Junk Science Oscars

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,389
19,707
146
Junk Science Oscars

By Steven Milloy
www.junkscience.com


It?s time to pay homage to the year?s outstanding junk science performances. Without further ado, the envelope, please?

Best performance by Swedish meatballs. Swedish scientists alarmed us in April that baking and frying high-carbohydrate foods, like potatoes and bread, formed acrylamide, a substance that has been linked with cancer in laboratory animal experiments.

What they didn?t say was that even if lab animal experiments were a good predictor of cancer risk in humans -- a HUGE leap of faith -- someone of average bodyweight would have to eat 35,000 potato chips (about 62.5 pounds) per day for life to get an equivalent dose of acrylamide as the lab animals!

You might not be able to eat just one Lays potato chip, but 35,000?

Best performance supporting the Swedish meatballs. The World Health Organization held in June an "urgent" meeting where acrylamide was called a "major concern." Further study was recommended, but no warning to consumers was issued -- yet.

During the three days the W.H.O. ?fiddled? with acrylamide, more than 16,000 third-world children died largely preventable deaths caused by food and water contaminated with bacteria.

WHO knows what its priorities are?

Most embarrassing performance by ?reputable? experts. The National Academy of Sciences? Institute of Medicine (IOM) announced in July that no amounts of margarine, vegetable shortening, dairy products, pastries, crackers, fried foods and breast milk are safe to eat.

These foods and others contain trans fatty acids, vegetable oils altered to be firm at room temperature. Trans fats, according to the IOM, raise blood levels of LDL cholesterol -- supposedly, the "bad" cholesterol -- and allegedly increase the risk of coronary heart disease.

But none of the six studies of human populations consuming trans fats come close to linking trans fats with heart disease risk. No doubt this is why the IOM barely even mentioned their existence in its report and didn't rely on them in the slightest to support its conclusion.

Performance most likely to sent enviros into a tizzy.

The New York Times editorialized in December that the insecticide DDT should be used in Africa to reduce the death toll from malaria -- quite a welcome change from the Times? 30 years of DDT fearmongering. Sadly, the turnaround by the influential newspaper comes too late for the 60-90 million people in the third world -- mostly children -- who died from malaria during those 30 years. No doubt the Times? editorial will send its environmental activist allies into orbit as they continue to urge a total ban on DDT use.

Most underreported global warming story. Hardly a day goes by without a media report on the dire consequences of alleged manmade global warming and the attendant need for an international treaty to control greenhouse gas emissions.

But when 18 scientists who believe in manmade global warming wrote in the Nov. 1 issue of the major journal Science that no treaty will prevent global warming, nary a word was reported. The scientists also dismissed the near-term prospects for alternatives to burning coal, oil and gas.

I commented at the time that the ?gloomy assessment of regulatory and technology-based solutions might just encourage policy makers to pay more attention to the junk science underlying the fantasy of manmade global warming.?

That observation presumed, of course, that such a significant assessment by such respected sources in such a prominent publication would be reported by someone in the media. Oh well?

Best performance in statistical malpractice. Researchers garnered national headlines in April with a report that 1,400 college students die every year from excessive drinking.

The estimate was derived by assuming that because college students constitute 31 percent of the population of 18-24 year olds, they also account for 31 percent of the alcohol-related deaths in that age group.

The simplistic reasoning -- which would merit an ?F? in an undergraduate statistics course -- is equivalent to assuming that because women constitute about half of the population, they commit half of all crime. In fact, men commit more than 75 percent of crime.

What kind of researcher would commit such a flagrant statistical foul? It was Boston University?s Ralph Hingson, who moonlights as a board member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- a formerly laudable activist group whose new mission seems to be more akin to ?Mothers Against Drinking of Any Kind.?

Most shameful exploitation of a tragedy. Gun control activists exploited the Washington, D.C.-area sniper spree by calling for ?ballistic fingerprinting? of guns before sale. Mandatory pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting, they hoped, might lead to reduced gun sales and even national gun registration.

The activists ignored the failure of existing pre-sale ballistics fingerprinting programs in Maryland and New York to lead to a single conviction. A report by California state ballistics experts -- and hushed up by California?s pro-gun control attorney general -- concluded that pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting was impractical. Moreover, Americans already own more than 200 million guns; those won't be included in any ballistics database.

It?s no wonder the gun-controllers tried to take advantage of public panic. Those are this year?s junk science winners (weeners?). Have a great 2003 and stay tuned for more next year.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com

 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Gee, I wonder what political party the author belongs to.
rolleye.gif
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,563
203
106
Performance most likely to sent enviros into a tizzy.

The New York Times editorialized in December that the insecticide DDT should be used in Africa to reduce the death toll from malaria -- quite a welcome change from the Times? 30 years of DDT fearmongering. Sadly, the turnaround by the influential newspaper comes too late for the 60-90 million people in the third world -- mostly children -- who died from malaria during those 30 years. No doubt the Times? editorial will send its environmental activist allies into orbit as they continue to urge a total ban on DDT use.

Did you know that sickle cell anemia provides you with an immunity to malaria? One reason why it may be so common among blacks is because of how common malaria is in Africa (note, not just now, but in "ancient" times as well). So, those with sickle cell survived and reproduced in greater numbers, passing those genes on to their children.

edit: About global warming... yes, it may well be that we are having less of an impact on the environment then some people think. But to abandon forward thinking and not take precautions is just silly. So long as we think there is the possibility of irreversible damage being done, we should start taking steps to slow down or stop that damage rather than wait until it is too late.
 

zippy

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 1999
9,998
1
0
I think that moron would win the 'Most Bitter Journalist' of the year award for this portion of that article:
Most underreported global warming story. Hardly a day goes by without a media report on the dire consequences of alleged manmade global warming and the attendant need for an international treaty to control greenhouse gas emissions.

But when 18 scientists who believe in manmade global warming wrote in the Nov. 1 issue of the major journal Science that no treaty will prevent global warming, nary a word was reported. The scientists also dismissed the near-term prospects for alternatives to burning coal, oil and gas.

I commented at the time that the ?gloomy assessment of regulatory and technology-based solutions might just encourage policy makers to pay more attention to the junk science underlying the fantasy of manmade global warming.?

That observation presumed, of course, that such a significant assessment by such respected sources in such a prominent publication would be reported by someone in the media. Oh well?
Please note how he doesn't mention who the scientist are, any credentials or anything beyond that they "believe in manmade global warming." I have to question whether they actually do if they have given up on the cause of reducing emissions as he portrays them as doing. Not to mention, if they do believe in manmade global warming, it would make more sense that their article would be to say, "Hey, we're going about this all wrong - if we want to stop this problem, it needs to be going in another direction." By the way, why the hell does he seem to thing that global warming is 'junk science?!' It's a pretty damn sound theory.

Anyway, I've seen better reporting come out of a dog's ass.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Best performance by Swedish meatballs. Swedish scientists alarmed us in April that baking and frying high-carbohydrate foods, like potatoes and bread, formed acrylamide, a substance that has been linked with cancer in laboratory animal experiments.

What they didn?t say was that even if lab animal experiments were a good predictor of cancer risk in humans -- a HUGE leap of faith -- someone of average bodyweight would have to eat 35,000 potato chips (about 62.5 pounds) per day for life to get an equivalent dose of acrylamide as the lab animals!

You might not be able to eat just one Lays potato chip, but 35,000?

Can you name a SINGLE anti-cancer drug approved for use in the US that was NOT tested in lab animals? You are absolutely correct that animal experimentation can be a specious predictor of human outcomes . . . but what would you suggest . . . dosing humans with acrylamide? The issue is particularly important for reproductive age women b/c acylamide crosses the placenta and is found in milk (lactating rat dams). Why not inform people that modified cooking methods (baking vs fried) greatly reduces exposure to POTENTIALLY harmful substances?


During the three days the W.H.O. ?fiddled? with acrylamide, more than 16,000 third-world children died largely preventable deaths caused by food and water contaminated with bacteria.
Well you know what . . . if the US committed a comparable amount of GDP to international public health (as our Western brethren plus Japan) . . . water borne illness could be greatly reduced. The same WHO that "fiddled" with acrylamide is the world's primary vehicle for dissemination of information and international cooperation/assistance in the control of illnesses like cholera.


The New York Times editorialized in December that the insecticide DDT should be used in Africa to reduce the death toll from malaria -- quite a welcome change from the Times? 30 years of DDT fearmongering. Sadly, the turnaround by the influential newspaper comes too late for the 60-90 million people in the third world -- mostly children -- who died from malaria during those 30 years. No doubt the Times? editorial will send its environmental activist allies into orbit as they continue to urge a total ban on DDT use.
If you really care try reading . . . WHO . . . unlike your blurb which implies widespread SPRAYING of DDT is the solution (albeit their are definitive limited uses for DDT spraying) . . . WHO notes malaria control would be greatly advanced by the use of insecticide sprayed netting (most mosquito bites occur at night during sleep) and anti-malarial medications.

But when 18 scientists who believe in manmade global warming wrote in the Nov. 1 issue of the major journal Science that no treaty will prevent global warming, nary a word was reported. The scientists also dismissed the near-term prospects for alternatives to burning coal, oil and gas.
Did they happen to say WHY no treaty will prevent global warming? Could it be related to 5% of the global population (US) consuming 20-25% of world resources . . . with absolutely no plan for curtailing said consumption? Could it be that advancing societies are consuming more and more of their natural resources in a desire to improve their standard of living? Could it be that human activity has already achieved of level which significantly impacts the environment? Could it be that the nation with the greatest potential for doing something about it . . . prefers to invest in space-based weapon systems and V-16 engines?

Gun control activists exploited the Washington, D.C.-area sniper spree by calling for ?ballistic fingerprinting? of guns before sale. Mandatory pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting, they hoped, might lead to reduced gun sales and even national gun registration.
Curious, I remember the RNC proudly selling picture of Bush during the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11th.

It?s no wonder the gun-controllers tried to take advantage of public panic.
At first homeland security was an office . . . it was all that was needed. Many proposed a department capable of integrating the various agencies responsible for domestic security. "Unnecessary", said the President. Within six months the President proposed a new agency/legislation which required IMMEDIATE passage . . . waiting a single day put the country at risk. He campaigned throughout the nation and the RNC put out ads . . . ANYONE that opposed the President's version of Homeland Security apparently cared more about 1) unions, 2) terrorists, or 3) other special interests than protecting Americans. Max Cleland-GA gave two legs and an arm serving this country in Vietnam but OUR President (and Cleland's portly opponent Saxby Chambliss) all but called the man a traitor who was putting EVERY American at risk.

Let's hear it for truth in advertising. How about you spend some time actually reading SCIENCE, NEJM, PNAS, or JAMA . . . instead of repeating some garbage from another who has probably read nothing more than an abstract themselves.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,389
19,707
146
Originally posted by: Tyler
Gee, I wonder what political party the author belongs to.
rolleye.gif

Actually, he's libertarian. What party do you belong to?