A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 20th 19, 02:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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

  #2  
Old March 20th 19, 12:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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.
  #3  
Old March 20th 19, 01:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

On 20/03/2019 11:34, 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.


If it was the characteristic mesothelioma symptoms of blue asbestos
exposure then they might well have a point. It killed Malcolm McClaren
and one of my uncles - striking some decades after initial exposure.

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.


I wouldn't go quite that far, but I suspect there is no smoke without
fire - although whether it is the glyphosate itself or the surfactants
in the formulation that cause the trouble is still an open question.

WHO says it is carcinogenic and EFSA says it isn't. US EPA says it is OK
if used "carefully" whatever that means. Monsanto wanted everything
sprayed with it and as often as possible to sell more product.

I doubt that it is any more carcinogenic than roast coffee. But there
does seem to be a coincidence of regular users of glyphosate ending up
with similar diseases. Roundup Ready crops have a lot to answer for.

I know someone who used a lot of the stuff and has non-Hodgkin lymphoma
so I am not prepared to dismiss the possibility out of hand. What is a
little worrying is that there are ultra-traces of it in almost all grain
based products like flour and bread today. Mass spectrometry has
advanced to detect ultratrace levels of pesticides in farm produce.

Considering just how incredibly lethal glyphosate is to green plants it
is astonishingly benign in mammals (we lack the shikimic acid pathway).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #4  
Old March 20th 19, 02:56 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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.
  #5  
Old March 21st 19, 12:45 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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.

  #6  
Old March 21st 19, 02:31 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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.
  #7  
Old March 21st 19, 03:06 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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.
  #8  
Old March 21st 19, 11:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

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.
  #9  
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There is justice after all ... Hägar Misc 0 January 17th 17 01:55 AM
How ignorant ARE journalists (and every Joe Average) about science?(New planet) RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 3 January 21st 16 10:22 AM
God creates justice [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 November 1st 06 05:44 PM
What is Justice? Patrick Ashley Meuser\-Bianca\ SETI 0 June 14th 06 03:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.