| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/2/8-10 [Health/Disease/General] UID:36113 Activity:very high |
2/8 I'm writing a report on Things We Didn't Know Were Harmful, on things
like lead paint (1950s), asbesto insulation (1960s), early birth
control pills (1960s) and other stuff, what are other examples you
guys can think of? ok thx
\_ the dot-com boom.
\_ wireless
\_ Cigarettes
Also, to some degree, radiation from nukes--look at
http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/reedk.htm -John
http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/reedk.htm
In the 17th century some people thought mercury was a cure-all
medicine, Romans built water pipes out of lead. -John
\_ John. tobacco and lead pipes were already mentioned. :(
\_ Yeah--they cause short attention span. Sorry. -John
\_ FD&C Red #2
\_ "Food Drug & Commission"?
\_ Food, Drug, and Cosmetic. You'll also sometimes see just
D&C or External D&C, depending on what the colors are
approved for. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/colorfac.html
\_ non-biodegradable detergents
\_ thalidomyde
\_ X-ray machines as a gimmick in shoe stores
\_ "Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies
about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's
bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred
chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too."
\_ Bioaccumulated pesticides
\_ Lead and mercury
\_ Specific example: Amalgams, aka "silver filling" despite it
being made up of ~50% mercury.
\_ Amalgams are stull used. They are packaged now so that the
mercury isn't free for very long.
\_ We studied this in chemistry at UCB. There is/was no risk.
The amounts involved are so small.
\_ Dude, you went to Berkeley? How gay!
\_ When? Your info may be dated. EPA now recommends intake
levels somewhere around 5-8 ppm, orders of magnitude lower
than previously accepted. Additionally, there were studies
finding correlation between post-natal defects and number
of amalgam fillings the mother has. The theory is that
mercury gas emitted from the filling(what's that word for
straight solid-->gas chemical conversion?) is on the order
of 5-10 ppm per day.
levels somewhere around 5-8 ppm, orders of magnitude
lower than previously accepted. Additionally, there
were studies finding correlation between post-natal
defects and number of amalgam fillings the mother has.
The theory is that mercury gas emitted from the
filling(what's that word for straight solid-->gas
chemical conversion?) is on the order of 5-10 ppm per
day.
\_ 1991. Do you trust chemistry or statistics? The
word you want is sublimate, btw.
\_ leaded gasoline, lead water pipes, lead paint, etc.
\_ And before that, lead-based cosmetics!
\_ Bleeding out a fever with leeches
\_ http://www.biopharm-leeches.com
\_ Uranium-lined water coolers to provide 'healthful' radiation in
your drinking water. (I'm not making this up)
Also Fiestaware and other uranium-ore glazed ceramics.
\_ Did these actually turn out to be harmful? I was under the
impression that _small_ amounts of radiation were actually
good for your health.
\_ Small amounts of radiation exposure happens naturally and is
probably important for long-term evolution, but it is never
good for the individual (with the exception of highly
targeted medical therapy). These coolers produced
contaminated water far in excess of 'safe' levels.
If you want to learn more, look up 'revigator'.
\_ DDT: "So safe you can spray it over residential areas!"
\_ i found some page claiming DDT really is safe and saved millions
of lives wrt malaria and it was all a liberal kook plot
\_ It was kind of a cool substance-- didn't smell bad, didn't
really cause too much harm as a percentage of its use. The
chain from runoff -> fish collecting it -> birds eat fish ->
thin bird eggshells seems pretty long and unexpectable.
\_ One glass of orange juice a day is about 0.03% HERP (Human
Exposure dose/Rodent Potency dose) from d-limonene. 3 cups
of coffee a day is 0.1% HERP from caffeic acid. Pre-1972 DDT
intake was about 0.002% HERP. It's somewhat worse than a plum
a day at 0.001% HERP. (ref "The Skeptical Environmentalist")
\_ This may indeed but the case, but I thought the problem
with DDT is not that it is directly harmful to humans,
but it is dangerous to many other animals in the
ecosystem.
\_ Yes, that was the disinformation in "Silent Spring"
\_ See, some people are still confused about this!
\_ The _Skeptical_Environmentalist_ that was written by a non
expert talking about things way out of his field of
experience and was debunked by both Science and Nature.
That _Skeptical_Environmentalist_, right?
\_ The case for and against the Skeptical Environmentalist
is pretty well documented. You are welcome to read up
on it and judge the worthiness of the book yourself.
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310131/posts
\_ http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg , by Patrick
Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace.
\_ This is actually taught to middle and high school students
thru pages at http://wise.berkeley.edu Supported by an NSF
grant of course.
\_ Unfortunately, exposure to DDT causes penis and testicular
shrinkage in animals. One might argue that no benefit is
worth that. Of course, CSUA members wouldn't care much
about that one way or the other.
\_ Hey, speak for yourself buddy: that sounds like a
freakin nightmare to me. What the heck is wrong with
you?
\_ Yermom often complains about my large penis. I
was just trying to be considerate.
\_ What dosage was required for that? I love those studies
where they'll like have the critters drinking the stuff.
\_ Trans-saturated fats. Margarine is worse for you than butter.
\_ Are you serious?
\_ http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030709.html
\_ This is pretty generally accepted in the last few years.
\_ Not sure about this. Ignoring transfats, what about cholesterol?
Butter has it and margarine does not.
\_ tobacco
\_ germs (i.e. not washing your hands in hospitals)
\_ MTBE
\_ Microsoft circa 1984.
\_ Depleted uranium bullets used in gulf war causes impotence. Heated
CPU and other electronic compounds causes birth defects. Alumnium
cans in Coke/Pepsi causes Parkinsons disease. Tupperware and heated
plastics in microwave triggers gay genes. -future man, 2040
\_ leftists
\_ I think it's just "Tupperware and heated plastics", not
necessarily in microwave.
\_ aluminum: also Alzheimer's. And diet Coke in alumnimum = double
whammy aspartame brain tumors.
\_ Cocaine in Coca-cola.
\_ leftists
\_ Wow, cool list above. Here's a vote for posting a link to your
report on the motd once you're done. Seems like it could be a fun
read.
\_ seconded.
\_ Agent Orange
\_ Teflon
\_ The material used in flame-resistant mattress. I heard on the radio
recently that it causes breast cancer.
\_ Thalidomide
\_ Already mentioned above.
\_ Silicone implants.
\_ Just saw an article or Daily Cal or somewhere else today on
the link between green tea and stomach cancer cases among
Asian-Americans.
\_ I thought green tea is supposed to help prevent cancer.
\_ sunbathing
\_ red meat
\_ refined flour http://drcranton.com/nutrition/bread.htm
\_ Thanks! I thought the wheat bread from Safeway was nutritious! |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/reedk.htm com Subject: Narrative Writeup While I was in the U S Army, I was selected to participate in Atomic T esting Exercises at Camp Desert Rock, Nevada, on May 25, 1953. That par ticular test was named Upshot-Knothole, Test Grable. After leaving the Army in 1955, I decided to write my remembrances of that event before t ime took away any of my memory. The following narrative was written in 1956 and has remained relatively the same with only minor changes made to correct punctuation. All factual events have remained as written at that time. REMEMBERING A NUCLEAR TEST During the spring and summer of 1953, I was assigned to the 740th AAA Gu n Battalion at Ft. Baker is located a lmost directly under the Golden Gate Bridge across the bay from San Fra ncisco. Our primary mission was the air defense of the entire bay area. Each of the four field batteries had four 90mm AAA weapons, i ndependently operating radar systems and a troop strength of approximat ely 200 officers and enlisted men. Cronkit e in Marin County across the bay from San Francisco and on the ocean si de of the peninsula. Battery B was located in Golden Gate Park in San F rancisco. Battery C was located at the upper, or northern end of San Fr ancisco Bay. in the S2 and S3 Sections, (Operations and Intelligence Section). Thr ough our network of communications, (Radar, Radio and land line telepho ne), we were in constant contact with all coastal defense units from Sa n Diego to the Northern Alaskan Radar Stations. These radar stations we re in the northern part of Alaska and the Bearing Straits, and were cal led the DEW Line, (Distant Early Warning Line). These radar stations we re responsible for air surveillance between Alaska and the USSR. Our ma in radar unit in the bay area was mounted and operated from Mt Tamalpi as, the highest point in the immediate bay area. We were responsible fo r the tracking of all "unidentified aircraft" that came into our sector of radar contact and control. During April of 1953, our Intelligence Section received notification tha t our Battalion was to provide two enlisted men to be assigned temporar y duty at Camp Desert Rock, Nevada, to participate in the atomic testin g that was taking place there during that summer. Those two individuals were required to have a security clearance of "Secret", and be allowed to handle and read Secret documents. Several days later, our Intellige nce Officer, as I remember, 1st. Lyle R Larson, selected SFC Willie F Brown and me to be the two enlisted men to participate. Brown and I were given additional instructions as to what c lothing and equipment to take, our method of transportation, due date f or arrival and were presented with orders assigning us TDY to Camp Dese rt Rock, Nevada. We were given round trip bus fare and were to travel i n Class "A" uniforms. We were to take a minimum of two sets of fatigues , socks, underwear, one pair of combat boots and all personal toilet ar ticles. We were instructed to be sure to have enough items for a stay o f ten days or two weeks. Brown and I left San Francisc o on a bus and arrived in Los Vegas where we were quite surprised to se e a large number of soldiers and discovered that they too were going to participate in the upcoming test. While we waited for our transporting busses to Desert Rock, we talked to many of the other soldiers. We dis covered that they were from military bases across the United States-Ft. Dix, New Jersey and many other posts too numerous to name. After an extended wa it, several busses arrived with many soldiers already on board. We then learned that these busses had already picked up many soldiers at the t rain station and some other soldiers on other busses had flown in on mi litary aircraft. We quickly filled these busses for the last leg of our trip to Camp Desert Rock. Upon our arrival at the camp in the desert, we left the busses and were given instructions as to billeting accommod ations, unit assignments and dress code for the camp. We were told that we were among the first of approximately 2500 troops t o arrive for this particular test. We were told that these 2500 troops would be broken down into two Regimental Combat Teams and work as separ ate units during the exercise and test. In addition to these 2500 troop s, an additional 600 to 800 military personnel would be involved in the test as observers and special testing units. The observers included a large number of high-ranking officials and officers from the Defense De partment and the Pentagon. We were told that this group included Lyndon B Johnson, from my home state of Texas. I do not know if he was actua lly in the group of observers. Because we were among the first to arriv e at the site, we were assigned to Regimental Combat Team "A" and were instructed to go to a designated area of Desert Rock. This area of the camp had rows of tents for living accommodations. By late evening of our third or fourth day, all 2500 troops had arrived at Desert Rock an d been assigned to their respective units. It was not until the arrival of all 2500 that we were told that we were to participate in the first test firing of an atomic projectile to be f ired from a land based weapon, a 280mm artillery piece named "Atomic An nie". We were told that the Army had recently developed this field arti llery piece with a range of approximately 21 miles, and it would be use d to fire an atomic projectile a distance of approximately 7 miles prio r to detonation. At this point, quite a large number of the troops real ized why we were chosen to be there in this particular test. It seemed that most of us were from artillery units at our home base. During our briefing at that time, we were told that the atomic projectile that "An nie" was to fire would weigh between 800 and 900 lbs, and have a blast equivalent of approximately 20 kilotons, (20 thousand tons of TNT), and it would be detonated at approximately 500 feet elevation to yield the most destructive force. During that day and several days that followed, we attended classes and were given extensive lectures concerning defensive techniques in CBR Wa rfare. During our clas ses and lectures, we were told that the United States and Russia had va st quantities of deadly gas as well as germs stored in many European co untries. We were also given lengthy and extensive training in protectiv e measures combating Alpha, Beta, and Gamma rays that are emitted durin g an atomic blast. On one of our days of training, my group, or company , was taken to the site of "Atomic Annie" to see what it really looked like. When we arrived, much to our amazement, we were told that "Atomic Annie" had a twin sister at Camp Desert Rock in case of a malfunction by "Annie". While we were at th e weapon emplacement, we were allowed to get onto the loading platform, inspect the firing mechanism, recoil mechanism and breach operation of this extremely large weapon. The shear size was approximately three ti mes as large as our 90mm's back in California, and needless to say I wa s impressed by the capabilities that had been developed. I do not know if any non-artillery troops among the 2500 were allowed to inspect the 280mm before the firing a few days later. The gun crew that was to be i n charge of the weapon during this test firing was from Ft. Sill, Oklah oma, and had already fired some test rounds to properly adjust the rang e and elevation for the actual atomic test firing. In addition to visit ing the 280mm, we also visited the site of a very recent atomic test bl ast in another area of the desert. While I cannot say exactly which tes t site this was, I believe that it was called "Test Harry". and told to eat breakfast and report to a designated area to be ass igned Film Badges, board trucks at 5:00 am and be transported to the test site in the desert area outside Desert Rock. We were instructed to wear combat boots, fatigue shirts and pants as well as a fatigue jacke t We were to wear and carry no more that the standard combat uniform f or U S Troops. After breakfast we went to the designated area to be a ssigned Film Badges. These badges looked like 35mm photo slides with a small m... |
| vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/colorfac.html U S Food and Drug Administration FDA/IFIC* Brochure: January 1993 Food Color Facts The color of food is an integral part of our culture and enjoyment of lif e Who would deny the mouth-watering appeal of a deep-pink strawberry ic e on a hot summer day or a golden Thanksgiving turkey garnished with fre sh green parsley? Even early civilizations such as the Romans recognized that people "eat w ith their eyes" as well as their palates. Saffron and other spices were often used to provide a rich yellow color to various foods. Butter has b een colored yellow as far back as the 1300's. Today all food color additives are carefully regulated by federal authori ties to ensure that foods are safe to eat and accurately labeled. This b rochure provides helpful background information about color additives, w hy they are used in foods, and regulations governing their safe use in t he food supply. Technically, a color additive is any dye, pigment or substance that can i mpart color when added or applied to a food, drug, cosmetic or to the hu man body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating all color additives used in the United States. All color additives permitted for use in foods are classified as "certifiable" or "exempt from certif ication" (see Table I). Certifiable color additives are manmade, with each batch being tested by manufacturer and FDA. This "approval" process, known as color additive c ertification, assures the safety, quality, consistency and strength of t he color additive prior to its use in foods. There are nine certified colors approved for use in food in the United St ates. Color additives that are exempt from certification include pigments deriv ed from natural sources such as vegetables, minerals or animals, and man -made counterparts of natural derivatives. For example, caramel color is produced commercially by heating sugar and other carbohydrates under strictly controlled conditions for use in sauc es, gravies, soft drinks, baked goods and other foods. Whether a color additive is certifiable or exempt from certification has no bearing on its overall safety. Both types of color additives are subj ect to rigorous standards of safety prior to their approval for use in f oods. Certifiable color additives are used widely because their coloring abilit y is more intense than most colors derived from natural products; thus, they are often added to foods in smaller quantities. In addition, certif iable color additives are more stable, provide better color uniformity a nd blend together easily to provide a wide range of hues. Certifiable co lor additives generally do not impart undesirable flavors to foods, whil e color derived from foods such as beets and cranberries can produce suc h unintended effects. Of nine certifiable colors approved for use in the United States, seven c olor additives are used in food manufacturing (see Table II). Regulation s known as Good Manufacturing Practices limit the amount of color added to foods. Too much color would make foods unattractive to consumers, in addition to increasing costs. Certifiable color additives are available for use in food as either "dyes " or "lakes." Dyes dissolve in water and are manufactured as powders, gr anules, liquids or other special purpose forms. They can be used in beve rages, dry mixes, baked goods, confections, dairy products, pet foods an d a variety of other products. Lakes are more stable than dyes and are ideal for coloring products containing fats and oils or it ems lacking sufficient moisture to dissolve dyes. Typical uses include c oated tablets, cake and donut mixes, hard candies and chewing gums. Color is an important property of foods that adds to our enjoyment of eat ing. Nature teaches is early to expect certain colors in certain foods, and our future acceptance of foods is highly dependent on meeting these expectations. Color variation in foods throughout the seasons and the effects of food p rocessing and storage often require that manufacturers add color to cert ain foods to meet consumer expectations. The primary reasons of adding c olors to foods include: * To offset color loss due to exposure to light, air, extremes of tempe rature, moisture and storage conditions. Off-colored foods are often i ncorrectly associated with inferior quality. Red colors provide a pleasant identity to strawberry ice while lime sherbet is known by its bright green color. Many candies and holiday treats are colored to create a festive appearance. In 1900, there were about 80 man-made color additives available for use i n foods. At that time there were no regulations regarding the purity and uses of these dyes. Legislation enacted since the turn of the century, however, has greatly i mproved food color additive safety and stimulated improvements in food c olor technology. The Food and Drug Act of 1906 permitted or "listed" seven man-made color additives for use in foods. The Act also established a voluntary certifi cation program, which was administered by the US Department of Agricul ture (USDA); hence man-made color additives became known as "certifiable color additives". The Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 1938 made food color addi tive certification mandatory and transferred the authority for its testi ng from USDA to FDA. To avoid confusing color additives used in food wit h those manufactured for other uses, three categories of certifiable col or additives were created: * Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) - Color additives with application in foods, drugs or cosmetics; In 1960, the Color Additive Amendments to the FD&C Act placed color addit ives on a "provisional" list and required further testing using up-to-da te procedures. One section of the amendment known as the Delaney Clause, prohibits adding to any food substance that has been shown to cause can cer in animals or man regardless of the dose. Under the amendments, colo r additives exempt from certification also are required to meet rigorous safety standards prior to being permitted for use in foods. According to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, a certifia ble color additive used in food must be listed in the ingredient stateme nt by its common or usual name. All label printed after July 1, 1991 mus t comply with this requirement. To market a new color additive, a manufacturer must first petition FDA fo r its approval. The petition must provide convincing evidence that the p roposed color additive performs as it is intended. Animal studies using large doses of the color additive for long periods are often necessary t o show that the substance would not cause harmful effects at expected le vels of human consumption. Studies of the color additive in humans also may be submitted to FDA. In deciding whether a color additive should be approved, the agency consi ders the composition and properties of the substance, the amount likely to be consumed, its probable long-term effects and various safety factor s Absolute safety of any substance can never be proven. Therefore, FDA must determine if there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from the co lor additive under its proposed conditions of use. If the color additive is approved, FDA issues regulations that may includ e the types of foods in which it can be used, the maximum amounts to be used and how it should be identified on food labels. Color additives pro posed for use in meat and poultry products also must receive specific au thorization by USDA. Federal officials then carefully monitor the extent of Americans' consump tion of the new color additive and results of any new research on its sa fety. In addition, FDA operates an Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) to help serve as an ongoing safety check of all activities. The system mon itors and investigates all complaints by individuals or their physicians that are believed to be related to food and color additives; The ARMS computerized database helps officials decide whether reported adverse reactions represent a r eal public health hazard, so that appropriate action can be taken. The committee found that there was no evidence the c olor additive ... |
| www.biopharm-leeches.com FRAME: banner FRAME: menu FRAME: main |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310131/posts OESY Aid workers tending to the ravaged islands and coastlines of southern Asi a say a big concern is an outbreak of malaria and other waterborne disea ses.... Which reminds us of a just-out World Health Organization report anticipating a shortage in a key antimalarial drug.... This news about treatments wouldn't be so devastating but for the fact th at the international groups in charge still can't get malaria prevention under control. A blight that has been all but eliminated in the West, malaria still claims between one million and two million lives every year in the underdeveloped world. Most of its v ictims reside in black Africa, and 90% of those are pregnant women and c hildren under five. Beyond the human toll are the economic consequences, which help keep thes e nations in poverty's tight grip. It's been estimated that malaria cost s Africa 12% of its GDP, or some $12 billion annually. The pandemic com promises the educational development of the children it doesn't kill, an d it depletes the mental and physical vigor of the adult population. But the bigger problem is the politicized international health agencies t hat discourage the employment of all available tools of prevention -- sp ecifically insecticides containing DDT that is anathema to environmental ists.... This ideological opposition to synthetic chemicals has no basis in scienc e -- there is no evidence that the pesticide harms humans or causes wide spread damage to nature -- but it amounts to a death sentence for millio ns of African women and children. When South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996 at the urging of environmentalists, malaria cases rose from 6,000 in 1995 to 60,000 in 2000. DDT use resumed in 2000 in the country's wors t-hit province, KwaZulu Natal, and malaria cases fell by nearly 80% by 2 001.... View Replies To: OESY Of course --- beautiful scenery is more important to the beautiful people than human beings. The West treats the Third World like a private game preserve with scant regard for the people who live there. View Replies To: OESY Hedonism places the same value on a blade of grass or cockroach, as it do es on a human. Avarice, ambition, revenge o r gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a wha le goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. View Replies To: OESY My grandmother, who participated in the Oklahoma Land Run when she was 18 , once told me that the most significant improvement in her lifetime was DDT. She said that before DDT people could starve because of insects ra vaging the crops and people could die of disease because of mosquitoes. I bet she would think the world has gone crazy were she alive now. View Replies To: goldstategop >>A blight that has been all but eliminated in the West, malaria still cl aims between one million and two million lives every year in the underde veloped world. View Replies To: OESY "Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas noted the hypocrisy of this position" He's becoming a foreign affairs activist -- the good kind. HIV infections are a fraction of m alaria's, but the former affects more people in the West, where advocate s see to it that foreign aid budgets keep AIDS front and center. Third W orld victims of malaria don't have lobbyists and Hollywood A-listers cal ling attention to their situation." View Replies Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| www.greenspirit.com/lomborg -> www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ Scientific American Threatens to Sue Bjorn Lomborg for Daring to Defend Himself. Now They Threaten Greenspirit, Too SUPPORT THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST - PUBLISH AND DISTRIBUTE HIS RESPONSE TO SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN'S ATTACK! Whereas the popular media have generally reported positively on the 500-plus page analysis of the global environment, the scientific press in North America has been negative to the point of personal insult. It is very clear that extreme environmentalists are deeply threatened by the breath of fresh air Lomborg brings to the debate. Among the most scathing of the attacks on Lomborg was an 11-page editorial in the January 2002 edition of Scientific American. With the rather high-handed title "Science Defends itself Against the Skeptical Environmentalist" the editorial declared the book a "failure" and invited four prominent environmentalists to do their worst to discredit Lomborg and his analysis. Scientific American did not give Lomborg any opportunity to respond to his critics, even though they gave him a copy of the editorial before it went to press. They said they would give Lomborg one page in a future edition to reply to 11 pages of full-on attack. Lomborg's response was to publish the text of the Scientific American article on his own website and to intersperse it with a detailed response to every point raised by his critics. Scientific American then threatened to sue Lomborg over copyright. In response to my complaint Scientific American wrote "This is an infringement of our copyright and interferes with our business of selling the article." Does Scientific American really think that they will lose readership because Lomborg has posted a response to a publication that is already off the newsstands? I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself. And I don't blame Lomborg for giving in to such a huge organization when threatened with legal action. Anyone who reads his response to the Scientific American attack will have to agree that it is thoughtful and thorough. Here is a link to the entire response complete with Lomborg's comments. PDF Acrobat File) I call on all scientists, organizations, and citizens to publish this document on their websites. I do not believe Scientific American can prevent this legitimate right of free speech. Surely he has a perfect right to defend himself on his own website. If you do not have a website then send the document to someone who does. com that you have published Lomborg's rebuttal and I will publish a list of websites and organizations that have joined in this effort to bring some critical thinking and intellectual rigor back into the debate about the environment. I don't necessarily agree with every word of Lomborg's impressive book, but that is not the issue here. The environmental movement has become riddled with extremism, misinformation, misguided priorities and downright deception. It is wonderful that this dogmatic conceit is now being effectively challenged. Here is the entire text of Lomborg's response to the attack from Scientific American: Bjrn Lomborg's comments to the 11-page critique in January 2002 Scientific American (SA), (in black) Substantially finished December 31, 2001; latest update February 16, 2002, 16:47:45 Background: Recently I have received - through informal channels - the final proofs of an 11 page feature in Scientific American, all of it devoted to a trashing of my recent book The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press 2001 (referred as SE in references). By now, it appears that I will be able to present my views in a 1- page article in the May issue of Scientific American. This document is my chance to put my arguments to the readers of Scientific American with much greater detail and documentation. References to various works are, unless otherwise noted, to the same sources as used in SE. The text comes from the final draft and has been transferred from pdf into Word, meaning that occasionally italics or words may have been dropped. Most of the layout has been retained in headings, subheadings and usage of capital lettering. The first page (p61) is an editorial by editor-in-chief, John Rennie, the other ten pages flow in three columns into each other, with a sentence on each page in very large font for interest. These sentences will be pointed out below, but may come from an editorial decision. On the web, Scientific American describes the collection of essays thus: (SA) Misleading Math about the Earth ESSAYS BY STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, JOHN P HOLDREN, JOHN BONGAARTS AND THOMAS LOVEJOY The book The Skeptical Environmentalist uses statistics to dismiss warnings about peril for the planet. But the science suggests that it's the author who is out of touch with the facts. Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist (BL) This statement is potentially the most surprising of all - that the following critique should be science defending itself against my book. In a sense this encapsulates the bias of the following critiques. My book clearly makes a claim to science and to be factually based. I openly state the facts and my sources, and thus anybody is free to point out where these are faulty or incorrect and of course, such errors will then be posted on my web site. Thus, there is no need to defend science from my book - any possible defeat of science was never the issue. The discussion is whether the statements in my book are correct or not. The need to make it sound like a battle of science against my book seems entirely to misplace and bias the focus. Rather, the standpoint that might need to defend itself from my book would be the alarmist environmentalism, and that is perhaps the headline that would make more sense: Alarmist environmentalism defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist. Because environmental sciences are so keenly important to both our biological and economic survival--causes that are often seen to be in conflict--they deserve full scrutiny. With that in mind, the book The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press), by Bjrn Lomborg's reply to Scientific American January 2002 critique, 16-Feb-02 16:47 2/32 Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, should be a welcome audit. As its subtitle--Measuring the Real State of the World-- indicates, Lomborg's intention was to reanalyze environmental data so that the public might make policy decisions based on the truest understanding of what science has determined. His conclusion, which he writes surprised even him, was that contrary to the gloomy predictions of degradation he calls "the litany," everything is getting better. Not that all is rosy, but the future for the environment is less dire than is supposed. Instead Lomborg accuses a pessimistic and dishonest cabal of environmental groups, institutions and the media of distorting scientists' actual findings. org) The problem with Lomborg's conclusion is that the scientists themselves disavow it. Many spoke to us at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN about their frustration at what they described as Lomborg's misrepresentation of their fields. His seemingly dispassionate outsider's view, they told us, is often marred by an incomplete use of the data or a misunderstanding of the underlying science. Even where his statistical analyses are valid, his interpretations are frequently off the mark--literally not seeing the state of the forests for the number of the trees, for example. And it is hard not to be struck by Lomborg's presumption that he has seen into the heart of the science more faithfully than have investigators who have devoted their lives to it; it is equally curious that he finds the same contrarian good news lurking in every diverse area of environmental science. Many scientists, both in private and publicly (eg statements on the book) have praised the book. Below, you will see that none of the claims of "misrepresentation", "incomplete use of data" and "misunderstanding of the underlying science" are substantiated. The only specific claim presented here by the editor is t... |
| wise.berkeley.edu The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment Welcome to WISE! WISE is a simple yet powerful learning environment where students examine real-world evidence and analyze current scientific controversies. Our c urriculum projects are designed to meet standards and complement your cu rrent science curriculum, and your grade 5-12 students will find them ex citing and engaging. A web browser is all they need to take notes, discu ss theories, and organize their arguments... Our Teacher Area lets you explore new projects and grade your student s' work on the Web. WISE remembers you The login screen now prefills the "username" field with the last successf ul login from your computer. |
| www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030709.html HHS Logo Bottom HHS Yellow Bar News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, July 9, 2003 Contact: FDA Press Office (301) 827-6242 HHS TO REQUIRE FOOD LABELS TO INCLUDE TRANS FAT CONTENTS Improved Labels Will Help Consumers Choose Heart-Healthy Foods HHS Secretary Tommy G Thompson announced today that food labels will be required to list the amount of unhealthy trans fatty acids, or trans fat , to give consumers better information when choosing their foods. The new requirement through the Department's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will mean that manufacturers of most conventional foods and some dietary supplements will have to list in the Nutrition Facts panel the t rans fat content of the product, in addition to the information about it s overall fat content and saturated fat content. The additional information will give consumers a more complete picture of fat content in foods -- allowing them to choose foods low in trans fat, saturated fat and cholesterol, all of which are associated with an incr eased risk of heart disease. Reducing the intake of trans fat and satura ted fats is recommended by the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans. "We are empowering Americans to make healthier choices about the foods th ey eat," Secretary Thompson said. "By putting trans fat information on f ood labels, we are making it possible for consumers to make better educa ted choices to lower their intake of these unhealthy fats and cholestero l It's just one more way we're helping consumers lead healthier lives." The announcement is another step in Secretary Thompson's efforts to give consumers better health information that allows them to take the right s teps to reduce their risk of disease, including making sound dietary cho ices. The new information is the first significant change o n the Nutrition Facts panel since it was established in 1993. The new labeling reflects scientific evidence showing that consumption of trans fat, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol raises low-density lip oprotein (LDL) cholesterol ("bad" cholesterol) levels that increase the risk of coronary heart disease. Nearly 13 million Americans suffer from coronary heart disease, and more than 500,000 die each year from causes related to coronary heart disease. Trans fat occurs in foods when manufacturers use hydrogenation, a process in which hydrogen is added to vegetable oil in order to turn the oil in to a more solid fat. Trans fat is often but not always found in the same foods as saturated fat, such as vegetable shortening, some margarines, crackers, candies, cookies, snack foods, fried foods, baked goods, salad dressings, and other processed foods. "Our choices about our diets are choices about our health, and those choi ces should be based on the best available scientific information. This l abel change means that trans fat can no longer lurk, hidden, in our food choices," said Mark B McClellan, MD, PhD, commissioner of FDA. "Am ericans will now be armed with better information to reduce their intake of saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol - which could significantly lower the risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in America today." By providing more useful information to consumers seeking a healthy diet, the new labels are expected to reduce the costs of illness and disease for Americans. The new label is part of the department's broader efforts to more effecti vely inform consumers about the health consequences of their dietary cho ices. The agency hopes to improve the nutrition label to provide clearer , up-to-date guidance on a healthy overall diet. FDA is also working to increase the focus on health in food product development and promotion, as well as encouraging research that would foster greater science-based competition among food producers to improve health. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at HHS' National Ins titutes of Health (NIH) supports the new labeling. "Trans fat, like saturated fat and dietary cholesterol, raises LDL "bad" cholesterol levels in the blood, which increases the risk for heart dise ase," said Dr. "It is therefore desir able to have food labels display all the information that can help consu mers choose foods low in saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol as par t of a healthy diet." This phase-in period minimizes the need for multiple labeling changes and allows small businesses to use up current label inventories. The FDA will allow manufacturers to implement the change more quickly, and in f act expects many manufacturers to start listing trans fat content soon. Examples of dietary supplements that may contain trans fat ar e energy and nutrition bars. The new requirements are included in final FDA regulations to be publishe d in the Friday, July 11, Federal Register. FDA today also is issuing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to so licit information and data that could lead to further changes in nutriti on and product labels related to trans fat, saturated fat, and cholester ol. "While giving consumers accurate information about the trans fat content of their foods is an important step forward, we must do more to help con sumers improve their nutrition," said Dr. "Consequently, we a re also giving notice that we intend to take further steps to increase c onsumer understanding of the importance of limiting consumption of trans fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol in their diet." In particular, comments in response to FDA's notice could assist the agen cy in further action to establish: * new nutrient content claims about trans fat, for example, claims that a product is "low in trans fat" on its label; FDA is also requesting comments on whether it should consider statements about trans fat, either alone or in combination with saturated fat and c holesterol; as a footnote in the Nutrition Facts panel (for example, to modify the recommended daily amount of trans and saturated fat and chole sterol to encourage limiting intake of all three); or as a disclosure st atement in conjunction with claims to enhance consumers' understanding a bout such cholesterol-raising lipids and how to use the information to m ake heart-healthy food choices. |
| drcranton.com/nutrition/bread.htm Disclaimer MODERN BREAD, THE BROKEN STAFF OF LIFE by Elmer M Cranton, MD Modern technology has transformed bread, once the staff of life, into a m ere broken reed, contributing to widespread vitamin and mineral deficien cies. This has occurred in Western industrialized countries where few pe ople go hungry? Bread is used here as just one example of similar proces ses that degrades our food supply on its way from the farm to the consum er. To get the conveniences of high-tech food processing, mass-production, ma ss-marketing, long shelf life, uniformity of final product, even colorat ion, and soft texture, we create nutritional deficiencies. The food proc essing industry deceptively markets its products as more convenient vers ions of what grandmother once did in her kitchen. Most of today's mass-produced foods are seriously depleted of nutrients a nd are highly chemicalized with additives. Processed foods today are not just more sophisticated and more convenient versions of the foods eaten by our ancestors. A wide spectrum of essential nutrients has been remov ed in the manufacturing process. The basic molecular structure of what r emains is also degraded and nutritionally inferior. Until recently, grains were ground between large stones to make flour. Ev erything in the original grain remained in the finished product, includi ng the germ, the fiber, the starch, and a wide spectrum of vitamins and minerals. The final product contained all the naturally occurring vitami ns, minerals and micronutrients. In the absence of refrigeration, stone-ground flour spoils quickly. After wheat has been ground, natural wheat-germ oil becomes rancid at about t he same rate that milk becomes sour. Whole-wheat flour and bread should therefore be stored in a cool place, preferably in a refrigerator. Hippocrates, a physician in ancient Greece, once recommended stone-ground flour, complete with its vitamins, minerals, natural bran and dietary f iber, for beneficial effects on the digestive tract. Today, three-fourth s of that dietary fiber is removed from commercial flour. During the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, assembly-line techniques for mass-producing flour and bread were developed. Grinding stones were not fast enough for mass-production. High-speed, steel rolle r mills were invented, to produce flour very rapidly. High-speed mills do not grind the germ and the bra n properly and it is ejected. Much of the original grain, including the most nutritious portion, is taken out and sold as "byproducts" for anima ls. It's been cynica lly observed that more profit can be made from healthy animals and sick people. High-speed mills run very hot, at 400 degrees Fahrenheit, just under the temperature that will burn and discolor the flour. That diet is much less nutritious than in former times and n ew types of disease have become common. The incidence of tooth decay correlates perfectly throughout th e world with industrialization and the use of refined foods--especially white flour and sugar. Most bread is now manufactured in large factories capable of producing up to a quarter million loaves per day. This mass-produced bread is soft, gooey, devitalized, and nutritionally deficient--laced with chemical add itives. Chemical preservatives allow bread to be shipped long distances and to remain on the shelf for many days without spoiling and without refrigeration. To make bread a brighter white, at the expense of consumer health, flour is treated with chemical bleach, similar to Clorox. The bleaching proces s leaves residues of toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons and dioxins. Methion ine, an essential amino acid, reacts with bleaching chemicals to form me thionine sulfoxine. That toxic residue causes nervousness and seizures i n animals. The bleaching process destroys many vitamins (those not already destroyed by the high heat of milling). Bleaching agents have therefore been bann ed for breadmaking in Germany since 1958. In the United States, however, no such ban exists and the bleached bread continues to be the mainstay. Most white flour used in super-market bread, rolls, cakes, pastries, sp aghetti, noodles, pasta, and breakfast cereals, has been bleached. Grain millers in the nineteenth century soon discovered that highly refin ed flour would keep without spoiling for prolonged periods, even before the days of chemical preservatives and refrigeration. It's now clear ref ined flour is so depleted of essential vitamins and minerals that it wil l not support life. Experiments were reported in a major British medical journal, The Lancet, showing that dogs fed exclusively on white bread died of malnutrition w ithin two months. Dogs similarly fed only bread made with stone-ground, whole-wheat flour lived indefinitely in good health. Chemicals continue to be added to super-market breads in large numbers, d espite increasing reports that similar chemicals previously thought to b e safe are potential causes of cancer. More than 30 different chemicals are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for addition to bread, including ethylated mono and triglycerides, potassium bromate, potassium iodide, calcium proprionate, benzoyl peroxide, tricalcium phosphate, ca lcium sulfate, ammonium chloride and magnesium carbonate. These are all routinely added to bread to extend shelf life, despite the fact that lit tle is known about their long-term cumulative toxicity, when taken toget her. If you don't already read labels, you'll be shocked when you do. When grain is made into refined white flour, more than 30 essential nutri ents are largely removed. Only four of those nutrients are added back in a process called "enrichment." Using this same logic, if a person were robbed of 30 dollars and the thief then returned 4 dollars to his victim for cab fare home, then that person should be considered "enriched" by 4 dollars, not robbed of 26 dollars. You should feel the same about "enriched" white flour and bread? If consumers would just educate themselves in the principles of goo d nutrition and show an educated preference at the checkout counter, the food industry would be forced to respond with more nutritious products. Iron, the single mineral added back to enriched white flour, is present i n toxic amounts in the bodies of many older people. Iron contributes wid ely to premature atherosclerosis, heart attacks, strokes, arthritis, can cer and other age-related diseases. It is quite possible that enrichment of flour with iron has been poisoning the public for decades. Avoidance of unneeded iron supplementation is reason enough in itself not to buy so-called "enriched" flour products. Much of the bread now marke ted as "whole-wheat bread" is the same old refined white bread with a li ttle brown coloring added. That coloring is usually burnt sugar, listed on the label as caramel. One manufacturer even added sawdust to replace the lost bran, calling it cellulose on the label and advertising it as " high-fiber" bread. It is legal to describe inferior flour as "whole whea t" on the label, even when the bran and germ have been removed in high-s peed roller mills. It is slow and more expensive to mass-produce bread made with l00% stone- ground whole-wheat flour. Manufacturers go to great lengths to mislead t he public by making inferior products appear of higher quality. To market nutritious whole-grain, unrefined bread over lo ng distances would require refrigerator trucks for delivery and refriger ator storage in super-markets. Even under refrigeration, spoilage would be faster than with chemicalized bread. That would add greatly to expens e Profits would be smaller. Production of truly nutritious bread theref ore falls to small local bakeries, which sell direct or deliver daily to nearby stores. Scientific evidence implicates a low-fiber diet of refined flour as one c ause of bowel cancer. Without bran, transit time through the digestive t ract is greatly lengthened. Constipation results, causing hemorrhoids, d iverticulitis and increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. Ideally, one should buy wheat in sa cks, grind the grain at home and quickly bake it into bread. A... |