Slashdot Mirror
When Celebrities Speak on Science
Timberwolf0122 writes to mention that the website Sense About Science is encouraging stars not to comment on scientific issues without at least checking their facts. A somewhat amusing article on the BBC matches up a few comments made by celebrities with the factual reaction from experts in the field of study tackled by their blunder.
Celeb says: expert says: Yes, the body has a certain tolerance against synthetical chemicals, otherwise we wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that certain chemicals you encounter in food, etc. doesn't have a bad effect on the body. In some cases we just don't know yet, and I believe this is what the celeb was saying.
Celeb says: expert says: The Celeb wasn't talking about food additives, but chemicals the animals receive and that is scientifically proven to cause problems. For example the documentary, "The Corporation", has a lengthy segment about harm caused by synthetic chemicals as told by an expert - Samuel Epstein (professor emeritus of environmental medicine, university of Illinois). The relevant example shown is the case with the Monsanto drug posilac. That drug is increasing the milk production of cows, at the expense of immense suffering on behalf of the cows and as it turned out it posed a health hazard to humans aswell. Although this is not an example of 'cancer', the prof specifically mentioned the history of synthetic chemicals. At first warning signs and then data emerged about the unintended consequences of the petrochemical era, that some of the chemicals that permiated through the food chain produce cancer, birth defects and other toxic effects.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/
Not sure why this wasn't in the BBC article...
From a textbook on inorganic toxicology I read many years ago, and I'm paraphrasing: almost every inorganic substance that is toxic at one dosage level is needed by the body at another level, or is chemically similar to another substance that is needed by the body. The one exception they listed was arsenic. Iron is needed by humans, yet large amounts of iron is toxic. Iodine is used by the body, but its also a poison in high doses. Stronium is chemically similar to calcium, which is used by the body. This is why its absorbed if there is a deficiency in calcium.
Inorganic toxicology has a triad that determines toxicity for a given species: substance, exposure method, and dosage. Example: drinking a pint of water is generally not harmful. Inhaling a pint of water could be.
Note: I am not a doctor nor a toxicologist, nor do I play one one tv nor the internet. The above information was gathered while investigating what I that was a simple question "what is the most toxic substance in the world?", which turns out to be a far more complicated than I first thought.
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0
That's where he gets most of his mis-information, particularly about psychology. He makes it sound like real science because that's how L.Ron Hubbard spoke and wrote.
Don't ask me how I know, I just do.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
You start your post with: "I love when people claim Fox News biased and then never cite examples..."
And yet you finish with: "Whether you like it or not, all the polls, studies, and research done has shown a left-of-center bias in the press." Yet, you don't site even one pole, study or a bit of research regarding this.
I would be amazed if _ALL_ studies showed a left-of-center bias in the ALL the press. In fact this study (the first one I could find) found that while most news organizations have left-leaning bias, Fox News and The Washington Times are both right-of-center.