James Delingpole takes a look at the atrazine crusade and endocrine disruptor research.
Dr. Hayes says its a conspiracy–those big bad ag chemical people who make it possible to feed so many. Delingpole comments very effectively.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366686/endocrine-disruptors-scare-james-delingpole
In Europe food safety concerns about endocrine disruption have people wringing their hands, politicians enshrine the precautionary principle, for fear of chemical that threaten the sexual identities of humans. Who cares if the research can’t be reproduced and the targeted chemical, atrazine, or other alleged endocrine disrupters like BPA have repeatedly been shown safe.
In the case of atrazine it is very beneficial for agriculture and food production will decline if it is banned in Europe.
You might recall that JunkScience.com has repeatedly and comprehensively addressed endocrine disruptor claims.
Many years ago two of my favorite people Milloy and Gough, wrote insightfully about the endocrine disrupter panic in Congress.
A fine University, Tulane, took a hit early on when their disruptor research group had to withdraw a paper from publication, but the crusade has legs because of chemophobia and HL Mencken’s reminder about the goal of practical politics–panic the public so they will be clamorous to be led to safety even if they are afraid of imagined threats that Mencken called hobgoblins.
Now the great University U CAL has Dr. Hayes as a tenured professor, a researcher busy looking for frogs with ambiguous genitalia that he can blame on endocrine disruption, that appears to be another mythical threat. He also claims a corporate conspiracy that is damaging his reputation or his resaerch opportunities.
Here is the Gough and Milloy essay on how the Congress got stampeded on disruptors about 15 years ago. Politicians are sometimes their own worst enemies, searching for chances to be saviors and heroes, fighting terrible enemies like chemical dragons and sinister evil corporate monsters. Using their legislative swords to slay the beasts.
http://junkscience.com/1997/08/25/junk-science-its-the-law/
Some other entries in this link to JunkScience archives.
http://junkscience.com/?s=endocrine+disrupters
I just did! All the pertinent links are in my post above. Basically, the “fracktards” (as they are called here in Colorado) are trying to claim that fracking fluids contain endocrine disruptors. No one commenting on the issue seems to be aware that “endocrine disruptors” aren’t real.
Go for it!
Great quotes thank you.
And another:
Science is supposed to be questioned, critically and not politically. Consensus is not the basis of science and Perception is not the basis for Reality.
Billy 2013 from a dark corner.
I thought the two quotes were quite good, thanks. I will put them with my mencken
remind me.
been at work and may have not taken any action.
—————————
“Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good” – Thomas Sowell
————————–
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” — Groucho Marx
Speaking of endocrine disruptors — John, have you taken any action on that news story I sent you the other day?
For the rest of you, it’s about anti-fracking activists, or what I call “fracktards” claiming to find endocrine disruptors in Colorado River water:
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/160521
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association is fighting it —
http://www.ncbr.com/article/20131220/NEWS/131229994
— but I don’t think they realize that the whole “endocrine disruptor” thing is a myth. They might need some help from you guys.
I’m pretty sure that a scientific study will reveal that fear mongering results in physical and mental harm in the misinformed.
Yet the fear mongers refuse to stop.
That was a nice thing to say. Thanks.
Thank you sir. I couldn’t have said it better.
This is a very contentious area of research. Having conducted many studies addressing potential endocrine disruption, it is clear that everything may be considered a potential culprit. However, under educated, scientifically, regulators and well-meaning public are quick to pull the Precautionary Principle out of their bag of illogical comments to argue that a chemical may have a risk. If they are worried about the feminization effects to males, I suggest that “Pajama Boy” which may be a result of signing up for Obama care, may be more of a problem to feminization of males.
The fight and controversy over endocrine disruptors will continue to stifle much of the science-based research on many chemicals.