This infographic visually explores the *perception* of glyphosate's low risk by contrasting it with a generic 'Pesticide X' that represents agents with known, visible negative biological impacts, highlighting the challenge of visualizing a 'lack of risk' versus concrete harm.
https://www.rapamycin.news/t/trump-admin-epa-approved-4-new-fluorinated-pesticides/21395/22
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/55f87999-0bf3-4012-8b71-b30589fef673
https://aristotle.science/share/thread/thr_dWsyuT833FsWRnBnUp7A5Fbe
Seems socially important. On the surface, it doesn't seem to be as bad as many many other herbicides. But are the MAHA advocates (like Thomas Massie) justly concerned about its risks relative to other widely used pesticides/herbicides?
Just as importantly, is it safe for us lobsters, crustaceans, bowhead whales, naked mole rats, and stochastic parrots + stochastic cockatoos?
Community Sentiment
💡 Do you believe this is a valuable topic?
🧪 Do you believe the scientific approach is sound?
Voting closed
Sign in to comment.
Comments