[beaglebrain]

Does anyone know of a past or current lawsuit against Fertigator? I have heard a RUMOR that their system can damage the sprinkler system plumbing to the point that it needs replacement. Of course, thanks in advance for the information.

[Bay Kid]

Nope, but they do a good job at my home. And they maintain my sprinkler system.

[dewilson58]

You can sue for anything.

I sued my neighbor for being ugly.
I didn't win, but I did sue.

[beaglebrain]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Nope, but they do a good job at my home. And they maintain my sprinkler system.

Yes they do a good job for me - had them for about 10 years. Just was wondering - probably to no avail. RUMORS can be bad....

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by beaglebrain

Yes they do a good job for me - had them for about 10 years. Just was wondering - probably to no avail. RUMORS can be bad....

Yes, but they give us something to talk about. Such fun!

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by beaglebrain

Yes they do a good job for me - had them for about 10 years. Just was wondering - probably to no avail. RUMORS can be bad....

Could be started by the competition?

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

You can sue for anything.

I sued my neighbor for being ugly.
I didn't win, but I did sue.

You must have had a bad lawyer.

The lawyers who sued Roundup for causing cancer won, even though it doesn't cause cancer.

The lawyers who sued for diseases caused by silicone breast implants won, even though no one else could prove that it caused any disease.

[Ozzello]

Because the system is running clean a month or 2 in the winter, any damage that could occur (that would only be the metal or rubber parts inside the valve) are flushed and cleaned every year. Well before any damage could occur at the mixed strength, as it is fairly weak compared to the concentrate,

Golf course sprinkler heads are VERY expensive, yet many courses are using fertilizer injection (fertigation) systems. And as we all know... golf courses do NOT, like fixing things.

ALSO , as part of Fertigator's service, they are MAINTAINING your sprinkler system, something other companies are leaving as an add-on expense. In case you wondered why they cost a little more... the DO more, and they USE more product,

[blueash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

You must have had a bad lawyer.

The lawyers who sued Roundup for causing cancer won, even though it doesn't cause cancer.

The lawyers who sued for diseases caused by silicone breast implants won, even though no one else could prove that it caused any disease.

Always nice to see an expert opinion on carcinogenic potential from you. The lawyers didn't win, the plaintiffs won. If you want to actually get informed on the relative risk of lymphoma from high exposure to Roundup you can start

HERE where the most recent meta-analysis of the data resulted in an estimated up to 41% increased risk of lymphoma. Now you can quibble about whether 41% increased risk is a big deal seeing as it related to high exposure not usual household exposure.

That is much stronger data than that against agent orange which every Vietnam vet, even those who never left a ship or an office space in Saigon can claim has damaged them. It is a much stronger association than the increased risk over the general population of heart disease in firefighters and cops who get occupation related disability payments for life if they have a heart attack.

It certainly is higher than the risk from the water at Camp Lejune. But the point is that you can never tell which one person would not have gotten the lymphoma if they had not been exposed. Most of us would be just fine if they never mandated seat belts.

Is sunshine a carcinogen? Sure, but all of us don't get melanomas. A low incidence of a bad outcome where most of the people exposed do just fine is not evidence of safety. Risk is relative. Roundup is relatively safe. People also die because of Roundup.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by blueash

Always nice to see an expert opinion on carcinogenic potential from you. The lawyers didn't win, the plaintiffs won. If you want to actually get informed on the relative risk of lymphoma from high exposure to Roundup you can start

HERE where the most recent meta-analysis of the data resulted in an estimated up to 41% increased risk of lymphoma. Now you can quibble about whether 41% increased risk is a big deal seeing as it related to high exposure not usual household exposure.

That is much stronger data than that against agent orange which every Vietnam vet, even those who never left a ship or an office space in Saigon can claim has damaged them. It is a much stronger association than the increased risk over the general population of heart disease in firefighters and cops who get occupation related disability payments for life if they have a heart attack.

It certainly is higher than the risk from the water at Camp Lejune. But the point is that you can never tell which one person would not have gotten the lymphoma if they had not been exposed. Most of us would be just fine if they never mandated seat belts.

Is sunshine a carcinogen? Sure, but all of us don't get melanomas. A low incidence of a bad outcome where most of the people exposed do just fine is not evidence of safety. Risk is relative. Roundup is relatively safe. People also die because of Roundup.

Not my opinion, the EPA. Has the Roundup formula changed since the plaintiffs won millions?