Re: Of course not
Your grandparents genetics did him in, via cigarettes. People come in three types. People who aren't affected by nicotine (me) who tried smoking once and never again; people who are half way addictive to nicotine (social smokers); people who will get addicted and will smoke like the Blucher steaming on lignite till they drop dead. I would bet he was the 3rd group - and of all the things it was cancer that killed him. With me it would be, were I to smoke like a class 37 on a cold morning, most likely a heart attack, because of my genetics. I've been exposed to glyphosate and the sun. I've had cancer - in the middle of my right forearm - which was the most exposed part of my body to the sun. But not anywhere else.
If you use glyphosate properly it quite literally *cannot* cause cancer - you can't get cancer from it if you bung it in a knapsack sprayer that leaks like a seive at 10x the recommended active concentration. It's being blamed probably because it's the only active that the greentards can pronounce.
The cancer that couple have and the black gardener claimed is from roundup sounds more like KS or something or even something from skin contaminated by asbestos dust - there is no way of proving its from glyphosate - even if you could be 100% sure that the person had used no other herbicides or insecticides or fungicides you have *no* idea what they've been exposed to.
Let's put it this way. The cancers seem to be similar. Fair go. So we assume that because of 3 patients assume that they got it from glyphosate then that's correct. All well and good. Apart from one fucking huge problem. Farmers aren't dropping like flies, and they should be, since glyphosate was introduced in 1977 and every single arable farmers used it, gardeners, council employees, you name it. I can remember holding a box of the stuff as a kid on the back seat of a 1981 Cavalier SRi. Yeah I've had cancer but because I have fair skin and get sunburnt. There are much worse chemicals that people have been exposed to - my grandad was doused from head to toe in neat DDT powder by army policy, my dad used to clean up DDT spills with a bloody yard broom and/or a hose. There is still a bloody huge store of DDT in the UK retained for killing locusts.
But the important part is this and its simple enough even for you to understand. No chemicals, no yield, no yield, no food, no food, fuckwits like you rioting and whingeing and turning Basildon high street into a Mad Max re run. There are too many people not to use agrochemicals and fertiliser if we want to feed them and scream and shout all you like but understand this - glyphosate is effective, it is reasonably priced, and it is one of the few that don't need multiple applications. It is therefore cheaper, wastes less fuel and causes less compaction and land damage and it works because if it didn't farmers wouldn't touch it. It's the least worst option, but by all means ban it because three dumbass inbredistanis and their lawyers conned a judge and a load of people who have no agricultural knowledge whatsoever.
I will say it again slowly. If Glyphosate causes cancer like HPV or Dioxin (contaminant of agent orange) then show me 35+% of arable farmers dropping dead from that precise cancer. You can't. Giving a chav a BJ is more likely to give you cancer than necking a litre can of glyphosate.
The court screwed the pooch in this case because it's innocent until proven guilty. You can't prove guilt without testing every single thing they've been exposed to over a lifetime. That simply isn't possible. So two people got a completely spurious pay out of $1 billion for something that is completely umprovable at best and a less than 1% probability at worst.
Hell, if your grandpa did the same job as mine during WW2 he'd have been elbow deep in 140 octane (purple petrol) half the time - and that stuff ate aluminium fuel tanks like xenomorph blood and the additive is a definite carcinogen - grandad never got cancer - because it's not in our genetics.
Short version - you want food for 7 billion people? You use agrochemical. You cull that back down to 3.5bn like the end of the war you could *just* about get away with organic - but then you'd whine about using GMO'S etc when you fail to realise that every single crop you plant has been genetically engineered by crossbreeding - what you thought carrots were always orange? Nope either white or purple is the natural colour. You think the original strains of wheat got 6 tons an acre? Not a chance.
I wouldn't mind so much if it was argued from a position of knowledge but it never is - dribbling cockwomble would be giving the greentardistas far too much credit. Less than that is due if they drive a tesla. The manufacturing and use of a 100kw tesla in CO2 emissions using UK style mixed energy generation - would take 17.6 *years* to equalise the CO2 emissions of a clean petrol or diesel (engineering explained) - so the production and use of 2 muskkretinwagen for 17 years (on our current genset mix) would be reasonably equivalent to the CO2 produced by the manufacture and running of my carburettor Wolseley 18/85 for 46 *years*. Oh very clean!