Re: Re: Toxic Organisms

March 4, 2008

,

I can't resolve the issues of " toxic " but here is my take on why it and " mycotoxin " claims persist when others (relatively) quickly stopped.

This entire discusssion, revealing the vast range of understandings and uses of the terms " toxic, " " toxic mold " and " mycotoxins " illustrates exactly why it has taken hold and appears to be staying. Therefore, the impotance of your questions increases. Sort of a dysfuntional circularity in the negative direction.

It has become not so much a technical issue or one of definiton, as it has become an issue of claims based on real life experience, the cause of which is perhaps misattributed, but which science cannot yet refute. Instead of admitting they don't know, science continues to trot out a string of arguments that don't result in a sufficient proof: The stoppage of the harm claimed by victims. The " toxic " claim has the most traction for claims and the least traction for refutation. Let the games begin!

And they have. The latest " science, " which at first seemed credible, or at least authoritative, was ultimately exposed as tainted, at best. But it's gravest mistake was to prevent a stoppage of harm by scaring doctors (including through the courts) to not treat people for any symptoms if they claimed exposure to mold or mycotoxins.

This is not how to win friends and influence people. It certainly does not foster the trust that is essential to acceptance of authority or science.

So " toxic mold " and " mycotoxin " persist because they have yet to be resolved in either the court of public opinion or the annals of science. Which the lack of answers to your question, in a circular way, demonstrates.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> After re-reading some and reading for the first time many of the

> posts about 'toxic mold' nomenclature, I still ask:

> Is a rattle snake a poisonous snake? My answer, is yes.

> So is there an analogy with mold? Not all snakes are poisonous,

> that's a given, but a rattler or cobra is always 'poisonous'. So if

> not all mold is 'toxic', then we should be able to call any mold that

> makes or might make a person sick, toxic?

> Another analogy might be the honey bee. Is it also known as

> poisonous bee? Not to me. But my neighber will go into shock with one

> sting. To him, it's poisonous. But I don't think anyone calls it a

> poisonous bee. They say it's poisonous to him.

> So, back to the very first response (I think) that I got, maybe from

> Steve. It's about being incorporated into the lexicon of that portion

> of our society that talks about and worries about mold. If you have a

> mold and it makes you sick, you call it 'toxic mold'. If it even has

> the slightest risk of making you ill, you call it toxic. That is

> where the ubiquitous term originated - the lay person's understanding

> of something out there that is not good for you - mold!

> If we accept that the lay person understands that in general (as per

> every reference I can find) mold is not wanted in a building where

> people work or live, then we can accept the term 'toxic mold'. This

> is regardless of the actual health effect - some are pathogenic, some

> simple irritants, others might produce toxins. But the generic term

> toxic can apply when used by the lay populace.

> When one of the mold industry members uses the term toxic, especially

> in reference to offering services or justifying decision-making, we

> naturally assume they should know better - i.e., that it is not

> accepted as part of our lexicon (even if it is part of the lay

> lexicon)(note: it is incorporated into the remediators, water

> restoration industry lexicons too - but only by the vast majority who

> are not well trained).

> The bottom line is this, the lay person simply wants to know is this

> toxic? in other words, is it bad for me and my children? It's like

> the sub-specialty of risk communication. The public just wants a

> straight answer that they can understand.

>

> But, and here's the kicker, If we accept the term for general

> descriptive purposes, when can one use it? Can a lawyer use the term

> toxic mold? He is neither a lay person nor an industry expert. Can

> one use the term in advertising for remediation? Can one use the term

> to describe conditions of a house to the prospective buyer? Or

> neighbor?

> Or must we always define it with the caveats and explanations of

> risk, exposure, cost of analysis for mycotoxins, production

> potential, typs of mycotoxins, species, precatutionary principle,

> etc.?

>

> S

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

March 4, 2008

Carl,

That was very well put. And on the specific subject of mycotoxins. Personally I do believe they are the primary culprit regardless of mathematical extrapolations that would indicate a very high threshold level based on what we know about food and symptoms of poisoning from mycotoxins.

Yes, there are many microbial contaminants in water damaged buildings. Yes, there is a probable synergistic effect when one is exposed to these multiple toxins. But the facts remain, we don't know the minimum amount of mycotoxins one must be exposed to in the real life setting of a water damaged building and it is well documented that mycotoxins cause the exact same serious symptoms many people complain of after an exposure. Regardless of routes of exposure, the symptoms are the same from exposure to the same substances once they get in one's system.

People are complaining of symptoms of serious poisoning. We know mycotoxins poison. We know people are being exposed to these poisons at doses and for time periods we know little about. We know we can do rodent studies of mycotoxins that cause the same symptoms. I know it seems to be politically correct to discuss multiple toxins as the cause and that could be right. But my gut is telling me, its the mycotoxins.

Symptoms Known To Be Indicative Of Human Toxicity

Endpoint

LT

I

ESC

R

Comment

General effects

Nausea, vomiting

Dizziness, vertigo, drowsiness (light-headedness, fainting, spinning, inebriation)

Headache

Weakness

Faintness

x

For some effects, the severity is critical for categorisation

Motor effects

Muscle weakness

Twitching

Tremor

Reflex

Cramps

Dystonia

Inco-ordination

Myoclonus, fasciculations

Spasticity, rigidity

Paresis

Seizures (convulsions)

Ataxia

Paralysis

x

For some effects, the severity is critical for categorisation

Sensory effects

Smell abnormalities

Vision (colour vision, night blindness, miosis)

Tactile disorders

Hearing loss, tinnitus

Equilibrium changes

Numbness, tingling

x

For some effects (e.g. visual, hearing disturbances), function may return to normal but death of individual neurones is irreversible

Cognitive effects

Psychomotor or attention deficits: reduced vigilance/alertness, poor concentration, impaired memory function, mental slowing, disturbed/impaired judgement, learning and speech impairment

Reduced initiative

x

Mood and personality effects

Excitability, depression, anxiety, irritability, restlessness, nervousness

Delirium

Hallucinations

x

(x)

x

Life Threatening (LT), Irreversible (I), Impairment to take action or escape (ESC), or Reversible ®.

,

I can't resolve the issues of "toxic" but here is my take on why it and "mycotoxin" claims persist when others (relatively) quickly stopped.

This entire discusssion, revealing the vast range of understandings and uses of the terms "toxic," "toxic mold" and "mycotoxins" illustrates exactly why it has taken hold and appears to be staying. Therefore, the impotance of your questions increases. Sort of a dysfuntional circularity in the negative direction.

It has become not so much a technical issue or one of definiton, as it has become an issue of claims based on real life experience, the cause of which is perhaps misattributed, but which science cannot yet refute. Instead of admitting they don't know, science continues to trot out a string of arguments that don't result in a sufficient proof: The stoppage of the harm claimed by victims. The "toxic" claim has the most traction for claims and the least traction for refutation. Let the games begin!

And they have. The latest "science," which at first seemed credible, or at least authoritative, was ultimately exposed as tainted, at best. But it's gravest mistake was to prevent a stoppage of harm by scaring doctors (including through the courts) to not treat people for any symptoms if they claimed exposure to mold or mycotoxins.

This is not how to win friends and influence people. It certainly does not foster the trust that is essential to acceptance of authority or science.

So "toxic mold" and "mycotoxin" persist because they have yet to be resolved in either the court of public opinion or the annals of science. Which the lack of answers to your question, in a circular way, demonstrates.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

March 5, 2008

Hey ,

Something does not seem right to me about your writings on this matter. Could be wrong, but it appears to me that you have made a foregone conclusion and are then attempting to support this conclusion based on stretching and erroneous information. I am not understanding. What is your purpose for this endeavor? Do you have a hypothesis you can share with us?

After re-reading some and reading for the first time many of the posts about 'toxic mold' nomenclature, I still ask:Is a rattle snake a poisonous snake? My answer, is yes.So is there an analogy with mold? Not all snakes are poisonous, that's a given, but a rattler or cobra is always 'poisonous'. So if not all mold is 'toxic', then we should be able to call any mold that makes or might make a person sick, toxic?

No. Because toxic means the person is experiencing symptoms of poisoning..or toxicity. Not all human illness from mold exposure is qualified as a poisoning, yet they are ill none the less.

Another analogy might be the honey bee. Is it also known as poisonous bee? Not to me. But my neighber will go into shock with one sting. To him, it's poisonous. But I don't think anyone calls it a poisonous bee. They say it's poisonous to him.

Okay. I don't see your point from a logical perspective. Some people are sensitive to and have reactions to sunlight, animal dander, etc. But it would be a stretch to call it toxic sunlight, toxic animal dander etc. This analogy seems to be a bit of a stretch to me as there are many substances that there are those who will react when exposed to it. That does not mean the entire world should be qualified as toxic. However, there are substances, such as some molds, that elicit symptoms of poisoning in many people and would more logically fit into the category of toxic. To try and present the concept that mold toxins are similar to honey bees is like trying to say cyanide and lollypops are equally toxic and should both be described as such.

So, back to the very first response (I think) that I got, maybe from Steve. It's about being incorporated into the lexicon of that portion of our society that talks about and worries about mold.

Please qualify the phrase "that portion of our society that talks about and worries about mold". Would that be builders or insurers or real estate agents or mothers or school teachers or air traffic controllers or office workers or engineers or .....anyone who sometimes goes into buildings or may own one?

If you have a mold and it makes you sick, you call it 'toxic mold'.

That is an incorrect statement. I know very few people who have been made ill by microbial indoor contaminants that ever use the term "toxic mold". Some, acknowledge their symptoms are indicative of poisoning from toxins, others acknowledge their symptoms are more indicative of a hypersensitivity type response. Yet others are experiencing infections and colonizations.

"If you have a mold and it makes you sick, you call it 'toxic mold' is a 100% inaccurate characterization of the matter.

If it even has the slightest risk of making you ill, you call it toxic.

False. I can tell you from personal experience we went thru a very expensive and extensive mold litigation regarding a home we could not return to. Toxicity was never even an aspect of the claim. The word "toxic" was never used. I know several others that can attest to the same fact.

That is where the ubiquitous term originated - the lay person's understanding of something out there that is not good for you - mold!

Again an incorrect statement. Where the term "toxic mold" and the fear that went along with it, REALLY took hold and was mass promoted to cause fear in stakeholders of moldy buildings that the sick were lying and trying to get into their pockets, began in the summer of 2003, with the US Chamber of Commerce claiming that people were claiming "toxic mold". This is the origin of the mass marketing of the term: â€œThus the notion that â€˜toxic moldâ€™ is an insidious secret â€˜killerâ€™ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is â€˜Junk Scienceâ€™ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

Here is how it came to be:

"In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries 'associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the web site of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine."

The situation and the marketing of this concept that there were a bunch of lying hysterics running around and should be feared, is quite similar to the way the Bush Administration sold us a bill of goods about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction so that we would hate and fear them and support there was a need for war.

BTW, you want to know who wrote those words, "thus the notion...." and what their specific intended purposes were?

Testimony, Bruce J. Kelman, Dec 2007

December 20, 2006, testimony of Hardin

20 Q. If you look further down the page, the third one up from

the bottom, July 17th, 2003, there's a presentation to

or presentation at a what looks like a seminar sponsored

by the U.S. Chamber of Congress Institute for Legal

Reform and the Manhattan Institute Center for Legal

Policy. Do you see that one?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to me what that presentation concerned?

A. That was basically a press conference that -- that they

held to roll out the publication of two documents, one

of which was the one that we had written that was a

derivative of the A.C.O.E.M. statement.

Q. What is the U.S. Chamber of Congress Institute for Legal

Reform?

A. I don't know very much about them. I'm familiar with

the Chamber of Congress of course, but I had never

previously heard of the Institute for Legal Reform.

Q. And do you know what the Manhattan Institute Center for

Legal Policy is?

A. Again, I had never heard of them until we were retained

by them to do the work. I don't know very much about

them.

Q. Are you under the impression that they are lobbying

groups of some sort?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you under the impression that they lobby for --

well, let me strike that.

Is it your impression that the written work that you

prepared for them was used by them as part of their

lobbying efforts?

A. I would assume so, yes.

If we accept that the lay person understands that in general (as per every reference I can find) mold is not wanted in a building where people work or live, then we can accept the term 'toxic mold'.

This phrase indicates to me that you bought into the hype meant to elicit fear and hatred, about a bunch of lying hysterics being the root of the problem while running around screaming "Toxic mold, the sky is falling!"

This is regardless of the actual health effect - some are pathogenic, some simple irritants, others might produce toxins. But the generic term toxic can apply when used by the lay populace.

False. The "lay populace" of those who are ill do not use this term generally. The "lay populace" of those who would like to promote that the sick should be feared from a financial aspect do use this term to help instill fear and hatred of the sick.

When one of the mold industry members uses the term toxic, especially in reference to offering services or justifying decision-making, we naturally assume they should know better - i.e., that it is not accepted as part of our lexicon (even if it is part of the lay lexicon)(note: it is incorporated into the remediators, water restoration industry lexicons too - but only by the vast majority who are not well trained).

Ya know, you are really starting to p**s me off with this train of thought! LOL. QUIT TRYING TO BLAIM THE VICTIMS. There is no mass hysteria going on out here. Only the promotion that there is mass hysteria in an effort to instill hatred and fear of the sick.

The bottom line is this, the lay person simply wants to know is this toxic? in other words, is it bad for me and my children?

False. Sometimes they want to know if they are being poisoned or if they are having an immune response. You know better. Go over on Sickbuildings. No one uses the term "toxic mold" when describing their illnesses. Go onto the US Chamber website. It's everywhere.

It's like the sub-specialty of risk communication. The public just wants a straight answer that they can understand.

I will agree with you 1000% on that one. But you seem to be promoting with this train of thought, does not seem to be helping toward that goal. What am I missing?

But, and here's the kicker, If we accept the term for general descriptive purposes, when can one use it?

Never. The term has been too badly bastardized and promoted by industry interests at this point in time with the intended purpose to elicit fear of the sick. It should be buried in the annals of history along with the concept Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Both terms and concepts were meant to illicit fear and unite some to fight against others.

Can a lawyer use the term toxic mold? He is neither a lay person nor an industry expert.

I am not aware that plaintiff attorneys use this term. I am aware that defense attorneys do, when trying to present the concept the sick are hysterics and should be feared from a financial aspect.

Can one use the term in advertising for remediation?

Sure, why not? Might get them more business by promoting fear. And no one is regulating them. They seem to be able to advertise whatever they want over this issue. You want to see an interesting website? mold-matters.com The "contact us" button does not even work. However, I am aware of this company being an expert for the defense in mold litigation. If I was an honest, knowledgable remediator, like many on this board are, I would be all over websites and companies like this as they give MY business an undeserved black eye.

Can one use the term to describe conditions of a house to the prospective buyer?

No. Because if one uses that term, there is no longer any such thing as a prospective buyer.

Or neighbor?

I suppose some neighbors could be described as "toxic".

Or must we always define it with the caveats and explanations of risk, exposure, cost of analysis for mycotoxins, production potential, types of mycotoxins, species, precatutionary principle, etc.?

No. It's "mold and the toxins they may produce". Or just "microbial indoor contaminants" (MIC)

I don't think I like your train of thought on this one. It appears to me that you are attempting to bring a term that has been used by industry to elicit fear and hatred of the sick, back into vogue.

What is your stated purpose for this endeavor?

WR,

Sharon

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

March 5, 2008

Regarding "Toxic Mold":

If we accept the term for general

descriptive purposes, when can one use it?

Never. The term has been too badly bastardized and promoted by industry interests at this point in time with the intended purpose to elicit fear of the sick. It should be buried in the annals of history along with the concept Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Both terms and concepts were meant to illicit fear and unite some to fight against others.

Really, Sharon?

From http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S01752 & sh=t

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as

2 "the New York toxic mold safety and protection act of 2007".

2. "TOXIC MOLD" MEANS ANY INDOOR MOLD GROWTH CAPABLE OF CREATING TOXINS THAT CAN CAUSE PULMONARY, RESPIRATORY, NEUROLOGICAL OR OTHER MAJOR ILLNESSES AFTER MINIMAL EXPOSURE, AS SUCH EXPOSURE IS DEFINED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH OR OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY ORGANIZED IN PART TO STUDY AND/OR PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH.

Instead of being buried in the annals of history, the term is actually being defined by legislators to be made part of the law of the land -- intended to protect the public from toxic mold, not to elicit fear.

You aren't aware that plaintiff attorneys use the term toxic mold? They do. Consider yourself informed. But not as much as they used to because the defense argument that the levels of inhaled mycotoxins aren't toxic doses is a valid technical counter to the claim.

If you want to convince people that mycotoxins are making people sick, you have to find people who were made sick from mycotoxins, not just experts to say they were and people who believe they were. Which people were made sick from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor environments and how do you know mycotoxins were the causative agents? What other potential causes of these specific illnesses (other than mycotoxins) have you ruled out in arriving at your conclusion that mycotoxins were the cause?

You are entitled to your "belief" in mycotoxins. You'll need something more substantial to "convert" others.

Steve Temes

March 5, 2008

,

You have my Irish up with this one! More on the subject of the marketing of the term "toxic mold" when meant to lobby, influence the courts and instill fear and hatred of those who are being made ill by microbial indoor contaminants.

The spin sentence promoted by commerce and industry is:

â€œThus the notion that â€˜toxic moldâ€™ is an insidious secret â€˜killerâ€™ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is â€˜Junk Scienceâ€™ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€ BKelman and/or BHardin (see under oath acknowledgement of authorship below)

The ONLY purported scientific foundation for the above statement may be found within the ACOEM mold statement "Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that delivery by the inhalation route of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most vulnerable subpopulations." BKelman and/or BHardin

The two inflammatory terms in the heavily marketed Chamber sentence above are: "toxic mold" and "junk science". Let's look at the history of the term "junk science" to understand how its companion term of "toxic mold" has been used to instill fear of financial liability and mistrust of the sick.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science"

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.

Contents[hide]

1 History 2 Controversy surrounding use of the phrase "junk science" 3 Use by scientists 4 See also 5 Notes 6 Further reading 7 External links

[edit] History

The phrase "junk science" appears to have been in use prior to 1985. A 1985 United States Department of Justice report by the Tort Policy Working Group noted: 'The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as "junk science") has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.'[1] In 1989, Jerry Mahlman (a proponent of anthropogenic global warming theory) used the phrase 'noisy junk science' in reference to the alternative theory of global warming due to solar variation presented in Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem by Frederick Seitz et al.[2]

W. Huber presented an exposition of the phrase with respect to litigation in his 1991 book Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. The book has been cited in over 100 legal textbooks and references; as a consequence some sources cite Huber as the first to coin the phrase. By 1997, the phrase had entered the legal lexicon as seen in an opinion by Supreme Court of the United States Justice s, 'An example of "junk science" that should be excluded under the Daubert standard as too unreliable would be the testimony of a phrenologist who would purport to prove a defendantâ€™s future dangerousness based on the contours of the defendantâ€™s skull.' [3] Lower courts then set guidelines for identifying 'junk science,' such as the 2005 opinion of United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Easterbrook, 'Positive reports about magnetic water treatment are not replicable; this plus the lack of a physical explanation for any effects are hallmarks of junk science.' [4]

As the subtitle of Huber's book, "Junk Science in the Courtroom," suggests, his emphasis was on the use or misuse of expert testimony in civil litigation. One prominent example cited in the book was litigation over casual contact in the spread of AIDS. A California school district sought to prevent a young boy with AIDS, , from attending kindergarten. The school district produced an expert witness, Dr. Armentrout, who testified that a possibility existed that AIDS could be transmitted to schoolmates through yet undiscovered "vectors." However, five experts testified on behalf of that AIDS is not transmitted through casual contact, and the court affirmed the "solid science" (as Mr. Huber called it) and rejected Dr. Armentrout's argument.[5]

In 1999, Ehrlich and others advocated public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge and discourage junk science: 'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports offer an antidote to junk science by articulating the current consensus on the prospects for climate change, by outlining the extent of the uncertainties, and by describing the potential benefits and costs of policies to address climate change.'[6] In a 2003 study about changes in environmental activism in the Crown of the Continent (Flathead) Ecosystem, Pedynowski noted that junk science can undermine the credibility of science over a much broader scale because misrepresentation by special interests casts doubt on more defensible claims and undermines the credibility of all research.[7]

In his 2006 book[8], Dan Agin emphasized two main causes of junk science: fraud, and ignorance. In the first case, Agin discussed falsified results in the development of organic transistors: 'As far as understanding junk science is concerned, the important aspect is that both Bell Laboratories and the international physics community were fooled until someone noticed that noise records published by Jan Hendrik SchÃ¶n in several papers were identical - which means physically impossible.' In the second case, he cites an example that demonstrates ignorance of statistical principles in the lay press: 'Since no such proof is possible [that genetically modified food is harmless], the article in The New York Times was what is called a "bad rap" against the U.S. Department of Agriculture - a bad rap based on a junk-science belief that it's possible to prove a null hypothesis.' Agin asks the reader to step back from the rhetoric, 'But how things are labeled does not make a science junk science.' In its place, he offers, 'So where is the junk science? The answer is that it's in the hiding of what you need to know.'

The term was further popularized by Fox News columnist Milloy, who used it to attack the results of scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion, passive smoking and many other topics. The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from , RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [9][10][11] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars.

[edit] Controversy surrounding use of the phrase "junk science"

Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate profits. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through the vehicle of various "astroturf groups". Theories more favorable to corporate activities may be praised using the term "sound science".

Herman reported that from 1996 to 1998, there were 8 articles in the mainstream media labeling criticism of corporations or tort claims 'junk science' for every 1 article labeling research sponsored by corporations as such.[12]

In a February 6, 2006 article entitled "Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire", D. Thacker of The New Republic reported that non-profit organizations operated by Fox News "Junk Science" commentator Milloy from his home had received money from ExxonMobil while Milloy attacked research on global warming.[9] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year in consulting fees from Philip while he criticized the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science".

Tobacco industry documents reveal that executives conceived of the "Whitecoat Project" in the 1980s as a response to emerging scientific data on the harmfulness of second-hand smoke.[13] The goal of the Whitecoat Project, as conceived by Philip and other tobacco companies, was to use ostensibly independent "scientific consultants" to spread doubt in the public mind about scientific data through the use of terms such as "junk science".[13]

[edit] Use by scientists

In 1995, the Union of Concerned Scientists launched the Sound Science Initiative, a national network of scientists committed to debunking junk science through media outreach, lobbying, and developing joint strategies to participate in town meetings or public hearings.[14] The American Association for the Advancement of Science also recognized the need increased understanding between scientists and lawmakers in its newsletter on Science and Technology in Congress, "Although most individuals would agree that sound science is preferable to junk science, fewer recognize what makes a scientific study 'good' or 'bad'."[15] Some rudimentary scientific literacy is required says Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, "Our populations have never been more ignorant of science,....There's so much fake science, junk science, out there, and people have to be able to recognize it." [16] The decision cost of 'junk science' affects society, note that, Dr. Baron, Chemistry Professor and Department Chair wrote, 'So-called "junk science" bypasses this system of peer review....Presented directly to the public by people variously described as "experts" or "activists," often with little or no supporting evidence, this "junk science" undermines the ability of elected representatives, jurists, and others â€” including everyday consumers â€” to make rational decisions.'[17]

Consider some of the guidelines for evaluating 'junk science' from general to specific. Dr. L. Goodstein, Ph.D., Vice Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech stated,'â€¦you could tell the difference between junk science and real science, you could simply say someone didn't follow the [scientific] method.'[18] Exposure to the wider scientific community provides a vetting mechanism to filter out junk science: 'This [integrity of the corpus of scientific and technical knowledge] includes specific issues like the adequacy and functioning of the peer-review system; managing fraud in science; and dealing with pseudo-science, junk science, and, most important, self-delusion in science.'[19] Proper scientific theories models must somehow be tied to the physical universe so that they can be empirically verified, consider the challenge, 'If ADHD was meant as a way merely to identify a set of behaviors with no inference of it being a neurological abnormality, that would be one thing...but the insistence that it exists in the same physical and provable realm as a real disease is a perversion of science, without even enough credibility to rise to the level of pseudoscience or junk science.'[20] The American Dietetic Association, criticizing marketing claims made for food products, lists 'Ten Red Flags of Junk Science: [21]

[edit] See also

Agnotology Controversial science Daubert standard for science that can be used in United States federal courts Federal Rules of Evidence Frye Standard Pseudoscience Scientific method Milloy

[edit] Notes

^ Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability (Rep. No. 1-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) ^ , L. (1989, November). Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science, 246(4933), 992-993. ^ General Electric Company v. K. Joiner, No. 96â€“188, slip op. at 4 (U.S. Dec. 15, 1997). ^ Huber, P. W. (2001). Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1991), 191. ^ H. on v. Culligan International Company, No. 04-3253, slip op. at 3 (7th Cir. July 11, 2005). ^ Ehrlich, P. R., Wolff, G., Daily, G. C., , J. B., Daily, S., Dalton, M., et al. (1999). Knowledge and the environment. Ecological economics, 30, 267-284. ^ Pedynowski, D. (2003). Toward a more 'Reflexive Environmentalism': Ecological knowledge and advocacy in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 807â€“825. ^ Agin, D. P. (2006). Junk Science: How politicians, corporations, and other hucksters betray us. New York: Dunne Books. ^ a b "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire", published in The New Republic, accessed 20 Sept 2006. ^ PRWatch.com article describing the financial links between Milloy and the tobacco industry, accessed 20 Sept 2006. ^ Activity Report, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., December 1996, describing R.J.R. Tobacco's direct input into Milloy's junkscience website. From the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco. Accessed 5 Oct 2006. ^ Hass, B., & Kleine, M. (2003, Summer). The rhetoric of junk science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 267-284. ^ a b Minutes of a meeting in which Philip Tobacco discusses the inception of the "Whitecoat Project". Accessed 5 Oct 2006. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists. (1998, Winter). Sound science initiative. ASLO bulletin, 7(1), 13. ^ Sound Science for Endangered Species. (2002, September). In Science and Technology in Congress. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/stc/stc02-09.pdf. ^ Merrow, J. (2005, February 23). Unlearning Bad Science. Education Week. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from Public Broadcasting Service Web site: http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/edweek4.html. ^ Baron, L. A. F. (2001, February). The Influence of "Junk Science" and the Role of Science Education. Imprimis, 30(2). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Hillsdale College Web site: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2001/february/default.htm. ^ Murray, B. (2006, November 12). The Methods of Science and Journalism. FACSNET, science and technology. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Foundation for American Communications Web site: http://www.facsnet.org/tools/sci_tech/methods.php3. ^ Hill, C. T. (2001). Fifty Years of Science and Technology Policy in Ten Minutes. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, 107. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from American Association for the Advancement of Science Web site: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch7.pdf. ^ Baughman, F. A., Jr. MD. (2006). The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. Trafford Publishing.(p. 9) ^ Volume 106, Issue 4, Pages 601-607. (2006, April). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Misinformation (Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Retrieved October 25, 2006, from http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_adar0202_ENU_HTML.htm (p. 605)

[edit] Further reading

Dan Agin, Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us, 2006. ISBN 0-312-35241-7. W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. J. Milloy, Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense against Health Scares and Scams, 2001. ISBN 1-930-86512-0. Mooney, The Republican War on Science, 2005. ISBN 0-465-04675-4. Kiss Sarnoff, Sanctified Snake Oil: The Effect of Junk Science on Public Policy, 2001. ISBN 0-275-96845-6.

[edit] External links

Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) www.defendingscience.org s. Doubt is Their Product, Scientific American, June 2005, P.96-101. maria Baba, M. Cook, O. McGarity & A. Bero. Legislating "Sound Science": The Role of the Tobacco Industry, American Journal of Public Health, June 2005. s and Celeste Monforton. Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Publicâ€™s Health & Environment, American Journal of Public Health, June 2005. Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous. Junking Science to Promote Tobacco. American Journal of Public Health. November 2001, Vol 91, No. 11. Sheldon Rampton and Stauber. How Big Tobacco Helped Create "the Junkman" D. Thacker. The Junkman Climbs to the Top. Environmental Science & Technology