View Single Post
  #11  
Old March 22nd 19, 01:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 07:34:32 UTC-4, 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.


Idiot. If not for them, 1/2 the planet would be starving. YOU should have been on that jury, you'd have fit right in.


It wasn't suggested that such chemicals be banned outright, but rather always treated as if they are potentially dangerous. Losing a lawsuit could bring about better packaging, regulations, guidelines and training in application procedures.

If there is a connection between exposure and a disease in agricultural use, a chemical should be banned from all non-agricultural uses, such as around or near commercial, residential and public areas. Having a few weeds around is much preferred over cancer or poisoning.

I wasn't on that jury, neither were you, nor idiot peterson or brown. If you come to the courtroom with your minds already made up, you don't belong on the jury. -I- would listen to and consider the evidence presented, which is what the jury in question seems to have done.

You can apologize or recant your pathetic insult at any time, sooner is better.
Ads