A recent article (tweeted below) says the3% of “Climate Change Denier” scientific studies are flawed. While reading it I couldn’t help but think… okay, so we are supposed to stop thinking and blindly accept both the findings and interpretation of the 97% Climate Change Affirmer” studies?
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A new review found them all flawed https://t.co/876aH4x227 No interpretation bias?
Science is a human enterprise and ALWAYS involves bias, selectivity and interpretation.
For the record, I do accept that human activity could be a significant contributing factor. But what about other sources of heat? Like inside the Earth. Nobody really talks about that.
More important, however, is the FACT about interpretation. Most everyone sees the temperature increase as a bad thing. But I can’t help but think of a possible counterexample. I’m no scientist or geologist so please take this hypothetically instead of factually.
Origin of Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Remains a Mystery – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Let’s say something from space hits the Earth. An asteroid. This causes all sorts of junk to fly into the atmosphere which blocks out the sun and forces the Earth’s temperature to drop drastically. Some believe this was the cause of the last ice age.
So in this hypothetical scenario, the fact that we are a little bit warmer now might be a good thing down the road. Who knows, it might save us.
Admittedly, this is pretty far out and probably not scientifically predictable. But the point I’m trying to make is that we cannot know for sure how current warmer temperatures will affect us down the road.
So although mankind might be contributing to climate change, it is a matter of interpretation about how that pans out in the long run.
This isn’t complicated thinking. I think most people – even children – could follow the argument. But what disappoints me is that most adults won’t even consider it.
This idea is something that philosophers have talked about for ages. But as several sites and blogs have said, philosophy has a PR problem. Neuroscience involves tech and Photoshopped graphics. So it’s far more sexy and probably sells better.
Still, that doesn’t mean the thinking behind neuroscience is always profound or valid.
One point I thought of while skimming over the tweeted story is that we have verbal agreements about reality. This doesn’t ensure that everything agreed on is actually the same. But it adds an interesting wrinkle to the discussion.
The perception of Paganism has changed over the years. Pagans remain a religious minority in most places, and we find different opinions about Paganism as a spiritual path. In advanced countries it is rare and probably illegal to publicly disrespect or, especially, harass someone because they are Pagans or NeoPagans. » Read More
Every day we each use a variety of personal care products. We wash our hands with antibacterial soaps and clean our faces with specialty cleansers. We wash and maintain our hair with shampoo, conditioner and other hair care products. We use deodorant and perfume or cologne to smell nice. Depending on the day, we may apply sunscreen or insect repellent.
All of these products contribute to our quality of life. But where do they go after we use them?
When we bathe, personal care products wash off of our bodies and into sewer systems that carry them to regional wastewater treatment plants. However, these plants are not designed to treat the thousands of specialty chemicals in pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Many of the active and inactive ingredients present in these products pass through our wastewater treatment plants and ultimately end up in rivers, streams or oceans.
Once in the environment, these chemicals may cause hormonal effects and toxicity in aquatic animals. In my laboratory we are studying these emerging water pollutants, which are turning up in surface water, groundwater and even treated drinking water. Although they are typically found at low concentrations, they may still threaten human and ecological health.
New pollutants, present worldwide
Personal care products and their ingredients are widely distributed throughout our environment. In one recent study, our lab aggregated over 5,000 measurements of active ingredients from a variety of personal care products that were found in untreated wastewater, treated wastewater and surface waters such as rivers and streams. They included N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide, or DEET, an insect repellent; galaxolide, a fragrance; oxybenzone, a sunscreen; and triclosan, an antibacterial compound.
Other studies conducted near the Mario Zucchelli and McMurdo & Scott research bases confirmed that chemicals in personal care products were even present in Antarctic seawater. Those reports identified the presence of plasticizers, antibacterials, preservatives, sunscreens and fragrances in the Antarctic marine environment. Together, these studies suggest that the active ingredients in personal care products can be found in any water body influenced by human activity.
These substances are typically present in the aquatic environment at concentrations of 10 to 100 nanograms per liter, which is equivalent to 1 to 2 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. But even at these low levels, some still pose a risk.
Moving up the food chain
Depending on their chemical properties, we can classify some of these products as hydrophilic (“water-loving”) or lipophilic (“lipid-loving”). The fat layers in our bodies are comprised of lipids, so lipophilic personal care products can accumulate in the tissue and organs of aquatic animals like fish, birds and even dolphins.
Our group has recently detected a suite of sunscreen agents and 17α-ethinylestradiol, a synthetic form of the hormone estrogen that is the active ingredient in birth control pills, in crayfish from urban streams near Baltimore, Maryland. We have also measured sunscreens in oysters and mussels collected from the Chesapeake Bay. The uptake of these chemicals by aquatic animals raises environmental concerns.
Specifically, as lipophilic chemicals from personal care products accumulate in animals at higher concentrations, there is a greater potential for them to cause toxic effects. For instance, many personal care products disrupt hormone systems in the body. Some chemicals used in personal care products affect reproductive systems and function, causing the feminization of male fish.
These reproductive effects can have important consequences for aquatic animals in the environment, and they may even represent a potential health risk for humans. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration banned the use of triclosan and a number of other antibacterial agents in antiseptic wash products due, in part, to health risks associated with hormonal effects.
U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists sampling shallow groundwater near septic systems on New York’s Fire Island in 2011. The scientists found hormones, detergent degradation products, fragrances, insect repellent, sunscreen additives, a floor cleaner and pharmaceuticals, indicating that contaminants were moving from the septic systems into groundwater. Chris Schubert, USGS
Recent research has shown that oxybenzone, a sunscreen agent used in many personal care products, is toxic to corals. For many coastal communities, coral reefs are critical to local economies. For example, the net value of Hawaii’s coral reefs is estimated to be US$34 billion.
Earlier this year Hawaii introduced legislation to ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate in order to protect coral reefs. While research and policymaking are still ongoing in this area, it is important to note that a number of new consumer products have started using labels like “coral safe” and “reef safe.”
Multiple solutions
Typical wastewater treatment plants are designed to treat multiple pollutants, including organic carbon from human and food waste; nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus; and pathogenic bacteria and viruses that cause disease. However, they are not equipped to handle the many ingredients of concern that are present in personal care products.
Protecting the environment and human health from these substances will require progress in several areas. They include improving technologies for wastewater treatment plants; conducting more testing and regulation of personal care products to avoid unintended toxicity to aquatic animals; and designing “green chemicals” that do not pose toxicity concerns. This multi-pronged approach will help us to ensure that personal care products continue to improve our quality of life without harming the environment.
There are a lot of problems out there. So I like to rotate among them. Focusing too much on just one issue gets boring after awhile. And creepy or just facile people tend to peg you as a particular kind of sh** disturber, flake or loony if you harp on one topic too much—even if you are right.
I shouldn’t really care about people like that. But part of running a successful blog is reading public perception. So I rotate. And I actually like doing that. It keeps things fresh.
Today’s pressing problem is about plastic bags and pollution. Plastic bags can be used for many good and not so good purposes. In Toronto we recycle some of them so I don’t really understand why other places don’t follow suit… if they haven’t, that is. We also have a special garbage pickup for toxic waste. It’s a bit of a hassle having four different types of garbage pickup (garbage, green, recycle and toxic). But globally, it makes sense.
When I was a kid garbage was just garbage. One thing to put out. But times have changed. And so should we.
Wolff Poetry is a free resource that offers poetry writings, publishing and writing resources for poets, and writers, and poetic writings of Linda J. Wolff
