5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

How about we not worry about what John Tierney has to say.

And what exactly is the proportionality of units on the vertical axis in that first chart?

Regarding the mobile telephone radiation:
From the article on the Israel Ministry of Health: "Health Ministry officials said yesterday that it is still not clear whether cell-phone use is connected to an increased risk of developing cancerous growths, but in light of the research, it is prudent to adopt a policy of "preventive caution." " This is almost identical to their statement from last year - but without the intense media hype that their remarks are getting this year.

Even Dr. Herberman's warnings are not based on clear evidence, but on the precautionary principle.

So Tierney is right - there is no clear link between cellphones and cancer.

However, it's only common sense to follow the guidelines for intelligent use of mobile phones - i.e. avoid situations with poor reception (which means higher intensity of transmission), and reduce the exposure of susceptible populations, such as children.

Sounds like Tierney isn't debunking "myths" as much as telling people what they want to hear.

Thanks for debunking some of the regular hogwash coming out of the NYT. It is just this sort of reductionist thinking that is preventing a lot of positive change.

Hmmm . . . Tierney can keep his BPA containing Nalgene bottle. He cites that one federal panel found some concern and contends from this, we all reacted in hysteria. Yet, he doesn't cite the research from leading scientists and experts that continues to pile up finding that low level exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) in animals is linked to adverse health effects. He doesn't dispute that polycarbonate plastic may expose you to BPA - that would be hard to do, since even the FDA makes that assumption. Yet, Tierney contends that there isn't enough dose to make the poison. In doing so, he overlooks that fetuses and infants do not have the enzyme that he has to break down BPA. It isn't that the dose makes the poison - it is that the dose and the timing make the poison. BPA & DES were both considered as synthetic estrogen - DES was chosen to be used for problemmatic pregnancies because it was strogen. Everbody contended DES was safe for years - and safe to give to pregnant women. Now we know that it wasn't. I would hate to be the one touting BPA's safety when it goes the way of DES.

Jennifer
Smart Mamas Do It All Naturelly
www.thesmartmama.com

I was really annoyed about the plastic bag statements. As an ocean lover the huge issue on the West Coast that we see every day is how they end up in the ocean. And then in the bellies of ocean creatures. Yeah, they take up less room in the landfill ... when they actually make it there.

I wish I were surprised. It seems like so much information out there is tainted or, as it is well put in this article, too easily taken out of context and quoted back to us. It is also amazing how little research people do into sources, as demonstrated by Tierney's citation of the American Council on Science and Health. There was a great article released recently (a little academic, I admit) about some sources regarding energy and a bunch of other green issues that are noooo good. It can be found here.
Additionally, I plan on blogging about sources in the near future on GreenerTrends

Josh

I think that Aaron has it right. Tierney is just telling people what they want to hear, which is what makes what he says dangerous, and why we can't just ignore him. All the major blog outlets like MSNBC will jump on this like white on rice, and then the public will feel smug in thinking that us environmental wingnuts are wrong.

re; foodmiles and NZ kiwifruit/apples/meat/dairy etc

The paper is by Motu researcher Suzi Kerr (who is no chump);;

Suzi Kerr has been Director and Senior Fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research since November 1998 when she returned to New Zealand after an extensive period of study and work in the United States. She graduated from Harvard University in 1995 with a PhD in Economics. Following that she was an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland from 1995 through 1998. She has been a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future (USA) and Victoria University and in the Joint Center for the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During 2006 she took a sabbatical combined with maternity leave in Valdivia in the south of Chile. Her research focuses on the use of market based instruments to address climate change and water quality issues.

"The small percentage between windows down or AC on is minuscule compared to the fact that you are in a car driving to the beach. Feel guilty about being in a car, not running the AC"

wait, what? you turn a comment about the efficiency difference between AC and windows by pushing moral guilt about going to the beach on people?!

You cannot criticize Tierney for his goofy assertions and reductionist thinking with statements like that.
I actually stopped reading the rest of your points about the article so I could stop and comment, not I'm gonna go do something productive.

*shakes head*

LA: You missed my point, which was simply that once you are driving, whether the windows are open or not is pretty minor. I was not saying don't go to the beach.

I read his article on Yahoo news, and I thought it was absolutely APPALLING. What a joke, now we should just not worry about plastic bags? Are you F# ing kidding me?

So this guy writes for the NY times? That reason enough not to read him from the start. Secondly, if he bothered to pick up a couple of CURRENT Green liveing books (I have read Ready Set Green among others myself) he may find that the facts from book to book do not change and are backed by multiple websites and studies by organizations that make it their buissness to know what is good and bad for people and the environment.
Personally an artical like this being published in a National Newspaper scares me. People don't tend to believe anything they see. Especially if what they see is a head line that says not to worry about the environment.
To me personally, the issue is not only that we have been and still are abusing out planet, to me it is an issue of human greed.
We are consumers. Not only are we consumers, but we are over consumers. Something needs to be done and this moron needs to get some facts straight and tell both sides of things before he publishes any information that could have an impact on peoples decisions.

"a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry." Why is this in quotation marks?/Who actually said this?

Can we get scale on the MPG vs. speed chart at the top? I mean, it's one thing to show some lines going up or down, but it'd be nice to know what the actual difference is in unit figures.

I mean, I drive 5 miles a week, so the difference would be minimal, but I like saving money no matter where I can. However, pretty little Excel charts without UNITS don't tell me much.

Thanks!

The New York Times distorts the truth?!? Well, that's the liberal media at work for ya!

Oh, wait. This favors businesses? Well, never mind then.

Consistent with everything else Tierney writes. JL

I agree with him. I don't worry about any of these things. Why would I worry about AC when I'm on my bike or plastic bags when I have my backpack?

Possibly the worst part of this is leading people to get stressed about their choices. This is what makes them worry and ultimately be resistant to change. How hard is it to just use a tote bag? The annoying part is how much it is publicized, and all the misinformation. It's making me stressed!!!

I agree with Jennifer: plastic bags suck, and if I don't have my canvas bags avaiable, I still choose paper. Even though the energy cost is slightly higher, I can compost them or burn them...and if one blows away, it doesn't really matter.

Over the years, I have been involved in many roadside and trail cleanups, and plastic bags are enemy #1. They blow everywhere and get into everything. Every time I see one 20 feet up into a tree, I want to cane the idiot who let it loose.

Concerning plastic versus paper, I assume everyone can agree that re-usable bags are the way to go.

Problem solved.

"Feel guilty about being in a car ... "

No thanks. I don't believe I will feel guilty about that, if you don't mind. Mr. Alter, on the other hand, can feel free to knock himself out with guilt, if that's what he enjoys.

Regarding food mileage, Thierney cites just about the only study that I know of which says "don't worry". How about providing data on how shipping food from other countries contributes to green house gas emissions. Even worse is air freight. After seeing this, I am even more worried (because NYT willingly publishes such dravel).

- Martin

Maybe Treehugger should police its own outright lies like the one in this blog entry where the author got confused and said we exported 900,000 head of cattle to Mexico and then refused to correct his errors.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/foods-that-got-expensive.php

Oh huh, I just realized that the y-axis on the chart up top is in Gal/mile. That's kinda an odd unit to use. When I first glanced at it, it looked like it said that driving with the windows up and no AC was the least efficient.

As is the choice of kph instead of mph for the x-axis. Yes, I realize that most of the world goes by kph but to combine "gallons per mile" with kilometers is a bit strange.

Paper bags are no better than plastic. Plastic bags use oil. But paper bags are usually not recycled from previous paper bags, which means they're cutting down trees to make them. I'll be honest here. If I'm without my reusables, I'll take plastic. I can re-use them to take my lunch to work and then drop them in the recycling bin, or I can use them to line trashcans in my home. In some areas where I live, they're also used exclusively to collect recycling.

As for Tierney's point on BPA? Treehugger, you have GOT to make up your mind on BPA. First you tell us it's bad, horrible stuff. Then, in your Walmart is the New FDA article, you tell us that BPA is harmless and that Walmart is TEHEVIL because it removed BPA-containing products from shelves *even though* the FDA never officially came out with a BPA-is-bad report. So which is it?!

LA: I think you misread the wal-mart article. what was interesting there was the fact that wal-mart was essentially making policy, in the vacuum that exists because the FDA does not.

As far as I'm aware New Zealand does not ship any exports by air, as the volume is simply too great for this to be feasible.

All food exports are transported by ship, which on average uses a great deal less fuel than flying the same volume of product.

It may seem counter intuitive, but there is evidence to suggest food produced in one country, shipped, and sold in another can have a lower carbon footprint.

What we really need is more research on food miles to ensure the food we eat really is the most efficiently produced.

Cheers!

The only distortion of reality is in your article and in your head.

Doctors advocating cigarette use? Please don't tell me you are resorting to using 1980's era Viz cartoon spoof adverts as 'scientific evidence'?

You say "Puleeeze. Pick a two year old report from a regional EPA office to make a specious argument ". Yes, Good God how dare someone quote a scientific report when there are perfectly good made up 'cigarettes are healthy' joke sources to be quoting instead.

Let me get this straight.... anyone who disagrees with politically correct fad theories are "dangerous" and should be dismissed because they are just telling the uninformed "what they want to hear." What ever happened to allowing both sides of an issue to present their evidence/arguments in a respectful arena and permitting people to make up their own minds. I'm willing to examine the evidence for "global warming" by listening to both sides with an open mind. Present your evidence, but don't demonize or dismiss one side because they don't agree with the current "group-think."

Two quick comments:

First, I saw some others had mentioned this one but I am really wondering what the units, scale, and general values on the y-axis for the first chart are. If the author has had any scientific experience he should understand that under no circumstances should you introduce data without ensuring all values are properly labeled.

The markers on that graph implies there are 9 exact x-y pairs calculated, but I'm only able to tell 9 x-values. Not giving appropriate y-values is really doing the exact same thing as Tierney, isn't it? I mean you do realize you're using manipulated data, no?

Second, I was curious as to what exactly you think the difference in electro-magnetic radiation exposure you expect between YOU on a cell phone, and say someone across the room on a cell phone? The fact is you have always had EM radiation surging through your body, and the only way to avoid that is to either spend the rest of your life in a thick metal box, or outlaw EM radiation all together.

On a side note, you do know that light is "electro magnetic radiation" as well, correct? Just making sure.

So can I turn on the AC or what. it's hot. turning it on.

The anti-grocery bag mania is laughable. To demonstrate this, try an experiment:

1. Go to Whole Foods (a mainstream, "eco-friendly" chain that recently cut plastic bags) with your reusable fabric grocery bags.

2. Buy a wide selection of fruits, vegetables, baked goods, staples, etc., and put them in said bags.

3. Return home.

4. Empty all the non-recyclable, non-reusable clamshells for produce and baked goods, plastic produce bags, boxes with plastic bags inside them, and Class 5 plastic beverage containers.

5. Throw these in the garbage can, which is lined with a PLASTIC GARBAGE BAG that you bought separately and will go into the waste stream, when you could have reused the excellent Whole Foods plastic grocery bags as garbage bags.

6. Realize how tiny the impact of your reusable fabric grocery bag is. That is: zero if you reused your plastic grocery bags as garbage bags, miniscule if you didn't.

Grocery bags are part of a large-scale source-to-waste food pipeline problem that is not going to be solved or even substantially improved by moving away from them.

HAHA... Dont get me wrong, i also hate his Non Scientific article, but to claim you are doing a better job is insane. At no point do you cite an actual study or use a graph that actually has relatively numbers or uncertainties from peer review work.
Look at your arguments against cell phones. None of the article you link to are actual studies, for all we know they could be another journalist like our friend Tierney making shit up. ( the recent warning in Pittsburg is based on unpublished data, not peer reviewed, thus not yet credible.)
Also I notice quite a bit of DISTORTION on john's article on car windows etc. At least if he based it on the only citation he gives, but i give you guys the benefit of the doubt.
And where is the error bars for the efficiency graph ?
These graph and table in the summary wouldnt hold up to any journal's standard for evidence. At least any credible one.
Articles like yours that don't provide real evidence towards or against are the main problem with this ongoing "green society" that has turned to mostly a bandwagon.
I want to "save" the earth just like anyone, but only backed by credible science, that is, its methods not the people who say it.

I stopped reading at cell phones and cancer.

Cell phones emmitt radio frequency radiation, which is only really good for flipping nuclear spin states to the higher energy state. This is how MRIs and NMR work. The thing is, unless you are in a powerful magnetic field the nuclear spin states are degenerate and no radiation is absorbed. Of course the Earth's magnetic field is sufficiently large enough to create a higher energy spin state, but it is no where near the population difference you see in an NMR or MRI experiment or even what the technicians experience by being near the instruments. Honestly it is fool hardy to say that cell phones do not cause cancer, science can never disprove anything, but at the same time it is unreasonable to be afraid of something when really if you were in space and isolated from large magnetic fields you would absorb zero RF. Well unless there are polarization effects, but then we are basically dealing with Raman levels of absorption on the RF frequency which is such a small amount of energy. But last I checked MRI technicians don't have an increased incidence of cancer and they spend long hours in a stronger magnetic field than what you experience by being in the Earth's.

The possibility for the absorption of RF exists so I'd like to see experiements that actually quantify the level of absorption, and how much is retained in tissues as heat, and a quantified risk would be nice too. Until that time I am going to go with what I know, and what I know is that spin active nuclei do not absorb RF frequency radiation in the absence of an external magnetic field.

Now wireless routers, some of them use microwave frequency. It is high enough energy that its absorption is in rotational energy states and without an external magnetic field these states are still not degenerate. If you recall from physics classes rotational energy is one of the degrees of freedom that is included in the total enternal energy of the system, so microwaves cause heating which can cause DNA to do bizzare things which can lead to cancer. Gasp! Where is the article about microwaves not being allowed in homes because there is a potential for them to cause cancer? Oh right, because cell phones are the "hot topic" of fear mongering.

Honestly, as a scientist, I think that this article is way too on the alarming side. The arguments that it uses are way too emotional, and reject Tierney just because he doesn't have the best citations (a fault of ALL newspaper articles).

As I've been able to find, there is very scant evidence for low level BPA exposure to be at all harmful, and bottles do not leak it in the high levels known to do damage. Despite the recent fervor, my own digging agrees with Tierny's assessment. The recent BPA scare is probably a little overblown, which isn't the worst thing, as erring on the side of less foreign chemicals is probably the safer option.

An earlier comment dealt with the cellphone issue. All of the current advisements are merely, with any link between cell phones and tumors being tenuous at best. Yet the author cites the recent hype, rather than the data.

As for the bags: obviously reusable bags are the best. Tierney is not the only one to claim that the plastic/paper issue isn't the simplest in the world though.