Headline yesterday from the despicable Associated Press (featured, as usual, on AT&T/Yahoo "News"):
"BPA study finds high levels in pregnant women results in behavior lproblems in kids"
Now this is a erslumption of my "your are a kook if:" series. But I have already included the AP, and everyone who works for the AP, in the series. And I have done basically the same for radical environmentailists (who I guarantee you are responsbile for tthis ridiculous "study" (f some 24 women, if I understood the virtuallyl incoherent story correctly). No, the new "kookisms" will be much more specific than merely rehashing that radical environmentalists and AP reporters are kooks (as my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for a competent, honet AP reporter continus to find that no such thing exists--a "study" on my part that covers THOUSANDS of AP stories over more than 8 years, and not just 24 examples).
You ARE a kook if:
170. You believe that the chemical BPA is one of the main problems facing people in the U.S, and the world.
171. You believe that it makes any sense to do a study ON BEHAVIOR, in order to try to "convict" a targeted cehmical of being "bad". As a one-time "scientist" (with a B.S. degree in physics, I find this OFFENSIVE. It should be OFFENSIVE to your intelligen ce, whether you have any scientific training or not.
172. You belivee that this "study" shows that BPA should be "banned", or has any meaning at all.
173. You pay any attention to these periodic PROPAGANDA stories from the despicable AP.
What is BPA? I am gald lyu asked me that. Ididn't know. Did you? I actually spent tooo much time (since I can't really read anymore--eyesight) in trying to read Wikipedia. That is actually instructive. No, it is NOT 'instructive" because Wikipedia rehashes every single environmental ATTACK made on BPA by environmentalists, over apparently decades. It is instructive becaluse reading Wikipedia explains WHY the AP wrote this incomprrehensible,story, as if EVERYOJNE knows exactly what BPA is. Yep The despicable AP regards itself as a conduit for envoronmentalist propaganda, and I am sure radical "environmentalist" propaganda, and I am sure radical encironmentalists believe that theeir previous PROPAGANDA has made everyone aware of this (onn) issue. Environmentalists have "blamed" BPA for everything from (apparently) obesidy to neurogical problems to birth defects. What the despicable AP did NTO tell you is that the FDA, which took up the problem ONLY becaluse of thewse attacks, has found BPA to be "safe" (that is, that there is NO evidence that it is NOT safe).
Yous ay I did not tell you wath BPA is? Well, the despicable AP definitely did not tell you. BPA (biopharma A, or some such thing--I forgot as soon as I read it on Wikipedia) is evidently a plycarbonate chemical (all the AP said was that it is "widespread") used in plastics and epoxy resins, as well as other products. It was evidently developed in the 1930s, and has been part of our industrial civilization ever since. Of course, radical environmentalists, as well as the "occupy Wall Street" peole, do not have any use for our industril civilization If they had there way, 1/3 (or maybe 2/3) of the world would STARVE. But more than one has said that we NED to reduce the number of human beings on this planet.
What is wrong with reporting a SMALL "study" (in alarmist terms) about a chemiclcal slupposedly "causing" behavorial lproblems in kids, if it is present in high levels in their preganant mothers? Everything is wrong with it. Even the despicable AP, despite the SCARE propaganda headline, noted that rel experts said that the "study" did not mean much, because there are so many OTHER factors that may be responsible for "behavior problems" in children. Unless you can trace BPA to an ORANIC BIRTH DEFECT, this is a ridiculous "study".
Why even do a "study" so small, on such a SUBJECTIVE thing as behavior suppposedly resulting from a chemical. That question answeres itself. The whole purose of doing a s"study" like this is to come up with SOMETHING that supports the AGENDA of the people doing the "study". No one without an ageanda would do a "study" like this. The more SUBJECTIVE everything is, the more likely it is that the "scientists" can make SOMETHING out of it.
What is really going on here? It is what is ALWAYS going on when "environmentalists" attack some part of our industril civilization (it even happened with DDT, where the environmentalst campaign against pesticides probably KILLED milllions of people and is still killing them--leading to that amazing story in the Bush years about how we were providing MOSQUITO NETTING to Tanzania to "sav" children, becaue PESTICIDES are a "no-no"). Did I jsut call radical environmentalists MURDERERS. Damn right I did, as I ahve done before in this blog. Why not? They call peole like ME "murderers" of the entire planet, and I ahve told lyou before lthat I do not turn the other cheek. Waht environmentalists, and leftists in general, do is try to turn SPECUALTION into fact, and then say: What if its is true? What if it is true that "global wwaring is a fraud", and you want to KILL people (not to mention destroying their livelihood) in the name of "global warming"? What environmentlaists do is argue that it is POSSIBLE that BPA could cause adverse effects, and then do "study" after "study" to raise as much SMOKE as possilbe. Pile speculation on speculation, and then demand that the product be banned. (or that we DESTROY our industril civilization and livelihood based on outrageous OVERHYPE of the dangers of "global warming"--overhype, even if there is such a man-made thing).
Thus, even the propagandists of the delspicable AP had to acknowledge that this "study" did not mean much. Waht, then, do you say? Well, first you use the SCAER headline, to try to build on previous propaganda (which has obviously failed, since I had only a vague recollection of environmentalists attacking BPA in thae past decade, and I could not have told you either what BA is, or wht its "dangers" are supposed to be). I digress not really) What the despicabgle AP said is what propagandists ALWAYS say: "Well, this study does not 'prove' anything, but it is enough to show that further study is needed." LIKE HELL IT IS. It is only enough to add to my "you are a kook if:" series. Sure, a chemmical like BPA COULD have some adverse effects. It is POSSIBLE. But there is NO evidencethat it has adverse effects on humans, in the concentration that it has in human beings. You say that "no chemical" is acceptable (spouting environmentalist propaganda). Hogwash. WE are MADE of cehmicals. We encounter massive number of NATURAL chemicals every day. Antibiotics, and those "mircacles" that have eliminated polio and smallpox, are due to CHEMICALS. There is nothign inherently dangerous about TRACE amounts of chemicals entering into our ecosystem. DDT, for example, SAVED LIVES from malaria. You can argue aobut DDT, but you have to put "saving human lives" on one side of the ledger. And you CANNOT condmen ALL pesticides. I just called environmentalists "murderers" again=, didn't I. Well, I will do so again, and so long as I live (assuming I don't get killed by a mosquito carried disease because all pesticides have been banned).
I jsut can't get over it, . BEHAVIIOR problems in kids, because pregannt women had high levels of BPA. This strikes me as a NEW excuse for BAD PARENTING (one of those possible "factors" that could explain the "rsults"). It is simply ABSURD to suggewt such a bizarre chemical effect from a SMALL study, where you cannot pont to an ORGANIC birth defect. I just can't get over it. "KOOK" is too kind a word for these people.
You say that you don't know what I mean when I say that the AP story was incoherent? Welll, I hthink I have partially explained it. So help me, the sotyr seemed to ASSUME that everyone knew about BPA (not bothering to explan anythng about its prior history, the prior FDA action, or ANYTHING). But it is worse than that. You have lthe SCARE headline, and then the story itself quotes a real expert debunking the study a pretty much meaningles.s. That does not stop the AP form tlrying to suggest that the study has "value", because it shows the need for "further study". But you should be able to see lthat this was an incoherent MESS (without even my kind of bad eyesight to explain why it was so incoherent, as the AP has proofreaders).
Still doubt me? Never do that. I am gong to (approximatrely)) quote the last sentence of the story: "Girls alrealdy have problems at that age, and this can only add to their academic and social problems." Say waht? That last sentence floored me. It made me DOUBT that the AP story was even as "coherent" as I thought it was, and I thought ti was virtuallyy incomprehensible in the first place. The headline said "kids", not "girls". WHAT "social problems and academic problems". Did the AP basicallyu change the subject? Was the story so incoherent that I could nto even understnad it at all? I admit that I don't read as well as I did when I had decent eyesight, but I really don't think I missed that much. Does that last sentence mean that the PREGNANT women were the ones with the behavior problems, or caused bhavior lproblems for their children? Seems ridiculous. I frankly had, and have, NO idea what that last wentence meant. But it was only slightly less comprehensible thatn the rest of the story.
I tell you. We ahve to be coming to the "last days" for the dspcicalbve AP. Surely He will not keep PUNISHING me for being an agnostic by keeping me on this futile search for an honset, competent AP reporter. Even Job did not suffer like this. Thus, I continue to warn you to stay awya from AP people and facilities. AT the very least, lyou risk turnig into a pillar of salt.