On 21/03/2019 02:06, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 9:31:28 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:45:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 9:56:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:34:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 9:46:16 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
The average person's knowledge of science or the processes
it uses is pitiable. People cry about the innocent being
convicted, they even make TV shows about people who try to
help them. But what about products? Science-ignorant
juries are one the main causes of incorrect outcomes of
lawsuits and criminal trials. Good example is Monsanto
week killer, Roundup. No evidence at ALL that it is
harmful, NONE. Yet a moron jury awards millions to someone
who contracted cancer in an age group PRONE to it
naturally. I saw an ad for some ambulance-chasing firm
assuring asbestos workers that "even if you smoked your
whole life, and contracted lung-cancer, you could be
entitled to damages!" Disgusting.

The case:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47633086

The science:

https://www.google.com/search?q=non-...2lEa M:&vet=1



The jury would have listened to the evidence that was presented and made
their best decision based on it. The defense must not have done as good
a job of presenting evidence as they could have.

From my point of view, all herbicides and pesticides are
guilty until proven innocent.

That's a reasonable position... but it isn't the role of juries
to assess whether chemicals are dangerous, but of scientific
inquiry.

Studies seem to show that farmers, as a group, are healthier in
most ways than the general population. Maybe it helps to have
robust health in order to be a farmer in the first place. Or
maybe farming is a healthy lifestyle.

So when circumstantial evidence shows up that something might be
causing otherwise healthy farmers to develop a disease at a
higher rate than the general population, it's time to find out
what that something might be. Then too, maybe farmers get NHL
because they are less likely to succumb to more common diseases
first.

Until "scientific inquiry" actually provides a definitive answer,
juries will have to decide based on what they are told.

Which is a problem in a country that is undereducated, doesn't
trust experts, and generally lacks critical thinking skills.

That would probably describe the lawyers and scientists in this case,
more so than any of the jurors.

Chemicals HAVE been known to increase or cause cancer, so you need to
show up with proof that a particular chemical in question does not.
Don't blame the jury.

Such proof is only ever available in mathematics. The best you can do in
science is put a lower bound on how bad something might be.

Even then there can be a handful of unlucky individuals whose genome
leaves them exposed to chemicals that are harmless to most people.

Or vice versa a handful of men were not affected at all but the rest
killed by a distinctive bladder cancer) by industrial exposure to the
intermediate beta-naphthalamine (now banned).

Tobacco and alcohol cause cancer and are widely sold to the general
public for recreational purposes. They are a significant cause of
preventable premature deaths from poisoning, drunk driving and lung disease.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown