Well, I'd start with post #1 where you ridiculed the entire idea of placing limits on putting dust into the air at all.
"What's next? Limits on bullsh!t?" - MarkW
Well, you've obviously went over yours here.
I could also have been thinking of gmichael's sarcasm in post 16, 3db's synopsis of the effects of dust as "a runny nose" in post 18.
There's really no telling what you're thinking. AFAICT, you just argue to argue.
But if I've mis-characterized your position, I certainly apologize. As I understand it now, your position is that the dust in question might or might not pose a health hazard, but limiting dust will certainly pose a health hazard which will certainly be more severe than whatever hazard (if any) was posed by the dust?
What if the farmers simply water their land before tilling to prevent dust from lingering in the air? How will that pose a health hazard?
Great idea, but water is needed in many other areas besides farming and a fairly scarce commodity in some areas, sometimes even rationed. Chemicals, however, can always be purchased from their local retailer, no?
It seems, from where I sit, that you are the one with the positive claim. You are claiming that (and hopefully I have this correct) "dust from farming is less of a hazard that stopping dust from farming".
I'll go with that, yes. Unless you like a side of more un-needed chamicals in your diet but that's your little red wagon, not mine.
By this logic there is nothing at all bad for us that actually exists. We have survived with lead, and mercury, and flesh-eating bacteria for thousands of years.
Of course, the people who died of heavy metal poising, flesh eating bacteria, and black lung might disagree.
IIRC, their dangers have been known for quite some time. Didn't you get the memo?
Again, there you go with putting words in my mouth.
Gravity and drowning has killed many people but you don't see people running to put limits on those, at least yet, do you? But then again, the EPA still exists. Who knows what's next on their list.
You've accused me of putting words in your mouth, but isn't that exactly what you are doing here?
No. In fact, I've just shown where you are trying it again.
You do like to argue just to argue, don't you?
You have not only claimed that I've claimed that the dust emitted by farms is harmful (I have not), but also claimed that I support chemicals as the solution (which I have not), and that I have claimed chemicals are less harmful (again, I have not).
Boy, you've said a lot of nothing then, haven't you? I've posted an article and you've responded and you say, you've said nothing.
Like one wise man said, you're either for something or against it. If not, what's your point aside from looking for a partner in mutual mental masturbation.
It's disappointing that you've continued to hack at straw-men, with no apparent desire to understand / address what I actually am stating: that the effects of dust from farms is undetermined, that the solutions to prevent it are undefined, and that there may or may not be a compelling interest in regulating that dust.
Hey, you created it, and continue to do . Burn in them. Read and comprehend your own link.
I've attempted to make sure I'm responding to your actual claims (see above). Do you think you can do the same?
Remember, there's more to a debate than merely asking questions. Sometimes it involves taking a position and defending it. You do neither. You just argue. But, one might see you as the master debater here.
And what claims do you dispute? What do you believe? Since you claim to have made none, you're just engaging in mental masturbation, you can continue it alone. That's something that's best done alone.
My 8 year-old grand-daughter she sometimes asks questions just to get attention. But, then again, she's just a child. One would have hoped you've outgrown that stage by now.
So, unless you've got something of value to add instead of your usual bullsh!t, TTFN. Just like when I step in it in my friend's horse corral, I'm wiping you off my feet and moving on...
