|
I've been watching it unfold with interest. For various reasons. When the pet food recall happened last year, we got a bunch of calls on it at work, and I also found myself frantically checking my pets' food labels. Ever since, 'melamine' is one of those words that grabs my attention if its in the news.
Recently, one of my bosses sent out a link to this article , and IMHO, it is by far the best media report I've seen. It might be because, I dunno, they actually interviewed a scientist?
Anyway, I have more to say about this thing. But I had to get up at 5:15 today to come to work, so I'm too tired right now. Mostly, I'm thinking that people in general aren't very good at evaluating risks in their lives. Parents are even worse.
Most will happily strap their kid into a car and take a drive on the freeway without second thought. And yet, reveal that there's trace amounts of a scary 'chemical' in their kids food - a chemical that's probably been there in trace amounts all the time and has never shown to cause any effect - and suddenly they freak the fuck out.
I deal with it every day at work. And I often find myself in the odd position of defending the EPA or FDA. Odd because I'm as critical of them as anyone - probably more so, in fact. But I hate hate hate people who expect the government to wrap them and their precious kids in silk covered bubble wrap.
Here's my half-awake take home message - and this goes out as well to those parents who use sanitizer on everything before allowing their kid to touch it - there are going to be trace contaminants in your life. This is unavoidable. Learn to choose your battles. Look around and access ALL the risks in your life. GET SOME PERSPECTIVE. Also, don't expect some kind of extreme, extensive government oversight without a huge cost. Science takes money. Pony it up, and maybe we can talk about that bubble wrap you think you want so badly.
|
|
Of all the responses to the recent HHS idiocy about contraceptives, this is my favorite.
"... millions of Americans presently work at gyms, swimming pools, parks, or other recreational facilities where they may be required to encourage or collaborate in exercise by women. Research published last year in a British journal of gynecology demonstrated that, as with caffeine, "exercise early in pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage." Again, to avoid abortifacient risk in women who are not yet pregnant, the draft regulation must guarantee the right to withhold any collaboration in exercise by women of childbearing age."
|
|
There is an awesome article published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute last week called "False-Positive Results in Cancer Epidemiology: A Plea for Epistemological Modesty".
Reading it was like a breath of fresh air. All you ever hear in the media is that a 'new study shows such-and-such can cause cancer (exclamation point)". Usually that "study" wasn't a controlled experiment at all, but an epidemiological survey of some kind. Epidemiology doesn't always give results that you can apply to the entire human population, and only gives very limited insight into diseases. It's valuable, but too often misused, both by the media, and the scientists publishing the data who know that a sensational article will bring them more fame.
This is why I like science, though. No matter what problems or misleading information gets out there, you've also got plenty of level-headed people who can publish articles like this to help keep balance across the board.
|
|
Here's something funny!
 (I'm the one holding the squid)
|
|
PETA is doing something kind of cool: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-fake-meatapr21,1,7351841.story
They announced today that they'll give $1 million to the "first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012."
I personally love the idea of fake meat. I have no problem with eating animals (obviously), but animal protein is expensive to raise, and meeting a growing worldwide demand for it means commercial operations are often cruel to the animals and messy for the environment. I can get around supporting that kind of crap by buying local, happy, pasture-raised, humanely slaughtered animals or hunting it myself, but there's very few people in the world who are in my (rather privileged) position. It would be great if there was an efficient and economical way to grow meat without the inconvenience of silly things like intelligence and pain receptors and waste products.
It's interesting that Newkirk is the driving force behind this. It's such a pragmatic and common-sense move from a lady who is certifiably insane. I also think it's hilarious that she's getting flak from others within the organization because some PETAns find eating any animal protein unacceptable, even if it's raised in a test tube.
$1 million dollars is a pretty dinky prize for advancing a new technology. According to the same article linked above, the Netherlands has already spent $5 million in fake meat research. And a deadline of less than 4 years from now also seems like a joke.
So, it's not terribly well thought-out, and of course it pisses me off that the prize money is coming from PETA, which probably means it was raised through lying to well-meaning pet lovers, but I can't help but admire the move just a little bit. If you're a crazy vegan out to impose your views on the rest of the world, what better way to stop people from eating meat than provide them with a cheaper alternative? Violence just hasn't been working for them, and they've been caught out in many of their lies http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ ; maybe they're finally coming to their senses and trying a different, more practical, (and ethical), tactic.
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cyborgsuzy's journal