Debunkers dot Org

A Tradition of Looking Behind the Curtain
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:00 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Science
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:45 am
Posts: 8222
Versus Science.

And the article seems to soft-pedal the fact that the one regulatory agency is, in effect, cherry picking its data to reach the conclusion it wants.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Science
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:06 pm
Posts: 1642
Location: South Carolina
...takes the view that if one study has a positive result it can outweigh negative studies, even if there are more negative than positive ones.

I'm no scientist. I just think that's weird. Is it normal?

_________________
Y gwir yn erbyn y byd.

(BTW, I'm on Facebook, so friend me, already - since it's just us here, the name is Ceridwen Keeley.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Science
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:45 am
Posts: 3575
Location: Toronto
More likely if one study has a positive result it will be published thereby outweighing negative studies because they won't get published.

_________________
Winter is coming.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Science
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:45 am
Posts: 8222
Jeff Norman wrote:
More likely if one study has a positive result it will be published thereby outweighing negative studies because they won't get published.


Yes. Publication bias is a serious problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Science
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:06 pm
Posts: 1642
Location: South Carolina
But, that isn't what it said. This group checked studies that were, presumably, both negative and positive, but gave more credence, or more weight, or thought better of, the positive ones, even if there are more negative studies than positive ones, even if there is only one positive study and a kudzillion negative ones. The rest of it goes on to talk about how the two agencies have different goals, and view things in different contexts.

Quote:
In other words, IARC is tasked with highlighting anything that might in certain conditions, however rare, be able to cause cancer in people.

EFSA, on the other hand, is concerned with real life risks and whether, in the case of glyphosate, there is evidence to show that when used in normal conditions, the pesticide poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.


See, that's what I think is weird. The one agency thinks that, if only one apple is rotten, then anyone who has ever eaten an apple has been poisoned. The other agency looks at the apples, sees that yes, there are some rotten ones, but not everyone who has ever eaten an apple has been poisoned. Isn't giving more weight to a single positive study when there are more negative ones the same thing as fear-mongering?

Okay, am going to edit this, because I thought of something even better than apples. This'll teach me to post before my coffee's even done making. Then, the power went out, the son got upset, the grandkid and last-born were hollering down the stairs to see if it was the whole house or just their circuit-breaker...

The one agency will tell you that vaccines cause autism, because there was one study that said so, even though there have been many more studies that show that vaccines do not. If only one child is harmed, and it's even remotely possible that vaccines did it, then vaccines are dangerous.

_________________
Y gwir yn erbyn y byd.

(BTW, I'm on Facebook, so friend me, already - since it's just us here, the name is Ceridwen Keeley.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Science
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:03 pm
Posts: 1075
Location: Surfing thru Cyberspace
So this is my life: hazard versus risk. And the unmentioned, but increasingly present, "precautionary principle" that essentially says if there's any hazard from a product (or a component of a product) that it should be removed from commerce.

I'll give another example that may resonate: According to "everyone", phthalates, and especially DEHP, are hazardous based on numerous rodent studies over the last few decades. There is other evidence, also based on numerous studies, that the mechanism of toxicity displayed in rodents doesn't actually exist in humans - so there's no way for phthalates to affect humans in the same way as rodents. But still phthalates are labeled as hazardous, including as carcinogens and reprotoxins based on the rodent studies.

Blood bags are made of PVC (vinyl) and use a plasticizer to soften the plastic and give it properties necessary for a good blood bag (and the tubes connected to it). The plasticizer used is DEHP, a phthalate. Why is a known carcinogen and reprotoxin used in the most intimate exposure, directly contacting blood?! Because DEHP also has an interesting property of leaching out of the blood bag, into the blood, and somehow forming a protective solution with the blood that extends the life of the blood by about 100%. So instead of our blood supply lasting 21-22 days, storage in DEHP-containing blood bags allows the blood to last 42 days. That is HUGE!

When a Nordic country had meetings between its health ministry and its EPA, the EPA administrator asked the health minister why in the world they allow DEHP in blood bags when the EPA was trying to remove it from ALL other applications? The health minister summarized their stance thusly: the EPA has the advantage of making broad directives and decisions based on the hazards identified in any number of studies, without consideration of exposure, while the health ministry absolutely must make decisions based on actual risks. In the case of DEHP in blood bags, the risks of not allowing it far, far outweigh the risks associated with halving the blood supply. The difference is thousands of deaths annually as a result of blood shortages versus theoretical illnesses associated with exposures many years later, if ever. That's the best way to frame these sorts of differences for people to understand the real-world consequences of hazard-based decision-making.

Back to the Glyphosate question, the NGOs are either being disingenuous or they are really that ignorant of how the real world works. It's the way they (try to) see everything as black or white that is particularly annoying and should be a warning sign to any thinking person. Alas it seems rare for folks to see through the rhetoric.

_________________
I don't run. If you see me running, you probably should run, too.

BetterOffRacing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Americanized by Xaphos © 2007, 2008 phpBB.fr