|
North of London | Anyone considering that 'report' has any validity should reconsider.
First flag;
"pesticide"........ so which one?
Herbicide, insecticide, fungicide etc.
There are so many different chemicals and formulations used in pesticides that it is meaningless.
Further down they start referencing insecticides, never herbicides or fungicides so the writers of that 'study' have used misleading wording and that is enough to reject it outright in my consideration.
Now IF they had indicated insecticides to begin with then it might be worth considering further but then they say 1/3 lived within a mile of treated fields and therefore 2/3 lived further than a mile and they guess that it must have been carried on the wind to all these mothers.
Possible but I suggest not likely and again not worth further consideration.
IF they thought that it could be true then they should have taken samples from these people they thought were contaminated and proved they had been impacted by these insecticides.
Until they have proof they are just spouting beliefs.
Proof is required before they should be taken seriously.
When they make outrageous claims they need good evidence to back it up otherwise their 'report' is just more paper to recycle. | |
|
pesticided linked to health problems?
