Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 2 March 2009

Archives

Archive 1

Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

I'm copying this section from the talkpage of WP:LIBRARY as a heads-up to the people who happen to watch my talkpage.

This bill (GovTrack link) is a bill to keep on eye on -- add a GovTrack tracker to it. It is an attempt to shut down the new mandate supporting PubMedCentral, that government-funded articles be made freely accessible. The following links cover it:

While it would seem impossible for such a blatantly abusive bill to pass, I'm no longer surprised by the government. II | (t - c) 04:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: This bill has been reintroduced . Track it on Govtrack .

From the ATA :

Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information through the PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.

II | (t - c) 17:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoridation

Thanks for your reply to my comments on the water fluoridation article. You're probably right that the H2SiF6 is probably right from the plant and anyway that the dilution is such that any threat from its acidity is inconsequential. What I didnt understand and didnt want to bog-down an already crowded talk page with, was your comment that fluoride contributes to lead poisoning. I would have thought that the same argument that the concentration is vanishingly small would also imply that the corrosiveness of F- would be minimal. I dont have the numbers, but I would guess that the formation constants for lead fluorides are low. But maybe I am missing the argument. I'll check back here so there is no need to respond on my page. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PMID 17697714 is a laboratory study on the issue. It suggests that your intuition (which is certainly more qualified than mine) on corrositivity is wrong. If you want access to the full-text, I can send it to you, although you'll have to email me first. Here's some of the basic clues from the article:

Under some conditions, NH and FSA, as such, react to produce silica and ammonium fluoride (Mollere, 1990). How that affects corrosion is not known, but whatever its reaction with NH may be, FSA does not leach lead simply because it is an acid. The fluosilicate anion 2� and/or partially dissociated derivatives have a unique affinity for lead. Lead fluosilicate is one of the most water soluble lead species known, a property recognized and exploited for many years (Stauter, 1976). FSA has been used as a solvent for lead and other heavy metals in extractive metallurgy (Cole et al., 1981; Kerby, 1979) and to remove surface lead from leaded-brass brass machined parts (Bonomi et al., 2001; Giusti, 2001, 2002).With or without CA, FSA would extract lead from brass. Besides, in the water plant situation it is reasonable to expect FSA to combine with NH as ammonium fluosilicate, an excellent solvent for copper alloys (Hara et al., 2002) and other metals (Silva et al., 1995).

II | (t - c) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The linked paper looks pretty flakey to me (minor institution, minor journal, and primary source). No surprise that choramines and fluorosilicic would attack lead (and other materials) under some conditions so the question is one of relevance to water fluoridation, and you seem to have drawn the conclusions I would anticipate. Thanks again for the ref, catch you later --Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to base my beliefs on arguments from authority if at all possible. Primary sources are best for evaluating the actual data, which are ultimately what all secondary arguments are derived from. I've seen too many ridiculous mistakes and omissions from authority figures to take things on faith. Much of medical science is simple enough for me to feel comfortable with my own analysis (based in large part on secondary interpretations, of course). I'm not saying the study is conclusive -- neither side in the fluoridation debate is above twisting facts, and it's hard to say which one twists or omits facts the most. The above study is the first laboratory study of the FSA's effect on leaded brass pipes. I wouldn't be surprised if some dentists do a similar study and find the opposite conclusions -- until then, though, the above study suggests that fluoridation should be discontinued in areas with leaded brass pipes. The best way to resolve differences might be to get them to work on their studies together.

It doesn't matter that much to me whether fluoridation increases lead poisoning. As I've already shown to you, WHO statistics show that several nonfluoridated (neither salt nor water) nations in Europe have less tooth decay than the United States . Water fluoridation is an imprecise, wasteful, and potentially dangerous mass medication device. Since I weigh less than most people and drink more water, my fluoride intake on a bodyweight basis could be twice as much as average. I'd rather not risk an IQ point . Similarly, I'd rather not worry about an adverse effect on my thyroid. The NAS reports that thyroid effects occur with adequate iodine intake at .05-.13 mg/kg/day . If I drink 2 liters of water per day (less than recommended by Mayo Clinic ), that would be 2 mg per day of fluoride, from water alone. That's .04 mg/kg if I weigh 50 kilograms, which is too close for comfort.

Anyway, let's not pretend that I'm the only one who's drawn the conclusions anticipated. You make your disdain for environmental health and the possibility of politicized research from your perspective quite clear. One interesting difference is that the political bias for your perspective includes industry support and liability issues, while the political bias for my side is simply personal concern. II | (t - c) 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks for writing things out. My comments on the weak journal article were snide but that is how the publishing world works IMHO. In any case, it's helpful to me to see how you view things and view my edits. We're probably not as far apart, not that that matters in an NPOV world. Later,--Smokefoot (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

organic farming

hi, i requested a move of organic farming to organic agriculture, as i proposed on the talk page, which i consider uncontroversial. since you edited the article recently, if you think this is not the case, could you respond to my proposal on the talk page? thanksTruetom (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and plagiarism thread at Water fluoridation FAC

Would you mind collapsing that thread in a hidden box? I think that issue has been addressed. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the WP:FAC instructions; using the hide templates is discouraged at FAC as they cause the archives to exceed template limits. More common is for FAC to remain focused on specific issues and examples relating to WP:WIAFA, with longer commentary placed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Iodates

The series that I use for industrial chemistry says that "A normal person requires about 75 mg of iodine per year, which is usually consumed as iodized salt that contains one part sodium or potassium iodide to 100 000 parts of sodium chloride." According to this series, iodates are used (together with iodides) in animal feeds: "About 25% of the reported domestic consumption of iodine was in animal feeds, primarily as the compound EDDI , but also as potassium iodide, calcium iodate" So if you have a source for iodates in table salt, please pass that on.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misworded my comment. PMID 11396703 says health authorities recommend iodate since it doesn't break down as quickly, so I assumed it was more common. By the way, my guess is that fluoridation became much more controversial not really because of sophisticated understanding that fluoride is more toxic or a cost-benefit analysis (dental caries vrs. cretinism), but mainly due to fluoride's reputation as an ingredient in rat poison . Back when the two schemes were being introduced, there was little concrete knowledge on adverse effect, and they just noticed few obvious adverse effects and obvious benefits. II | (t - c) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be right about the coinciding introduction of sodium fluoride for rats and fluoridation for drinking water. At rodenticide, sodium fluoride is not mentioned, possibly an oversight. My industrial source (Ullmann's Indust. Chem.), which tends to list any application that makes or made money, doesn't mention NaF being sold as a poison. Sodium fluoroacetate is/was used as rat poison, so it is conceivable that the similar names sodium fluoroacetate and sodium fluoride were confused at some stage. Figuring out why people acted in a certain way would take more time and sources than I have.

I don't know if you can find fluoride rat poison now. See , although a self-published website, it has a legitimate coverage of the historical use. Perhaps they weren't as efficient as modern insecticides and aren't used today, although this ancient source says DDT is no more effective for cockroaches than "the familiar old sodium fluoride".II | (t - c) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On the iodide theme since that interests you: iodide is "one of 14 mineral commodities .. being used for domestic meat production." - would be interesting to know what else is used.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported violations of arbitration decisions for enforcement

I have reported your actions at Orthomolecular psychiatry to WP:AE for enforcement. See this. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban of myself

For those interested in seeing me gone, please weigh at the proposal at WP:ANI: Misplaced Pages:ANI#Community_ban_of_ImperfectlyInformed. Like medieval England, in Misplaced Pages the jury and the accusers stand as one. II | (t - c) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)