Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I hope Obama does not pick RFK, Jr as head of EPA or Interior

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:42 PM
Original message
I hope Obama does not pick RFK, Jr as head of EPA or Interior
This is a really, really bad idea. He is an anti-vaccine crank and also temperamentally unsuited to the job, given his tendency to call his oponents Nazis. This would be politicizing science, on a par with many of Bush's policies. What we need is someone who knows the science and is a good administrator. RFK Jr is a lawyer; he knows nothing about science. There are plenty of people with science degrees or with a lot of experience on the issues (whether it is EPA or Interior) that would do a much better job. This is not about throwing a bone to progessives. The progressive, environmentalist agenda is not served by appointing anti-science cranks anywhere near these agencies. I can't remember who headed these agencies under Clinton but I am sure they would be a better choice than RFK Jr.

I am a scientist and believe that an Obama Administration is vastly superior to a McCain administration in terms of science and environmental policies. Still, those policies need to be based on sound science and cannot be used a political tool to keep progressives happy. Too many progressives (just like too much of the American population in general) are scientifically illiterate and we could do a lot better.


Here is a science blogger talking about this:

...So what? You say. The Head of the EPA doesn't have anything to do with vaccines. True enough. But RFK, Jr. has demonstrated himself on this issue not only to be prone to dubious science, but to have become a true believer in one of the most outrageous and dangerous forms of pseudoscience out there: antivaccinationism, or vaccine rejectionism. If you're trying to build an administration ostensibly devoted to using the best science as the basis for public policy, and the EPA is one agency where that is incredibly important, you do not want someone who is so prone to pseudoscience and promoting misinformation running that agency. Moreover, RFK, Jr's tendency to play fast and loose with science goes beyond mercury in vaccines and into the very area where he claims expertise, the environment, where he blames Katrina on global warming, for instance (not even Al Gore does that). Indeed, his assaults on fact and science are legendary, right up to describing the small Cuyahoga River fire (which lasted only 30 minutes and was never caught on film) as "exploding in colossal infernos." Apparently, any "science" is good to him, as long as it appears to support his agenda. Add to that his "not in my backyard" hypocrisy in opposing a proposal to build wind power turbines off of Martha's Vineyard, and it's hard for me to comprehend how Obama could consider him for a post even for a moment.

Indeed, his autism crankery aside, let's not forget also that RFK, Jr. is utterly unqualified to run a major government agency, his environmentalist activities notwithstanding. The EPA is a sprawling bureaucracy charged with converting environmental law into concrete regulations and then enforcing those regulations. It takes a strong managerial skill set to run such an organization. Is there any evidence that RFK, Jr. has the managerial chops to run a bureaucracy as large and complex as the EPA? None that I can see. Certainly he doesn't have the temperament for such a task. He's always seeing dark conspiracies everywhere and is prone to fly off the handle and conflate policy disagreements with evil in the form of Adolf Hitler. (The Hitler Zombie has feasted well and long on RFK, Jr.'s brain!) I wonder if he'll start seeing dark conspiracies against him whenever things don't go his way as Head of the EPA or Secretary of the Interior. I think you know the answer to that one. After all, he's been quoted thusly about reporters who don't report what he thinks they should report, "They should all drink poison Kool Aid and restore integrity to their profession." Indeed, the only good thing about RFK, Jr. in the EPA would be the amusement and schadenfreude that his likely hyperbolic attacks on his former allies the first time policy differences lead them to sue the EPA over an environmental issue would provide. That's the only good thing, though.

Finally, not only would letting RFK, Jr. anywhere near Interior or the EPA allow him to insinuate his pseudoscience into government policy, RFK, Jr. would be a profound embarrassment to the embryonic Obama Administration right from the start. His temperament, his tendency towards conspiracy-mongering and calling his opponents "Nazis" or "traitors," and his credulity towards pseudoscience that allows him to cast himself as the Great Defender Of The Underdog would provide endless ammunition for Republicans to use against the Obama Administration. Worse, in most cases Obama's opponents would be right: RFK, Jr. could be expected to politicize science every bit as much as the Bush Administration was accused of doing, just from a different political viewpoint. If the Bush Administration's politicizing of science was so bad, why should it be any more acceptable from Democrats?

It shouldn't.

I voted for Obama in part because, after eight years of the Bush Administration, I hoped that Obama would be pro-science where the Republicans politicized beyond recognition science that conflicts with their ideology. I still have that hope, but it's being shaken by these increasingly plausible reports that RFK, Jr. is indeed being seriously considered for either a Cabinet post or to lead the EPA. While it's understandable that Democrats might want some push-back after eight years out of the Executive Branch, the way to stop the politicization of science is not to replace Republican ideologues and cranks with Democrat ideologues and cranks. That's exactly what putting the antivaccine crank RFK, Jr. anywhere near a government position would be. All Obama would succeed in doing is to make antivaccinationists very, very happy, antivaccinationists like Ginger Taylor.

more:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/say_it_aint_so_barack_say_you_aint_serio.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. RFK Jr. is dangerously unqualified for the job.
I've had enough of scientifically illiterate cronies under the Bush administration.

This would be the first real mistake of the Obama administration. Here's hoping it's a just a rumor. Apparently Sebelius is being considered for the job. She'd be a much better pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The difference between a Democrat and a repug is the willingness
to ask for advice and learn. What one scientist would you suggest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I'm not suggesting any science.
In fact, I'm willing to bet a lawyer might be better suited for an administrative role.

The problem with Kennedy isn't that he doesn't know much about science, but that he's anti-science.

As bad as any Creationist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
...of J.Temperance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Kathleen Sebelius would be a wonderful choice
She's been very impressive as Governor of Kansas.

I also agree that Robert Kennedy Jr is far too off the deep end and also unqualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
174. She is the top politician on my list, too, but....
Do we really want a politician?

How about a prestigious member of the National Academy of Sciences who specializes in chemistry or an environmental/natural resource economists currently heading a university department somewhere?

Or maybe we should change the position to a three member board composed of political/science/economic specialties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. dangerously unqualified?
sounds like a release from the McCain campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #46
86. Sounds like HE is from the McCain campaign.
He's the intellectual equivalent of Sarah Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. what a load of horseshit
The last time I saw such a inane campaign against RFK Jr. as this one, it was coming from right-wingers bent on tearing at liberals by tearing at the Kennedys. I'm sure you'd find a welcome forum for this horseshit on FR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. The last time I saw a scientifically illiterate son of a real politician...
It was GWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. GWB shared your fondness for innuendo
. . . and character attacks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. GWB shares your fondness for cronyism and quackery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. cronyism? GWB shares your fondness for dissembling
All of your choices for this position will be political neophytes?

This is just an attack on RFK Jr., not some defense against 'cronyism.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. What on earth makes you think RFK Jr. is qualified for the position?
His name. That's what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #104
110. ha! textbook . . .
. . . attack on my innuendo and character. Complete with a lame substitution of my view and motives with your biased invention.

Classic McCainian politics. Inspiring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. You realize the irony of your comments, right?
Accusing me of innuendo and character assassination, this whole time comparing me to McCain?

You dodged the question, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. I'm glad that wasn't lost on you
And, I'm not going to spend my time posting a substantive defense of RFK Jr.'s qualifications in response to your baiting patter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. That's because you haven't got a substantive defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. sure I do
It's the exact same response-in-kind we use when the right-wing engages in similar vacuous character attacks based on innuendo and bluster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #116
337. I haven't baited you. You can feel free to post your substantive defense right here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #110
178. Nice complete failure to answer the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #104
249. shouldn't the head of epa love the environment and have a passion for it?
or does it have to be another christine todd whitman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #249
252. Yes.
He should also be able to make rational decisions.

I don't want another Sarah Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #252
257. is this all about the thimerosal/mercury that kennedy was talking about? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #257
259. That's the lion's share of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #259
260. but from what i recall he wasn't saying thevaccine itself was bad
he was saying we need to stop putting thimerosal in the vaccines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #260
261. Worse than that.
1. He claimed that thimerosal caused autism. Factually untrue.

2. He claimed the MMR vaccine causes autism. The MMR contains no thimerosal.

3. He claimed a vast conspiracy was behind this vicious assault on children.

4. He claimed his critics were launching a vicious attack on the mothers of children with autism.

Keep in mind, this is the guy who gave a lecture at Ramtha's School for Enlightnment.

Yes, Ramtha. The 35,000 disembodied spirit from Atlantis.

I'm not making that up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #261
296. Link to your "vast conspiracy" comment claim.
Or STFU. And try to do it without linking to a RW site. I dare you.

He gave a speech at Ramtha's school? Did he also meet Bill Ayers at some point?

What a load of right wing garbage this thread is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #296
301. Read it and weep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #301
305. The words "vast conspiracy" appear nowhere in that text. Sorry, you fail. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #305
345. I never said the text did contain those words.
However, Kennedy does claim there's a vast conspiracy between the government, pharmaceutical companies, and thousands of doctors and scientists to secretly give children autism.

I win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
101. DLC.... McCain campaign.... same difference
Bobby is imminently qualified to head Interior or the EPA, but since the pharma lobbyists here seem to hate him so much, maybe he should head up the FDA?

The purpose here is someone to REGULATE these fucking reckless corporations, not rubberstamp them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS dislike RFK
He's an pseudoscientific CRANK who despite taking NO science or having any education in the area has made up his mind on anti-vaccine woo. So I guess NIH and WHO and THE UN who have all debunked his shit mean nothing?
This has nothing to do with FDA regulation this has to do with basic biology. The man does NOT understand it...I'M more qualified to run a scientific enterprise than Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #106
168. You mean the guys that shouted down universal health care in the 1930s?
And have regularly managed to kill it every time its come up? Sorry, let them stick to their urine samples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #168
212. Very well said, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #168
241. Scientists and doctors shot down universal health care in the 1930s?
Was this before or after they killed the Loch Ness Monster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #168
313. Oh yes the people of today
are EXACTLY the same as the people of the 30's.
Stereotype much? You sir are a BIGOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #106
237. Word
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
105. Would you appoint T. Boone Pickens to be Secretary of Interior?
Kinda the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #105
113. How silly. Is there ANYTHING of substance you can offer in your opposition?
This entire thread is a load of innuendo and character attacks based on two, maybe three issues which have almost NOTHING to do with the environmental post under consideration.

Is GWB Hitler? :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. But bigtree...
we've offered plenty of valid reasons why he'd be unfit for the job.

You've yet to come up with any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. You've yet to prove how these objections disqualify him
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 05:47 PM by bigtree
He objects to ONE type of vaccine

He has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric not unlike your own patter here.

The claim is made here, without any evidence outside of a bloviated blog post, that he's 'anti-science.

These attacks don't deserve a serious response . . . except to politely invite the critics here to bug off of the man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. He rejects in on the basis of pseudoscience.
Crop circles. Bigfoot. Ramtha.

The guy makes Dennis Kucinich look like Richard Dawkins by comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #120
147. Believing that vaccines cause autism IS anti-science
because it flies in the face of ALL evidence. And there is the question of character and temperament, which may be more important.

What is needed is not some environmental zealot at the helm of these agencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #147
161. "environental zealot"? Have anymore Ad Hominen Attacks for one of the most honest
courageous fighters out there for We the People. You haven't substantiated shit... jsut regurgitated pharmaceutical industry talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #161
184. Seriously. We could use an environmental zealot on the cabinet
and a peace zealot, and a civil rights zealot, and a few other good zealots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cushla_machree Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #147
346. So there is nothing wrong with injecing mercury a neurotoxin
Into developing children?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #120
177. How about the fact that he routinely lies about the facts about a project
extremely important to taking major action on climate change. His opposition to the Cape Wind project has been irrational and he has used outright falsehoods to try and disparage the project. Offshore wind power construction should have commenced in 2004 but the Cape Wind Project scared developers away for several years.

His motive?

He doesn't want to see them from his home - a distance of approximately 6 miles. When they would be visible (most days they wouldn't because of the natural haze from water vapor) they would be about the size of a toothpick on the horizon.

He's a selfish prick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #177
182. Cape Wind, good freaking grief.
You should wash your mouth out with soap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #182
190. WTF is that supposed to mean?
That project has gone through the most rigorous environmental review in US history has passed with flying colors. RFK is being used as a tool by republicans with ties to the coal industry and I have absolutely no use for the man.
This from a person who has made a thorough academic study of the events as they developed.

RFK is a selfish prick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #190
199. Uh-huh, yup, windmills in the middle of the fucking ocean, right.
Anybody pushing this ridiculous load of RW propaganda ought to get the banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #199
201. You obviously don't know that you're talking about.
The dude is a fuck-wad that cares more about his view than the the problem of climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #201
202. You obviously eat up freep farts like they were banana splits.
Stooge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #202
206. Sorry you were born with a deficiency, but that doesn't change the facts.
I've been following the development of this wind farm from day one. the guy is an ass that cares more about the view of his "hood" than the fate of the world. You can accuse me of being a freeper all day long but that doesn't change what the shithead did when it mattered. There were plentty of repukes that that guided the opposition, but it wouldn't have gotten off the ground without Ted and Rob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #206
214. And nobody but a repuke would believe this was anything but a set up to begin with.
Where the hell have you been the last fifty years, anyway? What energy company in their right fucking nut would decide they were going to put windmills in the middle of Martha's Vineyard for pete's fucking sake? It's another stinking scam like the rest of the freeptardified Bush-Cheney reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #214
285. The middle of nantucket sound
The middle of nantucket sound is one of the very best places to site a wind farm. It has steady high winds, a relatively shallow depth and is sheltered from the worst of the ocean storms. You can't put wind in a bottle and take it somewhere else to hide it. The Kennedy compound gets most of its electricity from an antique oil burning power plant on the west end of Cape Cod. When a tanker went aground several years ago residents of the area were treated to a very nasty spill of the oil that the plant burns; oil that is the dregs of the distillation process is used for these plants and it is still having a strong effect on the local ecology.
You don't really seem to care about the actual issues involved, do you. In that regard you are strikingly similar to the cult of Palin worshipers in prefering willful blindness over objective decision-making.

Finally, if the idea of putting a wind farm in Nantucket sound was a set up, then every expert on wind in the world must have been in on the gag because the Kennedies are universally seen by that community as I've described them here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #214
339. This company.
http://www.capewind.org/index.php

Here's RFK Jr's Op Ed in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html

Here's Wikipedia's entry for Cape Wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

Go ahead. Call me a freeptard. But not until after you finish reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
186. This is no time for another moderate EPA chief
Fuck that. People are more concerned about Climate Change and other EPA issues more than Terrorism.
Yet I did not see Climate Change or the Environment make any of the "Voter Concern" lists...

You are just feeding the Right-wing/Reagan-esque media beast by asking for another crum-feeding moderate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Agreed. We need experienced managers with strong science backgrounds
to run agencies like the EPA, Wildlife Service, Forest Service, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. The 1969 Cuyahoga River Fire - on film
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 02:47 PM by sandnsea


And now, the writer of this blog is officially an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. The mayor's hair also caught fire that year.
And I agree RFKjr. is not the guy for EPA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. If they disagree with RFK Jr's FACTS
they could at least use FACTS to argue their opinion.

That river has been on fire Ten Times. That's a fact.

There IS science to support study into vaccines and whether they cause autism.

I think he is too political to be the correct choice, but I disagree completely that he is a crank.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. No, he's not a crank. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
80. Um...
"There IS science to support study into vaccines and whether they cause autism."

That is going to need to be backed up with a link. The only information I have ever seen pushes the definition of 'science'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #80
254. ?? Autism:A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2001/AutismUniqueMercPoison.htm

i don't think bobby was against vaccines--he was against using the thimerosal in the vaccine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #254
316. How about a legit link
not a anti-vacc site. NIH, WHO, etc? You won't find one, because no reputable scienctist has one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
314. No there is NO science into the autism link
Unless you happen to think NIH, WHO, AND the UN are all cranks?
RFK's "facts" say that MMR causes autism..MMR NEVER EVER HAD THIMERSOL in it.
What do you call someone who is that wrong on a topic? A crank is the nicest word that comes along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
317. There is NO science to support this
Unless you think that NIH and WHO among others are cranks?
BTW, he also claimed that MMR vaccine WHICH HAS NEVER HAD THIMEROSOL was causing autism.
So what do you call someone who's "facts" are so blatantly wrong (besides Bush)? Crank is the nicest way of putting it.
BTW, I'm a biologist. What are your creds in judging what is scientifically valid and what is not? Hmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. I'm sorry, I haven't finished reading the blog entry.
What does this have to do with RFK Jr?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. READ before you speak then n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Learn to check your facts before you call people an idiot.
There apparently is no film or photo of the 1969 fire Kennedy referred to. The photo in your post is from a 1953 fire, and appeared in a Time magazine article on the 1969 fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Yes, it caught fire ten times
and I am an idiot for not knowing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Nobody's arguing it didn't catch fire many times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
78. The blog author was flat out wrong.
"Indeed, his assaults on fact and science are legendary, right up to describing the small Cuyahoga River fire (which lasted only 30 minutes and was never caught on film) as "exploding in colossal infernos."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. That doesn't appear to be the case.
The photo is from 1953, the fire in questions was in 1969.

If that seems to be splitting hairs, fine.

Have you got any legitimate complaint against the blog?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #82
173. He didn't specify a date.
My problem with the blog posting is that it's a significant over-reaction. Linking autism to thimerosal wasn't "pseudoscience", it was a valid scientific theory which has since been weakened by contradictory studies. RFK was never "anti-vaccine", he was anti-thimerosal.

The writer of this blog seems to have a weak understanding of the scientific process. As a scientist, and specifically a theoretician, I understand that ideas are regularly invalidated by data. When I was a grad. student, I wrote a paper which directly contradicted some of Stephen Hawking's ideas. Experimental data has since shown that Hawking was way off base, his math had been wrong. I wouldn't think of calling Hawking a "crank" or a "hack" because he believed in and pushed a wrong theory for years. I never demanded an apology. That's just not how science works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Why not read the blog entry?
If you're too lazy, you could just seach for "Cuyahoga" on the page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. A few picks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. I spent over 30 years working in that exact spot.
When I first started there in Jan. 1971, you could just about walk across the Cuyahoga, it was so polluted. You can actually eat fish out of there now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. Your science blogger reveals himself as biased by refering to RFK as a "crank" -
If the science blogger were an impartial observer objecting to RFK's conclusions then he (the blogger) would write more dispassionately.

I am more attentive to the blogger's concerns about RFK's possible lack of managerial experience -- that is a critically important issue given that the EPA has been gutted over the past 8 years. If he was taking the seat with an intact and smoothly humming EPA then that would be less of an issue. At this point, most the of people who step into key posts won't just have to run their agency or re-haul their agency -- they will have to recreate their agency from the ground up -- EPA, FDA, FCC...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Crank is a perfectly valid discriptor.
I think anybody who cares about science would have no problem considering the man a crank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
42. You make an excellent point. If we're happy to have the dividers out of office, then we MUST
stop using the same name-calling tactics they have patented!

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. At the least the EPA head has to be someone with a solid science background either in
Environmental science or a related field and related administrative experience. An academic type would be good. If they also have a law degree, so much the better. But go with scientific credentials and administrative experience first. I do NOT think an environmental activist background is sufficient for running the EPA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Jim Hansen of NASA would be a good pick. It would of course enrage the
climate change skeptics but that would not necessarily be a bad thing. He has administrative experience AND of course he is the leading government scientist on climate change. I am not sure he would accept the job though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. I agree but was to afraid to post this nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
59. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. Well to some people I suppose. (Purity test and all)
Really I don't think Obama needs an appointment with so much baggage and drama. (Just look at the posts above and below)

Never been a Freeper unless the Church of Dagon has switched sides while I wasn't looking. }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #59
151. Bullshit.
He is supremely unqualified for either post.

So fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #151
222. awww, thats not very nice. banky will make it all better;
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. agreed, 100 percent....
And I'm a committed progressive who LOVES the work RFK Jr. has done. But I'm also a scientist, and I agree that the head of the EPA needs creds with the scientific community-- especially now, when there is so much damage to be repaired, so many hurt feelings and damaged careers to be mended while simutaneously salvaging the agency and its mission.

RFK jr is not the person for that job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. i support rfk jr for the epa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I support RFK Jr. for dean of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment.
He's already given at least one lecture there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
18. No more anti-science folks.
Look what the last 8 years have wrought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. RFK, JR seems to have great environmental credentials, imho.
ABOUT

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/about.html

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions. Mr. Kennedy was named one of Time magazine's “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. The group's achievement helped spawn more than 130 Waterkeeper organizations across the globe.


Mr. Kennedy serves as Chief Prosecuting Attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper and President of Waterkeeper Alliance. He is also a Clinical Professor and Supervising Attorney at Pace University School of Law’s Environmental Litigation Clinic and is co-host of Ring of Fire on Air America Radio. Earlier in his career he served as Assistant District Attorney in New York City. He has worked on several political campaigns including the presidential campaigns of Edward M. Kennedy in 1980, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

He has worked on environmental issues across the Americas and has assisted several indigenous tribes in Latin America and Canada in successfully negotiating treaties protecting traditional homelands. He is credited with leading the fight to protect New York City's water supply. The New York City watershed agreement, which he negotiated on behalf of environmentalists and New York City watershed consumers, is regarded as an international model in stakeholder consensus negotiations and sustainable development. He helped lead the fight to turn back the anti-environmental legislation during the 104th Congress.

Among Mr. Kennedy's published books are the New York Times’ bestseller Crimes Against Nature (2004), St. Francis of Assisi: A Life of Joy (2005), The Riverkeepers (1997), and Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr: A Biography (1977). His articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Atlantic Monthly, Esquire, The Nation, Outside Magazine, The Village Voice, and many other publications. His award winning articles have been included in anthologies of America’s Best Crime Writing, Best Political Writing and Best Science Writing.

Mr. Kennedy is a graduate of Harvard University. He studied at the London School of Economics and received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. Following graduation he attended Pace University School of Law, where he was awarded a Masters Degree in Environmental Law.

He is a licensed master falconer, and as often as possible he pursues a life-long enthusiasm for white-water paddling. He has organized and led several expeditions in Canada and Latin America, including first descents on three little known rivers in Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. He's a major hypocrite on environmental issues.
He opposed wind farms off of Martha's Vineyard because they "ruined" his view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. I agree with him.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
84. You're grossly oversimplifying his position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Why don't you read why he actually opposed the development, instead of co-opting the nasty personal attack that anti-environmentalist critics slandered him with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. this does smell like an attack from the right
It just stinks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #87
319. Okay;
Go ahead and call us scientists types freepers. Some of us happen not to want anymore of the last eight years.
There is just as much anti-science attitude on the left as on the right. As a scientist it is my moral obligation not to allow this dangerous contempt of evidence based reality.
And it irks me to see so many people think just because someone is a Kennedy they can do no wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #87
336. I agree -- smells like the politics of personal destruction. It's an attack on RFK as person
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
263. There is a huge amount of science involved in being a
licensed master falconer! I'm sold. He's a regular guy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
24. I wasn't aware he was anti science if true I agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #24
192. He's not anti-science. He's anti-BS.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
25. Well, I do like the guy, but on second thought I do think someone with science
credentials makes the most sense for the position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
26. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
29. Is that just a rumor, or is there anything more to it?
someone without real qualifications would seem rather out of character for Obama. At least to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. So far I think it is rumor.
I hope it stays that way.

Larry Summers (the former President of harvard who dissed women as scientists) needs to be far away from any position of authority as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
98. Still a rumor. From unnamed "democratic officials."
Here's hope that they do some serious vetting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. This is the biggest LOAD OF BULLSHIT I've read on DU in awhile.
:puke:

FYI-RFK Jr. is perfect for the job and is absolutely 100% correct about the mercury vaccinations which have poisoned children in this country without a doubt.

And BTW, there is mercury in our water too, but I guess you're fine with that? :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Where is Robert Kennedy Jr. on the chemtrails issue?
What about crop circles?

Is there a holocaust denier we can appoint to the Department of Education?

How about Bigfoot for Secretary of the Treasurer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
123. If all you have are red herrings & other logical fallacies, then I think RFK jr. is perfect! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. No, your post is the biggest load of bullshit I have seen in a while
He is 100% WRONG about vaccines. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Mercury has been removed from almost all vaccines for many years yet the incidence of autism continues ro rise. That is just one piece of evidence that anti-vaccine cranks are 100% wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #43
64. except that he's anti thimerisol, not anti vaccine...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
48. RFK is a member of the conspiracy nut crowd. He is wrong on vaccinations
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 03:38 PM by curse of greyface
And unlike many people he openly in favor of putting children at risk for disabling disease or even premature death.

He has neither the temperament nor the scientific background to run such an agency.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. this writer sounds like they have an unstable nut
from the post: (The Hitler Zombie has feasted well and long on RFK, Jr.'s brain!)

This is supposed to pass for a rational objection? The rhetoric is off the hook. The issues that one would differ with RFK Jr. can be discussed without all of the 'extreme' ridicule. I personally don't believe ANYTHING he's done deserves this kind of attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. Well first of all he is a bit of a hypocrite.
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 04:31 PM by curse of greyface
He believes in Wind power as long as the rich are not bothered.

He takes his private jet to global warming speeches. (This is a pet peeve of mine)

He brags about his service with the Riverkeeper organization but often neglects to mention it was part of his Heroin conviction plea bargain.

And he has a reputation as a bit of an anti-science kook.

That article above isn't scripture. But the key is Obama could do a lot better than RFK.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #61
77. pretty broad indictments from such a sparse bag of objections
He opposes the one wind project in MV. There are certainly other sites that he supports. Why should ANY community have to host wind farms they don't want?

Is he the only environmentalist to use a jet? I can't imagine this asked in a serious way at a confirmation hearing.

I don't see the purpose in bringing up his past addiction, other than to belittle him. His work with Riverkeeper should be judged in the merits of his involvement, not on whatever motive in his association.

The anti-science stuff just doesn't mesh with the bulk of his activism. At least, in the post, there isn't a serious discussion of his actual views. I haven't found him to be 'anti-science.'

But, I appreciate your concern for finding a serious, qualified figure for the position. I'll trust Obama to make that judgment and to manage that appointment from the nomination to their function in office carrying out the president's initiatives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #52
320. If you had a family member sick with a vaccine preventable
infectious disease (measles, mumps, typhoid, whooping cough/pertussis--all of which are making a comeback thanks to RFK,jr and ilk like him) maybe you understand. Maybe you ought to talk to pediatricians who have to deal with the parents everyday who think vaccines are teh evil because of this man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. uh, no, he's against vaccines that have mercury based preservatives, not the concept of vaccination.
try buying a clue somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. Because he "felt" that the mercury caused Autism which it clearly doesn't.
He hasn't apologized for that view as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. so it was just him that thought that? not a single other scientist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Well he wrote a rolling stone article claiming a government cover-up,
I read it. Most scientists don't come off that nutty.

From the article

"What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. "

Yeah it was a big old fashion conspiracy. :crazy:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. I know he wrote an article. That doesn't answer my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. Most other scientists now admit they were wrong.
They don't claim some strange conspiracy theory in a national magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #48
153. Excuse Me? You want to back that up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #153
228. Sure link is below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #48
194. He has not advocated for the end of vaccination.
So, I'm not sure what you mean by "putting children at risk for death and disease."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
126. Baloney
Read a little science done by scientists and you'll know that the whole vaccine/autism scare was a fraud. Mercury has been out of vaccines for years and autism diagnoses have NOT gone done one bit. That settles the issue for everyone not insanely obsessed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
137. No, you are wrong. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
32. Being anti-vaccine makes you a crank?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
45. yes, an anti-science crank.
There is no credible evidence linking vaccines to autism. There is plenty of evidence that vaccines do what they are intended to do: stop communicable diseases. I don't call them anti-vaccince people, I call them PRO-INFECTIOUS DISEASE.

There is also evidence that some of these diseases are coming back due to lower vaccine rates.

Because there is no scientific evidence (or they choose to ignore evidence refuting their position), these people ARE anti-science. They cherry-pick data, quote-mine, etc. All of which are hallmarks or crankery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
58. you are lying, he is not against vaccination
and you damn well know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. Yes.
Just as being a ID'er or creationist does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
51. Yes. And he is one of thier poster boys. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
62. he's not anti vaccine, and i'm pretty sure you know it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
138. Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
139. self delete
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 08:05 PM by antfarm
wrong place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #32
220. Yes, it does.
It doesn't make you a crank on ALL issues, but it makes you a crank on that one.

And people have the right to be cranks in their own lives (hence I'm mostly against vaccine mandates, though in favour of universal, free and publicized provision of vaccines). But to have someone in charge of public policy who tries to discourage vaccines on ideological grounds is like having someone in charge of public policy who tries to discourage stem cell research on ideological grounds.

This isn't about RFK Jr in particular - I don't know enough about him and this appointment is not up to me anyway - but just to say that anti-vaccine crusading is just as cranky and potentially dangerous as anti-stem-cell-research campaigning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #32
245. He's not anti-vaccine
I believe his issue was with the preservative used in the vaccine and the mercury it contained. Which is not a crank's position IMNSHO.

Regards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #245
318. He claimed MMR caused autism as well
MMR never HAD thimerosol. Verdict: anti-vaxx CRANK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #32
310. Pretty much.
It's not to say that there aren't as-of-yet undiscovered horrors of vaccines, but to drink the kool-aid at this point is pretty foolish and makes one, for lack of a better word, a crank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. Why was thimerosal removed from vaccines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Because the fearmongers were causing people to refuse to vaccinate.
And still are, unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #39
66. yeah, injecting mercury based preservatives is AWESOME!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Hey, thanks at least for making it clear you have no clue.
You have saved me a lot of time trying to reason with you. Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #66
127. Uh....people inject BOTOX
that's one of the most potent toxins on earth....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #127
221. um, BOTOX is not active botulism toxins... would you care for a mercury popsicle?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #221
297. Ummm....yes it is
Botox is a trade name for a drug whose active ingredient is Botulinum Toxin Type A. If you didn't know that, 30 seconds research on the internet would have informed you (assuming you even care to be informed). And only an idiot would have taken from this that anyone is saying all mercury compounds are perfectly safe in big doses (the dose ALWAYS makes the poison). The claim (now proven beyond any doubt) is that the particular mercury compound use as a vaccine preservative does not cause autism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #66
229. No it isn't; but it's got nothing to do with autism.
It's a good thing on general principle that mercury has been removed from vaccines. But it hasn't made autism rates go down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #66
321. Never took a chemistry class have you
0.01% thimerosol...even less mercury than that. You need to learn about the concept of LD-50. Chemicals are safe in certain doses. And the amount of mercury in thimersol has been show to be too small to matter. But what does NIH know..they are all govertment shills right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollo poco Donating Member (286 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
72. Dude, I am allergic to thimerosal
They used to put it in contact lens solutions, and when I used it, my eyes would turn red and swell. The eyedrops that ran down my cheeks left red streaks! Sorry to be a crank! Guess I should ask a real scientist.

BTW- I am also allergic to nitrates and MSG. Every time I accidentally eat either of these things I become fearmongerishly ill. I am sorry to fly in the face of conventional scientific wisdom by having these symptoms. I know scientists can prove that these things are perfectly safe, and I admit my deep error in contradicting them.

Don't get me wrong- I love science, and I wholeheartedly endorse the age of reason! In that spirit, I have noticed a scientific correlation between who pays for science, and what results are obtained.

So I have had to apply my own empirical methods-although I know that it has been scientifically proven that thimerosal, nitrates and msg are completely harmless- I still avoid them.

I suppose all those people who die from FDA approved, legally prescribed medications are cranks, too? After all, not only do scientists approve these drugs, but doctors (who are very, very much smarter than fearmongers and cranks) prescribe them. And yet....I think the deaths are real.

Now, I suppose it is highly "poohpoohworthy", but I have also noticed a certain tendency among those who wish to appear wiser that the common lot, by complimenting the emperor's beautiful clothes, to call others cranks when they comment upon the visibility of the emperor's goosebumps. And I find, when I examine the structural dynamics of such statements that they seem to resemble "tinfoil hat" comments in the sphere of politics, such as those that were advanced when the "poohpoohworthy" theories of election tampering in the 2004 election were espoused by ridiculous fearmongering cranks among us.

So, forgive my ignorance, but-is it not possible that some people could be actually be allergic to thimerosal, and that removing it from vaccines might have been a good thing, not just because it quieted the fearmongering peasants with their torches and pitchforks, but because it is within the realm of scientific possibility that scientists do not have the complex realities of (for lack of a better term) reality completely within their grasp? Is such a thing possible, based on the evidence? Hmmm...I think such an assertion could be easily tested...

So flame away, but do not fail to take into account that the cutting edge of science involves the dawning realization that the experimenter is inseparable from the experiment. Oh, and one more thing: I love science too much to falsely assert that it is infallible. Ask any scientist worth their salt, and they will tell you: Infallibility has no place in science, but is rather the province of faith, and only advanced in the scientific sphere by cranks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. good post
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #72
94. You're allergic to glutamate?
You realize that glutamate is an amino acid which is produced by your own body in large amounts. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #94
180. you do realize msg is a salt, not an amino acid, right? & that adverse
reactions to it are well-documented & acknowledged by the health community, right?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/monosodium-glutamate/AN01251
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #180
227. It is both a salt and an amino acid.
There are adverse reactions to high dietary sodium. There's no such thing as an allergy to glutamate. That's like saying you're allergic to dihydrogen monoxide. Now, I know there are plenty of people who claim they're allergic to glutamate. Usually the same sort of people who use chakras to fend off sasquatch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #227
230. no, msg is a salt. glutamine/glutamic acid is an amino acid.
and adverse reactions to msg are well-documented.


They're not the "same" thing, i.e. sodium nitrate v. nitric acid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #230
234. You want to have a discussion on acid/base chemistry?
Great! Let's have a dicussion on acid base chemistry.

What do you think the pKa of a typical carboxylic acid is?

Now what is physiological pH?

Feel free to look up a pKa table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #234
235. irrelevant to the point. msg isn't an amino acid, salts & acids don't behave identically
when metabolized, & adverse reactions to msg are well-documented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #235
236. It's entirely relevant to the post.
And explains why glutamate is an amino acid.

Glutamine, by the way, is a differant amino acid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #236
255. your post = people can't be *allergic* to msg, cause it's an amino acid.
1. adverse physical rxns to msg are well-documented & medically accepted.
2. If they aren't *true* allergies, the reactions are nevertheless similar to allergic rxns, which was the original poster's point: that regardless of what the *experts* told him, he had a bad reaction to msg.
2. msg isn't glutamic acid.
3. glutamine is glutamic acid - an oh & + an amine.
4. pH mouth = ~6.5, stomach = ~1-6, small intestine (majority of digestion) = ~6-8.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #255
258. People are not allergic to glutamate. They're made of glutamate.
"1. adverse physical rxns to msg are well-documented & medically accepted. "

Glutamate allergies are not medically accepted. The article you linked to admitted there's scant scientific evidence for other adverse reactions.

"2. msg isn't glutamic acid."

It is the conjugate base of glutamic acid. Do you know what a conjugate base is?

"3. glutamine is glutamic acid - an oh & + an amine."

Glutamate and glutamine are two different amino acids. Glutamine would be the amide corresponding to the carboxylic acid of glutamate. You can look up any textbook chart of amino acids and see both of them there.

"4. pH mouth = ~6.5, stomach = ~1-6, small intestine (majority of digestion) = ~6-8."

And what's the pKA of glutamic acid? It's 4.14

Do you understand what that means? You wanted to talk about acid/base chemistry, so you should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #258
267. yes, i know what a conjugate base is, & yes, i know glutamine & glutamic
acid are two different aa's ("Glutamine would be the amide corresponding to the carboxylic acid of glutamate" - you repeat what i just said), & yes, i know the implication of pKA, which is why i put up the pHs. Seems you don't get that, either.


Adverse reactions to MSG are well-documented. Here's what the article I linked said:

"A comprehensive review of all available scientific data...reaffirmed the safety of MSG when consumed at levels typically used in cooking and food manufacturing.... But it did acknowledge that some people may have short-term reactions to MSG. These reactions...may include:

Headache, sometimes called MSG headache
Flushing
Sweating, etc...
...However, some people report more severe reactions. The only way to prevent a reaction is to avoid foods containing MSG"



You make simplistic statements like "we *are* glutamate". We *are* phenylalanine too, but pku nevertheless is real.

How MSG is metabolized is what matters, quantities, & ingested with what.

Glutamic acid is a non-essential aa. Most (95%) dietary glutamate (including from protein sources) is metabolized to CO2 & energy - apparently used as oxidative substrate by gut enterocytes.

Most glutamic acid used in the body as such is from de novo synthesis, not diet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #267
269. Actually, no.
You said "glutamine is glutamate."

"i know the implication of pKA, which is why i put up the pHs. Seems you don't get that, either."

Great, then since you know that glutamic acid is in the glutamate form in the human body, I guess you're also conceding that glutamate is an amino acid.

So do you know what the counter ion is?

"Most glutamic acid used in the body as such is from de novo synthesis, not diet."

Exactly my point. Do you comprehend it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #269
270. You said "glutamine is glutamate.">>
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 05:27 PM by Hannah Bell
show me that quote, please.


"Exactly my point. Do you comprehend it?"

as to how it relates to the original poster's assertion that he reacts badly to msg, no, perhaps you could spell it out.

if your point is the interchangability/transformation of chemicals, bfd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #270
272. It's rather simple.


""Exactly my point. Do you comprehend it?"

as to how it relates to the original poster's assertion that he reacts badly to msg, no, perhaps you could spell it out."

Since his body is producing more glutamate than he's consuming, it's a little hard to believe he's allergic to it.

"if your point is the interchangability/transformation of chemicals, bfd."

My point was that the msg, the additive in food, is exactly the same as what's in your body at high concentration.

There's no "interchangability/transformatin" involved.

You took issue with that.

I showed how you were in error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #272
290. 1. Glutamic acid is not in the body "at high concentration". 10 grams.
Body makes ~50g/d, ingests ~10-20g/d from natural sources, mostly bound to protein.

2. The metabolic pathways used to create glutamic acid de novo aren't coextensive with those used to digest & metabolize dietary msg, which means the byproducts & sequelae are different.

3. Children with PKU have phenylalanine "in their bodies" & need to ingest it to develop properly, but if they ingest too much, they have convulsions etc. ("bad reaction") & become retarded.

There are many similar metabolic disorders, & the issue isn't the presence of the aa itself, but amounts, metabolic paths, byproducts & sequelae.

4. Even in a true allergy, the allergen is composed of substances found "in our body," i.e. proteins are composed of amino acids. Our body produces/contains hydrocholoric acid, carbon dioxide, nitric oxide, etc, doesn't mean they're good to eat. our body contains salt, but too much makes us sick. our body needs vitamins, but the optimal amounts needed are highly variable.

5. You've showed me no error. You pedantically & condescendingly took issue with a poster saying he was *allergic* to msg. If you'd simply accepted he meant he had a bad reaction to it, as some people do, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #290
293. Are you just cutting and pasting this material?
Because it really seems like you're not following it.

"Body makes ~50g/d, ingests ~10-20g/d from natural sources, mostly bound to protein. "

That's how much it recieves per day. And it metabolizes the same amount. That says nothing about concentration. The free glutamate concentration of a typical person would be about 20 microMolar, ballpark, which would be pretty high for an allergen, and does not change significantly after eating MSG. And that's just free glutamate.

"2. The metabolic pathways used to create glutamic acid de novo aren't coextensive with those used to digest & metabolize dietary msg, which means the byproducts & sequelae are different."

The pathways used to digest and metabolize MSG as the food additive are exactly the same as the natural glutamte, the amino acid, you'd eat in food high in protein. They are exactly the same thing.

"3. Children with PKU have phenylalanine "in their bodies" & need to ingest it to develop properly, but if they ingest too much, they have convulsions etc. ("bad reaction") & become retarded."

PKU is not an allergy. Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid, and boy would they be shit out of luck if it weren't.

"4. Even in a true allergy, the allergen is composed of substances found "in our body," i.e. proteins are composed of amino acids."

There are, in fact, several different kinds of proteins. Some allegens, some not.

"Our body produces/contains hydrocholoric acid, carbon dioxide, nitric oxide, etc, doesn't mean they're good to eat."

If some guy said he loved science and he was allergic to carbon dioxide, I'd correct that too.

"5. You've showed me no error."

"Glutamate is not an amino acid, it is a salt."

"Glutamine is glutamate."

"salts and acids react differently when metabolized."

And then you posted a number of non-sequitors about how glutamate is metabolized.

"You pedantically & condescendingly took issue with a poster saying he was *allergic* to msg."

I pointed out to the poster that since MSG is an amino acid he probably wasn't allergic. If I became pedantic it might have something to do with your understanding of basic chemistry.












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #293
299. metabolizes the same amount.>> = convert to CO2 + energy.
<<20 microMolar,>>

you're talking blood? if so, you're confused.


<<The pathways used to digest and metabolize MSG as the food additive are exactly the same as the natural glutamte, the amino acid, you'd eat in food high in protein. They are exactly the same thing.>>

yes, and? that has nothing to do with what i said: paths to digest & metabolize dietary glutamate (into energy, CO2 & miniscule blood fraction) are not the same as to synthesise glutamic acid de novo. Typical glutamate consumption from foods = 10-20 g, mostly bound with protein. MSG is on top of that.


"PKU is not an allergy."

I didn't say it was. However, for some people, ingesting too much can have dire consequences, though it's essential to life & growth. Similarly with some other aa's.


<<"Glutamate is not an amino acid, it is a salt."

"Glutamine is glutamate.">>

Again, link the quotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #299
300. LOL
"metabolizes the same amount.>> = convert to CO2 + energy."

We're not talking about metabolism (you forgot urea, btw) we're talking concentration. The amount of glutamate the body makes and eats equals the amount of glutamate it metabolizes and excretes.

"you're talking blood?"

No, we're talking about plasma. Blood and plasma, unlike glutamate and MSG, are two different things.

"if so, you're confused."

Generally, Hannah, if you're talking about the concentration of a chemical in the human body, you're usually talking about plasma concentration. You can talk about lymph concentration, or CNS concentration, or urine concentration, but plasma concentration is usually the common one. Why? What concentration were you talking about? You do know what concentration means, right? Because earlier you were discussing mass when you were trying to talk about concentration.

"yes, and? that has nothing to do with what i said: paths to digest & metabolize dietary glutamate (into energy, CO2 & miniscule blood fraction) are not the same as to synthesise glutamic acid de novo. Typical glutamate consumption from foods = 10-20 g, mostly bound with protein. MSG is on top of that."

What's your point?

"I didn't say it was. However, for some people, ingesting too much can have dire consequences, though it's essential to life & growth. Similarly with some other aa's."

Well then stop comparing apples and oranges.

"<<"Glutamate is not an amino acid, it is a salt."

"Glutamine is glutamate.">>

Again, link the quotes. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396475&mesg_id=4401631

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396475&mesg_id=4406780

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396475&mesg_id=4407786








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #300
304. lol yourself.
your links:

1.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396475&mesg_id=4401631

"msg is a salt" (mono sodium glutamate = "sodium salt of the non-essential amino acid glutamic acid")


2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396475&mesg_id=4406780

"msg is a salt. glutamine/glutamic acid is an amino acid."

glutamine = aa. glutamic acid = aa.


3.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396475&mesg_id=4407786


"glutamine is glutamic acid - an oh & + an amine"

glutamine is glutamic acid MINUS an -oh & PLUS an amine.



Nowhere do i say what you assert i say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #304
307. and the rest:
metabolizes the same amount.>> = convert to CO2 + energy."

We're not talking about metabolism>>

"metabolizes the same amount" is quotiing you. so if you weren't talking about metabolism, what were you talking about.


>>The amount of glutamate the body makes and eats equals the amount of glutamate it metabolizes and excretes.<<

No. Like cholesterol, there's little to no relation between dietary consumption & de novo production.



<<Blood and plasma, unlike glutamate and MSG, are two different things.>>

so what? i asked a question. concentration can be described in tems of blood, plasma, tissue, etc.



<<free glutamate (plasma, per you) concentration of a typical person would be about 20 microMolar>>

Just to make sure, you say free glutamate in plasma concentration is ~20 micromoles per liter, correct? and this is "high" concentration?



<<What's your point?>>

Dietary glutamate is mostly used for fuel by gut enterocytes - in preference to glucose. Glutamic acid used in the body as a whole, as an AA, is created de novo.



<<stop comparing apples and oranges.>>

I've specified in every post but you keep ignoring: "adverse reaction to MSG"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #227
248. You prove the adage...
a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Using your logic, neither sodium or chlorine could possibly be harmful to you because people use table salt on their food every day, and every one knows that salt is sodium chloride.

Let me offer you some sodium to eat, and a little chlorine gas to breathe, no possible harm could come to you, huh.

Until you eat sodium and breathe chlorine you officially have no credibility on anything remotely related to science.

Your ignorance is profound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #248
250. People are neither allergic to sodium(I) nor chloride.


"a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Using your logic, neither sodium or chlorine could possibly be harmful to you because people use table salt on their food every day, and every one knows that salt is sodium chloride.

Let me offer you some sodium to eat, and a little chlorine gas to breathe, no possible harm could come to you, huh.

Until you eat sodium and breathe chlorine you officially have no credibility on anything remotely related to science.

Your ignorance is profound."

A little bit of knowledge shows that table salt comes from sodium and chloride. Just a little bit more knowledge and you quickly realize that sodium chloride is entirely different from sodium(0) and chlorine.

My posts are technically correct, and if take issue with any of it I'll be happy to argue the finer points of chemistry all day.

I agree that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I thank you for demonstrating the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #250
281. Really, sodium chloride is different from sodium and chlorine.
Are you saying that "chloride" is different than chlorine?
Or are you admitting that different elements bonded together can have chemical properties completely different from the constituent elements. Such as mono sodium glutamate having properties different from any of it's constituent elements.

Your posts are technically bullshit, and I was wrong, you are not profoundly ignorant, but profoundly stupid.

"a little bit more knowledge and you quickly realize that sodium chloride is entirely different from sodium(0) and chlorine."

Duh, that was my point genius, as MSG is entirely different than sodium or glutamate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #281
294. Yes, chloride is fundamentally different from chlorine.
It's a monoatomic ion, a water soluble ion that's absolutely essential for all life on earth.

Chlorine is Cl2, a rather nasty gas.

"Or are you admitting that different elements bonded together can have chemical properties completely different from the constituent elements."

Ah, Cl- and Cl2 both contain the same element. They are, however, completely different chemicals.

"Such as mono sodium glutamate having properties different from any of it's constituent elements."

Yes. MSG is a completely different thing from elemental carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.

"Your posts are technically bullshit, and I was wrong, you are not profoundly ignorant, but profoundly stupid."

Please correct me onany error you find.

"Duh, that was my point genius, as MSG is entirely different than sodium or glutamate."

Uh, no. MSG is sodium and glutamate.

It's the cation Na+ and the polyatomic anion Glu-.

Just like table salt is Na+ and the anion Cl-.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #72
118. Your ignorance is forgiven. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #72
312. Dude--sceintists know that
If ANYONE had bothered reading the info they give you before you get a vaccine it would tell you that allergic reactions are possible.
Its the same with people who have egg allergies they are warned NOT to get a flu shot! And you CAN get thimersol free flu shots (since only flu shots have it
I am so SICK SICK SICK of random people on teh internets believing they know better than the specialists with YEARS of training in this field!
BTW, thimerosol allergies don't cause autism either!
The cranks and crazies are arrogant fools who don't know half of the scientific reality..and they aren't interested in learning..everytime someone tries to point out the scientific truth its PHARMA SHILL!
I am TIRED of scientists getting treated like dirt on this site! Repukes aren't the only one with anti-scientific views!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #37
283. It wasn't.
It's still in some vaccines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
38. Are you confusing the EPA with the FDA? Your argument makes
little sense unless you are confused about the two agencies. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. No, I am not confused.
Although appointing him head of FDA would indeed be worse. The point being that RFK is not a scientist and has a variety of unscientific positions as well as temperament that make him ill-suited to head any agency that required a modicum of scientific knowledge. And it would be politicizing science in a way that is bad no matter who does it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
53. Someone who is as anti science as RFK shouldn't head a science agency. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
44. this is a hysterical load of nothing
The writer, and you, have offered ONE substantive objection: his stand on vaccines.

The rest reads like hyperventilated bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. People who believe one kind of unscientific woo are likely to swallow other unscientific crap
as well. But the point being is his general unsuitability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. I think he's a solid Democrat and has been a strong promoter of environmental issues
I haven't seen anything near this level of animosity toward him before from Democrats. One writer above put him on the far left. But, where are these criticisms coming from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
63. i think the OP has an axe to grind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
91. Conspiracy theories, eh?
Yeah, RFK Jr.'s big on those too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #63
158. Nope, no axe here.
I am pro-science. Scientific and environmental policies need to be based on science first and foremost and having someone who believes nonsense at the helm is a non-starter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #44
83. So what if she thinks Jesus and dinosaurs lived at the same time?
She'll make a great vice president!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. Real swift, conflating Palin's views with RFK Jrs.
. . . shows the vacuousness of your attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. It shows the vacuousness of their scientific illiteracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #90
97. Sounds like he's been doing a pretty good job on the enviroment.
Since 1987 Kennedy has served as a Clinical Professor of Environmental Law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic at Pace University School of Law. The clinic allows second and third year law students to try cases against alleged Hudson River polluters. Kennedy also serves as a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-profit organization based in New York which works to expand environmental laws and restrict land use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Lots of people do good jobs in the environment.
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 05:07 PM by Bornaginhooligan
Lots of people who both take care of the environment and are also scientifically illiterate.

I'm sure a lot of people over at the Ramtha School for Enlightenment care about good causes, that doesn't mean they have any critical thinking skills.

There must be a million people more qualified for the job than RFK Jr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #100
132. Get a clue, clown.
Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
131. Bingo.
Pure big business paranoia. Scientists are the biggest whores in the world, no offense to any scientists here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #131
140. "Scientists are the biggest whores in the world."
And you call me a clown.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #140
145. You'd be surprised.
You ought to read the NIST report on the WTC collapses some time. Biggest load of shameless horsehit I've ever seen. One more reason to be ashamed of my own country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. Thank you for proving our point.
You are quite literally anti-sciene, and your 9-11 twoofer stuff works completely against you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #146
154. I see you haven't read it. You should. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #145
175. Never mind... read a book.
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 10:42 PM by curse of greyface
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #44
195. HEAR HEAR!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #55
128. Ditto.
For pete's fucking sake. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #55
196. Agreed, horse shit.
The vaccinate at any cost "nutters" lack tolerance when it comes to anyone wanting safer vaccines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #55
197. If someone is tombstoned for expressing the widespread opinion of scientists
and yes, this is such an opinion: I'm not a scientist but my advocacy work puts me on a mailing list populated mostly by scientists, and this is the opinion of most scientists regarding RFK jr), then you're going to see A) a mass exodus of scientists and pro-science people like myself from this board B) the deterioration of this board into a fringe board where only true believers who reject reason and agree to post nothing which challenges said true beliefs hang out.

The naysayers have been challenged to discuss this issue rationally. So far, all they've produced is name calling and demands that the hereti- er, scientists, be burnt at the stake.

Just because someone is a good guy on a lot of issues does not mean they are qualified for any and all positions related to that issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
56. Well I totally and thoroughly disagree
The man is not an idiot and he's nobody's fool.

I support RFK Jr. to head the EPA:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
60. No need to worry. Government employees are sworn to uphold the law ...
... not their personal beliefs.

I don't think we have to worry about RFK, Jr. being another Monica Goodling.

Plus, it would be so cool to have another RFK in the White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
70. Shouldn't this be in "General Discussion: Dumbassedness" ?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
71. Agree
I've read several articles by him that weren't exactly scientifically sophisticated. He does seem a little willing to accept junk science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheZug Donating Member (886 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
74. I agree. He might be a good guy, but he's not right for these jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
75. He's anti-thimerosal, not anti-vaccine.
That's a distortion, and it's dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #75
298. Finally, after 74 posts.
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 07:18 PM by rucky
Somebody who read the Rolling Stone.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #298
308. Except that thimerosal has been out of vaccines since '01....
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-09-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #308
343. That's exactly what was brought into question.
RFK alleges that they didn't and said they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-09-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #343
344. Well, you can verify if through the FDA's website.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
76. LOL...The pharmaceutical lobby speaks...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #76
159. You must have me confused for someone else.
I am a scientist, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
89. Agreed. I lost a TON of respect for the man when he went with the anti-vaccination loonies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
92. That is a VERY bad blog post... but some valid points.
We do not need a conspiracy theorist without a solid scientific background in the government much less in a position of power.
As badly written as the blog entry is... RFK, Jr. is not the man for the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
96. I half-heartedly agree with this b/c
on the one hand I really, really like and respect RFK, Jr.

He does a lot of good work.

But on top of the criticisms above, I also don't think he would be the most effective spokesperson due to his long term heroin addiction he has that shaky voice thing and stutters a lot.

So kill me, I just think right now that we need the best possible spokesperson for this job in order to sell these critical reforms that we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
107. Ok, how 'bout AL GORE, then?
:shrug: Just a suggestion ... :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. ENDANGERED CHILEAN SEA BASS!
Just kidding. Gore would be great for the job, although I don't think he'd want it.

Personally, I'm willing to bet the person most qualified for the job is somebody who isn't from some other administration, or related to somebody who was from some other administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #109
112. Agreed with all your points.
I'd just like to see Al drop the hammer on the corporate polluters :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #112
183. why would he? they fund him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #109
181. yeah,mr carbon trading. now THERE'S a scientist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #181
242. Trading makes more sense than Command&Control
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 03:02 PM by XemaSab
Or do you have another view you'd like to share? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #242
268. it makes sense for the moneymen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
108. Yeah, there are a lot of better options.
The vaccine crap notwithstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
114. I hope you brought your flame-retardant... oh, never mind it's too late.
Here, let me try to summarize the last 100 posts for anyone just joining this thread:

STFU HE'S A KENNEDY!!111!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drumwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
119. I don't believe the vaccines-cause-autism bullshit
and I don't want someone who does believe that to run the EPA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adenoid_Hynkel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
124. Bobby would crack down on mountaintop removal in my state - so I back him 1000%
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 05:54 PM by Adenoid_Hynkel
He's been down many, many times - met with coalfield residents, toured the sites and impacted areas and debated the coal barons for a film.

We NEED him in that post.
And he's not anti-science. There's a reason he's had the author of "The Republican War on Science"on his radio show, "Ring of Fire,"more times than i can count
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #124
162. THANK YOU.
I think you just identified the sponsor of this stinky load of "science."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
125. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
129. oops, dupe. n/t
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 07:12 PM by dailykoff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
130. I see Big Pharma is on the stick.
Trust the crookedest crooks to get the stinkiest sting in the air first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
133. Thanks for writing the post I had in mind all day
RFK would be a catastrophically bad choice for EPA head. Aside from the fact that he has no credentials in environmental science, he is by nature an advocate, which is totally inappropriate for the position. This has always been a politically charged position and will be even more so under a Democratic administration, when the right wing will be putting everything under a withering gaze.

The EPA head needs to be a person who can objectively and dispassionately evaluate scientific claims and evidence in order to create sound policy. The whole autism/vaccine debacle showed that RFK doesn't remotely meet those qualifications. Further, by hysterically championing bogus science just so that he could be the champion of parents with autistic children, he lost any credibility he might have had, and he simply could not do this job without it. Every time he took a strong position unfavorable to business on an environmental issue, this would be thrown back in his face. Not only was he totally, horribly wrong about the autism/vaccine link, he was incredibly arrogant and dismissive towards any person or evidence that contradicted his position. And he has never, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was wrong, retracted, corrected or apologized for any of his statements with anything like the prominence that he made them originally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. It's a hit piece, courtesy Clean Coal and the "healthcare" industry.
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 07:30 PM by dailykoff
He gives himself away with the windmills-off-Martha's-Vineyard business which is their favorite Fox talking point. Don't be a chump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. If you want to do a hit piece on RFK
Just reprint his Rolling Stone pieces. He does this damage to himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #136
141. You mean his election fraud article?
Dude Kerry won Ohio on provisional ballots alone. Or were you thinking of something else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. Probably meant the loony one about vaccines and autism.
Or maybe his strawman article where he accused scientists of attacking mothers with autistic children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #141
156. I posted the link upstream but yeah his Autism articles. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #134
142. The windmill business is irrelevant
RFK would still be unqualified even if it had never happened. And Clean Coal and big Pharma didn't put a gun to RFK's head and make him spout scientific nonsense, nor did they keep him from correcting himself after he had been proven totally wrong. That was all him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #142
149. Sure it is, so why does he bring it up? Because it's a hit piece.
See how that works?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #149
170. Now I get it
One little dig and a whole bunch of inconvenient facts make a hit piece......right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #134
144. If we wanted a hit piece on Kennedy...
we'd talk about his heroin addiction or his inability to finish a sentence.

What we've mentioned in this thread are all valid criticisms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #144
152. Are you a bitter Clintonista or what?
You really need to get a clue pal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #152
240. Clintonista?
Wow. Talk about needing a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #133
155. yeah... I bet you did
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #133
164. Well most of that came off one of the science blogs I read.
A lot of them are talking about it. I KNEW though that this would be a flame-fest but I don't really care about that. As far as I know though he has not actually been offered the job. It is still something that needs to be headed off at the pass. There must be plenty of other candidates out there, people who may are the head of state EPAs or equivalent right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
135. Agreed and thank you for saying this
There are many many others in science and academic public policy that could be far better choices for these positions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #135
157. yeah... like those who lobby for companies
that put mercury in vaccines. Your slip is showing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
148. I see more intolerance coming from people shouting down those they think are quacks
on this website, than from those professing belief in those ideas.

RFK Jr. happens to believe the hundreds of studies finding a link between the vaccine PRESERVATIVE and autism, and you all jump all over him as though that was as ridiculous as being a global warming denier.

You all unscientifically accuse him and those who fear preservatives that might hurt children of being
ANTI-VACCINATION. But they're not. They fully understand the principle of vaccination and would like to protect their kids from diseases. They just don't want to inflict a difficult mental disability from protecting their kids from common diseases.

If a type of vaccine preservative that did not cause as much trouble in kids were introduced, they would probably consider using it.

Until then, they're just doing a cost benefit ratio-- is protection from measles worth it to me to subject my child to a shot that has caused problems in others?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #148
163. Hundreds of studies?
Not hardly...and the few that were out there were not particularly credible, yet RFK latched onto them because they validated the position that he wanted to be an advocate for, which is no way for someone in a job where they have to be scientifically objective to think. And what has he done now that it has been proven beyond any sane person's doubt that there is no link? Nothing. No correction, no apology, no using his voice to inform parents that he was wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #163
218. I didn't notice the California Dept of Public Health study of Jan 2008
I agree that if we thought thimerosal was causing the rise in autism then after its removal, rates should have declined. So this study is news to me. There probably was a news discussion story at the time-- I was in mourning so I wasn't following news closely in January 2008.

I agree that just because we don't know the cause of autism doesn't mean we should cling to disproved theories.

It must be so tough for the parents not to know what caused their child's condition. And for doctors not to know how to account for the sharp rise in cases.


=========================================================================
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/california-stud.html

The mercury-containing vaccine additive thimerosal is not a primary cause of autism, says a study published yesterday in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

High doses of thimerosal were used throughout the 1990's in infant vaccines before being largely removed from U.S. supplies in 1999. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and some people have blamed it for the dramatic, tragic rise of autism in the United States.

Yesterday's study, authored by California Department of Public Health researchers Robert Schechter and Judith Grether, used California Department of Developmental Services data to track rates of autism diagnoses since thimerosal's removal. If thimerosal was responsible for the autism epidemic, there would ostensibly have been a drop in diagnoses in children born after the 1999 removal -- but that's not what they saw. The numbers continued to rise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
150. ah yes... the centrists are back to claim what isn't theirs
calling RFK, Jr. a crank? Your suggestions and posts from here on out mean shit to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #150
176. Seconded n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
160. I'm not going to get into any of the other points, but wouldn't the vaccinations be
under the FDA, not the EPA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #160
166. Of course they would be.
But that's not really the point. The point is that both these other agencies require some minimum of scientific understanding to make policy. Rules and regulations need to be backed up with sound science. And someone who falls for the autism-thimerosol nonsense is not scientifically literate in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
165. Kicked and recommended.
This is important. We cannot replace their anti-science cranks with our anti-science cranks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
167. Drill, baby, drill!
How about giving Sarah the job? She's going to need one and I'm sure the strip mining outfits would be delighted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
169. I've got two science degrees.
I think he'd do fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #169
204. I've got three, and I think he would be awful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #169
325. I worked with a world famous vaccinologist at NIH
And I think he's a bad choice. No more anti-science folks in charge of scientific instituions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
171. I agree n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cureautismnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
172. Orac "The Autism Expert" Unmasked.
David H. Gorski
Assistant Professor
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Department of Surgical Oncology
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey

http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2005/09/orac_unmasked_a.html

"I work with Gorski. The best thing I have to say about him is that he is an asshole."

More info on this crank - The Worldwide Wanker of "Woo."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/david-gorski-md.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #172
264. Even if Gorski is the worst person ever,
it still doesn't disprove the fact that RFK jr. is completely wrong on the autism-vaccine link.

Besides I don't take anything coming out of Generation Rescue seriously. These are the same morons that believe autism can be cured. As an autistic person, I would laugh at them if they weren't swindling and lying to desperate parents.

Not to mention the autistic people that endure drugs and all sorts of "cures" at the behest of parents listening to these predators.

There is no cure for autism or any conspiracy to make or keep people autistic. And more and more evidence is piling up to a genetic cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
179. Crank? get serious. did you sleep for 7 years? Is mercury good?
we saw some serious cranks. RFK Jr is a Steve Hawkings to the Republicans' Droolin' Louis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
185. Completely disagree.
Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 11:10 PM by 20score
Don't want to take the time to argue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #185
187. ditto! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trudyco Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
188. Big Pharma sure has an ax to grind here. Lots of science companies have non-scientists running them.
You need to pick the right people under you and get things done.

I don't see any problem with this pick based on what you guys have said.
So you have a difference of opinion with him on vaccines. Whoopee.

Some people have a real vaccine ax to grind. Wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
189. slander is what I call it.
The EPA is not the FDA and that is that. Here they are- all the rabid big pharma voices wailing and hurling wrong wing style insults and out and out lies. Cool it, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #189
322. A person who has no science background
Should NOT be in charge of a science based agency. Or have you forgot the last eight yearsNow, want to call ME a PHARMA shill? I'm quite used to it. Its what happens when one quesstions the word of the sainted Kennedy.
BTW, I have yet to find a pediatrician who would find this acceptable either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #322
331. I respect your work and find your posts interesting.
If you want to make the point that only a scientists should run this agency, that is a valid point. You can make it, people can agree or chose not to. I have mixed feeling about that.

But the posters before you joined in were the folks who call names and insult every poster who has an opinion different than theirs and confuse (in my opinion on purpose) calling for the testing of an ingredient in a vaccine with vaccines in general.

I think that it is the duty of scientists to investigate any potential toxic effects of new products/procedures that is observed. In fact I believe in the precautionary principle. Also, I think that the public has the right to ask questions of scientists. It is inappropriate to accuse anyone seeking investigations of safety allegations anti science.

I apologize for name calling as I am the big one always asking for people to stop it. And look, here I went. I guess we can all become victims of the name calling hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
191. I hope Obama does pick him. He's a forward thinking, intelligent
person who has researched vaccination with an open mind and came out on the side of reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #191
213. Uh no...sorry to tell you this, but he came out on the exact opposite side of reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #213
232. So says the unreasonable.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #232
239. Yes, I guess my Googling for Bullshit kung-fu is not strong like yours.
I suppose I shouldn't be surpised that I would be called unreasonable, seeing as how I'm a scientist and all. I mean, poisoning people and trying to hold back the alternative health industry doesn't leave me enough time to build up the reasoning portions of my brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #239
243. Given your a scientist perhaps you can explain to me how injecting
carcinogens and neuro-toxins is considered safe practice because they're in a vaccine. When you're done, explain how Hannah Polling was harmed via vaccination and why you believe she's the only person to have experienced such a reaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #243
246. Can't you tell I'm too busy trying to smear RFK to answer your questions?
I can't believe you still asking all these questions. Fucking chemtrails never work the way they are supposed to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #246
284. I'm not a subscriber to the "chemtrail" mentality.
Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #284
291. Really? What if I told you that I put thalidomide in them?
All chemtrails are is vaporized MMR vaccine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #291
292. What if you just answered my questions
above?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #292
295. Mzmolly, your questions have been answered about a billion times in other forums.
Not only is it completely off topic for this thread, I'm not interested in taking on anti-vaxers. That's why you never see me in the health forum. I pick my fights in subjects I find interesting, and I don't find your particular brand of ignorance interesting (I limit myself to creationism, since I find evolution interesting). In fact, I'm sort of kicking myself for even engaging you in this because I've seen where it goes, and it never ends in a sastisfying way. It will drag on and on and you will still go on about how vaccines are not 100 percent safe. Or am I wrong? Is there any answer or evidence I can give you that will change your mind, or has your mind pretty much been made up?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #295
303. No they haven't been answered. What people do is the same thing you are.
Call me ignorant, along with RFK Jr. and any and all scientists that happen to agree that vaccination can and does harm some children. I find it disturbing that scientists like yourself have no collective interest in finding out who is vulnerable and why. Yet, you make blanket assertions smearing those who disagree and are intellectually curious about the subject.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
193. I like him- but I'd be happy with a Gore pick as well. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Minus World Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
198. Anti-science Sentiments on DU
I just want to reply to some of the others who are replying in this thread:

What is the point of the constant conflation of scientists with "Big Pharma" that goes on so readily here at DU? Scientists are regular people who just happen to have an education which includes knowledge of the genetics, biophysics and chemistry of the issues being brought up here. We are not all shills for evil corporations, just as not all electricians are shills for G.E.

Do we have an axe to grind against anti-vaccination advocates and alternative medicine quacks? Sure. But why is this so?

Maybe we're just a little bit bitter that scientific education in the United States has failed us. It has failed us because there are Americans who believe they have developed some sort of "scientific education" from ideologically-driven right and left wing sources, such as anti-vaccine websites and pro-life literature. It is a shame to see otherwise rational individuals get caught up in ideological battles over pet scientific issues that their party has politicized.

This is not just about a "difference in opinion," it's about the facts. It's about who has them right, and who has them wrong.

We cannot be so blinded by our ideals that we allow someone like RFK Jr. to ascend to a position at the head of the EPA. The Obama administration needs to reverse the damage of the past 8 years of anti-intellectualism by appointing some highly qualified *experts* to these key cabinet positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #198
200. Oh please. This is basically a Chappaquidick thread and you know it.
Don't pull that "science" crap and go peddle your talking points elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Minus World Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #200
203. I am fine right here, thank you.
You've no reason to be so flippant. I knew nothing about the Chappaquiddick incident until I googled it to make sense of your incomprehensible reply, and I still have no clue what your point was in bringing it up.

What "science" crap? What "talking points"? Make your case, or don't waste my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #203
205. The point is that it was a set up to kill and/or character assassinate
the Kennedys, just like this load of crap. Do you really think Cape Wind would exist if the Kennedys weren't a huge bee in the oil boys' bonnet? And do you really think any of the points in that stupid blog fart hold water? I've got news for you: it wouldn't and they don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Minus World Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #205
209. Uh huh
I understand your point, but I don't believe the intention is to besmirch the character of any Kennedy.

The point here is simple, and it's one that should be very apparent after 8 years of Bush: don't appoint unqualified/under-qualified individuals to positions better held by experts in their field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #209
210. It's not a professorship, it's a political appointment.
RFK is a lawyer and as the job involves policy he's probably much better qualified than most "scientists."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #200
233. I think you meant a they killed Marilin Monroe thread.
You do realize Chappaquiddick actually happened.

And RFK jr has not apologized for his Rolling Stone articles on Mercury/Autism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
207. It would be a big fucking mistake.
Why the hell haven't people LEARNED from Bush.....you can't put somebody in a job they aren't qualified for just because they are idealogues and they have the same beliefs as you.

There are literally tens of thousands of people more qualified for the position. Hell, I'M more qualified for the position, and I'm not even American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #207
208. No, you are not "more qualified" than RFK Jr., and you're a fool
if you really think you are. What is this, Rush week on DU? All these Kennedy haters emerging from under their rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #208
211. What does he have besides his name?
I have experience doing environmental research. I'm a published scientist.

Which is not to say that I AM EXPERIENCED ENOUGH to do the job. I'm not...I have some experience as a lab manager, but I'm certainly no administrator.

HOWEVER, I am no fool. The fools are the ones who would put an anti-science, hypocritical lawyer into a position that DEMANDS scientific objectivity and literacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #211
215. Sorry, policy is a job for lawyers,
but we'll call you if anything comes up, thanks. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #215
216. Uh...the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 03:40 AM by Evoman
Look at gore...very rational, very scientifically literate. There are also plenty of people who are both scientists and lawyers...hell, I know one or two.

It seems like a law degree and the last name kennedy is enough for some.....



on edit: Besides, I could get into law school easy. I still don't have the last name kennedy though....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #211
231. Monthly checks from his oil wells.
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #211
329. NRDC, Riverkeeper for a couple of things, not to mention expose the 06 OH election theft
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
217. I think he's a good choice and I hope he gets the job. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
219. I didn't know that RFK jr was an anti-vaccine nut. This changes my opinion of him drastically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #219
223. he's not anti-vaccine. he is against the mercury-based preservatives that used to be prevalent in
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 11:58 AM by dionysus
vaccines.

The OP and those who are peddling this anti RFK crap know it damn well too, but "anti-vaccine" makes him sound crazy so that's the verbage they are using.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. Which is the same thing. He's against science, and that should make him ineligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #224
225. do you think they took those preservatives out of the vaccines for a lark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #224
328. huh? Do you know ANYTHING about mercury poisoning? Look up Minimata, Japan, 1950s
There have to be better ways to preserve vaccines besides mercury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #219
332. Don't get your info on RFK JR from this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
226. As a scientist, I find these allegations a bit disturbing, and they DO bear looking into.
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 12:15 PM by tom_paine
Having said that, I know what I have seen of RFK Jr. has impressed me, and though he may be anti-vaccine, one does not get from him the close-minded bullet-headedness of the True Believer.

So, I will balance out my further reading on this topic with what mine own eyes and ears have seen and heard of RFK Jr.

Of course, the "calling the opponents Nazis" I have no problem with. The Bushies are now of that family, The Right-Wing Authoritarains, which does, it could be argued, place them on the side of history with ALL authoritarians and opposed, therefore, to ALL libertarian (and I mean this in the Jeffersonian sense, NOT the Freeper sense) principles.

And I also agree with the idea that "politically correct moderation" is exactly what is NOT called for when trying to repair 8 years of Kinder and Gentler Nazi-Bushie damage, muchof whichis extra-Constitutional.

So, while this allegation disturbs me, I am going to remain calm and double-check it. The Bushies do GREAT Propaganda and also the art of "lying without actually lying" (these people have WAAAAAYYYYYY too much time on their hands) such that this could be an out-of-context-Bushie Psyop.

So, I need to check before I buy it, then if true, I need to think about it.

So do we all.

As with the election, is a SINGLE ISSUE enough to truly discredit all of RFK Jr.'s good work?

I mean, Jefferson slept with the slaves. Date Rape, to say the least. Serial Rape worth 50 years in the clink, to say the most. But we listen to HIM.

The Bottom Line is this: Even IF RFK Jr. is anti-vaccine, so long as the rest of the allegation is not true, the willingness to embrace junk science, etc., I don't see why it's an issue.

As long as he doesn't ABUSE his power in the service of his personal prejudices/opinion, restores integrity to the organization, and open-mindedly practices good scientific rationale and thinking, even when the facts lead him to a view opposing his own....then I have NO PROBLEM with whatever he believes about vaccines, guns, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #226
238. The issue is simply this: there are people more qualified than RFK.
Picking people because of their popularity instead of their credentials is soooo fucking high school.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy or anything...but come on. This is a very important position, and you could throw a stone into a crowd and hit someone more qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #238
265. Disagree. How can you listen to Obama speak and think he is so petty?
I suppose it's possible that such a facile reasoning is behind this.

Here's what I think: This is a special circumstance. After 8 years of corruption, mismanagement and even worse, executive agencies run by people who had been working to destroy or oppose them, something unique is called for.

The vaccine issue aside (lets assume for the moment RFK Jr. is not a petty Bushie and can seperate his personal feelings and beliefs from the job he has to do, which I think is a good assumption) RFK Jr. has two things going for him that makes him the right man for the job, considering the Herculean task that lies ahead to restore the agencies to serving the PEOPLE, not the corprorations (or at least splitting the service 50-50..after 8 years of Bush even THAT seems good)

1) His job is not so much science but management of scientist. To sit back and let the scientists do science and draw conclusions. HIS job will be TO RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THE AGENCY. To restore the trust between co-workers, to restore the mission statement, to empower investigators and fine criminals.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I see it. RFK Jr.'s job only requires him to be intelligent, conscious, open-minded, and willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if he doesn't like it.

2) His manner inspires and his name inspires. Like it or not that is true. Human nature is what it is. People perform better when inspired in almost every human endeavor, for good and ill.

You might not like it, but no one can change human nature. It's hardwired into our biology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #265
266. You disagree that there are people more qualified, or you disagree
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 04:57 PM by Evoman
that is it very "high school"?

First of all, Obama hasn't picked the guy, so it's premature to call him petty. And I don't think of it as petty, as much as I think its short-sighted.

Anyone of us can be short sighted...including Obama. If I was in his position, and I had a ring of supporters, I would be tempted to pick somebody "on my side", even if they weren't fully qualified. I don't think Obama will pick him....but that his name is being floated around concerns me a little.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #266
335. Disagree that it is very "high school". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #226
244. He's not anti-vaccine. He's pro-safety.
There is a difference.

I appreciate your willingness to hear him out on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #226
323. This is the kind of reasoning that got us in trouble in the last eight years
You don't see a problem with someone who embraces "junk science" heading up a science based entity? Would you want someone who didn't believe germ theory personally heading up NIH? Or a creationist heading up NASA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #323
334. Well, to be honest I don't know enough about the vaccine debate to judge that.
I would have to do some reading to discuss that informedly, so that caveat before I respond.

With that out in the open, my fellow scientist and biologist, I stand behind my assertion, and now that I think about it, I suppose if a Creationist was a person of exceptional integrity and open-mindedness (seemingly impossible, I would agree, but we are speaking theortically here) who could seperate their personal feelings from the administartion of the science and could follow the facts, even if every single one led to conclusions that disproved creationism...if such a person existed, I would not, in principle, be opposed to them heading NASA.

Of course, creationism and open-mindedness are mutually exclusive so the existance of such a theoretical person is unlikely.

But I digress, and we may have to disagree because I think you are comparing two different categories of "junk science".

Again, we run up against my general ignorance of the vaccine controversy in more than the broadest sense, so I am not sure thee's a whole lot more to say than agreeing to disagree at least until I become mroe informed as to what degree the vaccine safety concerns are "junk science".

Having said that, can you really assert that having vaccine safety concerns speaks to the same level of scientific illiteracy as creationism or spontaneous generation?

Really? If you are asserting that, you will need to further defend doing so, because I simply don't buy it, even IF vaccine safety concerns are based on 100% "junk science" I'm not sure is is in the same category with belief in creationsism or spontaneous generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
247. RFK Jr. has done a lot for progresssive causes and has spoken out on a lot of controversial things.
He's a hero to me and many others for speaking out about election fraud and the environment.

I'm sure he's done a hell of a lot more for progressive issues than you have....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #247
256. But has he done anything for science and the environment? Emphatically NO!!!!!
I generally despise self described "progressives," most of whom have contempt for science.

Earth to the ethereal universe beyond: Kucinich never came close to winning.

This job should go to someone with science credentials, not to someone who despises science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
torgos_pizza Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
251. I think he'd be great
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
253. He'd be a great pick for the gas industry, a terrible pick for science and for the environment.
I expect the President-elect to make mistakes, but this would be a big one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
262. RFK jr is a terrible choice for the EPA.
He harms children and the community by contining to spread the discredited theory that vaccines cause autism. This scares parents into not vaccinating their children.

Not to mention that the mercury preservative in question hasn't been in childhood vaccines (sans the flu) for years. And yet autism rates continue to rise. A recent California study released earlier this year showed that even though the mercury preservative was removed from vaccines in 2001, autism rates continued to rise.

And while I applaud his work on election fraud, he is incompetent when it comes to science. The last thing we need is a junk science and woo peddler in the cabinet. We need someone who is open minded and lets science draw the conclusions. Not someone who can't let go of a pet theory even when science has long disproved it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #262
274. more slander- quit it!
How the hell is questioning a preservative in a vaccine anti vaccine? What is with all of you ? You claim to be scientists, but your continued refusal to use the correct and exact words in this post proves that you are not practicing science. You may be trained as one and you all certainly hurl the insults and accusations around so freely you might as well be freepers.

Scientists actually read and think and study and consider and test. Test and test more and develop products and plant varieties and novel chemicals and vaccines and solar cells and ipods and all sorts of useful things. And they test them as well. And when something is found to be unsafe they are obligated to test for these things as well. It is part of the bargain, you make something new, you better test it to make sure it is safe. To repeatedly call someone anti vaccine for calling for more safety testing of a preservative once used in them is reckless and it is slander. Just because you are on a message board, you are not free to slander people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
271. RFK JR. has spent as much of his time and resources defending the environment and researching it
as Al Gore has. I say if you think RFK Jr is unfit to be EPA director, than so is Al Gore. They are both lawyers, they have both worked tirelessly on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #271
273. Please don't slur Al Gore.
Except for one poorly advised concession to Creationism in public schools, Al Gore has never been anti-science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #273
275. and when was rfkjr against science?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #275
277. When he continually lied about vaccines causing autism.
You might try reading something in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #277
278. too much jibberish to find the substance
That doesn't sound as much like being against science(like a creationist) as it does drawing a bad conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #278
279. You could just as easily argue...
There's nothing wrong with being a Creationist, they've just drawn the wrong conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #279
280. Rfkjr was still being scientific.
and drawing from basic evidence the wrong conclusion. Creationists don't believe in basing conclusions off of empirical evidence. But those who believed the vaccine thing absolutely did base their conclusions off of empirical evidence(however scarce it may be).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #280
282. He wasn't being scientific at all.
"Creationists don't believe in basing conclusions off of empirical evidence. "

RFK Jr. doesn't base is conclusion that vaccines cause autism on emperical evidence. His conclusion is contrary to empirical evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #282
286. Do you know if he still believes this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #286
288. He hasn't said otherwise.
Or anything about the big conspiracy he claimed was involved with vaccines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #288
289. Doesn't seem like he's too interested in it anymore.
As if he's convinced there's no longer any conspiracy at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RFKJrNews Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #286
342. Apparently so
Here is a link to our coverage of Kennedy's appearance at the "Green Our Vaccines" rally in D.C. from June 2008.

http://rfkjrforpresident.com/2008/06/12/kennedy-speaks-out-against-autism-at-green-our-vaccines-rally-in-dc/

Check out the video and listen to his speech. He outlines his position on the matter very clearly. Since this was only a few months ago, I assume his views have not changed since then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #277
302. I would like you to provide scientific evidence that vaccines DO NOT cause autism.
Once you do that, you'll have an argument. Saying Kennedy 'lied' is stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #302
306. Have you been paying any attention at all?
Read post 262 above and do a little research. They took thimerosal OUT of vaccines years ago, and autism rates did NOT go down, as they would have if that had been a cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #306
309. But Scott! There's still all those scary adjuvants and preservatives!
Hoo boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #302
311. Here's just some of the evidence
Here are just a few relevant abstracts.


(1)

1: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):19-24. Links
Comment in:
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):15-6.
Continuing increases in autism reported to California's developmental services system: mercury in retrograde.Schechter R, Grether JK.
Immunization Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Pkwy, Richmond, CA 94804, USA.

CONTEXT: Previous analyses of autism client data reported to the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) have been interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that autism is caused by exposure to the preservative thimerosal, which contains ethylmercury. The exclusion of thimerosal from childhood vaccines in the United States was accelerated from 1999 to 2001. The Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine has recommended surveillance of trends in autism as exposure to thimerosal during early childhood has decreased. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether trends in DDS autism client data support the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure is a primary cause of autism. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Study of time trends in the prevalence by age and birth cohort of children with autism who were active status clients of the DDS from January 1, 1995, through March 31, 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence of autism among children with active status in the DDS. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of autism for children at each year of age from 3 to 12 years increased throughout the study period. The estimated prevalence of DDS clients aged 3 to 5 years with autism increased for each quarter from January 1995 through March 2007. Since 2004, the absolute increase and the rate of increase in DDS clients aged 3 to 5 years with autism were higher than those in DDS clients of the same ages with any eligible condition including autism. CONCLUSIONS: The DDS data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines. The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism.

PMID: 18180424




(2)

1: Pediatrics. 2003 Sep;112(3 Pt 1):604-6. Links
Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data.Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB.
Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative in vaccines, is a risk factor for the development of autism. We examined whether discontinuing the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark led to a decrease in the incidence of autism. DESIGN: Analysis of data from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register recording all psychiatric admissions since 1971, and all outpatient contacts in psychiatric departments in Denmark since 1995. PATIENTS: All children between 2 and 10 years old who were diagnosed with autism during the period from 1971-2000. OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual and age-specific incidence for first day of first recorded admission with a diagnosis of autism in children between 2 and 10 years old. RESULTS: A total of 956 children with a male-to-female ratio of 3.5:1 had been diagnosed with autism during the period from 1971-2000. There was no trend toward an increase in the incidence of autism during that period when thimerosal was used in Denmark, up through 1990. From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal. CONCLUSIONS: The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.

PMID: 12949291





(3)

JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1763-6. Links
Comment in:
J Fam Pract. 2004 Feb;53(2) 4-6.
JAMA. 2004 Jan 14;291(2):180; author reply 180-1.
JAMA. 2004 Jan 14;291(2):180; author reply 180-1.
Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism.Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M.
Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.

CONTEXT: Mercuric compounds are nephrotoxic and neurotoxic at high doses. Thimerosal, a preservative used widely in vaccine formulations, contains ethylmercury. Thus it has been suggested that childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccine could be causally related to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether vaccination with a thimerosal-containing vaccine is associated with development of autism. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort study of all children born in Denmark from January 1, 1990, until December 31, 1996 (N = 467 450) comparing children vaccinated with a thimerosal-containing vaccine with children vaccinated with a thimerosal-free formulation of the same vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate ratio (RR) for autism and other autistic-spectrum disorders, including trend with dose of ethylmercury. RESULTS: During 2 986 654 person-years, we identified 440 autism cases and 787 cases of other autistic-spectrum disorders. The risk of autism and other autistic-spectrum disorders did not differ significantly between children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccine and children vaccinated with thimerosal-free vaccine (RR, 0.85 <95% confidence interval for autism; RR, 1.12 <95% CI, 0.88-1.43> for other autistic-spectrum disorders). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a dose-response association (increase in RR per 25 microg of ethylmercury, 0.98 <95% CI, 0.90-1.06> for autism and 1.03 <95% CI, 0.98-1.09> for other autistic-spectrum disorders). CONCLUSION: The results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic-spectrum disorders.

PMID: 14519711




(4)


Hideo Honda, Yasuo Shimizu, Michael Rutter (2005)
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46 (6), 572–579.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x

Prev Article Next Article
Abstract
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study
Hideo Honda11Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, Yokohama, Japan, Yasuo Shimizu11Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, Yokohama, Japan and Michael Rutter22Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK1Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, Yokohama, Japan
2Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Hideo Honda, Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, 1770 Toriyama-cho, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama 222-0035, Japan; Tel: +81-45-473-0666; Fax: +81-45-473-0956; Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Background: A causal relationship between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and occurrence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has been claimed, based on an increase in ASD in the USA and the UK after introduction of the MMR vaccine. However, the possibility that this increase is coincidental has not been eliminated. The unique circumstances of a Japanese MMR vaccination program provide an opportunity for comparison of ASD incidence before and after termination of the program.

Methods: This study examined cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for children born from 1988 to 1996 in Kohoku Ward (population approximately 300,000), Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD-10 guidelines.

Results: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993.

Conclusions: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.




(5)

Miles JH, Takahashi TN. 2007. Lack of association between Rh status, Rh immune globulin in pregnancy and autism. Am J Med Genet Part A 143A:1397-1407.

Funded by:
Johnson and Johnson Company
Leda J. Sears Trust

Keywords
autism • Rh • Rh immune globulin • thimerosal • RhoGam


Abstract
Though causes of autism are considered largely genetic, considerable concern remains that exposure to Rh immune globulin (RhIg), which until 2001 in the United States contained the preservative thimerosal, can cause autism. To determine whether mothers of children with autism are more likely to be Rh negative (Rh-) or to have received RhIg preserved with thimerosal, which is 49.6% ethyl mercury, we surveyed families of children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) ascertained through a University-based autism clinic considered free of ascertainment biases related to type of autism or severity. Between 2004 and 2006, 305 mothers of 321 children with an ASD agreed to participate in a telephone interview. Analysis of complete records including the blood group status and RhIg exposure of 214 families showed that Rh- status is no higher in mothers of children with autism than in the general population, exposure to antepartum RhIg, preserved with thimerosal is no higher for children with autism and pregnancies are no more likely to be Rh incompatible. This was also true for autism subgroups defined by behavioral phenotype, gender, IQ, regressive onset, head circumference, dysmorphology, birth status, essential, or complex phenotype. These findings support the consensus that exposure to ethylmercury in thimerosal is not the cause of the increased prevalence of autism. These data are important not only for parents in this country but also for the international health community where thimerosal continues to be used to preserve multi-dose vials which in turn makes vaccines affordable. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cureautismnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #311
315. What else do you have? All 5 of these studies are flawed or irrelevant.
1. “Although this study by California's vaccine establishment clearly sustains the fact that California is in the midst of a growing autism epidemic and that California's system of reporting professionally diagnosed cases of full syndrome autism is the gold standard in the country, the conclusions in the study are flawed and premature, and does nothing to exonerate vaccines, particularly mercury containing vaccines, as a cause of California's autism epidemic.

Although the mercury burden in vaccines has been reduced over the years, we know that even very small amounts of mercury can cause serious, life altering neurological damage. California's ban on mercury containing vaccines for pregnant women and children under three did not take effect until December 2006.

Today, those children born after the ban took effect are between 4 months old and one year of age. California's developmental services reporting system DOES NOT include children under the age of three years old...."

http://ednews.org/articles/21739/1/Statement-by-Rick-Rollens-parent-of-a-17-year-old-son-with-autism-co-founder-U-C-Davis-MIND-Institute-and-member-California-Legislative-Blue-Ribbon-Commission-on-Autism/Page1.html


2. & 3. The Denmark studies have thoroughly been debunked before. The Bush administration manufactured this data to fit their predetermined conclusions. http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter5.html

4. Nowhere in the study is thimerosal even considered. RFK, Jr. is anti-thimerosal.

5. Executive Summary
Background
Rho(D) immune globulin routinely given during pregnancy formerly contained mercury from thimerosal, raising
concerns over a possible role in autism causation. A May 2007 paper by Miles & Takahashi reported no association.
The conclusions contradict other studies on the subject. This review evaluates the Miles & Takahashi research,
related documents, and other relevant literature and identifies alternate explanations for the reported observations.

Findings
The review found deficiencies in sample quality, including small and unmatched controls and inadequate
methods for determining mercury exposure from RhIg brands. Poor sample recruitment design likely produced
under-representation of mothers receiving RhIg, the key exposure variable. Alterations in sample composition
during implementation, contravening accepted research standards, were detected, as were factual errors on vaccines,
RhIg, and mercury. The lead author has many undisclosed conflicts of interest. These problems may underlie the
negative finding on association between RhIg and autism. Additional calculations of the data, not done by Miles &
Takahshi, show a 71% higher rate of Rh immune globulin exposure in children with autism relative to unaffected
siblings, in contradiction to the original findings but consistent with other studies.


Conclusions
The Miles & Takahashi conclusions are questionable based on research quality issues. Recalculation of the data
shows an increased risk of autism from Rh immune globulin. Definitive conclusions await higher quality studies.

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:M-ZxJ1DWWqgJ:www.safeminds.org/pressroom/pres_releases/Review_Miles_Takahashi_6-20-07.pdf+Lack+of+association+between+Rh+status,+Rh+immune+globulin+in+pregnancy+and+autism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&client=firefox-a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kindly point me to a study that examines the autism rates in a population of vaccinated children vs. un-vaccinated children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
276. So I am to listen to an unknown blogger who resorts to making fun of Kennedy?
As far as I know, this is an industry insider terrified of Kennedy getting into the Obama Administration. Where is the science that proves vaccines are 100% safe? There isn't any.

And in case you didn't notice - EPA isn't the FDA. Apparently this guy doesn't understand that.

Garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #276
287. I'm inclined to agree...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #276
324. Vaccines aren't 100% safe. Nothing is.
However the article from Rolling Stone is out there.
The link between autism and vaccines has been thoroughly debunked by NIH, WHO and others. Shame on you for not knowing that.
I suggest you go to NIAID's website or WHO's website to read the actuall science.
RFK, jr is an anti-vaxx nut who can't even keep his scientific facts straight. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cureautismnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #324
327. Thoroughly Debunked by the NIH? Not true.
Dr. Bernadine Healy is the former head of the National Institutes of Health, and the most well-known medical voice yet to break with her colleagues on the vaccine-autism question.

In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Healy said the question is still open.

"I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational," Healy said.

"But public health officials have been saying they know, they've been implying to the public there's enough evidence and they know it's not causal," Attkisson said.

"I think you can't say that," Healy said. "You can't say that."


Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are “susceptible” to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #327
340. thanks for that link
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
326. I would be happy to see RFK Jr. as head of EPA - he has done a LOT for environmental protection
in our darkest moments under BushCo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuddhaGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #326
330. Ditto!!!
I hope to see RFK Jr. as EPA head!! :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
333. I agree to some extent
A recent column of his ran in the L.A. Times, taking on Big Oil and the industry's harmful effects on climate change.

All fine and well, except he opened the column with a wistful reflection of the time he recenty spent "water-skiing with my family".

Those boats don't run on solar power. It just adds 'fuel' to the charges that he is an effete and out-of-touch hypocrite, which unfair or not, is understandable when a 'man of the people' considers water-skiing a luxury he and his family can afford, but the rest of us must conserve and shun Big Oil, lest we melt the icecaps. Do as I say, not as I do.

It's hard to have faith in someone running the EPA when they easily and effectively undermine their own argument in a simple op-ed. Just imagine that oversight magnified at the helm of the EPA.

I admire his late father a great deal. But he shares his name, not necessarily his wisdom or judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse of greyface Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #333
338. Anyone who spends his time taking his private jet to environmental conferences.
While living off the proceeds of his inheritance including direct payments from his oil wells is somewhat unclear on the concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ispy Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
341. Obama himself has to act
Yeah, I sort of agree. But what I think is much more important is, that the world takes us serious again. And that could only happen if he started talking with some guys. Otherwise our economy will fall even more and we get truly insulted: http://theworldspeaks.info/archives/172
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC