Why the fuck would I care about its environmental impact?
Indeed. You are exactly admitting to the problem at hand. Limited view with total disregard for holistic consequences.
And you are in denial about SM102.
This is shit that SHOULD not be injected into an acquatic millieu. EVER!
You are evidently asking the wrong question. Why would it be dangerous? The thing is this: ANY artificial substance by definition is not natural and therefor by default a danger to natural habitat. However, in this case this stuff is from it's inception already considered highly dangerous.
And it is prohibited from being administered to any living entity.
But but .... it's only trace amounts!
Where are the studies that positively and reproducibly shows it is not? Human waste contaminates water sources, when water sources are contaminated it contaminates the food supply of all living beings with far reaching consequences, especially when millions of idiots have stood in line to get their jab. We have seen this before.
This concoction on many levels is a danger, and it is NOT the default solution. The only reason why this solution is even debated, is because of a collusion between several market players and big government: a fascist / bolshevik collusion with no accountability and boatloads of money. Otherwise it would have been rejected out of hand, for obvious reasons.
It is based on bad science: medical, biochemical, environmental, genetical, etc. However you wanne slice and dice it: it is based on the premise: we make you sicker to make you better. damn the consequences. Maybe, just maybe you should start with the idea of cradle to cradle, circuitry in nature.
It has never worked in the past, but positively destroyed a lot.
Indeed. You are exactly admitting to the problem at hand. Limited view with total disregard for holistic consequences.
And you are in denial about SM102. This is shit that SHOULD not be injected into an acquatic millieu. EVER!
You are evidently asking the wrong question. Why would it be dangerous? The thing is this: ANY artificial substance by definition is not natural and therefor by default a danger to natural habitat. However, in this case this stuff is from it's inception already considered highly dangerous.
And it is prohibited from being administered to any living entity.
But but .... it's only trace amounts!
Where are the studies that positively and reproducibly shows it is not? Human waste contaminates water sources, when water sources are contaminated it contaminates the food supply of all living beings with far reaching consequences, especially when millions of idiots have stood in line to get their jab. We have seen this before.
This concoction on many levels is a danger, and it is NOT the default solution. The only reason why this solution is even debated, is because of a collusion between several market players and big government: a fascist / bolshevik collusion with no accountability and boatloads of money. Otherwise it would have been rejected out of hand, for obvious reasons.
It is based on bad science: medical, biochemical, environmental, genetical, etc. However you wanne slice and dice it: it is based on the premise: we make you sicker to make you better. damn the consequences. Maybe, just maybe you should start with the idea of cradle to cradle, circuitry in nature.
It has never worked in the past, but positively destroyed a lot.
And we should trust it? No way, Jose.