> So, Dale, are you paid by Pioneer (soon to be Pioneer/ Dupont)
> as a PR agent to spread misinformation or do you do it for free?
I'm paid to do production research, and I do it at all sorts of wacky hours.
Pioneer is not interested, as far as I can tell, in debate with
environmentalists. The people in charge of PR are probably too interested
in covering their butts to engage in honest debate. Certainly they don't
want to debate with extremists.
> How does Dale explain this, for instance: "Between 1973 and 1991,
> the incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma increased at the rate of
> 3.3% per year in the U.S., making it the third fastest-growing
This particular cancer, probably IS linked to environmental contaminants,
probably dioxin. But keep in mind this is not a very common kind of cancer.
> after prostate cancer, growing at 3.9% per year, and
> melanoma of the skin, also growing at 3.9% per year."
Prostate cancer is probably explained by the great increase in screening in
the last decade, along with increasing lifespan. Melanoma is explained by
all the sun-tanning behavior people have engaged in over the last 30 years.
> Also, If one half of the present population is predicted
> to have cancer, is this not an increase?
This is bogus information as far as I can tell. Check out the American
Cancer Soc. website. It is more reliable than Rachels.
Cited from Rachels by Alex:
> "Stephan Muller at the Swiss federal Institute for Environmental
> Science and Technology in Dubendorf reported finding one sample
> of rain containing 4000 nanograms per liter of 2,4-dinitrophenol,
> a common pesticide (not to be confused with the weed killer 2,4-D).
2,4 DNP is not a pesticide. The most closely related pesticide was dinoseb,
I think it was 2,4-dinitrocresol, a herbicide. This was taken off the
market a decade ago. Who the hell knows why Muller found "one sample"
contaminated with DNP, or where it came from.
> "Muller had previously studied samples of rain from 41 storms
> over Europe and found Atrazine at levels exceeding 100 nanograms
> per liter in 9 of them."
I read a little about these studies. These are in samples taken in the
first moments of rain storms when drops are sweeping all the particulates
out of the air. Yet Rachels presents these as if they are averages. Keep
in mind that 100 ng/l means 100 parts-per-TRILLION! That is a very, very
low concentration. This lack of appreciation of scale has a lot to do with
the anti-pesticide hysteria I see in the activist community.
> "** Last month, researchers in the U.S. and Canada announced that
> they had measured pesticides in the amniotic fluid of 30% of a
> sample of 9 pregnant women in Los Angeles, California."
Given current analytical methods, this is totally unremarkable. That people
are alarmed by this (without more information), again, shows complete lack
of appreciation of scale.
> "...researchers cannot be sure that DDE would have any
> affect on babies exposed continuously in the womb.
> But Chan pointed out that alligators were harmed by exposure
> to a similar chemical in Florida after a chemical spill.
These press-releasing scientists are working the hysteria for money. Notice
how he is implying a vague hazard, not really saying anything, then relating
it to an incident involving doses, probably millions of times greater.
Well, I don't have time to argue all the particulars. But I urge you not to
depend on polemic sources like Rachels, just like I wouldn't depend on
Dupont PR materials. There is reliable information out there in the
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: