The New York Post planted a Jessica Simpson look-alike in the stands at Giants Stadium in an attempt to distract Dallas quarterback Tony Romo. Heh. Don't get any ideas, San Diego.
And now for something totally different:
The Worst Science Stories of 2007: STATS Dubious Data Awards
(For the record, though, I would support a ban on plastic water bottles, but not for "toxic chemicals," just because they create so much trash. Remember the floating continent of trash?) I think my training as an empirical scientist has led me to view stories like the ones mentioned in the article with a large dose of skepticism. Show me the experimental data with controls, or I probably won't believe you.
(link courtesy of Tom)
2 comments:
How can the author dismiss (or not even mention) the fact that NIOSH, ATSDR, EPA, EU Directive 2003/15/EEC, California Prop. 65 etc., all recognize that phthalates are known reproductive and developmental toxicants or can cause other harmful health affect?
The author is on the right track when he alludes to the fact that there is no conclusive data linking some chemicals to cancer—and that’s because there are NO tests. For example, there are over 10,500 chemicals found in cosmetic products, 89% of those chemicals have not been tested for safety by any publicly accountable agencies. In fact, manufacturers are not even required to conduct pre-market safety testing before the products are sold. Shampoos, lotions, shaving creams, deodorants, lipstick, nail polish, etc. contain chemicals that we know NOTHING about. I could go on and on and on….
If being concerned about the health impacts of phthalates makes me a phthalatophobia, then I proudly call myself a Phthalatophobia.
PS Yes, that was a button. And you pushed it!
Oh Tina, I've missed you. Agreed that the authors didn't mention that some of those chemicals likely are harmful, so it isn't the best example....I think their critiques of sociology stats towards the bottom of the article were better examples.
Post a Comment