HuckleB
HuckleB's JournalNewsflash, foodies: Organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides
http://deadstate.org/newsflash-foodies-organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/"The organic food industry spends billions of dollars through different organizations, subtly using fear and panic as tactics to sell their products. However, it turns out their actual practices may be a foodie’s worst nightmare.
While the organic food industry sinks a lot of money into spreading fear, uncertainty, and distrust toward Monsanto and GMOs, they themselves are utilizing large quantities of proven carcinogenic (cancer-causing) pesticides to grow their alleged superior products. The organic food industry, which is worth roughly four times as much as Monsanto ($65 billion), owes its brand to this facade.
Below is a list of Organic substances which are far more toxic than anything you’ll see on a GMO (which is why about 90% of certain crop farmers grow GMOs; they are far better for the environment). The full list of permitted organic substances can be found on the EPA’s website.
...
Originally, no one thought to check the potential harmful effects of natural chemicals, like organic pesticides. Even after studies were done showing roughly half of the commonly used organic pesticides to be carcinogenic, the organic industry still continues to use them.
..."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forget What You’ve Heard: Organic Food Is Not Food Grown Without Pesticides
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/forget-what-youve-heard-organic-food-is-not-food-grown-without-pesticides
"In a paper about to be published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, a team of researchers identifies something they call the "paradox of unanimity." If you've ever smelled a rat when everyone else is celebrating an idea then this paradox is for you. While unanimous agreement (or something close to it) might suggest that a particular claim is right, the researchers, led by Lachlan J. Gunn, an engineer at the University of Adelaide in Australia, found the opposite to be true. Rather than confirming truth, unanimity indicates that something went wrong, that a "systemic failure" undermined popular judgment, that the confidence of the crowd has been skewed by bias.
As it's currently framed, the paradox applies primarily to criminal justice concerns—police line-ups and the like. But it also has implications for food and agriculture. Few fields of popular interest have cultivated a wider array of glib axioms of empowerment than food: genetically modified organisms are bad, local is better, you shouldn't eat food your grandmother wouldn't eat, and so on. In the context of Main Street foodie wisdom, these claims enjoy something close to unanimity. But, for all their support, none comes closer to the unanimity quotient than the gilded assertion that organic food is food grown without pesticides.
...
But what's more interesting in this case is the possible explanation. Why was there synthetic residue on organic crops? The most logical culprits are drift from nearby farms growing crops conventionally and cross contamination from the bins used for harvesting both organic and conventional crops (many farms grow both). "Many of the detections are at such low levels they fit th[e]se scenarios," according to Savage. In other words, yes, makes sense.
One likely response to the drift dilemma is to argue that organic produce deserves better protection. That perhaps there should be laws requiring conventional agriculture to keep its distance from the organic good guys. But the problem with this objection is not only that, as indicated, many farmers grow both organically and conventionally, but that (as a conventional apple grower once told me) organic farmers sometimes want to be around the conventional growers because pesticide drift helps reduce pests on their farms as well.
..."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berry interesting.
Nearly all US forests threatened by drought, climate change
Risks include wildfires, major diebacks in the west; emerging risks in the east
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/du-nau022216.php
"Forests nationwide are feeling the heat from increasing drought and climate change, according to a new study by scientists from 14 research institutions.
"Over the last two decades, warming temperatures and variable precipitation have increased the severity of forest droughts across much of the continental United States," said James S. Clark, lead author of the study and Nicholas Professor of Environmental Science at Duke University.
"While the effects have been most pronounced in the West, our analysis shows virtually all U.S. forests are now experiencing change and are vulnerable to future declines," he said. "Given the high degree of uncertainty in our understanding of how forest species and stands adapt to rapid change, it's going to be difficult to anticipate the type of forests that will be here in 20 to 40 years."
Drought-induced forest diebacks, bark beetle infestations and wildfires are already occurring on large scales across the West, and many models predict droughts are likely to become more severe, frequent and prolonged across much of the United States.
..."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer-causing HPV plummeted in teens since vaccine, study finds
Source: CNN
The human papillomavirus vaccine was first recommended for adolescent girls in the United States in 2006. Since that time, the prevalence of the cancer-causing virus has been dropping among young women, according to a new study.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention compared the rates of HPV infection in women 14 to 34 years of age during the years before the vaccine was recommended, between 2003 and 2006, with the most recent years for which data are available, 2009 to 2012.
Among girls 14 to 19 years old, rates of infection with the four types of HPV included in the 4vHPV vaccine decreased from 11.5% to 4.3%. There was also a drop, although smaller, in women 20 to 24 years old, from 18.5% to 12.1%. Among the older groups, women ages 25 to 29 and 30 to 34, the prevalence of these HPV types did not change and was about 12% and 9%, respectively.
"These results are very encouraging and show the effectiveness of the vaccine," said Dr. Lauri E. Markowitz, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC and lead author of the study, which was published Monday in the journal Pediatrics. "Eventually we expect to see decreases in HPV in older groups as women who were young (enough to get the vaccine) age," Markowitz added.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/hpv-vaccine-teen-girls-effective/
Good news.
Women Who Wear Pants: Still Somehow Controversial
Just ask a flight attendant. Or Hillary Clinton.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/women_wearing_pants_are_still_controversial.html
"Female flight attendants at British Airways just spent two years fighting for the right to wear pants on the job—and they finally won. The airline crew’s union, Unite, celebrated the triumph earlier this month, saying, “Female cabin crew no longer have to shiver in the cold, wet and snow of wintery climates, but also can be afforded the protection of trousers at destinations where there is a risk of malaria or the Zika virus.” Good news all around! Unite also declared, “Not only is the choice to wear trousers a victory for equality it is also a victory for common sense.”
But wait. Isn’t the equal right to make the common-sense decision of wearing pants a victory that women had already won? (At British Airways, trousers have been accepted wear for established crew since 2003, but the airline has applied different rules to attendants hired since a set of strikes in 2010.) Why are we still talking about women’s right to pants? Like many of women’s battles, pants-related activism stretches back centuries and continues with no sign of abating in the present day.
In America, the first women to seek pants also sought power. In addition to suffrage, 19th-century feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton advocated what they called “rational dress,” a costume with a short skirt over loose trousers that was pioneered by the activist Elizabeth Smith Miller. In 1851, Amelia Bloomer famously defended the pants against social ridicule in her newspaper, the Lily, the first “ladies’ journal” in U.S. history; thereafter, both the clothes and their wearers became known as “bloomers.” But the fashion’s run was short-lived. As Kathleen Cooper has noted in her excellent short history of women and pants at the Toast, “Prominent feminists were more concerned with gaining women’s rights than dress reform, and most of them dressed like ‘ladies’ to avoid detracting from their main cause of securing the vote.”
...
When will we be finished advocating for women’s right to wear pants? Doesn’t men’s right to wear skirts deserve some love after all these centuries? At the Toast, Cooper suggests, “Men’s skirts are in the ‘ridicule’ stage now, just as trousers were on women 150 years ago.” Celebrities like Jaden Smith and Jared Leto have signaled an interest in this fashion-forward cause. Meanwhile, I fully intend to wear pants on my next flight, and I hope the crewmembers will have the option to do the same."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Savings Accounts: a tax-sheltered way to pay for quackery
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/heath-savings-accounts-a-tax-sheltered-way-to-pay-for-quackery/"If you want money to pay for pseudoscience, but your pesky health insurance company is getting in the way, a Health Savings Account might be just the solution. And if the Health Savings Act of 2016, sponsored by the Big Supplement’s own Senator Orrin Hatch, becomes law, your opportunities will be greatly expanded.
First, let’s take a look at Health Savings Accounts and explore how they can be used to pay for quackery. Then we’ll see how Hatch’s Senate Bill 2499 (and companion House Bill 4469) would essentially force taxpayers to fund consumer purchases of unproven and potentially unsafe dietary supplements and “The One Quackery To Rule Them All,” homeopathy. Finally, we’ll look at how all of this might affect the presidential race.
...
One of the sponsors of Sen. Bill 2499 is current presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio. Could it possibly prove an embarrassment to Sen. Rubio that he is supporting such obvious corporate welfare? Or alternative medicine? As to the latter, it is unlikely. Bernie Sanders is a longtime proponent of naturopathy and Hillary Clinton is in the thrall of Functional Medicine guru Dr. Mark Hyman, but no one seems to think a thing about it. On the other hand, Ben Carson did get a drubbing over his shilling for a supplement company, but I imagine he was going to flame out anyway. And Donald Trump’s anti-vaccination nonsense was duly criticized, although he doesn’t seem to have suffered any ill effects from it (or anything he says, for that matter). Rand Paul and Chris Christie also pandered to the anti-vaccination movement, but they’re out of the running now.
Back in the day, Congress investigated quackery as a social ill. Today, Congress pushes tax deductions for its purchase. And presidential candidates freely support medical pseudoscience. What a shame."
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again, science gets ignored by our politicians.
Here Are the 5 Craziest Zika Virus Conspiracy Theories
https://www.inverse.com/article/11547-here-are-the-5-craziest-zika-virus-conspiracy-theories"The Zika virus is 2016’s first real epidemic, as it has potentially devastating effects on babies exposed to the virus in utero.
Unfortunately, the confusion about Zika’s link with microcephaly — which causes babies to be born with dangerously small heads — has spawned a number of conspiracy theories as to how the virus arose and other potential causes of microcephaly. Here are five of the most prominent.
...
2. The CDC is the medical CIA, and the entire virus is a scam.
This one is taking a twofer of giant leaps, establishing a CDC connection with the CIA and simultaneously stating that the whole virus is a hoax. The theorists claim that there are only six confirmed cases of Zika linked to microcephaly, and therefore the whole virus is an overblown hoax. In reality, there are 41 cases of microcephaly linked to Zika, with over 4,000 cases that still need to be investigated. We’ll file this one under “woah there, let’s let the scientists do their jobs first.”
..."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Somehow, this piece missed the "vaccines did it" conspiracy.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/11/zika-virus-and-microcephaly-antivaccine-warriors-say-its-vaccines-that-did-it/
------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess we're stuck with various media outlets promoting this kind of stuff every time there is a health matter in the news.
Ugh.
Why Do Doctors Still Use Pagers?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2016/02/why_do_doctors_still_use_pagers.html"or most people, the pager represents a sad, humorous relic of the past—a reminder of the primitive time before cellphones, Google, and the Twitterverse. But for doctors like me, pagers are still an important part of everyday life. It’s estimated that about 85 percent of hospitals still rely on pagers for communication, and during a recent episode of post-call delirium, I wondered why.
The first pagers—hefty 6-ounce boxes—were introduced to physicians in New York City in 1950. Over the next four decades, the device became a status symbol both inside and outside of the medical profession; after all, wearing one meant you were so in-demand you needed to be reachable anytime, anywhere. By 1994, there were more than 61 million pagers in service worldwide. But the advent of cellular phones led to a rapid decline in beeper use, and there are now a mere few million pagers still out there, many in hospitals, and all of them slowly and annoyingly beeping their way to obsolescence. If doctors were among the first adopters of paging technology, they will almost certainly be the last to abandon it.
Although the pager seems out of date, doctors often take perverse pride in carrying one, at least at first. I still remember the excitement and anticipation of receiving my first pager as a medical student. It meant the years spent hunched over a textbook were over; I was entering the fray of patient care. That feeling quickly turned to irritation as I became painfully aware of pagers’ shortcomings. During medical residency shifts that span a day and a night and then some, I have grown to despise my pager with a burning rage previously reserved for Boston drivers. The device’s rude, sudden blare, with a knack for jolting me awake on call just as I drift into a shallow, anxiety-ridden sleep, now triggers a visceral reaction. My heart leaps into overdrive and my palms transform into a sweaty wetland that occasionally facilitates “accidentally” dropping the bleeping thing. I don’t have children, but I wonder if the way my tiny pager loudly dictates its demands around the clock is like having a baby. Except my beeper will never love me back.
Surely there’s a better way for doctors to communicate, yet pagers remain the maddening norm. Why? For one thing, they’re low-maintenance. The batteries in pagers don’t need to be changed more than once every few weeks, even with heavy use. That means the system will work even during a disaster or power outage, when it might be hard to find a working outlet to charge a cellphone.
..."
------------------------------------------------
Well, then...
Oh, myyyy! George Takei falls for a Zika virus conspiracy theory
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/15/say-it-aint-so-george-george-takei-falls-for-a-zika-virus-conspiracy-theory/"...
Each case is different, though; so let’s take a look at this particular claim. First off, what is Pyriproxyfen? Basically, it’s a pesticide that is effective against a wide variety of arthropoda (insects). Specifically, it’s a a juvenile hormone analog that prevents insect larvae from developing into adulthood and thus renders them unable to reproduce. It was introduced into the US in 1996 to protect crops against the whitefly.
Now here’s the thing. It’s not as though pyriproxyfen hasn’t been well studied. The WHO even has a web page with its guidelines for pyriproxifen in drinking water. A great deal is known about its physiochemical properties, toxicology, and safe levels. Specifically, the WHO recommends that the dosage of pyriproxyfen in potable water in containers should not exceed 0.01 mg/L under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme. More specifically:
...
I would also add that Brazil would have to have been using truly massive doses to exceed the acceptable daily intake, not to mention that humans do not make or use sesquiterpenoid hormones (a.k.a. insect juvenile hormones), which is what pyriproxifen targets. Finally, one can’t help but notice that Doctors in the Crop-Sprayed Towns is anything but an objective group. It’s been around at least since 2010, and its message has always been the same dating back to 2010: That pesticides cause spontaneous abortions, infertility, congenital malformations, and a wide variety of disorders. In other words, this is a biased report from a biased group presenting no evidence to back up its conclusions. It’s all speculation based on a fear of pesticides.
...
There are lots of conspiracy theories out there. There’s lots of pseudoscience out there. Whenever something like the Zika virus makes it into the news, you can be absolutely sure that conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience will inevitably follow. That’s why it’s so critical to do a little research before sharing something like this. When you have such an enormous social media platform, you owe it to your fans not to use it to spread misinformation like this."
------------------------------------------------------
And the product is made by Sumitomo, not Monsanto. ...
-------------------------------------------------------
Other pieces on this claim:
Australian scientists respond:
https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-is-a-pesticide-not-zika-virus-causing-microcephaly
Experts debunk claim blaming larvicide, not Zika, for microcephaly
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-experts-dismiss-claims-larvicide-linked-to-microcephaly/
A Viral Story Links The Zika Crisis To Monsanto. Don't Believe It.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/zika-monsanto-pyriproxyfen-microcephaly_us_56c2712de4b0b40245c79f7c
No, Monsanto Isn’t Responsible for Zika, Microcephaly or the Apocalypse.
https://groundedparents.com/2016/02/17/no-monsanto-isnt-responsible-for-zika-microcephaly-or-the-apocalypse/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/16/a_pesticide_in_brazil_s_drinking_water_is_not_behind_microcephaly.html
A bogus theory connecting Zika virus to Monsanto could give mosquitoes a boost
http://grist.org/science/a-bogus-theory-connecting-zika-virus-to-monsanto-could-give-mosquitoes-a-boost/
Is Monsanto Behind Cases of Microcephaly in Brazil?
http://thescientificparent.org/is-monsanto-behind-cases-of-microcephaly-in-brazil/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify, no one is defending Monsanto. However, the spread of misinformation is not something that is helpful to our fellow humans.
Genes, bugs and radiation: WHO backs new weapons in Zika fight
Source: Reuters
Countries battling the Zika virus should consider new ways to curb disease-carrying mosquitoes, including testing the release of genetically modified insects and bacteria that stop their eggs hatching, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday.
"Given the magnitude of the Zika crisis, WHO encourages affected countries and their partners to boost the use of both old and new approaches to mosquito control as the most immediate line of defence," it said.
The WHO also highlighted the potential of releasing sterile irradiated male mosquitoes, a technique that has been developed at the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Zika, which is now sweeping the Americas, is transmitted primarily by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which the U.N. health body described as an "opportunistic and tenacious menace".
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-idUSKCN0VP15D
Conservative thinktanks still questioning the science of climate change, study finds
Climate change denial is on the increase, according to a joint Irish-British study of publications from conservative US thinktanks. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/conservative-thinktanks-still-questioning-the-science-of-climate-change-study-finds-382133.html
"The research was conducted by political scientists at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) and the University of Exeter in the UK and analysed more than 16,000 publications about climate change by 19 major conservative thinktanks in the US over 15 years from 1998 to 2013.
Thought to be the largest study of such material, the research was published in the Journal of Global Environmental Change. It found, despite the vast majority of scientists having reached a consensus on global warming, arguments against the science of climate change are on the increase.
The study involved an examination of 8,300 articles, 3,000 reports, 100 interview transcripts, 680 press releases and open letters, and 3,900 scientific reviews over 15 years.
Overall, it found “the era of climate science denial is not over” and conservative thinktanks have not shifted from questioning the science of climate change to focusing on policy debates.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Ugh.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
