"Ten Americans"

[silverweb]

This is a 22-minute video of a talk by Ken Cooke of the Environmental Working Group about industrial and pharmaceutical toxins found in humans.

We all know they're there, but this takes it to a whole new level.

Revealing and terrifying. Watch it _here_.

[cosmik debris]

1. Hog wash. Appeal to emotion. Scare tactics. Bad science. n/t

[Orrex]

2. You're only saying that because you're chock full of dimethyl sulfoxide

You oyster-tasting fiend, you.

[silverweb]

3. Really.

So none of the lab results are factual, no environmental toxins cross the placental barrier, and all of this is imaginary and our environment is pristine?

Where's your documentation?

[cosmik debris]

4. Why do you make up straw men arguments?

You know I never said any such thing.

You only make up bogus arguments because you've got nothing.

[silverweb]

5. You called it "bad science" and "scare tactics."

I didn't make that up. The points I stated came right out of the video that you called "hogwash," "bad science," and "scare tactics." That does not constitute a straw man argument.

The Environmental Working Group is, as best I can determine, a reputable, science and research-based organization. I have no reason to distrust their findings.

On the other hand, I do have good reason to question your smear, especially as you offer nothing at all to back it up.

I repeat: Where's your documentation?

[cosmik debris]

6. I made three claims

I claimed that it was scare tactics. You said yourself that it was terrifying. So that needs no further support.

I said that it was an appeal to emotion. The son of a bitch broke down crying while showing baby pictures. That is a BLATANT appeal to emotion.

I claimed that it was bad science. The dumb ass compared parts per billion of Cialis to parts per billion of lead. That is VERY BAD science. That is atrocious science. That is ultimately stupid science. It is like saying that if a quart of tetra-ethyl lead is fatal, a quart of water is also fatal. That is incredibly stupid.

This is obviously a scam meant to prey on weak minds.

And you counter with bogus bullshit pretending that I said that our environment is pristine. Your response is not related to any reality or any statements I made.

Geez, do you know anything about real science or real logic?

Here's a clue. While that dingbat was harping on toxicity he failed to inform you that toxicity is DOSE DEPENDENT. Just because a quart of tetra-ethyl lead is toxic doesn't mean that a single atom of tetra-ethyl lead is toxic. Just because 5 gallons of water can be toxic doesn't mean that a glass of water will kill you.

If you would use just a little bit of critical thinking skill when watching crap like that you would be able to see through the scam and wouldn't make such a fool of yourself by posting publicly under your own user name.

Take a look at an opposing view. http://capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3800748694.pdf

[silverweb]

7. Thank you.

I'll take a look at your opposing view documentation as soon as I have a chance. That's all I was asking for.

[cosmik debris]

8. Whether or not you agree with the other point of view,

The video is still hogwash based on the emotional appeal, the scare tactics, and the very, very, bad science.

It doesn't matter if the Environmental Working Group is on a mission from god or from satan, that video is hogwash.

Don't confuse the source with the message. In this case, the message is hogwash.

[silverweb]

9. I ask for data and you give me the CRC.

I don't accept as supporting documentation a hit piece by a conservative think tank openly dedicated to undermining research by consumer, health, and environmental groups.

But that's okay. I can't imagine now why I even hoped for anything more substantive.

[cosmik debris]

10. I supported my claims. Now you support yours.

The video you posted is hogwash.

The science is bad.

The logic is bad.

The argument is invalid.

So, show me your supporting documentation without the bad science, bad logic, and emotional appeals.

All you've got is a tear jerking bit of emotional cry-baby shit. That's it. Where is the science? Where is the clear reasoning? Where is the logic?

[silverweb]

12. You supported your opinions.

However, I don't see any facts. Your objection is that the presentation is based on emotion, scare tactics, and bad science.

I just watched the video again and see none of what you object to. I see data and its interpretation, presented in a coherent fashion, with a good deal of humor and no "cry-baby shit," as you so colorfully put it.

I've googled the EWG and Ken Cook, and have found them to be of very good repute. They've done projects together with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and their work has paralleled some of that done by the Centers for Disease Control. Bill Moyers did a very positive piece on the EWG, as well (_here_).

Without personal access to the raw data and methods of study used, and the scientific training to interpret those, neither you nor I can offer an informed opinion on the veracity of the results. Therefore, we are relegated to relying on the reputation of the people and organizations presenting the data/interpretations.

My search has revealed that the only criticisms of the EWG and its findings come from groups who attack them from the periphery for their "anti-capitalist" bias -- in other words, from corporate-sponsored attack groups who want to keep on poisoning us for their profit.

Like it or not, toxic pollution of the only planet we have is a fact. At this point, I have no good reason to doubt the EWG's research methods or results, and when it comes to protecting the environment and life on this planet, I choose to err on the side of caution.

You're welcome to your opinions.

[cosmik debris]

13. You haven't disagreed with any point I made.

I said it used scare tactics. You said it terrified you.

I said that it was an emotional appeal--crying over baby pictures does not make an argument valid.

I said that it is bad science because toxicity is dose dependent.

You have tried really hard to change the subject, but you haven't addressed those obvious flaws.

The problem is not the accuracy of the test results, it is the significance of the test results. There is no evidence that the results are significant (toxicity is dose dependent).

The problem is also that the argument based on emotion and fear, thus it is not a valid argument.

If you are having trouble with that, please try this link:

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

Pay special attention to the section on logical fallacies. You'll find that you have committed several of those fallacies. The video commits several more.

[silverweb]

14. I've said all I have to say.

It's apparent that you enjoy being a vocal cynic. Now I hope you enjoy continuing the argument by yourself.

I'm moving on to more interesting and productive pursuits.

[cosmik debris]

15. Thank you

And the next time you plan to post BS in this forum, expected it to be called exactly what it is, BS.

[xchrom]

11. beautiful propaganda -- very bad science/ nt