Re: The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2008

[Guest guest]

Very interesting article.

I've known for a long time about these animal tests where the animals are given insanely massive doses of chemicals or other test items and the results of the tests are taken seriously. I recall studies where animals were given such high doses that to scale it for humans, they would have to consume a gallon of the substance every day for decades to run the same risk. Granted some chemicals are harmful in small doses, but most aren't.

One thing I noticed throughout is that the person or organization making the claim is taken at face value and the media runs with it. However, evidence to the contrary is ignored, even when there is far more contrary than support evidence. It seems to me that these claimants should be put on scientific trial to prove their cases, and if they can't, they should lose be made to retract their claim and apologize. If, on the other hand, they are found to have links with manufacturers, lawyers or others who seek to profit from the hysteria and changeover to new chemicals and processes, that they should face criminal charges.

In a message dated 12/24/2008 1:43:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Scroll down to see what they have to say about the vaccines and autism sham...

AdminsirtatorOne site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

" However, evidence to the contrary is ignored, even when there is far

more contrary than support evidence. "

I couldn't help notice in the article that when it came to mobile

phones that people were more inclined to believe they are harmless, I

cynically thought is that because most people like their toys and

gadgets like mobile phones and are less inclined to part with such?

I think previously there have been reports in the past that too much

TV viewing is not good for people, but doesn't stop the vast majority

viewing endless junk.

>

> Very interesting article.

>

> I've known for a long time about these animal tests where the

animals are

> given insanely massive doses of chemicals or other test items and

the results of

> the tests are taken seriously. I recall studies where animals were

given

> such high doses that to scale it for humans, they would have to

consume a gallon

> of the substance every day for decades to run the same risk.

Granted some

> chemicals are harmful in small doses, but most aren't.

>

> One thing I noticed throughout is that the person or organization

making the

> claim is taken at face value and the media runs with it. However,

evidence

> to the contrary is ignored, even when there is far more contrary

than support

> evidence. It seems to me that these claimants should be put on

scientific

> trial to prove their cases, and if they can't, they should lose be

made to

> retract their claim and apologize. If, on the other hand, they are

found to have

> links with manufacturers, lawyers or others who seek to profit

from the

> hysteria and changeover to new chemicals and processes, that they

should face

> criminal charges.

>

>