i would expect the manufacturer of a dangeroos but profitable product to suppress the danger(and quietly change product to minimise their liability)or to withdraw it as soon as they know but for a gov to ignore the dangers is harder to explain. incompetence would be the most generous option, fear of being found incompetent is understandable ,it just goes downhill from here to well paid to lose the data and incompetent at doing that. |
|||||||||
dpack |
fw report | ||||||||
dpack |
there is also the disposal of dip bath contents as well as splash and residue issues .
considering history it is a bit of a surprise they are in common use[url] |
||||||||
dpack |
ps the history thing contains some very useful info and links to stuff about poisoning pests and not harming folk of non pests | ||||||||
gz |
My late Mountain Man knew what he had, and knew it was dipping sheep that had caused it.
As he said a week before he died, "we had no choice but to dip, no choice what to dip with...and you ended up being in a bath of it inside your protective clothing after dipping several hundred sheep " |
||||||||
LynneA |
Gummer said it was safe, so it was pretty obvious the answer was no | ||||||||
dpack |
another try at the
hansard one hansard two these links now work and provide some rather strong evidence that some of the problems were known about in westminster and whitehall since the time of the zuckerman report. |
||||||||
Tavascarow |
& it turns out Monsanto knew 35 years ago about the cancer risks of roundup. |