January 29, 2019

More on the War on Roundup

Timothy Birdnow

A while back I wrote about how radical activists hijacked a World Health Organization report on the dangers of glyphosate, the principle ingredient in Monsanto's premier herbicide Roundup. Radical environmentalists altered the report at the last minute, changing it from saying there was no solid evidence Roundup was a carcinogin to claiming there was proof of these assertions. This report formed the basis of a trial-lawyer lynching of Monsanto, and the Charlie Foxtrot continues.


From my article:

According to Reutersthe Word Health Organization (WHO) purposefully distorted it’s findings on the weedkiller glyphosate , the key ingredient in Roundup. Roundup has been the subject of multi-million dollar lawsuits as a result of the U.N. report claiming it is a carcinogen.

According to the article:

.

"LONDON (Reuters) - The World Health Organization’s cancer agency dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer.

Documents seen by Reuters show how a draft of a key section of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) assessment of glyphosate - a report that has prompted international disputes and multi-million-dollar lawsuits - underwent significant changes and deletions before the report was finalized and made public.”

Roundup is Monsanto’s premier weedkiller and one of the top brands in the industry.

An expert review determined that glyphosate was a cause of cancer in animals and humans, much like the U.N. has determined that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm.

The article continues:

"In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.

In another, a sentence in the draft referenced a pathology report ordered by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It noted the report "firmly” and "unanimously” agreed that the "compound” – glyphosate – had not caused abnormal growths in the mice being studied. In the final published IARC monograph, this sentence had been deleted.

Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. Reuters was unable to determine who made the changes.”

So somebody was monkeying with the report. Why? Who stood to profit by it?

The article goes on to explain how Reuters was unable to get anyone involved in the report to answer questions, and how the report not only falsified data and conclusions but altered previous reports to make them fit with the conclusions that the authors wanted. In short, this assessment is just like the Global Warming alarmism or other such dubious environmental scares as Alar, Dioxin, and DDT.

"LONDON (Reuters) - The World Health Organization’s cancer agency dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer.

Documents seen by Reuters show how a draft of a key section of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) assessment of glyphosate - a report that has prompted international disputes and multi-million-dollar lawsuits - underwent significant changes and deletions before the report was finalized and made public.”

Roundup is Monsanto’s premier weedkiller and one of the top brands in the industry.

An expert review determined that glyphosate was a cause of cancer in animals and humans, much like the U.N. has determined that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm.

The article continues:

"In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.

In another, a sentence in the draft referenced a pathology report ordered by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It noted the report "firmly” and "unanimously” agreed that the "compound” – glyphosate – had not caused abnormal growths in the mice being studied. In the final published IARC monograph, this sentence had been deleted.

Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. Reuters was unable to determine who made the changes.”

So somebody was monkeying with the report. Why? Who stood to profit by it?

The article goes on to explain how Reuters was unable to get anyone involved in the report to answer questions, and how the report not only falsified data and conclusions but altered previous reports to make them fit with the conclusions that the authors wanted. In short, this assessment is just like the Global Warming alarmism or other such dubious environmental scares as Alar, Dioxin, and DDT.

As I say, this has opened a Pandora's Box of legal attacks on Monsanto, with the predictable result that smarmy ambulance chasers are filing in California and other places that hate chemicals, big companies, and civilization in general.

Here is another example of how America no longer has a justice system but rather a lynch mob mentality. A judge has ruled that "evidence" may be presented against Monsanto to a jury that "shows" Monsanto, well:

(Judge) Chhabria on Monday said plaintiffs could introduce some evidence of Monsanto's alleged attempts to ghostwrite studies and influence the findings of scientists and regulators during the first phase of upcoming trials. He said documents which showed the company taking a position on the science or a study introduced during the first phase were "super relevant."

End excerpt.

First, what kind of judge uses that type of language when dealing with a legal matter? What is he, a Valley Dude?

Second, since when is it illegal to defend ones-self in a matter of science? And why is it a matter for the jury, whose purpose is to determine whether there is liability, not whether Monsanto is a creepy chemical company or not?

The article continues:

Monsanto had argued much of this evidence was a "sideshow" that would only distract jurors from the scientific evidence.

Plaintiffs' lawyers contended some evidence of corporate misconduct was inextricably linked to their scientific claims.

End excerpt.

I would like to know what actual proof they have of this. We DO know that the WHO report was a crock.I wonder if the judge will allow THAT into evidence?

Roundup has been around for half a century or more and nobody noticed anything until now. This is just one more assault on the foundations of our modern technological society by utopian socialists who believe we can live happily ever after by dismantling the building blocks of our modern industrial civilization. If we don't have things like Roundup to kill weeds we are going to be faced with reductions in food production - something the Gang Green environmentalist types want; they want fewer people and if some have to starve or prices skyrocket, well, that is the price they are willing for the rest of us to pay.

Naturally, this is happening in California. Too bad Lex Luthor isn't around to implement his plan from Superman I to sever the coast off of the rest of the continent.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1259 words, total size 11 kb.

1

In the age of technology, walking to get around doesn't have to slow you down. As consumers, we have plenty of options at our fingertips; we can call a taxi like service such as Uber or Lyft, we can rent a bicycle/scooter using our phones, or snag a zip car for the day. E-scooter fleets solve the problem of the last mile commute without breaking a sweat and sitting in traffic. However, the emergence of e-scooter sharing fleets has created many problems for cities and people are frustrated about the way e-scooters are being used. It is time to evaluate the pros and cons of e-scooter fleets and see where the industry is heading.

Pros of e-scooter fleets

For the end user, the benefits are self evident. It is a perfect way to easily commute short distances. All you need to rent an e-scooter is an app, and you can leave one almost anywhere, as long as you follow the guidelines for using and parking e-scooters. Unfortunately, we are already seeing that e-scooters are often left in random places, blocking pedestrian pathways - people are pissed! Using an e-scooter is also quite cheap, but as of recent prices have gone up and even doubled. At first the rate was $1 to start  each trip plus 15 cents per minute. Now those rates have increased depending on the company see chart below.

 

 

For the potential fleet operators, the main benefit is the booming billion-dollar industry and its various opportunities to scale quickly. There are obvious trends such as a decline in car ownership and more people living in urban areas which also suggest that the urban transport market that Bird and others are attacking is growing. There is "love hate relationship after the 2nd year of dock less e scooters becoming mainstream in DC and across the country. This article highlights some of the pros and cons of scootering around Washington D.C. For the potential fleet operators, the main benefit is the booming billion-dollar industry and its various opportunities to scale quickly. There are obvious trends such as a decline in car ownership and the shift to living in urban areas which also suggest that the urban transport market that Bird and others are attacking is growing. Although, Bird did not win an operation permit in 2020 in Washington DC...

Another positive is that  Bird, Lime and others are giving people the opportunity to increase their income by collecting and charging e-scooters during the night. In addition to earning money, these people will be part of the innovation movement that pushes the industry to build better e-scooters with longer battery life, as this is the main obstacle at the moment.

At the end of the day e-scooters are not just toys for tech bros and hipsters. According to a new studymade about the new micro-mobility services, including e-scooters, a majority (70 percent) of people across the U.S. view electric scooters positively. And women are expected to support and adopt e-scooters more than bike sharing, which is more used by men. The study doesn't say why that is, but this Wired article suggests that e-scooters are easier to ride in heels and skirts. And it's true, in modernized countries around the world the men to women bike riding ratio is equal. The U.S. is the only one where the ratio is 2 to 1. Also, e-scooters appear to be easier to operate, feel safer and don't require any physical exertion. This founding again confirms the huge potential of the e-scooter sharing market.


Cons of e-scooter fleets

As stated earlier, e-scooter fleets are far from perfect and the main danger is growing too fast. Since there is a race out there for who can take over a market first, there is a high probability that companies are cutting corners. This may result in unreliable hardware and software solutions. In order to launch a reliable fleet, you need every component of the e-scooter fleetchain to be working.

Another danger of moving too fast is the pushback from cities. So far, cities have not banned e-scooters completely, but some are very worried and the approval process may take years rather than months. Frustrations in San Francisco led the city attorney to say, "San Francisco has had enough of the mantra -- move fast and break things."

Cities are worried about public areas getting filled with broken e-scooters, as has happened with e-bikes in China. We are already seeing big players like Ofo and Mobike pulling out of dock less bike sharing in Washington, D.C. due to city regulations. Will the same thing happen to e-scooters?

At the moment, there is an issue with reliability of e-scooters with short battery life and their destruction by bad terrain and street conditions. In fact, e-scooter fleets need good weather conditions and are very susceptible to bad terrain.

Besides the processing problems of lithium batteries, there is the issue of picking them up and charging them. People who make extra money by charging the e-scooters still need to use cars and vans, so in a way it is a zero sum game.

Currently there is a lot fuss around e-scooter sharing and it will continue for a while, since cities need to figure out how to accommodate the rising number of e-scooters in a safe and non-disruptive way. In turn, electric kick scooter operators need to improve their technological solutions and the way they roll out their services. All in all, the e-scooter scene is changing by the minute and it will be interesting to see who will be first on the market and how will people respond.


Posted by: dc scooter at January 05, 2020 10:08 AM (utUkX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




39kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.3364 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3136 seconds, 114 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Canada Free Press
Christian Daily Reporter
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
The Reform Club
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 11097
  • Files: 3479
  • Bytes: 250.2M
  • CPU Time: 75:14
  • Queries: 461207

Content

  • Posts: 19823
  • Comments: 62204

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0