a detailed reference to the actual legislation, so you can check it for yourself if you like. Similarly you can check their opinion that enforcement is being watered down by looking up their references.

momryna I’m sorry I’m being a bit dim I don’t quite understand your post

I know it is only anecdotal, but in our village two people suffer/suffered from MS and two from ME. All live next to the same field. When we first moved here, the frequency of spraying was much greater than now.

" the idiotic Extinction Rebellion shower."



Telling my grandson of you!

Nandalot - I'm sure there are anecdotes from all over the country in rural areas. When I lived in Suffolk, in an area with many orchards, the trees were sprayed in one of an orchard whilst people were pruning in a different part of the same orchard. At that time (eighties) if the possibility of cancer was mentioned to the workers the response was generally it won't happen to me. Sadly it did and some died prematurely from cancer.

JenniferEccles and Gonegirl - what is so wrong about Extinction Rebellion? I suspect that there are many on here who are proud of their grandchildren supporting the climate protests.

When extinction rebellion publish a peer-reviewed forecast for how we could go emission free in the period they stated (2025). Showing how they would construct a resilient 24/7/365 power supply that can cope with the huge rise in demand that would be the result of all transport, all transport not just cars but including freight, air and sea, convert all heating to electricity, plus all industry and so on.

Then and only then will I change my mind that they are just a band of professional protesters.

They're not that Monica.But some of them are very angry.

Dinahmo I am a great admirer of Extinction Rebellion. Grandson is practically a founder member. But I do take the mick out of him a bit. I know I shouldn't.

Bad granny alert.

Didn't you understand the last line of my post?