Comments on: Beware Turkey’s Naysayers: Some Agricultural Chemicals ARE Harmful

By: Dwight Long

Dwight Long — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:35:02 +0000

Absolutely.

By: Tafline Laylin

Tafline Laylin — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:25:54 +0000

Ja. OK, but not great 🙂

You are right though: many people might not know better. Which is why I think it is so important to distinguish between good and bad chemicals.

By: Dwight Long

Dwight Long — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:14:59 +0000

OK, you may have a point regarding his style, but as far as content is concerned I read it as OK. Nowhere does he suggest that no chemicals are OK, only that not all are to be shunned. In my own experience I’d say that on this subject by no means are all readers are educated and I think that is his point.

By: Tafline Laylin

Tafline Laylin — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:52:08 +0000

The problem I had with those points is that they have nothing to do with how he started the piece: he started out by making light of water being used to grow produce, whereas the “chemicals” he mentions later on – like aspirin – are so benign compared to chemicals sometimes used to keep pests and fungus off the food we eat.

A truly balanced article would have at least mentioned some harmful agricultural chemicals.

I also really didn’t appreciate the condescending and disparaging tone. It’s so much better to assume your readers are educated.

By: Dwight Long

Dwight Long — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:49:33 +0000

This piece completely ignores the author Laughlan’s few bows towards the green movement including his closure, something along the lines of “Don’t get me wrong, I am against the indiscriminate use of chemicals, but don’t dismiss “chemicals” per sey as being harmful.” Then something about their use in his town to kill snakes and scorpions [which he opposes]and you also failed to point out that he alleged [perhaps for effect] that some chemicals keep him alive. Be fair, it is a balanced piece.