NIH was forced to change their Web site. The study
that said there was no link came out years after the
study that did say there was a link. So they might be
toying with dates.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=m:5:13157:118215
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> excuse me.
>
> When did breast cancer become a "left-wing" issue?
>
> Dana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: Kerry's record in Senate
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Say what. Claiming that the group is some vague
> > commie,
> > anti-capitalist group is not refuting the charges.
> > All these different
> > claimshave been adequately documented (see the
> > footnotes). Try again
> > monkey boy.
> >
> > larry
>
> Did you reply to the Gorelick issue? Does this mean
> you agree she did build a wall?
> If I were really a right wing nut I'd say she built
> that wall to cover Clintons China missile scandal.
> But
> I'm not so I won't J
>
> OK, I went back and tried to read the document. It
> focuses way too much on politics rather then
> science.
>
> I came across the reference to the aluminum tubes
> for
> the centrifuge and the breast cancer issue we
> discussed last week. This is pure left wing stuff.
> If
> you want to pick a specific item with references
> I'll
> debate that but to hand me a DNC play book and say
> dispute everything, I don't have the time.
>
> As for the monkey boy, how old are you?
>
> As for your left wing group:
>
>
> By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of
> Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their
> predictions are often laughably, and sometimes
> tragically, wrong. A few examples:
>
> In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of
> "global warming" and advocated U.S. ratification of
> the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists,
> and so UCS declared that "the scientific community
> has
> reached a consensus." But when a counter-petition
> that
> questioned this so-called "consensus" was signed by
> more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a
> "deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
> community with misinformation."
>
> UCS invested significant resources in "a multiyear
> effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable
> natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a
> preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic
> [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly."
> Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA
> have
> concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the
> crop-devastating insects it's supposed to kill.
>
> Based, we suppose, on some "science" or other, UCS's
> Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American
> farmers would reduce their planting of genetically
> enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it "probably
> represents a turning point." What happened? Just the
> reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in
> 2000, 2001 and 2002 -- and shows no sign of slowing
> down.
>
> In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run
> out of fossil fuels. "It is now abundantly clear,"
> the
> group wrote, "that the world has entered a period of
> chronic energy shortages." Oops! Known reserves of
> oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher,
> and
> show every sign of increasing.
>
> To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter
> tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even
> by
> Ralph's Nader's Public Citizen -- for tread
> separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries
> were
> attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires
> alone.
> UCS apparently hasn't learned from its many, many
> mistakes. But if at first you don't succeed, scare,
> scare again.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
>
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
