dbjh · HackerTrans

Your quote doesn't invalidate anything I wrote. My response proved jimmywanger's claim "no attempt to rectify the situation has been made by the government" to be false. Also note how he moved the goalposts. In his original post he talks about how Koreans are oppressed, while in the second post he changed it to have been oppressed in the past. I have no interest in discussing the definition of "slave". I do find it irritating he brought up WW2 within 2 hours after the article was posted, just because it was about Japan. I get the impression he just wanted to use the opportunity to bad-mouth Japan.

dbjh

8 anni fadiscuss

I already mentioned that Koreans in Japan have obtained a special status that is AFAIK better than any other nationality as a direct result of WW2. As an example of an attempt to rectify things what about this long list of official apologies that are somehow forgotten in this kind of "discussion"? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statemen... And you are again being disingenuous with what you care to mention. From the list above: January 1, 1992: Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, in a press conference, said: "Concerning the comfort women, I apologize from the bottom of my heart and feel remorse for those people who suffered indescribable hardships". Are you perhaps trying to raise the bar? In 10 other official apologies the suffering of the comfort women is acknowledged. You will also see that the Japanese government didn't only spend words on this issue, but also allocated funds.

dbjh

8 anni fadiscuss

For some reason discussions about Roundup and glyphosate tend to focus on their carcinogenic properties. However, if you search the scientific literature it appears a stronger case can be made against either based on their endocrine disruptive properties, which appear quite a bit scarier due to observed effects at very low concentrations (lower than regulatory limits).

Since I can't formulate it so succinctly myself and because it answers several questions raised in previous comments here's the abstract of the article "Mesnage, R, Defarge, N, Spiroux de Vendômois, J, Séralini, G.E, Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits, Food and Chemical Toxicology (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012.", but you will find similarly unsettling abstracts in many articles about this subject.

Abstract Glyphosate-based herbicides (GlyBH), including Roundup, are the most widely used pesticides worldwide. Their uses have increased exponentially since their introduction on the market. Residue levels in food or water, as well as human exposures, are escalating. We have reviewed the toxic effects of GlyBH measured below regulatory limits by evaluating the published literature and regulatory reports. We reveal a coherent body of evidence indicating that GlyBH could be toxic below the regulatory lowest observed adverse effect level for chronic toxic effects. It includes teratogenic, tumorigenic and hepatorenal effects. They could be explained by endocrine disruption and oxidative stress, causing metabolic alterations, depending on dose and exposure time. Some effects were detected in the range of the recommended acceptable daily intake. Toxic effects of commercial formulations can also be explained by GlyBH adjuvants, which have their own toxicity, but also enhance glyphosate toxicity. These challenge the assumption of safety of GlyBH at the levels at which they contaminate food and the environment, albeit these levels may fall below regulatory thresholds. Neurodevelopmental, reproductive, and transgenerational effects of GlyBH must be revisited, since a growing body of knowledge suggests the predominance of endocrine disrupting mechanisms caused by environmentally relevant levels of exposure.