One question, how does this researcher propose to do this research?
So here’s the precautionary principle hard at work.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/2/28/270798/Human-Pharmaceuticals-In-Our-Lakes.aspx
Trace amounts of drugs in the water and how do they affect the flora and fauna?
What an ambitious project and so many opportunities for “finding” an effect or effects.
Those who follow our discussions know the mischief that can occur when one is involved in an observational study with multiple inquiries.
And we can always benefit from some creative thinking, like blaming the drugs for effects that were not found in safety studies, looking for “effects” in the populations of various insects/plants/animals/fish/amphibians/reptiles.
Looking for an effect that may be random, but with the new rules in epi on small associations, the opportunities abound.
The researcher does have the benefit of knowing what the drugs are supposed to do, but then there are so many other “effects” that could happen and so many different organisms to study.
Think he’ll find something? Bet on it.
And of course now we have safety tested drugs being treated as pollutants and toxins?
Insights above are all exceptional. multiple inquiry makes for junk science, also sloppy tox.
Prepare for the barrage of backwards statistics. Chemical X is found in the blood of 85% of all underdeveloped baby otters! No it’s not relevant that it’s also found in 85% of healthy otters. No it doesn’t matter that underdeveloped otters only comprise 2.3% of all otters exposed to Chemical X. Why would you even ask that? No we didn’t actually do any blood test on otters; it’s an epidemiological study. You wouldn’t understand. All you need to know is that by cross-referencing 23 different decade old studies on widely varied topics we’ve conclusively proven that Chemical X will cause delayed fetal development in humans. Look at all these CHARTS!
But hey, these methods convinced the world that tobacco causes cancer and we were kind of right about that so it’s a good thing right?
John has it right. We can measure very trace amount of drugs. Make that very very trace amounts. And there are very many of these drugs. And there are very many health effects. We can easily, with gov funding, ask thousands of questions. The nature of statistical testing, done wrong, is that by chance 5% of these questions will be “statistically significant”. Journal editors let “scientists” get away with this junk. Gov agencies fund this junk. There ought to be a law! Ask your house member to support House 4012.
If the drugs had a licorice smell, people would be worried.
They would even display whatever symptoms were listed on the evening news.