|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2008 11:52:55 GMT -5
The right-wing (fundamentalist?) anti-science/anti-world National Post opens its 10th Annual Junk Science Week with the following comment and article. For your viewing pleasure. And for further discussion and debate. The pesticide report that nobody read Terence Corcoran, Financial PostFor more than a decade, the likes of Greenpeace, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, The Globe and Mail and scores of activists and city politicians have waged a relentless campaign against pesticide use.
It's easy to generate a junk science scare. You make stuff up, exaggerate the risks, politicize the subject and spin it into a corporate and ideological battle. And, above all, you ignore the facts. Which is what happened last month when Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) released its final reassessment of the leading pesticide, 2,4-D, and found the chemical to be safe when used properly.
No major media -- not one -- picked up the story, even though it systematically demolished every health and environmental claim the scare-mongers had dumped onto a gullible community of journalists. Almost two weeks later, the Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner wrote a column on how the media missed the story. Still no reaction.
The limited fallout from Mr. Gardner's report is instructive. A Global News reporter picked it up and raised the Health Canada report with officials in Toronto. Health Canada's conclusions were dismissed by a city council member, and the views of an activist with the Toronto Environmental Alliance were repeated: "Many studies have linked 2,4-D to some serious health concerns such as cancer, reproductive developments in our children ... and even birth defects."
So much for Health Canada's work: One of the most comprehensive scientific reviews in Canadian history, carried out exclusively by Health Canada scientists and reviewed by independent government and university researchers trashed in 30 seconds by an activist repeating claims rejected by the review. All that work and the last media report ends with repetition of the junk science Health Canada had spent millions disproving.
The Global report was then followed by an op-ed in the Citizen by Neil Arya, of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, one of the leading proponents of the pesticide scare. Responding to Mr. Gardner, Dr. Arya trotted out the same old arguments his group has been using for years.
He began with the usual catch-all scare-monger cop-out, accusing Health Canada of saying that a hazardous substance was safe. "Science cannot say 2,4-D, or any other toxic chemical designed to kill a biological organism, is safe."
Health Canada actually said 2,4-D was safe when used as directed -- a logical statement that accompanies most human activity. We don't drive cars off cliffs because it's not safe. Any automobile is not safe when driven unsafely. Dr. Arya is playing with the reader's mind and warping Health Canada's thorough review of the issue.
Another favourite of junk science activists is the corporate smear. Official science is "industry" science, and therefore not to be trusted. Dr. Arya does that twice. He said Health Canada decisions are "predicated on industry-supplied, highly controlled" studies. Not true, but he went on to say the media should not be "unduly influenced by the corporate agenda."
Health Canada actually addresses directly the myths of the corporate science issue. First it notes that it evaluates the science as science, not on the basis of who supplied it. Second, it adds that industry-supplied science can often be superior, if only because industry studies are often accompanied by full "raw data," something that doesn't always come with other published studies.
It's easy to lay the charges and mount a campaign, to convey fear and uncertainty, compared with the dry business of actually conducting a science review. The excerpts from the Health Canada 2,4-D review elsewhere on this page are no fun. It's easy to scare people with the fact that 2,4-D is a chemical descendant of Agent Orange, but not all that interesting to learn that Agent Orange is actually a different chemical. It's easy to mention Sweden and Denmark, countries that have banned 2,4-D, but tedious to read of the reality behind the ban and the fact that Europe as a whole and other jurisdictions continue to approve its use.
The anti-pesticide activists (whatever their motivation) also have an easy fall-back to the incontrovertible fact that there is no scientific certainty, and to argue that, as a result, we should invoke the precautionary principle. Our Junk Science Week reports will include a critical look at the precautionary principle.
The activists, however, have an even more treacherous science concept up their sleeves. When Ontario's Environment Minister, John Gerretsen, was asked last week about Health Canada's finding on the safety of 2,4-D, he raised another issue. Health Canada, he said, was looking at pesticides on a "product-by-product" basis. That's not good enough. Instead, Ontario wants Ottawa to conduct research into the "cumulative effects" of many chemicals. One chemical may be safe, but so what? What about the combined impact of all chemicals in the environment.
It's a growing activist theme -- the chemical soup concept -- that looms as the next big science scare. Even if one chemical is safe, it could be a risk when combined with others. The prospects for expanding popular concerns and regulatory paralysis are limitless. [url=http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=2cc02160-8e31-4102-9638-0490d83edc2b ] link[/url] article: the lawn is safe |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 17, 2008 14:58:38 GMT -5
When it comes to pesticides I play it safe & just don't use them. Having a picture perfect lawn is just not that important to me. I don't care what either side says.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 18, 2008 8:49:00 GMT -5
Today's article will have HA drooling. Sort of. Overheated claims Scientists advocating for action are overselling the predictive capabilities of climate models The famous physicist Niels Bohr is attributed with saying that “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Anyone who pays attention to weather forecasts or economic predictions knows how true this is. But given that the future can’t be predicted with perfect accuracy, seeing predictions fail is actually an important part of their usefulness. Whether one is faced with evacuating from a possible hurricane landfall or investing in a mutual fund, decision-making is improved when uncertainties are readily understood.
On the highly politicized issue of climate change, however, understanding uncertainties is made difficult when scientists advocating for action oversell the predictive capabilities of climate models, such as those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
. . .
There are good reasons for why predictions of climate models are not useful on short time periods of less than a few decades. Urs Neu, a climate scientist from Switzerland, says that climate models are not designed to tell us anything about the evolution of the climate system in the short term; rather, they “are designed to simulate the long-term behaviour as accurately as possible. Long-term behaviour means the trend over at least 20-30 years.” Similarly, two climate modelers, Claudia Tebaldi and Reto Knutti, observed in a research paper that “it is important to note that climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes. Our confidence in climate models must therefore come from other sources.”
If climate models are designed to make predictions about trends in the global climate system over several decades, then there is nothing that can be said about a model’s accuracy on time scales of less than a decade, much less one fire season, or a few heat waves, or any other transient phenomena. Consequently, any claim that recently observed weather events are “consistent with” predictions is actually quite misleading.
On a longer term, more can be said about predictive accuracy of climate model predictions. The first IPCC projections of future climate were issued in 1990, and with more than 17 years of observations since that prediction we can confidently state that the IPCC’s 1990 “best guess” overstated the global temperature increase as well as sea level rise for the subsequent two decades. But such retrospective evaluations are typically dismissed because those predictions were made using outdated models based on earlier understandings. The IPCC issues predictions for 20- to 30-year periods into the future, and updates them every 6-7 years, so in practice its current predictive capabilities can never be evaluated against real world data. As Tebaldi and Knutti observe, “climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes.”
. . .
in the debate on what to do about climate change, what are we to make of the overstated claims of predictive accuracy offered by many scientists?
Not surprisingly, the reason for overstated claims lies in the bitter and contested politics of climate change. Myanna Lahsen, an anthropologist who has studied climate modelers, finds that many of these scientists are acutely aware of the fact that any expressed “caveats, qualifications and other acknowledgements of model limitations can become fodder for the anti-environmental movement.” She documents how, more than a decade ago, a prominent climate scientist warned a group of his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, home of one of the main U.S. climate modeling efforts that informs the IPCC, to “Choose carefully your adjectives to describe the models. Confidence or lack of confidence in the models is the deciding factor in whether or not there will be policy response on behalf of climate change.”
. . .
The reality is that the future state of the climate is uncertain, and as such it represents a type of risk management problem. In 2002 Steve Schneider, a climate scientist at Stanford University and long-time advocate for action on climate change, explained “uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes.” Combatants in the climate debate congregate around the extremes, emphasize either mild or catastrophic outcomes as is convenient and overstate the certainty of such outcomes. the whole thing |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 18, 2008 9:01:21 GMT -5
When it comes to pesticides I play it safe & just don't use them. Having a picture perfect lawn is just not that important to me. I don't care what either side says. We don't even have grass anymore. Ripped it all out, put in a stone patio and mulch beds in the back, and a rock stream and minimal-maintenance perennial garden in the front. Very cottagy look and feel, if you ignore the house (it doesn't look like a cottage, hah). We actually have a little grass on the right side of the driveway, about 3 feet wide along the length of it, but I gave my neighbour a case of beer to cut it for us for the year. From my understanding, (lawn) grass isn't even native to this area of North America, it's not surprising that it takes tons of water and pesticide to maintain. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 9:17:13 GMT -5
Franko, tell me something I don't know. In every case, the screaming overtakes ANY common sense. Unfortunatly, the sheep are so lazy, they don't bother reading anything past the headlines. There is a hidden cliff on all of this. By the time the sheep wake up to the manipulations, they will find that they have to work twice as hard just to stay in place and their childrens future is no better then their forefathers past. New World Order of "Eco Love" starts here......  And ends here....  And the children in my family respond with......  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 9:22:55 GMT -5
From my understanding, (lawn) grass isn't even native to this area of North America, it's not surprising that it takes tons of water and pesticide to maintain. Since you don't have grass, how do you know? LOL! And for the record, it is NOT pesticides, it's a herbicides. My tragic "anti-neuvo" contribution to a decent looking neighborhood is cutting the grass ever week and watering it four or five times in the summer. Oh the tragedy......... |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 18, 2008 10:21:45 GMT -5
t is NOT pesticides, it's a herbicides. FYI: Pesticide is the family name and includes (algicides, avicides, bactericides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, ovicides, larvicides, miticides, acaricides, molluscicides, sematicides, rodenticides, virucides, etc.)  vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=5320744 |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 10:41:10 GMT -5
t is NOT pesticides, it's a herbicides. FYI: Pesticide is the family name and includes (algicides, avicides, bactericides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, ovicides, larvicides, miticides, acaricides, molluscicides, sematicides, rodenticides, virucides, etc.) Mehh..I read pesticides and my brain said insecticides. My old brain is crossfiring again. I am impressed with your nice, simplistic DDT link.....or maybe not.  So, just for the record, DDT and 2,4-D are the same? Or do you sell them as the same "soup"? Oh wait..... C4H4O2 are the same soup as H20. We should ban H20? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 11:16:02 GMT -5
One chemical may be safe, but so what? What about the combined impact of all chemicals in the environment. Just like "climate change", "chemical soup" is the catch phrase that means nothing and yet offers no end of self promoting eco whinning. Tree huggers, AS ALWAYS, complain about everything but offer nothing more then deconstruction and cave dwelling as solutions. Maybe we should eliminate the humans species? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 18, 2008 12:19:37 GMT -5
I am impressed with your nice, simplistic DDT link.....or maybe not. So, just for the record, DDT and 2,4-D are the same? Or do you sell them as the same "soup"? Oh wait..... C4H4O2 are the same soup as H20. We should ban H20? Whatever HA. It was a general comment not specific to 2,4-D. Concerning pesticides, chemicals, endocrine disrupters, etc... I want proof of safety. Not "no proof of hazard/toxicity/danger" . I want the precautionary principle applied. The chemical soup might be rhetoric to some of you. Very well, but it's not to me. I hope I can advance an opinion/source of worries without being labelled an eco-fascist. The US EPA list over 70,000 chemicals that are in common use ( source). Many are persistent, meaning they do not break down easily or quickly. According to the EPA again, every US citizen bodyfat contains at least 700 chemical contaminants (that was in 1987!). ( J. Onstot, J. R. Ayling, J. Stanley. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue, Volume I: Technical Approach. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC (1987)). Just to study the interactions of just 25 chemicals it was estimated that it would take over 33 million experiments at the cost of about US$3 trillion ( From the book : Toxicology of Chemical Mixtures - Raymond S.H. Yang (Ed.) ). Computer modeling or other research techniques could eventually cut these costs but even then, we are barely keeping up the individual health effects of every new single chemicals. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 18, 2008 13:14:26 GMT -5
From my understanding, (lawn) grass isn't even native to this area of North America, it's not surprising that it takes tons of water and pesticide to maintain. Since you don't have grass, how do you know? LOL! And for the record, it is NOT pesticides, it's a herbicides. My tragic "anti-neuvo" contribution to a decent looking neighborhood is cutting the grass ever week and watering it four or five times in the summer. Oh the tragedy......... Talk about reading judgement in a post where there was none. Personal experiences and decisions don't imply judgement. Holy Christ, it's like nobody can talk about anything without being (subtly or not) labeled an "eco-fascist" (to use Ropoflu's term). As for grass, I had grass up until 13 months ago when I did the landscaping for the house myself. To add a comment to Ropoflu's post, since people want proof beyond doubt that climate change is happening, how about proof beyond doubt that chemicals don't have lasting harmful effects? Probably too much to ask, I'm sure. [edit: I'm well aware that established scientific process isn't capable of proving negatives, but when products are released under the basis of "use as directed" (as though anyone really does) that would imply that more than that can have a lasting effect? I don't really care about 2,4-D or other pesticides for that matter, but it seems, perhaps feels, contradictory that people want proof beyond doubt that global climate change trends are happening (which will never happen, because predicting the future is impossible) but are completely willing to look the other way in other areas based on the fact that it's impossible to negate the effects of a product (because you can never prove that a product *IS* safe, just that it's safe under the scenarios that have been tested)] Maybe I missed it, but how is C4H402 (2-Furanone) the "same soup" as H20 (water)? I mean I'm no chemist, but still. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 18, 2008 13:23:18 GMT -5
Whatever HA. It was a general comment not specific to 2,4-D. Concerning pesticides, chemicals, endocrine disrupters, etc... I want proof of safety. Not "no proof of hazard/toxicity/danger" . I want the precautionary principle applied. It's all well and good that you want it. I hope you realize that you will never, ever (and I mean EVER) get what you want. You are asking people to prove a negative - that it has poses no hazard to human health. And that's next to impossible. Consider this. You are asking someone (anyone, everyone) to prove that, in the infinity of time, in the infinite situations that may occur in our world that chemical 'x' poses no (or, to make you sound a little reasonable, minimal) threat to human, plant and animal life (beyond desired properties of course - if a pesticide kills pests, then we'll be okay with it). Take to a large, glaringly obvious example - for the entire span of human existence save for the past fifty years sunlight was generally considered beneficial. Now we know that too much sunlight causes skin cancer, as distinctly "bad thing". It took us almost all of our collective existence up until this point to discover that sunlight (which is far more common than any 'chemical' might be) might make us sick. How can you hope to prove anything is 'harmless'? The chemical soup might be rhetoric to some of you. Very well, but it's not to me. I hope I can advance an opinion/source of worries without being labelled an eco-fascist. The US EPA list over 70,000 chemicals that are in common use ( source). Many are persistent, meaning they do not break down easily or quickly. According to the EPA again, every US citizen bodyfat contains at least 700 chemical contaminants (that was in 1987!). ( J. Onstot, J. R. Ayling, J. Stanley. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue, Volume I: Technical Approach. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC (1987)). Just to study the interactions of just 25 chemicals it was estimated that it would take over 33 million experiments at the cost of about US$3 trillion ( From the book : Toxicology of Chemical Mixtures - Raymond S.H. Yang (Ed.) ). Computer modeling or other research techniques could eventually cut these costs but even then, we are barely keeping up the individual health effects of every new single chemicals. Further evidence as to why you're being more than a bit unreasonable. And while you worry about being labeled an eco-facist (which this isn't really about, but anyways) your worries (and the concerns of the rather demanding, loud critical, slightly ignorant (some of you anyways) masses) can cause more harm than good. Let's drop back a second. Let's look at that awesome spectre of fear known as DDT. Which obviously sets off alarm bells in even my esteemed and grumpy colleague HA's head. Or at least he realizes it sets off alarm bells in everyone else's head. With HA I frankly do not want to know what he's thinking most of the time. DDT is banned for use in North America. And for good reason. It's toxic to mosquitoes. Which is a good thing. It's also toxic to many forms of birds and fish. Which is a bad thing. So in a place such as Canada and the US where Mosquitoes are not carriers for major, deadly diseases, there's really no need to go all out and try and kill the bugs. No matter how annoying they are. But notice something. I said it's toxic to birds and fish and bugs. Not - and this is important - humanity. Big shocker. Most people think DDT is bad for humans. After all it is a chemical. It is a poison. It kills things. It must kill humans. Well maybe. There have been studies done. And most have been dreadfully inconclusive. It's a 'probable' carcinogen (along with anabolic steroids - still prescribed by doctors and baseball coaches the world 'round - cisplatin - which is used as a chemotherapy drug - and acrylamide - found in warm starchy foods like french fries and toast). Most other studies have been equally ambiguous or conflicting. So it might harm you. It might also be harmless (in fact, it is still used in the US on occasion to treat barbiturate poisoning - imagine that - poisoning someone to cure poison) Meanwhile, in countries where mosquitoes are more than an annoyance - where they carry the plague of malaria - they kill hundreds of thousands of people in a year. Worldwide 1,000,000 people die from Malaria each year. How many have died from DDT poisoning. Ever. None? A few maybe? Even a couple hundred thousand. Even a million. It pales in comparison to the death toll exacted by malaria. And most malaria victims? Children. Can you believe it? I get to scream "why won't someone think of the children"! Victory. The moral high ground. Get this. From 1934-1955 there were 1.4 million cases of Malaria in Sri Lanka. Resulting in 80,000 deaths. For those not doing the math at home, that's 66,666 (roughly) every year, and 3809 (roughly) deaths every year. After an extensive DDT-based program in 1963 there were 17 cases. Deaths by DDT? Negligible. But DDT is still much feared in western countries, where we don't worry about malaria all that much. Unless we're traveling to one of these reasons, and we take our conveniently available drugs and stop worrying. And there are issues now with the effectiveness of DDT (flies, it seems, can develop a resistance to it). But for a time its benefits far outweighed its risks. And yet you would deny people things like DDT because they're not 'proven to have no hazard' (which I have pointed out is next to impossible). It's junk science all right. It's playing to the fears of a few who can't - or don't want - to realize that there's an inherent risk in everything. Like one of the article writers said - it's risky to drive you car/ride your bike/push your cart off a cliff. Do you not drive/ride/push because of this? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 18, 2008 13:50:21 GMT -5
You're right, it's junk science. But on that basis, all science is junk now. Long gone are the days when scientists can/could publish things into the public realm and not care about how that information is used. Because the media and/or activists on both sides will pick up on fragments of research (even if it's isolated) and use those excerpts to advance their position, even if it's not what the research was intended to do. Let's face it. Not 1% of the people who have an opinion on climate change, or pesticides, have ever read any of the reports that they're being told say these things.
It's a wonderful thought that science can be independent, but it will never be. The best we can hope for is for those who vote to make informed decisions (which they won't) so instead all available cram their own opinions down their collective throats.
As for the car analogy, getting into a car and driving it off a cliff is an isolated and voluntary action. I guess we could choose our properties based on neighbour's chemical use, but if *I* don't want chemicals in my ground, and someone behind me moves in, I don't have a any choice about the matter. That's why it's different. I'm not subjecting myself to those risks, someone else is subjecting me to the risks without my permission.
That's why there are rules on the road. Cars are risky so their use and the behaviour of those driving cars is regulated. Regulate the use of pesticides, and I imagine that would satisfy most.
Gah, I didn't have time to clean this up, so it may not totally make sense. I gotta run.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 18, 2008 14:23:57 GMT -5
I should have said no name calling allowed at the top of the first post . . . but I'm saying it now. No saying or implying eco-terrorist or eco-facist! Be nice! Whew . . . I feel better now. RS: I'm not sure that all science can or should be termed junk (though each side will call the other out), but it is questioned, because it is politicized. Unfortunately. As to regulation of pesticides, I suggest that it might satisfy many, but not most. But still those on the "anti-" side would scream loudest. And ultimately "win". DDT as "cure"? Just google National Geographic and malaria. I have last year's copy [July?] and it is frightening how many people [TNG got it] die from the disease every year -- something that can be prevented. Balancing problems created with problems solved, I think. Climate change? It does. The question to me is how much is man-made. Those on one side say "almost all" and those on the other say "almost none". Here I am again . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 18, 2008 15:19:21 GMT -5
It's called the Precautionary principle, not the certainty principle. Big, big difference. People often opposed the precautionary and the risk management approach. I think they complete each other. Risk/benefits should always be considered. Your DDT-Malaria example is a good one. Other times, when we're missing data to a point where risk/benefits evaluation is almost impossible, then we should apply the precautionary principle to restrict or limit usage until more data are found. Lastly, there are other cases where the collective benefits may not be worth spending millions trying to identify and ponderate the associated collective risks (ex: pestfree-greener grass vs chemical fertilizer). Also, we should not reduce heatlh safety to "not causing instant death" or even "not toxic over a lifespan". Some chemicals are persistent and are passed to the next generation through maternal milk. If we continue to use them, these persistent chemicals can accumulate. Their long term effect on human are not almost never known/demonstrated and there is a pretty good reason for that, Humans live long and we've only been using chemicals massively for about 60 years now (note: epidemiology is often the best way to evaluate risks regarding persistant chemicals, but these study are done over large populations over long period of time). I also think that comparing risk associated cliff-riding vehicules with risk associated with the extensive use of chemicals is misleading. Common sense can get you through the risk/analysis evaluation of the former activity while for the latter, you need to rely on and trust the companies/government agencies. Recent history gave me quite a few examples where maybe I shouldn't have fully trusted these last two. I won't question any new rulings that make sense. But as far as chemicals are concerns I want to know what they know, what they don't know, and if the product is deemed safe, I might need, for the sake of the past mistakes, a little more convincing. Still, I think I'm reasonable. On side note: DDT finally linked to human health problems09:47 13 July 2001 NewScientist.com news service Emma Young Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa. "One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used. He also measured the concentration of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, in blood samples taken from the mothers during pregnancy. His team found that the risk of premature birth or low birth weight rose with increasing concentrations of blood DDE. A high blood DDE concentration was more strongly linked to prematurity than maternal smoking. Premature babies account for a large proportion of infant deaths. If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates. "In earlier decades in the US, we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering," he says. "We have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used." DDT has been proven to have adverse effects on bird reproduction, in particular. Environmental groups have long campaigned for an international ban. But the insecticide is cheap and highly effective against the mosquitoes that spread malaria. Last December, DDT was dropped at the last minute from an international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants. This followed heavy lobbying by countries who said DDT was essential for their anti-malarial programmes. In some countries, such as South Africa, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have developed resistance to the alternative insecticide pyrethroid, which is also more expensive. To date "there have been no proven adverse health effects on humans of spraying DDT," says Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Longnecker told New Scientist: "I wouldn't interpret our findings as meaning that DDT use should be stopped. But having evidence of adverse effects could influence a cost benefit analysis when deciding which agent to use for malarial vector control." The average blood DDE concentration of the mothers in the study was 25 micrograms per litre. This is much higher than current US concentrations, says Longnecker. His team controlled for a wide variety of factors known to be linked with premature birth, such as maternal smoking, ethic group, sex and socioeconomic status. Studies in mice have found that DDE blocks the binding of the hormone progesterone to its receptors, and in theory, this could cause both prematurity and low birth weight in humans, says Longnecker. However, he adds that there are other potential explanations for the findings. www.newscientist.com/article/dn1012-ddt-finally-linked-to-human-health-problems.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 21:58:08 GMT -5
Maybe I missed it, but how is C4H402 (2-Furanone) the "same soup" as H20 (water)? I mean I'm no chemist, but still. Unless I got it wrong, it should be dioxin. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 23:00:47 GMT -5
Let's drop back a second. Let's look at that awesome spectre of fear known as DDT. Which obviously sets off alarm bells in even my esteemed and grumpy colleague HA's head. Or at least he realizes it sets off alarm bells in everyone else's head. With HA I frankly do not want to know what he's thinking most of the time. Mehh...if you think you can't figure it out, how do you think I feel with all those voices buzzing around!  What bugs the hell out of me is what I see every day. I have customers in manufacturing who are at the brink of closing and putting thousand upon thousand of people on the street. We, (the blood sucking emplyers by repute), have employees who are worried sick about how they are going to make ends meet. We feel for them and yet we can not do a single thing about it unless we turn our businesses into charities. HUGE inflation in all the raw material is happening across the board on a daily basis. US business falling off the cliff and the US companies comming up to finish whatever manufacturing we have left. We see the city increasing taxes for less and less services and in some instances, NO services. We see electricity rates going through the roof for no other reason then SOME people screaming about falling skies. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me (us) and I (we) am not looking for sympathy. We, the blood suckers, are smart enough to have taken care of ourselves. But what about the vast majority of working people? What about their good paying jobs? What about the people who are working from paycheck to paycheck? The point I am trying to make is that from where I'm (we) sitting, a LOT of things are going wrong in a big hurry and those in charge are looking the other way. Instead of dealing with common sense things that put food on table, politicians are dickering with votes and popularity....driven by a vocal minority. A HUGE portion of these laws and regulation have absolutely nothing to do with common sense or realities on the ground. It is about political optics and vote getting. Take for example the 2.4D "weed killer". It's ONLY banned for home use. The farms and golf courses can pour it on by the metric and it's perfectly "safe and legal" yet home owners use is a criminal act. Does it make any sense? Of course not, but it looks GOOD and gets the "eco" votes. Meanwhile, parts of the city is looking like third world dumps with weeds growing all over the place. Does ANYONE possibly believe that cap and trade or carbon taxes are going to solve anything? Or tax neutral? Seriously? Meanwhile, companies that are affected will charge higher prices and whatever manufacturing they have left, they will outsource overseas. And what will happen? The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer....and everyone will wonder what the hell went wrong. So yes, I get a little too frustrated and worked up to hear about "eco" this and "legislate" that. I see mass devastations of industries and the politicians doing nothing but paying lip service and working on things that gives them the best optics. Meanwhile....Rome's economic foundation is burning....... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 23:22:26 GMT -5
It's called the Precautionary principle, not the certainty principle. Big, big difference. People often opposed the precautionary and the risk management approach. I think they complete each other. Risk/benefits should always be considered. Your DDT-Malaria example is a good one. Other times, when we're missing data to a point where risk/benefits evaluation is almost impossible, then we should apply the precautionary principle to restrict or limit usage until more data are found. Lastly, there are other cases where the collective benefits may not be worth spending millions trying to identify and ponderate the associated collective risks (ex: pestfree-greener grass vs chemical fertilizer). Also, we should not reduce heatlh safety to "not causing instant death" or even "not toxic over a lifespan". Some chemicals are persistent and are passed to the next generation through maternal milk. If we continue to use them, these persistent chemicals can accumulate. Their long term effect on human are not almost never known/demonstrated and there is a pretty good reason for that, Humans live long and we've only been using chemicals massively for about 60 years now (note: epidemiology is often the best way to evaluate risks regarding persistant chemicals, but these study are done over large populations over long period of time). I also think that comparing risk associated cliff-riding vehicules with risk associated with the extensive use of chemicals is misleading. Common sense can get you through the risk/analysis evaluation of the former activity while for the latter, you need to rely on and trust the companies/government agencies. Recent history gave me quite a few examples where maybe I shouldn't have fully trusted these last two. I won't question any new rulings that make sense. But as far as chemicals are concerns I want to know what they know, what they don't know, and if the product is deemed safe, I might need, for the sake of the past mistakes, a little more convincing. Still, I think I'm reasonable. On side note: DDT finally linked to human health problems09:47 13 July 2001 NewScientist.com news service Emma Young Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa. "One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used. He also measured the concentration of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, in blood samples taken from the mothers during pregnancy. His team found that the risk of premature birth or low birth weight rose with increasing concentrations of blood DDE. A high blood DDE concentration was more strongly linked to prematurity than maternal smoking. Premature babies account for a large proportion of infant deaths. If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates. "In earlier decades in the US, we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering," he says. "We have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used." DDT has been proven to have adverse effects on bird reproduction, in particular. Environmental groups have long campaigned for an international ban. But the insecticide is cheap and highly effective against the mosquitoes that spread malaria. Last December, DDT was dropped at the last minute from an international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants. This followed heavy lobbying by countries who said DDT was essential for their anti-malarial programmes. In some countries, such as South Africa, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have developed resistance to the alternative insecticide pyrethroid, which is also more expensive. To date "there have been no proven adverse health effects on humans of spraying DDT," says Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Longnecker told New Scientist: "I wouldn't interpret our findings as meaning that DDT use should be stopped. But having evidence of adverse effects could influence a cost benefit analysis when deciding which agent to use for malarial vector control." The average blood DDE concentration of the mothers in the study was 25 micrograms per litre. This is much higher than current US concentrations, says Longnecker. His team controlled for a wide variety of factors known to be linked with premature birth, such as maternal smoking, ethic group, sex and socioeconomic status. Studies in mice have found that DDE blocks the binding of the hormone progesterone to its receptors, and in theory, this could cause both prematurity and low birth weight in humans, says Longnecker. However, he adds that there are other potential explanations for the findings. www.newscientist.com/article/dn1012-ddt-finally-linked-to-human-health-problems.htmlYou are trying to make a point by bringing up this study. And? DDT killing a few people does not even compare to the problem of millions of people dying from malaria. A conservative estimate is that a QUARTER of the worlds food supply would disappear without the use of pesticides. How many people would die from starvation? A billion? Two billion? You want to tell a hungry farmer in Somalia that his kids have a remote chance of dying from a pesticide versus the CERTAINTY of dying from malnutrition if he doesn't have his meager crops? And shall we even bother to talk about he "Precautionary Principle" of a drug for a person dying from cancer? Let's face it, the precautionary principle is fine political/moral stand for us who have full stomachs and good health. It means absolutely NOTHING to people whose very existence is under threat. Death and hunger has no ideals. . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 23:37:21 GMT -5
You're right, it's junk science. But on that basis, all science is junk now. Long gone are the days when scientists can/could publish things into the public realm and not care about how that information is used. Because the media and/or activists on both sides will pick up on fragments of research (even if it's isolated) and use those excerpts to advance their position, even if it's not what the research was intended to do. Let's face it. Not 1% of the people who have an opinion on climate change, or pesticides, have ever read any of the reports that they're being told say these things.. I wish more people would spend the time to read MORE about what is affecting them. But then again, what do they read if the mass media sole purpose is to further readesrship through hysteria? It's a wonderful thought that science can be independent, but it will never be. The best we can hope for is for those who vote to make informed decisions (which they won't) so instead all available cram their own opinions down their collective throats. Who is goingto tell them the "truth" so they can make that "informed" decision? As for the car analogy, getting into a car and driving it off a cliff is an isolated and voluntary action. I guess we could choose our properties based on neighbour's chemical use, but if *I* don't want chemicals in my ground, and someone behind me moves in, I don't have a any choice about the matter. That's why it's different. I'm not subjecting myself to those risks, someone else is subjecting me to the risks without my permission. Short of somone creating Love Canal in your backyard, a lot less will travel to your yard then you think. Second point. I had carpenter ants in my trees. I cut them down and doused the area with Diazinon ( a now banned insecticide). Should I have left the colony alive and watch it eat my neighbors house? Gah, I didn't have time to clean this up, so it may not totally make sense. I gotta run. Oh sure, run away just when I working up a full head of....cranking! . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2008 23:46:07 GMT -5
DDT as "cure"? Just google National Geographic and malaria. I have last year's copy [July?] and it is frightening how many people [TNG got it] die from the disease every year -- something that can be prevented. Balancing problems created with problems solved, I think. Balance? We are not talking anything resembling "balance". A 10 to 1 ratio is unacceptable to me, never mind a 10,000 to 1 or the unimaginable 100,000 to 1. We are so eager to apply our morality and ideals but NONE of us has experience extreme malnutrition or multiple family deaths from a single, preventable problem. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 18, 2008 23:58:38 GMT -5
A HUGE portion of thses laws and regulation have absolutely nothing to do with common sense or realities on the ground. It is about political optics and vote getting. Take for example the 2.4D "weed killer". It's ONLY banned for home use. The farmsr and golf courses can pour it on by the metric and it's perfectly "safe and legal" yet home owners use is a criminal act. Does it make any sense? Of course not, but it looks GOOD and gets the "eco" votes. Meanwhile, parts of the city is looking like third world dumps with weeds growing all over the place. I won't reply to the whole thing, because I don't really know how to. I will, however, say that this particular paragraph seems really out of place relative to the rest of the post. This is a case where the legislature has made exceptions for industry so they can continue to use cheaper products to keep costs lower, and yield higher. I think you have little faith in the free market (perhaps because as a business owner yourself, you're resistant to change for you and your customers/associates), and I think you use the term "vote getting" in a bad way, when it's in reality a good thing (serving the voters is never a bad thing), but without specifics I can't comment further, and I won't because I respect your plight. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 19, 2008 0:57:15 GMT -5
A HUGE portion of thses laws and regulation have absolutely nothing to do with common sense or realities on the ground. It is about political optics and vote getting. Take for example the 2.4D "weed killer". It's ONLY banned for home use. The farmsr and golf courses can pour it on by the metric and it's perfectly "safe and legal" yet home owners use is a criminal act. Does it make any sense? Of course not, but it looks GOOD and gets the "eco" votes. Meanwhile, parts of the city is looking like third world dumps with weeds growing all over the place. I won't reply to the whole thing, because I don't really know how to. I will, however, say that this particular paragraph seems really out of place relative to the rest of the post. This is a case where the legislature has made exceptions for industry so they can continue to use cheaper products to keep costs lower, and yield higher. Huh? Why is this sentence different from the others. My point was that people who actually running manufacturing and see first hand what is happening to manufacturing and jobs, see politicans catering for "eco" votes while the economic foundation of Ontario is sinking into oblivion. Amongst the examples was spending time and effort for political "eco capital" of banning a substance for specific use while still widely used by others. Further, the bans political foundation was dubious claims of "toxicity", not cost. I think you have little faith in the free market (perhaps because as a business owner yourself, you're resistant to change for you and your customers/associates), and I think you use the term "vote getting" in a bad way, when it's in reality a good thing (serving the voters is never a bad thing), but without specifics I can't comment further, and I won't because I respect your plight. Resistence to change? Little faith in the free market? What are you talking about? We are the free market. When BillyBob buys a car, the manufacture of the parts on the car he buys is not dictated by him, but rather by the economic forces of the free market on the manufacturers. We, the evil ones decide where to make BillyBobs lug nuts and all BillyBob has to do is decide which lug nuts fits his lifestyle. Don't worry about the "plight" of business owners, they still drive their Benzes. We need to worry about what is happening to 80% of the population that is living paycheck to paycheck. We need to worry about the ACCELERATING decline of manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec. We need people who call themselves "leaders" to stop pandering and deal with the real issues of our society. I say to the politicians the same thing Clinton said in the 90's..."it's about the economy stupid". .. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 19, 2008 8:20:08 GMT -5
I think you have little faith in the free market (perhaps because as a business owner yourself, you're resistant to change for you and your customers/associates) Funny for me to speak on the free market when I am in the public sector [well, non profit], but I see less and less free market and more and more government intervention. Not that I'm against regulation [lead-based toys from China are bad]. Ah, the cynic in me rises to the surface again. While you are right that serving the voters is never a bad thing, too often getting reelected is more important than keeping the high ideals that got you there in the first place [see: the federal Liberals, the federal Conservatives, the provincial . . . ] |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 19, 2008 8:40:59 GMT -5
Resistence to change? Little faith in the free market? What are you talking about? We are the free market. When BillyBob buys a car, the manufacture of the parts on the car he buys is not dictated by him, but rather by the economic forces of the free market on the manufacturers. We, the evil ones decide where to make BillyBobs lug nuts and all BillyBob has to do is decide which lug nuts fits his lifestyle. Don't worry about the "plight" of business owners, they still drive their Benzes. We need to worry about what is happening to 80% of the population that is living paycheck to paycheck. We need to worry about the ACCELERATING decline of manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec. We need people who call themselves "leaders" to stop pandering and deal with the real issues of our society. I say to the politicians the same thing Clinton said in the 90's..."it's about the economy stupid". You're right, business owners make the free market, and I don't need to explain to you how it fluctuates. But short of intentionally tanking the Canadian economy (at the detriment to everyone else in Canada) or subsidizing manufacturing in a manner like the U.S. does to keep Ford and GM afloat (still at the detriment of everyone else), there's not a lot the government can do about the decline of manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec, though restricting major imports of products that aren't manufactured in Canada at all (*cough* Kia *cough*) could help tide the change. Our most significant trading partner's economy is stagnating, so manufacturing here is becoming more expensive for them in part because the CAW, for one, didn't anticipate the possibility of level currency and now Canadian auto workers get paid more than their US counterparts. The manufacturing industry (and associated unions) exploited an inflated US dollar (and a depressed Canadian dollar) and now the balance is shifting back. It's no wonder that non-unionized production isn't recessing as quickly (if at all). Hell, Toyota -- whose employees aren't unionized -- is opening a new plant in Woodstock shortly and according to my friend who works for Toyota, is planning yet another new plant in Ontario. Ontario (and Quebec) need to find a new industrial identity. Perhaps it's scaled back production for domestic consumption, or perhaps it's re-training in "higher skilled" sectors. Or maybe it's, gasp, taking a pay cut to retain the comparative advantage in production costs that got them jobs in the first place. That's what the free market will dictate, because where there is unemployed and able labour, business will come to use them because it's cheaper than hiring employed labour away from other sectors. Maybe my view of the shifting economy is insensitive, but I think we at least partially made our own bed to lay in on this one, and it was an inevitable shift with the recent currency change. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 19, 2008 8:45:58 GMT -5
I think you have little faith in the free market (perhaps because as a business owner yourself, you're resistant to change for you and your customers/associates) Funny for me to speak on the free market when I am in the public sector [well, non profit], but I see less and less free market and more and more government intervention. Not that I'm against regulation [lead-based toys from China are bad]. This is what I'm talking about though. I think it's time that the government doesn't rush in to protect whatever manufacturing jobs when all it will do is stagnate the economy, and effectively tax the rest of Canada. We're a fairly social country. I'm not against helping keep others afloat, but not if it's unsustainable long-term. Employment Insurance and re-training programs exist for that reason. It's funny for me to speak on the free market too, since I'm currently unemployed (not on EI, by the way). |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 19, 2008 9:44:13 GMT -5
No comment, but it seemed appropriate for the thread... Four Ohio parents sue companies over chemical baby bottles[/size] COLUMBUS, Ohio - Four Ohio parents have filed a federal lawsuit against makers of baby bottles, claiming the bottles were made from a harmful chemical that sparked congressional hearings and prompted the world's largest retailer to phase out the products.
The complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court alleges the companies knew that a chemical known as bisphenol A was associated with health problems but didn't disclose the risk. It cites scientific studies that conclude BPA, as the chemical also is known, seeps from bottles and sippy-cups into liquid.
Seeking to ease public concerns about any health hazards, a federal health official told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee last week that the level of BPA exposure a person would receive from a plastic bottle is safe. Many of the studies that have reported higher levels were conducted under unrealistic conditions, said Dr. Norris Alderson, the Food and Drug Administration's associate commissioner for science.The Rest |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 19, 2008 9:50:35 GMT -5
Maybe my view of the shifting economy is insensitive, but I think we at least partially made our own bed to lay in on this one, and it was an inevitable shift with the recent currency change. I agree with your post and I have no problem accepting the consequences of the free market. Hell, I felt those forces drill me a new one.....and I'm still standing. Going back to my original rant. The Ontario government is running at a hundred miles an hour to look good. Instead of sitting down and trying to figure out the best strategy to meet changing markets, they are announcing new legislation on.....ANYTHING that makes them look good. All of it is not driven by any long term benefit of society (as per exampls given) but rather to pandering to the loudest yappers. As for what they can do about manufacturing? A lot. There are FOUR legs to manufactring. Labour, material, taxes and profits. The most uncontrolled "leg" in manufacturing is taxes and that is what politicians are all about. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 19, 2008 10:50:06 GMT -5
You're right, it's junk science. But on that basis, all science is junk now. Long gone are the days when scientists can/could publish things into the public realm and not care about how that information is used. Because the media and/or activists on both sides will pick up on fragments of research (even if it's isolated) and use those excerpts to advance their position, even if it's not what the research was intended to do. Let's face it. Not 1% of the people who have an opinion on climate change, or pesticides, have ever read any of the reports that they're being told say these things. I tend to agree - except with the both sides statement. Unfortunately, except in a few small circles, most of the so-called 'bias' tends to be made by people who are shoving one thing down your throat. Fear. It's a human response. Evolutionary it was an advantage for humans (a species rather un-gifted when it came to physical traits) to run away from anything they couldn't beat to a bloody pulp with their club while humming the tune to "Singing in the Rain". But today, as a result, the media shoves fear down our throat like it's going out of style. Mad Cow Disease. SARS. Anthrax. Global Warming. Terrorist Threat. Bird Flu. Chemicals. Meanwhile, you're more likely to be hit by a car than die of any of the above. Think about it. Twenty years ago did you see anti-bacterial hand sanitizer everywhere? Is it because the stuff is new? No - it's just alcohol in a gel like substance. Is our lifespan that much increased for using it? Or is it because we're suddenly afraid of everything? Over medicate, over legislate, be afraid of everything, the world is coming to a gruesome gory end just around the corner. Except it isn't. It's a wonderful thought that science can be independent, but it will never be. The best we can hope for is for those who vote to make informed decisions (which they won't) so instead all available cram their own opinions down their collective throats. Science is independent. It's the biased wanks that interpret it that aren't As for the car analogy, getting into a car and driving it off a cliff is an isolated and voluntary action. I guess we could choose our properties based on neighbour's chemical use, but if *I* don't want chemicals in my ground, and someone behind me moves in, I don't have a any choice about the matter. That's why it's different. I'm not subjecting myself to those risks, someone else is subjecting me to the risks without my permission. That's why there are rules on the road. Cars are risky so their use and the behaviour of those driving cars is regulated. Regulate the use of pesticides, and I imagine that would satisfy most. So you're telling me innocent bystanders aren't accidentally killed? You're telling me that the rules of the road are fullproof, and that no one ever dies as a result of things beyond human control? Do you believe that the odd chemical which a person puts on their lawn is more deadly than cars - even cars driven absolutely properly? Gah, I didn't have time to clean this up, so it may not totally make sense. I gotta run. I quite liked the comment about diesel fuel on the lawn. You should have left that in somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 19, 2008 11:07:07 GMT -5
Gah, I didn't have time to clean this up, so it may not totally make sense. I gotta run. I quite liked the comment about diesel fuel on the lawn. You should have left that in somewhere. Diesel feul? Is that going to stop the weeds? LOL! I went to the local gardening store to buy fertilizer (gasp!) and I asked them about what will we use to kill weeds next year. His answer was.....a SPOON. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 20, 2008 7:23:59 GMT -5
Maybe I missed it, but how is C4H402 (2-Furanone) the "same soup" as H20 (water)? I mean I'm no chemist, but still. Unless I got it wrong, it should be dioxin. The C4 is what is wrong ..... there is no cabon molecule in H2O. But there is a huge scare tactic now about the harmful effects of dihydrogen oxide.  |
|
