OIC, if you get your money from the oil companies your research is faulty, but if you get your money from the government it's accurate. Or is all non oil company monied research done independently and without funds? (yeah, sorry that was me being sarcastic)
More seriously, I have a Canadian friend whose dad was paid a lot of money by the government for a research project (on second hand smoke) a number of years ago. when all the research was said and done, they only released the parts that strengthened the anti smoking lobby (I don't know how it is now, but at one time cigarette packs in Canada were required to have pictures of cancer on them....no namby-pamby Surgeon General warnings for them ;). ) I admit it kinda dampened my enthusiasm for the "honesty" of government reports.
Then too, I am old enough to remember ads along the lines of "2 out 3 Doctors choose Chesterfield". (oddly enough the only pack of cigarettes I ever stole was Chesterfields) But I digress.
OIC, if you get your money from the oil companies your research is faulty...
It has a great incentive to fit the wants of the financier, yeah, so when the same guy/group is saying the same things over and over you can probably be excused for having a bit of skepticism about it.
...if you get your money from the government it's accurate.
This also has the incentive to tailor itself to the whims of whoever is in power at the moment, but when things like global warming (or the age of the earth) are as unanimous within the scientific community as they are, funded by however many different interests, examined over a great amount of time (i.e. not aiming for the IPO or next quarter's shareholder meeting), the automatic source skepticism isn't warranted.
Yeah, we have some doubts that fracking is great for the environment and the neighborhood. It is not exactly the same thing as believing that the earth was born last week and that humanity and all wildlife was saved on a ship.
There's a new worry about recycled tires mulch being unsafe for playgrounds, tennis courts, football fields, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, etc etc etc. Due to the nature of the mulch, you end up snorting into your nose, swallowing it, etc. It was a coach how became concerned when she noticed really odd cancers showing up with some of her students and contacted NBC News about it. Video at the link
( ... )
You missed the part where they've backtracked and agreed their own studies were limited.
PEER announced Monday that the EPA had agreed to add a disclaimer to its original press release noting that it is "outdated," and redirect visitors to another website that more accurately reflects the state of the science on tire crumb.
While the agency did not retract the 2009 study, the website now emphasizes its "very limited nature," and states that it "is not possible to extend the results beyond the four study sites or to reach any more comprehensive conclusions without the consideration of additional data." The newer website also emphasizes the need for "future studies," and lists a number of hazardous chemicals that could be present in tire crumb -- including arsenic, benzene, mercury and lead.
The backtrack has not resulted in their ceasing endorsement, nor is it some sort of victory for anti-science activists trying to make a health issue out of this.
Good thing I never said that. But it's not at all surprising you've ignored the specifics of some of the studies; and yet to be clear again, both the Consumer Product Safety Council (CPSC) and the EPA have backtracked on earlier assessments that the crumb rubber material was “safe”, calling their previous studies “limited”. Nevertheless, the EPA has refused to perform additional testing, calling the matter a “state and local decision.”
(The comment has been removed)
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
(yeah, sorry that was me being sarcastic)
More seriously, I have a Canadian friend whose dad was paid a lot of money by the government for a research project (on second hand smoke) a number of years ago. when all the research was said and done, they only released the parts that strengthened the anti smoking lobby (I don't know how it is now, but at one time cigarette packs in Canada were required to have pictures of cancer on them....no namby-pamby Surgeon General warnings for them ;). ) I admit it kinda dampened my enthusiasm for the "honesty" of government reports.
Then too, I am old enough to remember ads along the lines of "2 out 3 Doctors choose Chesterfield". (oddly enough the only pack of cigarettes I ever stole was Chesterfields) But I digress.
Reply
It has a great incentive to fit the wants of the financier, yeah, so when the same guy/group is saying the same things over and over you can probably be excused for having a bit of skepticism about it.
...if you get your money from the government it's accurate.
This also has the incentive to tailor itself to the whims of whoever is in power at the moment, but when things like global warming (or the age of the earth) are as unanimous within the scientific community as they are, funded by however many different interests, examined over a great amount of time (i.e. not aiming for the IPO or next quarter's shareholder meeting), the automatic source skepticism isn't warranted.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The NYC Health Dept looked at some of those reports and found them deficient. (Just like the oncologist who reported to NBC News).
( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
PEER announced Monday that the EPA had agreed to add a disclaimer to its original press release noting that it is "outdated," and redirect visitors to another website that more accurately reflects the state of the science on tire crumb.
While the agency did not retract the 2009 study, the website now emphasizes its "very limited nature," and states that it "is not possible to extend the results beyond the four study sites or to reach any more comprehensive conclusions without the consideration of additional data." The newer website also emphasizes the need for "future studies," and lists a number of hazardous chemicals that could be present in tire crumb -- including arsenic, benzene, mercury and lead.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Good thing I never said that. But it's not at all surprising you've ignored the specifics of some of the studies; and yet to be clear again, both the Consumer Product Safety Council (CPSC) and the EPA have backtracked on earlier assessments that the crumb rubber material was “safe”, calling their previous studies “limited”. Nevertheless, the EPA has refused to perform additional testing, calling the matter a “state and local decision.”
Reply
Leave a comment