1. 5G lawsuits.
Lundy, Lundy, Soileau and South are soliciting plaintfifs to sue over 5G wireless, because it is so widely believed that any science that goes before a jury will lose, as seen in Johnson&Johnson baby powder and Bayer weedkiller cases.
Progressive activists are insisting Lloyd's of London is refusing insurance policies related to 5G wireless and this is because 5G is secretly harmful and there is a corporate/government conspiracy to hide that. They claim this is because Lloyd's believes 5G is as harmful as asbestos, which cost the insurer a lot of money in the 1990s.
Is that true? True or false, what is the real science that can stand up to blanket precautionary principle approaches, like in the IARC assessment? The fee is $150.
2. IARC Exoneration of Pesticides?
IARC is frequently invoked by activists opposed to conventional pesticides (and lawyers hoping to sue) but a recent epidemiology paper deflates some of the beliefs that IARC is always scaring people about chemicals.
"During follow-up, 2430 NHL cases were diagnosed in 316 270 farmers accruing 3 574 815 person-years under risk. Most meta-HRs suggested no association. Moderately elevated meta-HRs were seen for: NHL and ever use of terbufos (meta-HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.00–1.39); chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and deltamethrin (1.48, 1.06–2.07); and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and glyphosate (1.36, 1.00–1.85); as well as inverse associations of NHL with the broader groups of organochlorine insecticides (0.86, 0.74–0.99) and phenoxy herbicides (0.81, 0.67–0.98), but not with active ingredients within these groups, after adjusting for exposure to other pesticides."
For a consumer audience, this can be a challenge to understand and we'd like a 6-800 word overview of what this means and the challenges in this kind of epidemiology. The fee is $300.
3. In 2002, a biologist wrote a paper claiming a common weedkiller was changing the "sexualization" of frogs, an indictator species. EPA convened a panel on it but found no evidence and the biologist refused to show his data.
A new paper, "Molecular evidence for sex reversal in wild populations of green frogs (Rana clamitans)", finds that this can happen without any chemicals involved but National Geographic dismissed the science with "The findings in no way exonerate pollutants like the widely used herbicide atrazine, scientists caution."
They they go on to cite the biologist who refused to show his data to EPA.
We'd like an op-ed on how this sort of framing is destructive to public trust in journalism and science. Why should the public believe any science, global warming or evolution. if a journalist will simply find someone who disagrees and give them equal time? The fee is $150 for a 6-800 word article, which needs to include what these new results mean mean in the broader context of trust in EPA.
4. EU remains entrenched against gene editing.
After mutagenesis, the EU seems to have stopped accepting biological science. When it came to GMOs, the assumption was the block was geopolitical economics - BASF uses mutagenesis and Monsanto, an American company, had GMOs.
But now they are opposed to all gene editing. With Japan now likely to begin accepting gene editing in Asia (so conservative they opposed the Rainbow Papaya beginning in the 1990s), the rest of Asia will likely follow.
What would need to change for EU to embrace science the way they once did? The fee is $150 for a 6-800 word article.
Comments