May 20, 2004

Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

By* Jeff Stier, Esq.


Overhyped stories of danger from fish, underhyped stories of lead in
candy -- but are the activists the real threat?

Fish consumption by pregnant women may aid late-stage fetal growth, a
new study shows (see
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h_pregnancy_dc
).* If the results of this one study are supported by further
research, it is a scary example of the consequences of reckless use of
the* precautionary principle *by fish-fear-mongers.

"Better to be safe than sorry" -- avoiding even the remotest,
hypothetical threat -- say the anti-chemical activists, likely
inspiring many women to reduce fish consumption during pregnancy,
given all the recent hoopla over* PCBs in salmon *and mercury in tuna.
Even if you are not convinced that trace levels of these chemicals
are harmful, why take the risk, the prudent person might wonder.* So
now, women around the world are reducing fish consumption, a possible
fetal growth booster.

Isn't it time we held the activists accountable?

A similar case of unintended activist fallout faces the people of
California.* That state certainly has its hands full.* As leaders in
application of the precautionary principle, California officials have
to go around protecting consumers from all sorts of things that we
don't really have much reason to believe are harmful.* Warning labels
on virtually everything are mandated by law in California, as
Proposition 65 .* From warning labels on firewood to bans on
life-saving brominated fire retardants, you would think Californians
are very well protected by their government.

So when lead-contaminated candies from Mexico find their way into
California, you'd think the state would be there to protect the
children from what is indeed a real health threat.* Think again.

Crisis manager Jonathan Bernstein (see:
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement...ewsletter.html ) reports:

The Orange County Register recently broke a story revealing that more
than 100 brands of candy sold in California, most of them from Mexico,
have tested positive for dangerous levels of lead over the past
decade, and that little has been done about it.

State officials claimed they didn't have the resources to handle the
problems, didn't have jurisdiction over Mexican manufacturers, and
then issued this pip of a statement:

"We have a lot more responsibilities than looking for lead in candy,"
said Jim Waddell, chief of the state Health Department's Food and Drug
Branch.

Too busy putting labels on everything to attend to real health threats
perhaps?* So much for the precautionary principle and Proposition 65!*
What have those activists wrought?

Again: Isn't it time we held them accountable?

Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science
and Health and raised a similar question -- regarding chemical-fearing
breast cancer activists'*failure to laud statins*-- in a prior article
..


For more, please see:
http://www.acsh.org/about/staffID.2/staff_detail.asp

In 1994 NIOSH completed as study that debunked the early
theories regarding the toxicity, specifically the carginocicity of
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). There was actually a large
plant in Front Royal VA that employed thousands of workers
that had to close and the site was put on the superfund list. The
employees lost their jobs and the town and surrounding counties
still have not recovered from the horrible economic loss that
occured in the 1980s because of the PCB contamination and the
EPA mandated shutdown.

All of the latest evidence from NIOSH indicates that PCBs are no
more carcinogenic than coffee when injected at the same doses into
lab rats.

So we have spent billions and billions of dollars on remediation, loss
of jobs and destroyed local economies because of early indicators
that were false positives. Lets try to be more carefull in our studies
from here on out!


--
Patrick H. Mason M.S. OHST, EMT-CT
Certified Safety Engineer
Emergency Medical Technician-ALS


"jeff stier" wrote in message
om...
May 20, 2004

Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

By Jeff Stier, Esq.


Overhyped stories of danger from fish, underhyped stories of lead in
candy -- but are the activists the real threat?

Fish consumption by pregnant women may aid late-stage fetal growth, a
new study shows (see

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...20040512/hl_nm
/health_pregnancy_dc
). If the results of this one study are supported by further
research, it is a scary example of the consequences of reckless use of
the precautionary principle by fish-fear-mongers.

"Better to be safe than sorry" -- avoiding even the remotest,
hypothetical threat -- say the anti-chemical activists, likely
inspiring many women to reduce fish consumption during pregnancy,
given all the recent hoopla over PCBs in salmon and mercury in tuna.
Even if you are not convinced that trace levels of these chemicals
are harmful, why take the risk, the prudent person might wonder. So
now, women around the world are reducing fish consumption, a possible
fetal growth booster.

Isn't it time we held the activists accountable?

A similar case of unintended activist fallout faces the people of
California. That state certainly has its hands full. As leaders in
application of the precautionary principle, California officials have
to go around protecting consumers from all sorts of things that we
don't really have much reason to believe are harmful. Warning labels
on virtually everything are mandated by law in California, as
Proposition 65 . From warning labels on firewood to bans on
life-saving brominated fire retardants, you would think Californians
are very well protected by their government.

So when lead-contaminated candies from Mexico find their way into
California, you'd think the state would be there to protect the
children from what is indeed a real health threat. Think again.

Crisis manager Jonathan Bernstein (see:
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement...ewsletter.html ) reports:

The Orange County Register recently broke a story revealing that more
than 100 brands of candy sold in California, most of them from Mexico,
have tested positive for dangerous levels of lead over the past
decade, and that little has been done about it.

State officials claimed they didn't have the resources to handle the
problems, didn't have jurisdiction over Mexican manufacturers, and
then issued this pip of a statement:

"We have a lot more responsibilities than looking for lead in candy,"
said Jim Waddell, chief of the state Health Department's Food and Drug
Branch.

Too busy putting labels on everything to attend to real health threats
perhaps? So much for the precautionary principle and Proposition 65!
What have those activists wrought?

Again: Isn't it time we held them accountable?

Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science
and Health and raised a similar question -- regarding chemical-fearing
breast cancer activists' failure to laud statins -- in a prior article
.


For more, please see:
http://www.acsh.org/about/staffID.2/staff_detail.asp

(jeff stier) wrote in message . com...
May 20, 2004

Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp


Want to know more about those ACSH-HOLES?

http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html

History

ACSH was founded in March 1978. A revealing reference regarding its
origins appears in the minutes of a meeting that month of the board of
directors of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association (later renamed
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and known today as the
American Chemistry Council). The minutes record an appeal by MCA
director William J. Driver, who noted that Whelan had founded "a
tax-exempt organization composed of scientists whose viewpoints are
more similar to those of business than dissimilar. . . . ACSH is being
pinched for funds, but in the interest of independence and credibility
will not accept support from any chemical company or any company which
could even remotely be concerned with the aims of the council."

Notwithstanding this desire to make ACSH appear independent, Driver
added that "Dr. Whelan would be happy to hear from" MCA members who
"are interested in the work of the council and know of possible
sources of funds."

Shortly after its founding, ACSH abandoned even the appearance of
independent funding. In a 1997 interview, Whelan explained that she
was already being called a "paid liar for industry," so she figured
she might as well go ahead and take industry money without
restrictions.

.... Other advisors include familiar names from the list of "usual
suspects" who appear regularly as scientific experts in a variety of
anti-environmental, pro-industry forums: Dennis Avery, Michael Gough,
Patrick J. Michaels, Stephen Safe, and S. Fred Singer, to name a few.
Several, including Floy Lilley and J. Gordon Edwards, as well as
Moghissi, have written articles for 21st Century and Technology, a
publication affiliated with lunatic-fringe conspiracy theorist Lyndon
LaRouche. ...



You can read about ACSH-HOLES S. Fred Singer & Michael Gough back when
they were Tobacco Industry covert agents...

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...AL_EXAMINATION

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...S._Fred_Singer

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...licy_ Project

What's particularly nice about Jeff Stiers' rant is the way it
redirects attention away from the mercury and PCBs in the food
to the people who are complaining about the mercury and PCBs
in the food.

Activists complain about mercury residues in fish making the
fish unsafe to eat - and Stiers is saying, "but fish are good
for you; what are these crazy enviros doing attacking the
eating of fish?"

Didn't Dante write something about the best place for people
like this to work?
******

(Palaces For The People) wrote in message . com...
(jeff stier) wrote in message . com...
May 20, 2004

Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp


Want to know more about those ACSH-HOLES?

http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html

History

ACSH was founded in March 1978. A revealing reference regarding its
origins appears in the minutes of a meeting that month of the board of
directors of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association (later renamed
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and known today as the
American Chemistry Council). The minutes record an appeal by MCA
director William J. Driver, who noted that Whelan had founded "a
tax-exempt organization composed of scientists whose viewpoints are
more similar to those of business than dissimilar. . . . ACSH is being
pinched for funds, but in the interest of independence and credibility
will not accept support from any chemical company or any company which
could even remotely be concerned with the aims of the council."

Notwithstanding this desire to make ACSH appear independent, Driver
added that "Dr. Whelan would be happy to hear from" MCA members who
"are interested in the work of the council and know of possible
sources of funds."

Shortly after its founding, ACSH abandoned even the appearance of
independent funding. In a 1997 interview, Whelan explained that she
was already being called a "paid liar for industry," so she figured
she might as well go ahead and take industry money without
restrictions.

... Other advisors include familiar names from the list of "usual
suspects" who appear regularly as scientific experts in a variety of
anti-environmental, pro-industry forums: Dennis Avery, Michael Gough,
Patrick J. Michaels, Stephen Safe, and S. Fred Singer, to name a few.
Several, including Floy Lilley and J. Gordon Edwards, as well as
Moghissi, have written articles for 21st Century and Technology, a
publication affiliated with lunatic-fringe conspiracy theorist Lyndon
LaRouche. ...



You can read about ACSH-HOLES S. Fred Singer & Michael Gough back when
they were Tobacco Industry covert agents...

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...AL_EXAMINATION

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...S._Fred_Singer

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...licy_ Project

(Collective Farms For The People) wrote in message . com...
(jeff stier) wrote in message . com...
May 20, 2004

Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp


Want to know more about those ACSH-HOLES?

http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html


Want to know about usual greeno-pinkos suspects Rampton and Stauber
at prwatch?
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/12

Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53703
Phone 608-260-9713 | Fax 608-260-9714 | Email



The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public
relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD
isn't really a center it would be more accurate to call it a
partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed
progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication
issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced
eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently
referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens
and manipulating minds in the service of special interests.
Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep
pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest
agendas of their own.

Their books Mad Cow U.S.A. and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! were
produced and promoted using grant monies from the Foundation for Deep
Ecology ($25,000) and the Education Foundation of America ($20,000),
among others. Along with the more recentTrust Us: We're Experts, these
books are scare-mongering tales about a corporate culture out of
control, and each implies that the public needs rescuing. Guess who
the heroes in this fantasy are?

Despite his wild claims that federal agencies have covered up U.S. mad
cow disease cases, John Stauber has become a quotable celebrity on the
subject. In 1997, at the height of the initial mad-cow panic, a CMD
press release warned: Evidence suggests there may already be a
mad-cow-type of disease infecting both U.S. pigs and cattle. Rampton
and Stauber have never provided any documentation to back up this
reckless claim; no cases of mad-cow disease have ever been documented
in U.S. livestock. John Stauber was one of only four mad-cow experts
offered to reporters by Fenton Communications' media arm,
Environmental Media Services.

History

ACSH was founded in March 1978. A revealing reference regarding its
origins appears in the minutes of a meeting that month of the board of
directors of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association (later renamed
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and known today as the
American Chemistry Council). The minutes record an appeal by MCA
director William J. Driver, who noted that Whelan had founded "a
tax-exempt organization composed of scientists whose viewpoints are
more similar to those of business than dissimilar. . . . ACSH is being
pinched for funds, but in the interest of independence and credibility
will not accept support from any chemical company or any company which
could even remotely be concerned with the aims of the council."

Notwithstanding this desire to make ACSH appear independent, Driver
added that "Dr. Whelan would be happy to hear from" MCA members who
"are interested in the work of the council and know of possible
sources of funds."

Shortly after its founding, ACSH abandoned even the appearance of
independent funding. In a 1997 interview, Whelan explained that she
was already being called a "paid liar for industry," so she figured
she might as well go ahead and take industry money without
restrictions.

... Other advisors include familiar names from the list of "usual
suspects" who appear regularly as scientific experts in a variety of
anti-environmental, pro-industry forums: Dennis Avery, Michael Gough,
Patrick J. Michaels, Stephen Safe, and S. Fred Singer, to name a few.
Several, including Floy Lilley and J. Gordon Edwards, as well as
Moghissi, have written articles for 21st Century and Technology, a
publication affiliated with lunatic-fringe conspiracy theorist Lyndon
LaRouche. ...



You can read about ACSH-HOLES S. Fred Singer & Michael Gough back when
they were Tobacco Industry covert agents...

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...AL_EXAMINATION

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...S._Fred_Singer

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...licy_ Project

"W4PHM" wrote in message hlink.net...
In 1994 NIOSH completed as study that debunked the early
theories regarding the toxicity, specifically the carginocicity of
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

Source?

Please see http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/effects.html

"PCBs are one of the most widely studied environmental contaminants,
and many studies in animals and human populations have been performed
to assess the potential carcinogenicity of PCBs.... EPA's cancer
reassessment reflected the Agency's commitment to the use of the best
science in evaluating health effects of PCBs. EPA's cancer
reassessment was peer reviewed by 15 experts on PCBs, including
scientists from government, academia and industry. The peer reviewers
agreed with EPA's conclusion that PCBs are probable human carcinogens.

"The cancer reassessment determined that PCBs are probable human
carcinogens, based on the following information:

"There is clear evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals. EPA
reviewed all of the available literature on the carcinogenicity of
PCBs in animals as an important first step in the cancer reassessment.
An industry scientist commented that "all significant studies have
been reviewed and are fairly represented in the document". The
literature presents overwhelming evidence that PCBs cause cancer in
animals. An industry-sponsored peer-reviewed rat study, characterized
as the "gold standard study" by one peer reviewer, demonstrated that
every commercial PCB mixture tested caused cancer. "

All of the latest evidence from NIOSH indicates that PCBs are no
more carcinogenic than coffee when injected at the same doses into
lab rats.

Source?

So we have spent billions and billions of dollars on remediation, loss
of jobs and destroyed local economies because of early indicators
that were false positives. Lets try to be more carefull in our studies
from here on out!

Let's be more careful

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/effects.html

"From Dec.1978 to Sep.1979, a terrible incident happened in central
Taiwan, Chang-hua and Tai-chung counties. A brown rice oil maker sold
the oil which was contaminated by the heating media containing PCB
leak from broken pipe. More than two thousand people fell victims and
suffered from serious skin disease because of the poisonous
characteristics of PCBs such as its strong persistency and disruption
of endocrine. The children born by PCB contaminated mothers are mental
retarded and hyperactive."

In article .net,
"W4PHM" wrote:
In 1994 NIOSH completed as study that debunked the early
theories regarding the toxicity, specifically the carginocicity of
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). There was actually a large
plant in Front Royal VA that employed thousands of workers
that had to close and the site was put on the superfund list. The
employees lost their jobs and the town and surrounding counties
still have not recovered from the horrible economic loss that
occured in the 1980s because of the PCB contamination and the
EPA mandated shutdown.

All of the latest evidence from NIOSH indicates that PCBs are no
more carcinogenic than coffee when injected at the same doses into
lab rats.

From http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/effects.html:

"PCBs have been demonstrated to cause a variety of adverse health effects.
PCBs have been shown to cause cancer in animals. PCBs have also been shown to
cause a number of serious non-cancer health effects in animals, including
effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, endocrine
system and other health effects. Studies in humans provide supportive
evidence for potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of PCBs. The
different health effects of PCBs may be interrelated, as alterations in one
system may have significant implications for the other systems of the body.

"The cancer reassessment determined that PCBs are probable human carcinogens,
based on the following information:

"There is clear evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals. EPA reviewed all
of the available literature on the carcinogenicity of PCBs in animals as an
important first step in the cancer reassessment. An industry scientist
commented that "all significant studies have been reviewed and are fairly
represented in the document". The literature presents overwhelming evidence
that PCBs cause cancer in animals. An industry-sponsored peer-reviewed rat
study, characterized as the "gold standard study" by one peer reviewer,
demonstrated that every commercial PCB mixture tested caused cancer. The new
studies reviewed in the PCB reassessment allowed EPA to develop more accurate
potency estimates than previously available for PCBs. The reassessment
provided EPA with sufficient information to develop a range of potency
estimates for different PCB mixtures, based on the incidence of liver cancer
and in consideration of the mobility of PCBs in the environment.

"The reassessment resulted in a slightly decreased cancer potency estimate
for Aroclor 1260 relative to the 1987 estimate due to the use of additional
dose-response information for PCB mixtures and refinements in risk assessment
techniques (e.g., use of a different animal-to-human scaling factor for
dose). The reassessment concluded that the types of PCBs likely to be
bioaccumulated in fish and bound to sediments are the most carcinogenic PCB
mixtures.

"In addition to the animal studies, a number of epidemiological studies of
workers exposed to PCBs have been performed. Results of human studies raise
concerns for the potential carcinogenicity of PCBs. Studies of PCB workers
found increases in rare liver cancers and malignant melanoma. The presence of
cancer in the same target organ (liver) following exposures to PCBs both in
animals and in humans and the finding of liver cancers and malignant
melanomas across multiple human studies adds weight to the conclusion that
PCBs are probable human carcinogens.

"Some of the studies in humans have not demonstrated an association between
exposures to PCBs and disease. However, epidemiological studies share common
methodologic limitations that can affect their ability to discern important
health effects (or define them as statistically significant) even when they
are present. Often, the number of individuals in a study is too small for an
effect to be revealed, or there are difficulties in determining actual
exposure levels, or there are multiple confounding factors (factors that tend
to co-occur with PCB exposure, including smoking, drinking of alcohol, and
exposure to other chemicals in the workplace). Epidemiological studies may
not be able to detect small increases in cancer over background unless the
cancer rate following contaminant exposure is very high or the exposure
produces an very unusual type of cancer. However, studies that do not
demonstrate an association between exposure to PCBs and disease should not be
characterized as negative studies. These studies are most appropriately
viewed as inconclusive. Limited studies that produce inconclusive findings
for cancer in humans do not mean that PCBs are safe.

"It is very important to note that the composition of PCB mixtures changes
following their release into the environment. The types of PCBs that tend to
bioaccumulate in fish and other animals and bind to sediments happen to be
the most carcinogenic components of PCB mixtures. As a result, people who
ingest PCB-contaminated fish or other animal products and contact
PCB-contaminated sediment may be exposed to PCB mixtures that are even more
toxic than the PCB mixtures contacted by workers and released into the
environment.

"EPA's peer reviewed cancer reassessment concluded that PCBs are probable
human carcinogens. EPA is not alone in its conclusions regarding PCBs. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer has declared PCBs to be probably
carcinogenic to humans. The National Toxicology Program has stated that it is
reasonable to conclude that PCBs are carcinogenic in humans. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has determined that PCBs are a
potential occupational carcinogen. "

Now, what industry-shill web site did you get your info from?



So we have spent billions and billions of dollars on remediation, loss
of jobs and destroyed local economies because of early indicators
that were false positives. Lets try to be more carefull in our studies
from here on out!

"JohnAndrew" wrote in message
om...
What's particularly nice about Jeff Stiers' rant is the way it
redirects attention away from the mercury and PCBs in the food
to the people who are complaining about the mercury and PCBs
in the food.

Activists complain about mercury residues in fish making the
fish unsafe to eat - and Stiers is saying, "but fish are good
for you; what are these crazy enviros doing attacking the
eating of fish?"

That's not an unreasonable position, IF the risk from PCBs is considerably
lower than the health benefits of eating the fish - which is the case.

Safe salmon, sick science
1/10/2004
Financial Post
Terence Corcoran
http://www.canada.com/national/natio...id=c2421896-6a
fd-4341-9546-00d07d255eb

In a report as balanced as an Al-Jazeera news clip, The National's science
beat
person, Eve Savory, summarized an international study that Mr. Mansbridge
said
"found that salmon contains enough toxins to set off alarm bells, especially
farmed salmon."

Corcoran says that over at The Globe and Mail, one of its vast staff of
specialists in the art of producing food and health scares -- Martin
Mittelstaedt -- cranked out a five-alarm panic lead: "Farm-raised Atlantic
salmon ... are so laced with PCBs and other pollutants that they should be
eaten
only infrequently because they pose an increased risk of cancer." He said
salmon
from Toronto supermarkets were so contaminated they shouldn't be eaten more
than
once every two months.

Ms. Savory's CBC report, which set up a Canadian fish farm industry official
in
a way that made him look guilty of gross bureaucratic evasion, quoted one of
the
authors of the study to support the idea that Canada's farmed salmon are
killers. "These levels (of PCBs, dioxins and other pollutants) are
sufficiently
high in farmed salmon that unlimited consumption of these salmon is unwise."
One
serving of salmon once every two months might be safe, he said.

There goes the salmon market.

Corcoran says that unlimited consumption of anything could kill us,
especially
warped health stories that make no reasonable attempt to assess the validity
of
the science being reported. Unverified science news, especially stories that
are
twisted to fit some other non-scientific agenda, fall into the great bulging
global warehouse labeled Junk Science.

The other agenda here is the crusade, mounted by the David Suzuki Foundation
and
others, against the farm fish industry. Suzuki (another CBC creation) funded
a
wonky study two years ago that claimed B.C. farm salmon posed a health risk.
That study, as Charles Santerre of Purdue University found, exaggerated the
PCB
content of farm salmon by using parts per trillion (ppt) as a base. The
salmon
therefore contained 50,000 ppt of PCBs. Sounds big, even alarming,
especially
when the FDA puts the safe level at 2,000 parts per billion. Note the
difference: parts per trillion versus parts per billion. In fact, the PCB
count
found in the salmon equals 50 parts per billion, or a fraction of the safe
level.

Purdue's Santerre believes the Suzuki-funded study two years ago was written
"in
such an unconventional manner as to scare consumers away from eating
salmon."
Looking over the new study, the one the Globe and CBC hyped on Thursday, Mr.
Santerre sees some of the same agenda-setting. (Mr. Santerre recently signed
on
as an occasional consultant to the salmon industry, but will the Suzuki
Foundation please not send in a letter condemning his views as tainted.)

[I had an earlier article that was lost when my computer disk crashed. It
pointed out there would be one death in 70 years from the PCB level in these
salmon. On the other hand, the health benefits would save 300 lives every
year. I don't recall the consumption levels, but they're not particularly
important since both figures were based on the same level.]

Didn't Dante write something about the best place for people
like this to work?
******

I suppose we should be grateful that the eco-nuts alerted us to the high
levels of PCBs in the feed that is causing farm raised salmon to have higher
PCB levels than they should. It's an easily correctable problem, and it's
already been fixed as far as I know. But their typical over the wall
hysteria does more harm than good - as is so often the case.

I suppose Dante might have constructed a fitting end for such people where
they are subject to even more fanatical Chicken Littles who constantly
discover, with great authority, even more dangers in everything they eat or
touch.

As for me, I still have salmon twice a week when I can get it at a
reasonable price.

In article ,
"Founding Father" wrote:

"JohnAndrew" wrote in message
. com...
What's particularly nice about Jeff Stiers' rant is the way it
redirects attention away from the mercury and PCBs in the food
to the people who are complaining about the mercury and PCBs
in the food.

Activists complain about mercury residues in fish making the
fish unsafe to eat - and Stiers is saying, "but fish are good
for you; what are these crazy enviros doing attacking the
eating of fish?"

That's not an unreasonable position, IF the risk from PCBs is considerably
lower than the health benefits of eating the fish - which is the case.

Add in the risk of mercury, dioxin, etc. Check out the EPA.


Safe salmon, sick science
1/10/2004
Financial Post
Terence Corcoran

I don't recognize this as a scientific or medical source.

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...id=c2421896-6a
fd-4341-9546-00d07d255eb

In a report as balanced as an Al-Jazeera news clip, The National's science
beat
person, Eve Savory, summarized an international study that Mr. Mansbridge
said
"found that salmon contains enough toxins to set off alarm bells, especially
farmed salmon."

Corcoran says

What are his qualifications?

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Founding Father" wrote:

"JohnAndrew" wrote in message
. com...
What's particularly nice about Jeff Stiers' rant is the way it
redirects attention away from the mercury and PCBs in the food
to the people who are complaining about the mercury and PCBs
in the food.

Activists complain about mercury residues in fish making the
fish unsafe to eat - and Stiers is saying, "but fish are good
for you; what are these crazy enviros doing attacking the
eating of fish?"

That's not an unreasonable position, IF the risk from PCBs is
considerably
lower than the health benefits of eating the fish - which is the case.

Add in the risk of mercury, dioxin, etc. Check out the EPA.


Safe salmon, sick science
1/10/2004
Financial Post
Terence Corcoran

I don't recognize this as a scientific or medical source.


http://www.canada.com/national/natio...?id=c2421896-6
a
fd-4341-9546-00d07d255eb

In a report as balanced as an Al-Jazeera news clip, The National's
science
beat
person, Eve Savory, summarized an international study that Mr. Mansbridge
said
"found that salmon contains enough toxins to set off alarm bells,
especially
farmed salmon."

Corcoran says

What are his qualifications?

Who cares? The article makes some assertions of fact that are either true
or false.

1. The David Suzuki Foundation is behind at least some of these attacks on
the salmon industry, and it has a political agenda, making it a questionable
source of information.
2. The study [deliberately] exaggerated the PCB content of farm salmon by
using parts per trillion (ppt) as a base instead of the usual ppb..
3. The salmon contained only 50 ppb of PCBs compared to the FDA's safe level
of 2,000 parts per billion (not trillion).

These statements are either true or false, irrespective of any phony or real
"credentials" the author of the article may or may not have. Deal with
them.

"Founding Father" wrote in message
...
1. The David Suzuki Foundation is behind at least some of these attacks on
the salmon industry, and it has a political agenda, making it a
questionable
source of information.

It does? What party has it stated it politically supports?

You wouldn't be one of those lying Founding Fathers? Would you?

"Vendicar Decarian" wrote in message
...

"Founding Father" wrote in message
...
1. The David Suzuki Foundation is behind at least some of these attacks
on
the salmon industry, and it has a political agenda, making it a
questionable
source of information.

It does? What party has it stated it politically supports?

So in your little world the only political agendas must involve overt
support for a particular political party?

Their political agenda is the radical environmentalist movement, which is at
its core anti-human, as the co-founder of Greenpeace wrote.

Earth Day / Has the environmental movement left the world behind?
www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
Earth Day
Has the environmental movement left the world behind?
Patrick Moore, Nick Schulz
Thursday, April 22, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
URL:

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/22/EDGKO68MID
1.DTL

There is no doubt that the environments of wealthy, developed
countries are considerably healthier today than on the first
Earth Day. Air and water are cleaner. Human life
expectancies are longer. Forests are abundant and growing.
Developed countries have wanted improved environments and
they have been wealthy enough to afford them. But the story
is much different elsewhere. Indeed, for much of the rest of
the world, conditions are worse than they should be.
Ironically, the very movement that made its presence felt in
rallies across this country in 1970 and that thrives in the
developed world today must shoulder much of the blame for the
developing world's sorry state. It is impeding both economic
and environmental progress due to an agenda that is anti-
development, anti- technology and, in the final analysis,
anti-human.

David Suzuki Foundation uses faulty data or distorts data to try to make its
case.

http://www.greenspirit.com/pinksalmon/index.cfm

Not only does it support Kyoto, a fraudulent treaty whose only purpose is to
allow America's compactors to gain economic advantage they cannot achieve
through the market place, but it even claims Kyoto would save Canada $200
Billion and create jobs.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/02/kyoto_suzuki021002
In fact, its report wants at 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Kyoto_Beyond_LR.pdf

Its own website recommends the ridiculous film, "The Day After Tomorrow," as
"underscoring the fact that climate change is happening now" even as it
acknowledges its scientific shortcomings.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

I suppose by the same logic, "Armageddon" "underscored the fact that we are
at threat from asteroids."

Its front group, Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, appears to be
trying to destroy the salmon farming industry.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...086256207&sign[partnerID]=1&sign[memberID]=320051748&sign[partner_userID]=320051748
Do a google search on that group and just see all the hysterical warnings
that come up. Gee, one would think Canadians are dropping dead in the
streets every day from eating farmed fish.

You wouldn't be one of those lying Founding Fathers? Would you?

I suppose to a fanatic like you, anyone who prefers actual facts can be
labeled a "liar" just like religious extremists label the orthodox as
heretics.

Having been trained as a real scientist, I hate junk science.

"Vendicar Decarian" wrote in message
...
What party has it stated it politically supports?

"Founding Father" wrote in message
...
So in your little world the only political agendas must involve overt
support for a particular political party?

Their political agenda is the radical environmentalist movement, which is
at
its core anti-human, as the co-founder of Greenpeace wrote.

I see, so agree that the Suzuki foundation - Run by PHD Biologist David
Suzuki - supports no political party.

Your view is simply that clean air, clean water, and living within the
sustainable boundaries of the natural world is political, in the same way
that curing Cancer, developing new Antibiotics, growing Food, is political.



"Founding Father" wrote in message
...
I suppose to a fanatic like you, anyone who prefers actual facts can be
labeled a "liar" just like religious extremists label the orthodox as
heretics.

In America these days. Anyone who demands honesty is considered a
"fanatic".



"Founding Father" wrote in message
...
Having been trained as a real scientist, I hate junk science.

Yes, well your training in the janitorial science hardly count now do
they?



Calculations illustrate fossil-fuel crisis
Plant-to-oil equations point up unsustainable
profligacy.
29 October 2003
BETSY MASON

If you burned a litre of petrol on the way to work this
morning, consider this: it took 23.5 tonnes of ancient,
buried plants to produce.

That's the equivalent of 16,200 square meters of wheat,
roots and stalks included. So says new research that
aims to raise awareness about the need to change our
energy-consumption habits.

The long, slow process that converts plant matter into
oil is extremely inefficient, says ecologist Jeff Dukes
of Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, who did
the calculations. Less than one part in 10,000 of the
organic matter becomes oil.

"So much carbon is lost back to the atmosphere through
decomposition, it's only the residues that are turned
into fossil fuels," says Dukes. He warns that less than
a tenth of the carbon in plants buried in peat bogs was
turned into coal1.

In 1997, he points out, we burned fossil fuels
equivalent to more than 400 times the amount of plant
matter produced on Earth in the same year.

Despite these inefficiencies, fossil fuels created over
the past 500 million years have given us a relatively
inexpensive fuel source for the past 250 years. "It is
fantastic stored free energy from the past, but it's not
sustainable," Dukes says.

Modern ways to convert biomass into fuels such as
ethanol are far more efficient. But it would still take
nearly a quarter of all the plants on Earth to replace
the fuel used in 1997. That's 50% more than humans
already remove or pave over each year, says Dukes.
"Hopefully we'll use more wind and solar power," he
suggests.

It's a valid point, says geologist Sandra Neuzil of the
US Geological Survey in Reston, Virginia, who studies
peat decomposition. But she is cautious about the many
unknowns in such equations, saying: "When you start
multiplying uncertainties the numbers start to become
meaningless."

Dukes acknowledges that his calculations have a large
degree of uncertainty, but believes he has captured the
essence of the process. "I'm hoping that it will make
people think," he says.

References
Dukes, J. S. Burning buried sunshine: Human
consumption of ancient solar energy. Climatic Change,
published online, (2002).

© Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2003

In article ,
"Founding Father" wrote:

"Vendicar Decarian" wrote in message
...

"Founding Father" wrote in message
...
1. The David Suzuki Foundation is behind at least some of these attacks
on
the salmon industry, and it has a political agenda, making it a
questionable
source of information.

It does? What party has it stated it politically supports?

So in your little world the only political agendas must involve overt
support for a particular political party?

Their political agenda is the radical environmentalist movement, which is at
its core anti-human, as the co-founder of Greenpeace wrote.

So we can blame all libertarians for Tim McVeigh's crime too?



Earth Day / Has the environmental movement left the world behind?
www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
Earth Day
Has the environmental movement left the world behind?
Patrick Moore, Nick Schulz
Thursday, April 22, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
URL:

Now editorials pass as fact?


sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/22/EDGKO68MID
1.DTL

There is no doubt that the environments of wealthy, developed
countries are considerably healthier today than on the first
Earth Day. Air and water are cleaner. Human life
expectancies are longer. Forests are abundant and growing.
Developed countries have wanted improved environments and
they have been wealthy enough to afford them. But the story
is much different elsewhere. Indeed, for much of the rest of
the world, conditions are worse than they should be.
Ironically, the very movement that made its presence felt in
rallies across this country in 1970 and that thrives in the
developed world today must shoulder much of the blame for the
developing world's sorry state. It is impeding both economic
and environmental progress due to an agenda that is anti-
development, anti- technology and, in the final analysis,
anti-human.

David Suzuki Foundation uses faulty data or distorts data to try to make its
case.

And corporations never do?


http://www.greenspirit.com/pinksalmon/index.cfm

Not only does it support Kyoto, a fraudulent treaty whose only purpose is to
allow America's compactors to gain economic advantage they cannot achieve
through the market place, but it even claims Kyoto would save Canada $200
Billion and create jobs.

OK, you've just lied 3 times in one sentence.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/02/kyoto_suzuki021002
In fact, its report wants at 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Kyoto_Beyond_LR.pdf

Its own website recommends the ridiculous film, "The Day After Tomorrow," as
"underscoring the fact that climate change is happening now" even as it
acknowledges its scientific shortcomings.

Are you claiming climate change is not happening?

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

I suppose by the same logic, "Armageddon" "underscored the fact that we are
at threat from asteroids."

Its front group, Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, appears to be
trying to destroy the salmon farming industry.

Liar.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...086256207&sign[partn
erID]=1&sign[memberID]=320051748&sign[partner_userID]=320051748
Do a google search on that group and just see all the hysterical warnings
that come up. Gee, one would think Canadians are dropping dead in the
streets every day from eating farmed fish.

You wouldn't be one of those lying Founding Fathers? Would you?

I suppose to a fanatic like you, anyone who prefers actual facts can be
labeled a "liar" just like religious extremists label the orthodox as
heretics.

Having been trained as a real scientist, I hate junk science.



You're as close to being a scientist as a creationist is.

"Vendicar Decarian" wrote:

You wouldn't be one of those lying Founding Fathers? Would you?

You wouldn't happen to be usenet whackmeister Scotty Nudds? Would you?