joker_ said:
There may actually be a point to what you're trying to say. You just don't have the first clue about how to say it, without spewing another fallacy. Just because others do it, just because it happens all the time, is supposed to convince me and others how?

By showing you that decisions like this are made much more often than you'd care to know, and somehow you haven't dropped dead yet.

Once again, because it is already done, does not make an action acceptable. What part of that do you fail to understand? The crux of the dipshit part of your argument is "people are endangered every day, it is "okay" to further endanger them." What I know and don't know is irrelevant. I'll give you a little break, why don't you try your argument like this?:

"I don't feel comfortable with the alarmist nature of the article. To satisfy my needs there would need to be more research. Since the EPAs research is being doubted by a well qualified group of scientists, perhaps an independent review is what is needed here. Since, personally I am not in agreement with them, because I've worked in the industry."

You did say it in a way, but it was jumbled together with your bullshit about how other chemicals are hazardous and how you're okay with people being endangered, because they're already endangered.

Other chemicals are not the point, the "risk assessment" you speak of is targeted towards the specific substance in question, yes?

The point is, this particular chemicals safety is being doubted, by a very well qualified group of people.

Tyvron said:
I point out steel and other chemicals to show that not only is there a methodology for determining acceptable exposure levels, but it's done more often than you'd like to think and assuming the EPA's done it properly,

You are assuming they've done it properly but a group of scientists have decided to write a letter telling them they have not. Yet, the EPA is ignoring these people, why the fuck would they do that? Why wouldn't they just say, "hey, all these scientists are saying there is danger, so we shall do more testing, we'll even invite some other people to test things out?"
Why not? Come on?

Think much?

Tyvron said:
If you still somehow fail to understand that, I'm sorry but I'm not here to give you the scientific background you should've gotten on your own over the internet.

So, I take it you don't like microwave popcorn?

joker_

Minneapolis, MN

October 2005

OCT 11, 2007 10:48 PM

Tyvron said:

FearTheReaper said:
I just invented a new word for you: Snaptardation!

If you didn't have your head so firmly rammed up your ass you would understand that the Bush administration is at war with science.

If you had any clue as to the goings on of the world you would understand the depth of the attack on our country by placing business men in positions they have no right to be. This is so obviously one of those circumstances that it is shocking anyone would say otherwise.

You clearly have no understanding of cause and effect.

If I were to write anything about risk assessment people would fall asleep while reading my articles. I prefer that they do that to your ignorant posts.

But you keep going, guy who knows more than Nobel Laureates.

People with degrees in Interdisciplinary Engineering with a focus on Mechanical and a background in Environmental = socially awkward and lacking common sense.

It doesn't matter how you want to justify it or explain it. If the EPA's tests are scientifically invalid, then they should be examined by peer review and debunked by legitimate means. Saying they have no credibility because of who is in charge and who they associate with is the textbook definition of an ad hominem. Is it suspicious? Is it obvious? Of course it is. But it doesn't mean the objectivity of the scientific method can be thrown away just cause you don't like the guy who gave you the results.

The guys who gave the results do not want further testing, they want to push the product to market, right now. Does that not strike you as odd?

So, I've got this bridge I'm selling, are you interested?

Tyvron

Ann Arbor, MI

September 2007

OCT 12, 2007 01:58 AM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

joker_ said:
Once again, because it is already done, does not make an action acceptable. What part of that do you fail to understand? The crux of the dipshit part of your argument is "people are endangered every day, it is "okay" to further endanger them." What I know and don't know is irrelevant.

No, what I'm saying is that if the proper procedures are followed and the research is valid, then it's okay to endanger people because the danger should be statisically nil -- not quite impossible, but acceptably rare. How rare is acceptably rare? It depends on the substance in question and how severe the side effects. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that I'm not naive enough to think progress won't come at a price. We're going to have to take risks and they might be costly. The best we can do is put procedures in place to minimize and avoid them.

joker_said:
Other chemicals are not the point, the "risk assessment" you speak of is targeted towards the specific substance in question, yes?

The point is, this particular chemicals safety is being doubted, by a very well qualified group of people.

My point is, if the EPA used valid test procedures and modelling systems, then the worries of those qualified people will be proven to not be a problem. However, for some reason, the EPA doesn't seem to verify their procedures. Hrm. There may be details about their method that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and prove their testing was valid. If it's not they aren't likely to get past the CDPR anyway.

joker_ said:
You are assuming they've done it properly but a group of scientists have decided to write a letter telling them they have not. Yet, the EPA is ignoring these people, why the fuck would they do that? Why wouldn't they just say, "hey, all these scientists are saying there is danger, so we shall do more testing, we'll even invite some other people to test things out?"
Why not? Come on?

Think much?

You're stating the obvious but I'm trying to look at the EPA's study objectively. They certainly lose a lot of credibility by not submitting to outside review but that alone doesn't prove it invalid. Is it suspect? Yes. Does it prove the method was flawed? No.

joker_ said:
So, I take it you don't like microwave popcorn?

Sure do, but I'd have to eat two bags a day for twenty years before I stood a chance of seeing negative side effects. You probably have as much chance of getting cancer from the dish detergent on your plates.

joker_ said:
The guys who gave the results do not want further testing, they want to push the product to market, right now. Does that not strike you as odd?

So, I've got this bridge I'm selling, are you interested?

Again, it's obviously suspicious, but I'd rather see outside testing done than just jump to "they don't want to review their work, it must be wrong." It's just too easy and obvious a jump to make. The CDPR is going to conduct their own study and ultimately has the final say. If it's proven the EPA moved some numbers around, it'll be rejected. If it's proven that despite "common sense" that the test results are valid, it'll be approved.

joker_

Minneapolis, MN

October 2005

OCT 12, 2007 05:45 AM

Tyvron said:
No, what I'm saying is that if the proper procedures are followed and the research is valid, then it's okay to endanger people because the danger should be statisically nil -- not quite impossible, but acceptably rare. How rare is acceptably rare? It depends on the substance in question and how severe the side effects. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that I'm not naive enough to think progress won't come at a price. We're going to have to take risks and they might be costly. The best we can do is put procedures in place to minimize and avoid them.

The benefits in this situation are continued low cost production of strawberries In this particular scenario, I don't see a reason why a single human or animal life should be endangered. Let the price of strawberries increase. If a person really doesn't want to pay a premium on organically grown strawberries, it is relatively easy to grow them in ones own backyard.

It isn't naive or idealistic in this scenario, a pesticide company making more money, strawberries still being cheaper, is that "progress" worth buffer zones, and other dangers?

If this was going to solve world hunger, or was the only way to prevent global warming, then maybe the risk would be acceptable. Strawberries and greater profits for a pesticide company, is not progress that warrants serious risk.

Tyvron said:

This is where we disagree. The EPA is supposed to be protecting us. Having our best interests in mind, they should never have any qualms at all about verifying procedures. They are not a privately held company, there are no trade secrets.

Tyvron said:

joker_ said:
So, I take it you don't like microwave popcorn?

You might want to look up some of the other risks there. Two bags a day for a decade will do it also.
http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/search/keywords=microwave+popcorn/
Personally, I have no risk of damage from microwave popcorn, I think it smells like shit, so I avoid it. (Note the article is not alarmist.)

Tyvron said:

Now this last part. Their method may or not be flawed. What we do know is, a group of people who are qualified have an issue with it, and the EPA are basically saying "no, we're right, you're wrong."

We also know that a company is going to make profits from it and coincidentally an executive from that company is working an important position at the EPA right now. Regardless of the methodology, the substance is considered dangerous by a number of respected scientists.

Your point that you believe further testing should be done, is not deniable, and just because it looks like yet another example of greedy business men not giving a fuck about human life, it does not mean it is.

I do think it is very naive to believe that businessmen would not pull strings to get their product on the market if they're working for a protection agency.

On a slightly less serious slant.
Why would the scientists raise a red flag over this? Do they hate strawberries? Have they been paid by the Strawberry defamation league?

Tyvron

Ann Arbor, MI

September 2007

OCT 12, 2007 06:06 PM

joker_ said:
This is where we disagree. The EPA is supposed to be protecting us. Having our best interests in mind, they should never have any qualms at all about verifying procedures. They are not a privately held company, there are no trade secrets.

I agree that they should open their results to peer review. If their methods were based on sound judgement, there should be no problem. It's suspicious that they wouldn't want to and it undermines their credibility, but isn't enough to prove their studies wrong by itself.

joker_said:
Now this last part. Their method may or not be flawed. What we do know is, a group of people who are qualified have an issue with it, and the EPA are basically saying "no, we're right, you're wrong."

We also know that a company is going to make profits from it and coincidentally an executive from that company is working an important position at the EPA right now. Regardless of the methodology, the substance is considered dangerous by a number of respected scientists.

Your point that you believe further testing should be done, is not deniable, and just because it looks like yet another example of greedy business men not giving a fuck about human life, it does not mean it is.

I do think it is very naive to believe that businessmen would not pull strings to get their product on the market if they're working for a protection agency.

On a slightly less serious slant.
Why would the scientists raise a red flag over this? Do they hate strawberries? Have they been paid by the Strawberry defamation league?

Again, I agree that the situation is very obvious if not blatant. However, just on scientific principle, I want their study to be reviewed, which the CDPR is going to do anyway. If they played favorites to make a profit, it's going to come out for certain then.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

NEWS: EPA Totally Okay With Your Mutation

joker_

Minneapolis, MN

October 2005

OCT 11, 2007 10:43 PM

joker_

Minneapolis, MN

October 2005

OCT 11, 2007 10:48 PM

Tyvron

Ann Arbor, MI

September 2007

OCT 12, 2007 01:58 AM

joker_

Minneapolis, MN

October 2005

OCT 12, 2007 05:45 AM

Tyvron

Ann Arbor, MI

September 2007

OCT 12, 2007 06:06 PM