I can't believe your neighbor could be so insensitive, and am so sorry for your experience. Sadly, I hear from so many people with similar stories about involuntary exposures. And yep, the poisons just keep getting pumped out....
As this case was in the news back then, I found it important and inspiring, as my neighbor poisoned me and my family with a 4x dose of glyphosate on their yard. I called the county Ag department within 30 days and they send someone out who took samples and determined the sprayer was using it dangerously as the levels were off the charts. It was over 80 degrees that day and all my house windows were open. It was a terrible experience and one that my neighbor of course still refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. A movie will help publicize, but I can't help worry about what will be represented truthfully and what may be glossed over in the name of Hollywood. Seems like as soon as we deal with one poison the idiots have 3 more ready to go.
I remember reading the coverage of the Lee Johnson lawsuit and also the pictures of his back that was horribly covered in growths, the same kind of growths that my mother later developed when she came down with Lymphoma from using Roundup.
Wow, amazing story. All I can add to say I understand is "Meanwhile, at Syngenta..."
A jury can't make these kinds of decisions. Public safety isn't about feelings. And, labels exist for reasons; it's my general understanding that on-label users of glyphosate don't seem to suffer the same outcomes.
Maybe I'm wrong, which is why my opinion doesn't qualify me as an authority on such scientific and medical matters. Same for a jury, imo.
I don't think the jury system is set up to issue verdicts based on "feelings". The juries are presented with facts and the interpretations of those facts from both sides. They then weigh those facts and testimony they've heard and come to a decision. Judges make sure the law is applied in presenting the evidence. Each case would be different of course, because each plaintiff situation is distinct and unique and different cases exclude or include certain evidence not always seen in another similar case. It's not a perfect system, but it sure is a better one than our system of relying on the EPA to determine safety based on studies submitted by the companies selling the products.
Why is it better? I honestly don't understand. What is the objection to the EPA? What about other scientific and medical bodies or professionals? And I say this with a list of scientists who I dislike and disagree with. I refer to them as the Research-Hating Researchers and Science-denying Scientists.
I write with hyperbole and understatement, but am asking you a genuine question, in earnest. Casey, we don't know each other. I'm not anyone important. But, I have opinions and feelings, about the same topics.
Since I am new here, and don't understand the court case or how a jury ruling is the same as evidence, can you please tell me your view?
I also have issues with what some science advocates consider evidence; sampling bias and researcher bias are just my starting points.
I am open to your ideas, but I don't understand the disagreement with the EPA, to begin with. If it's okay, may we discuss your side?
I am a former science communications writer and social media person. Thank you.
It's a long conversation, and I encourage you to read my book Whitewash, which lays out all that you're asking about. It's been a long education for me, but it is quite clear - and this is not just my opinion, but has been documented, that the EPA is - in many respects - a captured agency, at least when it comes to pesticides. Communications obtained via FOIA show this, retired EPA scientists say this - several have filed whistleblower complaints and testified to Congress, the agency is not funded, nor intended to conduct independent science, but does as a normal practice rely heavily on data and safety findings paid for and directed to the EPA by the companies selling the products. There is a revolving door between the pesticide industry and the EPA, also well documented. Industry documents that have come to light through litigation or other means show how far the EPA goes to protect certain powerful companies. Again, this is not my opinion, this is what I and other reporters and scientists and authors and advocacy groups have seen, documented and shared over many years. It's not partisan - happens in Republican and Democrat-led administrations. The Obama Administration really tried to beef up "scientific integrity" at the EPA but failed miserably. You can find all that yourself, it's all been written about and documented. I appreciate your curiosity and the conversation.
Thank you, Carey, for your detailed reply! I have homework now! I didn't know of any of this. I may lack access to your book, but can read your Substack first, for now.
I just joined today and I admit that I read your post as a science post. Maybe my instinct (ha, right? My audacity!) was right? Thank you for the chance to learn.
Carey what an amazing accomplishment, you've worked so hard and long for we, as victims of Roundup. You might appreciate my piece about Dean and his suffering and Death. http://www.TheFinalJourneyofDeanBrooks.org. Roundup and Covid ruined my life, took my beloved twin flame, my home, everything I owned. Because of it as you know my Bellwether case went to Settlement, a settlement of less than 6 figures for the rest of my life. Maybe one day you can tell our story of the greatest love and greatest tragedy. I honor you Carey. -Deborah Brooks Widow of Dean Brooks, @Warrior_Widow, deborah@deborahbrooks.com
I can't believe your neighbor could be so insensitive, and am so sorry for your experience. Sadly, I hear from so many people with similar stories about involuntary exposures. And yep, the poisons just keep getting pumped out....
As this case was in the news back then, I found it important and inspiring, as my neighbor poisoned me and my family with a 4x dose of glyphosate on their yard. I called the county Ag department within 30 days and they send someone out who took samples and determined the sprayer was using it dangerously as the levels were off the charts. It was over 80 degrees that day and all my house windows were open. It was a terrible experience and one that my neighbor of course still refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. A movie will help publicize, but I can't help worry about what will be represented truthfully and what may be glossed over in the name of Hollywood. Seems like as soon as we deal with one poison the idiots have 3 more ready to go.
I remember reading the coverage of the Lee Johnson lawsuit and also the pictures of his back that was horribly covered in growths, the same kind of growths that my mother later developed when she came down with Lymphoma from using Roundup.
Wow, amazing story. All I can add to say I understand is "Meanwhile, at Syngenta..."
A jury can't make these kinds of decisions. Public safety isn't about feelings. And, labels exist for reasons; it's my general understanding that on-label users of glyphosate don't seem to suffer the same outcomes.
Maybe I'm wrong, which is why my opinion doesn't qualify me as an authority on such scientific and medical matters. Same for a jury, imo.
I don't think the jury system is set up to issue verdicts based on "feelings". The juries are presented with facts and the interpretations of those facts from both sides. They then weigh those facts and testimony they've heard and come to a decision. Judges make sure the law is applied in presenting the evidence. Each case would be different of course, because each plaintiff situation is distinct and unique and different cases exclude or include certain evidence not always seen in another similar case. It's not a perfect system, but it sure is a better one than our system of relying on the EPA to determine safety based on studies submitted by the companies selling the products.
Why is it better? I honestly don't understand. What is the objection to the EPA? What about other scientific and medical bodies or professionals? And I say this with a list of scientists who I dislike and disagree with. I refer to them as the Research-Hating Researchers and Science-denying Scientists.
I write with hyperbole and understatement, but am asking you a genuine question, in earnest. Casey, we don't know each other. I'm not anyone important. But, I have opinions and feelings, about the same topics.
Since I am new here, and don't understand the court case or how a jury ruling is the same as evidence, can you please tell me your view?
I also have issues with what some science advocates consider evidence; sampling bias and researcher bias are just my starting points.
I am open to your ideas, but I don't understand the disagreement with the EPA, to begin with. If it's okay, may we discuss your side?
I am a former science communications writer and social media person. Thank you.
It's a long conversation, and I encourage you to read my book Whitewash, which lays out all that you're asking about. It's been a long education for me, but it is quite clear - and this is not just my opinion, but has been documented, that the EPA is - in many respects - a captured agency, at least when it comes to pesticides. Communications obtained via FOIA show this, retired EPA scientists say this - several have filed whistleblower complaints and testified to Congress, the agency is not funded, nor intended to conduct independent science, but does as a normal practice rely heavily on data and safety findings paid for and directed to the EPA by the companies selling the products. There is a revolving door between the pesticide industry and the EPA, also well documented. Industry documents that have come to light through litigation or other means show how far the EPA goes to protect certain powerful companies. Again, this is not my opinion, this is what I and other reporters and scientists and authors and advocacy groups have seen, documented and shared over many years. It's not partisan - happens in Republican and Democrat-led administrations. The Obama Administration really tried to beef up "scientific integrity" at the EPA but failed miserably. You can find all that yourself, it's all been written about and documented. I appreciate your curiosity and the conversation.
Thank you, Carey, for your detailed reply! I have homework now! I didn't know of any of this. I may lack access to your book, but can read your Substack first, for now.
I just joined today and I admit that I read your post as a science post. Maybe my instinct (ha, right? My audacity!) was right? Thank you for the chance to learn.
Carey sorry, my autocorrect hit your name incorrectly. Or, I did.
Made my day reading this. Was definitely feeling discouraged at the state of affairs in the world.
Run Bayer, run. The lions are coming, and they are overdue hungry.
#wearemany #wearememory #wewillnotforgive #getnoisy #getlocalised
Carey what an amazing accomplishment, you've worked so hard and long for we, as victims of Roundup. You might appreciate my piece about Dean and his suffering and Death. http://www.TheFinalJourneyofDeanBrooks.org. Roundup and Covid ruined my life, took my beloved twin flame, my home, everything I owned. Because of it as you know my Bellwether case went to Settlement, a settlement of less than 6 figures for the rest of my life. Maybe one day you can tell our story of the greatest love and greatest tragedy. I honor you Carey. -Deborah Brooks Widow of Dean Brooks, @Warrior_Widow, deborah@deborahbrooks.com
Already read the book! Can't wait to see the movie.