Conservatives: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Data!

Re: Conservatives: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Data!

Postby Tero » Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:32 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20160731190 ... ate_en.pdf

labeled as occupational hazard. Low risk to consumers of crops
Schinasi L, Leon ME (Apr 2014). "Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 11 (4): 4449–527. PMC 4025008 Freely accessible. PMID 24762670. doi:10.3390/ijerph110404449.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Most people simply lack the intellectual curiosity or indeed the ability to understand anything more complex than macaroni and cheese in a box. That's why they put pictures on fast food menus. (laklak)
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
 
Posts: 20889
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Conservatives: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Data!

Postby Forty Two » Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:25 pm

March 25, 2017 - https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not ... en-by-echa

Not a carcinogen. It "...concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction."
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Previous

Return to Language, Culture & Anthropology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest