| Revision as of 17:22, 10 December 2013 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,177 editsm →Misrepresentation: m← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:28, 10 December 2013 edit undoPetrarchan47 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits →Misrepresentation: more to come...Next edit → | ||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
| :::Personally, I find NPOV trumps smart. And I do not see NPOV in the work done to minimize MAM, or in the work done at Medical Cannabis, mostly by one who has proclaimed bias against herbal medicine. NPOV is hard to come by. I wish that weren't the case. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC) | :::Personally, I find NPOV trumps smart. And I do not see NPOV in the work done to minimize MAM, or in the work done at Medical Cannabis, mostly by one who has proclaimed bias against herbal medicine. NPOV is hard to come by. I wish that weren't the case. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Who's proclaimed such a bias? (] is pretty much woo, but some useful medicine has been derived from plants: an article I worked on you might find interesting is ]. Who knows, one day cannabis might be there!) ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 17:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) | ::::Who's proclaimed such a bias? (] is pretty much woo, but some useful medicine has been derived from plants: an article I worked on you might find interesting is ]. Who knows, one day cannabis might be there!) ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 17:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I'll dig up the link for you... and now *you* have just proclaimed bias against herbal medicine. You're claiming it's "woo", when in fact alopathic medicine, that which we at Wiki bow down to, is very young, and it's partner, the pharmaceutical industry, is the in the US. Cannabis has never killed anyone, which is kind of a neat bonus when one is seeking health. Regarding cancer, you might enjoy . Also, I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles, so your paper indeed may have some revisions one day. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 17:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:28, 10 December 2013
The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit." from
"The Decline of Misplaced Pages"
The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. from Noam Chomsky
Show me a PR person who is 'accurate' and 'truthful,' and I'll show you a PR person who is unemployed.
"The reason companies or governments hire oodles of PR people is because PR people are trained to be slickly untruthful or half-truthful. Misinformation and disinformation are the coin of the realm ..." from CBS Legal analyst Andrew Cohen
Health consequences article
As you may know I've been working on this article and Core has offered to help. I'm still in the process of gathering information...and my thoughts. I was thinking that it should have a substantial section on Corexit since every source I've read so far mentions its use as one of the important unknowns. The GAP report contains a great deal of information and looking at its wikipedia article, it should certainly be considered a good RS source. Reading the report has been on my list of things to do but right now I am going through old news reports to see if there is anything that would be good for the article. However you are very familiar with Corexit already and would perhaps be willing to work on that section? Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The request makes sense, it seems like it would be faster and easier for me to do the section, but due to some good luck, I am too busy in my offline life to make any commitments here. I can dip my toe in once and a while, but not more. However, I did all the work already, in the "Corexit for dummies" section. Don't be intimidated by the GAP report, the review article from which I quoted heavily did all the work for us (see linked section - be sure to uncollapse, especially the bottom part, which is specific to health concerns) The only thing needed is to distill the info and plug it into related articles (4 come to mind - for one of them, you will have to get a court order to add this info, and good luck finding an honest judge!).
- Maybe it makes more sense with our busy lives to work on this together and let it happen organically. petrarchan47tc 00:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The section move to archives, so I'll repeat it here:
Corexit
Here is most of the Corexit story. It is a pre-draft draft that needs a lot of work. None of this is in my own words, but I wanted to get this out of my files and onto this page in case someone wanted to help build this section, which probably fits better under the "Environmental record" or perhaps "Safety and health violations" than under the Gulf spill, since we are only allotted 2 paragraphs. petrarchan47tc 23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Easy ways to brush up on the Corexit story (with focus on the recent GAP report and Newsweek investigation):
| “ | BP's use of COREXIT during the DWH oil spill
Conclusions from the report strongly suggest that the dispersant Corexit was widely applied in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion because it caused the false impression that the oil disappeared. In reality, the oil/Corexit mixture became less visible, yet much more toxic than the oil alone. Nonetheless, indications are that both BP and the government were pleased with what Corexit accomplished. EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman: "EPA....is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous Corexit is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic — it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public." From the GAP report, "evidence suggests that the cleanup effort has been more destructive to human health and the environment than the spill itself." BP lied about the size of the oil disaster and the danger posed to its workers, the public and the environment. Lying to Congress about the amount of oil was one of 14felonies to which BP pleaded guilty last year in a legal settlement with US DOJ, which included a 4.5 Billion fine, the largest ever levied against a corp in the US. BP hid the amount of oil from cameras by using oil dispersant Corexit. BP lied about how safe Corexit was for workers, residents and the environment. An anonymous whistle-blower provided evidence revealed in a Newsweek investigation that BP was warned in advance about the safety risks of Corexit. // whistleblowers revealed to the independent Government Accountability Project (GAP) that Nalco had given elaborate instructions to BP about using Corexit and avoiding contact with human clean-up workers — instructions that were clearly ignored during the spring of 2010. BP used at least 1.84 million gallons, the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history. BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil. 58% was sprayed from planes, sometimes hitting cleanup workers in the face. Workers were denied safety gear and (their jobs threatened for wearing respirators). Soon after the Deepwater explosion, BP stockpiled 1/3rd of the world's supply of Corexit In May 2010, the EPA told BP to identify less toxic alternatives from a list of government-approved dispersants. If BP could not identify an alternative, it had to offer concrete reasons why not. The company replied that less-toxic dispersants were not available in the quantities needed. BP continued spraying Corexit on the Gulf, at an average ratio of one gallon per 91 gallons of oil, into the summer of 2010. After the spill, a study revealed that oil mixed with Corexit is 52 times more toxic than oil alone. Wilma Subra, a chemist whose work on environmental pollution had won her a “genius grant” from the MacArthur Foundation, told state and federal authorities that she was especially concerned about how dangerous the mixture of crude and Corexit was: “The short-term health symptoms include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, and short-term loss of memory,” she told GAP investigators. “Long-term impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.” In a survey of health impacts for people along the coast, Orr found The most common ailments were headaches (87 percent of respondents), dizziness and cough (72 percent), fatigue and eye-nose-and-throat irritation (63 percent), followed by nausea, diarrhea, confusion and depression. Environmental health consultant Wilma Subra, who evaluated the survey data, said oil and dispersant had aerosolized and travelled up to 100 miles inland, potentially exposing tens of thousands of people to the hairspray-like mist. “Now we are seeing the reproductive effects,” Subra said, including high rates of miscarriages, preemies, infant respiratory problems, and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. “The workers that BP hired should have been trained and protected adequately,” Subra said. “It was inappropriate to expose them to toxic chemicals as they did their job.” She told federal officials the workers needed respirators, but was rebuffed. “They said I would be killing the workers because of the heat,” she said. “There are suits with piped-in cooling. Cleanups happen all the time in hot weather.” NOAA scientists/divers getting very sick, told there was no danger. Gulf waters disintegrated the rubber on diving suits. "Hertsgaard goes on to explain that although BP has set aside roughly $8 billion for medical expenses related to the spill, the illnesses these people are suffering from are not covered under that settlement". The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera (base of food chain). |
” |
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/04/22/what-bp-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010-gulf-spill.html Newsweek investigation/Hertsgaard
http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-lessons-bp-oil.html
http://www.fox8live.com/story/22019611/finding-oil-in-the-marsh-3-years-after-the-bp-spill
http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-oil-spill-carcinogens-idUSTRE68T6FS20100930
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering
- I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working two jobs at the moment, no can do... petrarchan47tc 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Specifics from the GAP report
Select Report Findings
Existing Health Problems
- Eventually coined "BP Syndrome" or "Gulf Coast Syndrome," all GAP witnesses experienced spill-related health problems. Some of these effects include: blood in urine; heart palpitations; kidney damage; liver damage; migraines; multiple chemical sensitivity; neurological damage resulting in memory loss; rapid weight loss; respiratory system and nervous system damage; seizures; skin irritation, burning and lesions; and temporary paralysis.
- Interviewees are also extremely concerned about recognized long-term health effects from chemical exposure (from those specific chemicals found in Corexit/oil mixtures), which may not have manifested yet. These include reproductive damage (such as genetic mutations), endocrine disruption, and cancer.
- Blood test results from a majority of GAP interviewees showed alarmingly high levels of chemical exposure – to Corexit and oil – that correlated with experienced health effects. These chemicals include known carcinogens.
The Failure to Protect Cleanup Workers
- Contrary to warnings in BP's own internal manual, BP and the government misrepresented known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity.
- Despite the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed a highly-lauded safety training program for cleanup workers, the workers interviewed reported that they either did not receive any training or did not receive the federally required training.
- Federally required worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards (according to a confidential whistleblower) were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, as health problems began.
- A FOIA request found that government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks. Yet, divers contracted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and interviewed by GAP dove after assurances that it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary.
- BP and the federal government, through their own medical monitoring programs, each publicly denied that any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring. Of the workers GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job and blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
- BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image. The federal government permitted BP's retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
- All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.
Ecological Problems & Food Safety Issues
- A majority of GAP witnesses reported that they found evidence of oil or oil debris after BP and the Coast Guard announced that cleanup operations were complete.
- BP and the federal government reported that Corexit was last used in July 2010. A majority of GAP witnesses cited indications that Corexit was used after that time.
- The oil-Corexit mixture coated the Gulf seafloor and permeated the Gulf's rich ecological web. GAP witnesses have revealed underwater footage of an oil-covered barren seafloor, documenting widespread damage to coral reefs.
- The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP's witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill.
Inadequate Compensation
- BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment.
- But how do we boil this all down to one para?
With only one para from and international panel of experts, the article can't give more copy to a whistle blower group. But more of this info could be used in a separate Corexit article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But how do we boil this all down to one para?
BP/Gov't position, etc
"Time and again, those working to clean up the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill were assured that Corexit....was as safe as "dishwasher soap"."
"In a statement issued by BP, the oil company said: "Use of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was co-ordinated with and approved by federal agencies including the US Coast Guard and EPA. Based on extensive monitoring conducted by BP and the federal agencies, BP is not aware of any data showing worker or public exposures to dispersants that would pose a health or safety concern."
"According to a new report released by the Government Accountability Project, nearly half of workers reported that their employers told them Corexit did not pose a health risk."
"And nearly all those interviewed, reported receiving minimal or no protective equipment despite warnings clearly spelled out in the manual provided by Corexit's manufacturer."
"Now three years on, many cleanup workers are reporting serious health problems including seizures, temporary paralysis and memory loss."
Tar sands are not "oil sands" except per big oil PR campaigns and Misplaced Pages
Quotation from Little Black Lies, the forthcoming book by Jeff Gailus, on using the terms tar sands or oil sands...
What’s in a Name?
The oil industry and the Alberta and federal governments prefer the term “oil sands,” while most opponents use the dirtier-sounding “tar sands.” Technically, both “tar sands” and “oil sands” are inaccurate. The substance in question is actually bituminous sand, a mixture of sand, clay, water and an extremely viscous form of petroleum called bitumen, which itself contains a noxious combination of sulphur, nitrogen, salts, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. A handful of bituminous sand is the hydrocarbon equivalent of a snowball: each grain of sand is covered by a thin layer of water, all of which is enveloped in the very viscous, tar-like bitumen. In its natural state, it has the consistency of a hockey puck.
You might be forgiven for believing that the term has been foisted upon us by nasty, truth-hating environmentalists – but you’d be wrong. The term has actually been part of the oil industry lexicon for decades, used by geologists and engineers since at least 1939. According to Alberta oil historian David Finch, everyone called them the tar sands until the 1960s, and both “tar sands” and “oil sands” were used interchangeably until about 10 years ago, when the terminology became horribly politicized.
With the notable exception of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank that often collaborates with government and industry staff, critics of the way Alberta’s bitumen deposits are being developed use “tar sands,” because that is what it was called when they entered the debate. The term accentuates the obvious downsides of the endeavour – water pollution, for instance, and the decline of certain wildlife species, not to mention considerable greenhouse gas emissions and the infringement of First Nations peoples’ constitutionally protected treaty rights – but it is hardly something environmentalists concocted out of nowhere to give the contested development a bad name.
Even the Alberta Chamber of Resources, an industry lobby group, admits that the term “oil sands” gained popularity in the mid-1990s, when government and industry began an aggressive public relations campaign to improve public perception of the dirty-sounding “tar sands.” “Oil sands,” you see, conveys a certain usefulness, a natural resource that creates jobs, increases government revenues, enhances energy security and makes investors rich beyond measure. Tar, on the other hand, is dark and heavy, the kind of glop better suited to paving roads, or coating dangerous subversives before feathering and banishing them from society altogether. As any corporate communications consultant worth her $1000/day rate knows, there is nothing intrinsically correct, neutral or accurate about the term “oil sands.” Nor is it a coincidence that media coverage has favoured rich and powerful business interests. The media’s preference for “oil sands” is simply the result of the Triple Alliance’s crafty political spin and an aggressive well-funded strategy to brand bitumen development in the brightest possible light, part of a much grander battle plan that relies on a dark web of little black lies to win the day. Is it tar sands or oil sands?
(Many thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degree7 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you too. petrarchan47tc 03:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
NSA docs
NSA Primary Sources from EFF - list of all leaks and links to RS
Your editing at Medical cannabis
Petra, it would be most helpful if you would engage the talk page at Talk:Medical cannabis; your recent edits have introduced numerous errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Misrepresentation
On Talk:Medical cannabis you wrote about me thus: "Aren't you the one who claimed there was no effect on MS, when in fact it is the most well-documented condition?" You have asked me to explain why your (unnecessarily personalized) comment was a misrepresentation. Here is why ...
There are two parts to your imputation: (1) Whose view is being expressed, and (2) what that view is. So far as I am aware, I have made two substantive edits to this article on the topic of Multiple Sclerosis. These are:
- edit #1. Note this is not "me" saying anything, but using a thorough 2010 review article to source a view. Note that the opinion it contains is not that "there was no effect" but that the evidence "is unclear". In other words, both part of your statement were false.
- edit #2. Here again it is not "my" view that is being expressed, but that of a newer 2013 review that has come to light. I express its view that the drugs in question "appear effective for muscle spasticity". So again, your statement was false in both its respects.
I would ask you to refrain from unduly personalizing the exchanges on this topic, and to be more careful in implying things about other editors which are incorrect. It is (to put it mildly) unhelpful. Alexbrn 22:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll review this, it still seems that, from what I've seen, there is a cherry picking of sources that reflects a certain POV, and is evidenced by the resulting article. I would love to believe that your work on this and all articles is not meant in any way to sway towards a certain view, but I see over and over (recently edits at the GAPS diet, and the gutting/deletion request of the German Acupuncture Trials, and less recently, all of our interactions at MAM) evidence otherwise. I would love to sit back (kind of a requirement since I'm not being permitted to edit the article) and watch as the Project Medicine team looked dispassionately at all of the research regarding cannabis, and provided the readers with a neutral, well-sourced and highly informative article, but I'm not holding my breath. I do thank you though, for never getting hostile or bitchy and remaining always dignified in your communications. I truly appreciate that, Alex. petrarchan47tc 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, things proceed much more smoothly if editors are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF: there's a reason these rules exist. The three topics you mention are ones where I think my editing has (yes) played a part, and that as a result Misplaced Pages is improving. Personally, I find the editors around WikiProject medicine to be some of the best and smartest here. For me (as a relative newbie) seeing their work is an opportunity to watch & learn ... Alexbrn 07:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I find NPOV trumps smart. And I do not see NPOV in the work done to minimize MAM, or in the work done at Medical Cannabis, mostly by one who has proclaimed bias against herbal medicine. NPOV is hard to come by. I wish that weren't the case. petrarchan47tc 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Who's proclaimed such a bias? (Herbalism is pretty much woo, but some useful medicine has been derived from plants: an article I worked on you might find interesting is Plant sources of anti-cancer agents. Who knows, one day cannabis might be there!) Alexbrn 17:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll dig up the link for you... and now *you* have just proclaimed bias against herbal medicine. You're claiming it's "woo", when in fact alopathic medicine, that which we at Wiki bow down to, is very young, and it's partner, the pharmaceutical industry, is the 4th leading cause of death in the US. Cannabis has never killed anyone, which is kind of a neat bonus when one is seeking health. Regarding cancer, you might enjoy Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy. Also, I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles, so your paper indeed may have some revisions one day. petrarchan47tc 17:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Who's proclaimed such a bias? (Herbalism is pretty much woo, but some useful medicine has been derived from plants: an article I worked on you might find interesting is Plant sources of anti-cancer agents. Who knows, one day cannabis might be there!) Alexbrn 17:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I find NPOV trumps smart. And I do not see NPOV in the work done to minimize MAM, or in the work done at Medical Cannabis, mostly by one who has proclaimed bias against herbal medicine. NPOV is hard to come by. I wish that weren't the case. petrarchan47tc 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, things proceed much more smoothly if editors are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF: there's a reason these rules exist. The three topics you mention are ones where I think my editing has (yes) played a part, and that as a result Misplaced Pages is improving. Personally, I find the editors around WikiProject medicine to be some of the best and smartest here. For me (as a relative newbie) seeing their work is an opportunity to watch & learn ... Alexbrn 07:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)