>
>>Whilst not arguing that the levels quoted are safe or not, it is a
>>common and erronious belief that these products are not very thoroughly
>>tested. They are, with lifetime studies and so on. We have advanced
>>since the 1950's when OC's were first developed.
>>
>It is a common and erronious belief that "studies" are objective. Often,
>either the manufacturer did them, and published limited results (i.e.
>Monsanto and Roundup), or by Universities who are at the teat of funding
>dollars, therefore the funders influence. Literally billions of dollars go
>into the development of said chemicals, and NO major corp is going to bite
>the bullet and not seek ROI just because of a "perceived" risk. Quality of
>Life is not an issue with these companies: their bottom line is thier
>objective, racing for dollars with the arrogance that clever human
>inventions are the (ha ha) best thing since sliced bread.
>
>Let's do a study of our own: how many employees of chemical manufacturers
>embrace Gaia?
>
Or take personal as opposed to corporate responsibility for their
acts. After many years of musing on the subject of responsibility I
ask myself, where do these employees think that they can go, or what
can they themselves safely eat, when the world is slowly poisoned to
death? Does being the employee of a multinational company make one
immune to OP's? Or is there some secret shelter somewhere,
(Shangri-la?) or have they got a moon-shot lined up to flee on?
I had obvoiusly vainly hoped that when the nuclear protesters finally
got taken seriously this question mught not have to be asked again.
But here it is, different hats, (OP's, CJD/BSE) same questions.
Joan
Joan Bird
Amateur Thinker and Gardener