Comments on: A rather long build up to one punchline

By: Snuggie

Snuggie — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:57:45 +0000

Snuggie blanket Snuggie blanket blanket with sleeves blanket with sleeves

By: diudiu

diudiu — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:46:04 +0000

ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans christian audigier christian audigier ed hardy t shirts ed hardy t shirts ed hardy uk ed hardy uk ed hardy bags ed hardy bags ed hardy hoodies ed hardy hoodies ed hardy mens ed hardy mens ed hardy womens ed hardy womens ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

By: groovemeister

groovemeister — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:11:13 +0000

Oops, wrong story. :/

By: groovemeister

groovemeister — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:06:23 +0000

So…

The Pope is saying that we shouldn’t be believing things that are ‘dubious idealogy’, and is in favour of hardcore evidence?

Might have to step down as being the Pope then. Can’t see him believing in God.

By: ernesto

ernesto — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:17:08 +0000

“I cannot unanimously ban BBP from cosmetics in Europe, and reduce my risk of breast cancer, and I cannot decide unanimously to change my country’s foreign policy, to reduce my chances of being blown up on the way to work.
Course you can, Ben. Anyone can unanimously do anything they wish to do. Doesn’t necessarily have an effect, though.
Perhaps you meant ‘unilaterally’?
But then, much as I admire a lot of what you write to challenge the world of superstition, there’s nothing like seeing a smartarse take a tumble to add to the gaiety of nations!

By: Maarten Van Hemelen

Maarten Van Hemelen — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:06:46 +0000

Ah. I see… I feel kinda stupid now… We have newspapers of that kind as well. I never read them though,except for when I’m abroad in a country like Italy (I could read a good English or French paper, but Italian isn’t really doable) as they are the only ones you can get, being as popular as they are…

By: jodyaberdein

jodyaberdein — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:49 +0000

As per usual I post tangentially to the main point, but never mind:

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/simon_caldwell_is_a_liar.php

By: Maarten Van Hemelen

Maarten Van Hemelen — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:41:25 +0000

Well, while it doesn’t seem to be my kind of journal, based on this I think you’re being a little harsh on it, aren’t you? You can hardly still blaim the Mail for having supported fascism so many years ago, now can you. Especially as it seems they were strongly against Apartheid. (It feels strange typing a Dutch word in an English sentence…) Also the wikipedia article almost seems to give the impression people reading the Daily Mail are evil… A bit of a stereotype, no? I assume you don’t like their scientific vieuwpoints, but in what way are they doing wrong?

By: spk76

spk76 — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:41:54 +0000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_for_Nazism_and_Fascism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Editorial_stance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Common_satirical_target

By: Maarten Van Hemelen

Maarten Van Hemelen — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:57:03 +0000

By the way, what’s with the Daily Mail? I live in Belgium, so British newspapers aren’t really a speciality of mine, but I have long thought it was something of a quality newspaper, as opposed to gutter press like the Sun. It seems I was wrong then?

By: Maarten Van Hemelen

Maarten Van Hemelen — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:47:42 +0000

I know this is off-topic, but I’d like to ask if it is normal that activation of a forum account takes several days? Sorry for disturbing the discussion.

By: Dead Badger

Dead Badger — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:44:58 +0000

Anyone else pleasantly surprised to see that the online version of the Mail article actually had a link to the original research?

Actually, I think “pleasantly surprised” is a bit of an understatement.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:13:08 +0000

Damn Eurocrats, telling us what we can and can’t put in our great British cosmetics. Hang on, that’s not right.

By: Robert Carnegie

Robert Carnegie — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:04:12 +0000

By the way, I found some new playmates who may or may not be scientists, regarding vitamin D and sunshine, cancer, autism, etc. Started on the forums and not really setting it on fire, here > www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3815

By: Robert Carnegie

Robert Carnegie — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:00:22 +0000

I imagine that the “underground” scene has to pay particular attention to fire risks…?

By: catcubed

catcubed — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:54:44 +0000

@niche a simple web search for “pvc fetish” shows you’re way off base.

By: SirTainleyBarking

SirTainleyBarking — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:38:49 +0000

@Twm
“Certainly you would expect large companies to be more active in removing components which had bad reporting in the media even if the real risk is that much less”

Happens all the time. The Phthalates thing is seriously old news these days, and very few if any mainstream cosmetic products contain them these days.

The latest thing is of course Parabens. They are being formulated out certainly from ingredients as we speak. Every rep with a product to sell these days always makes a point of “Paraben free”.

Cosmetics like food is big business, so is effected by the consumers perceptions and desires. We’re all after customer cash, and you don’t get that by your product being left on the shelf, no matter what the rights and wrongs of the science involved

By: Twm

Twm — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:35:14 +0000

Dean Morrison. Thanks for the links.

I guess the problem is that acute toxicity in individuals, animals or a isolated ecosystem is much easier to prove than statistical problems like increase in cancers after many years of exposure.
However, if acute or long term problems are made known, I wonder where the balance of power is in getting the substance removed.

Certainly you would expect large companies to be more active in removing components which had bad reporting in the media even if the real risk is that much less.

Trans fats are currently being willingly withdrawn from food products from the main producers, coinciding with increased media linkage to obesity and heart disease and also better labelling of “hydrogenated fats”.

But they are hardly toxic. So i suspect that the media whore chemicals which get the most attention (especially when babies are involved) will get removed with priority by companies themselves based on fear of declining sales.

The problem with bad chemical reporting is that the energy may be spent removing the wrong chemicals because of percieved pressure rather than science.

(Lipids are pretty cool at a molecular level also, it’s amazing what a few kinks in a fatty acid tail can do to the consistency of your spread or the chewy ness of your marsbar)

By: Ministry

Ministry — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:53:28 +0000

niche (Comment no.8): I’m not sure that’s strictly true: I doubt a typical fetish club would turn someone away wearing PVC.

If you were seriously commenting on journalists’ tendency to make throwaway remarks about subjects they don’t fully understand, you could have a point.
Careful, Dr. G – you’d rightfully complain if an arts graduate did the same on a science/health topic!

By: Maarten Van Hemelen

Maarten Van Hemelen — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:52:10 +0000

It is indeed so that too much sun can cause cancers of the skin (although the sun is not the only factor, most cancers, if not all, really have a number of causes). But too little sun isn’t healthy either. We need sunlight, without it we are prone to osteoporosis, and maybe other conditions, but osteoporosis is the only one I know.

What is more interesting: rubbing sun lotion on your skin is not proven to prevent those cancers of the skin. There is a correlation between sunburn and those cancers, sun lotions prevent sunburn, the assumption is wrongly made that sun lotions will protect you from getting cancers of the skin. Tsss.