|
|
NavigationTopicsUser login |
scienceTobacco Companies Hid Information on Radioactive PoloniumTopics: corporations | health | science | secrecy | tobacco
Tobacco manufacturers discovered over 40 years ago that radioactive polonium-210 exists in cigarettes and tobacco smoke, and spent decades working to remove it, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health. The companies tried to remove polonium -- a naturally-occurring, alpha particle-emitting constituent of the fertilizers and soil used to grow tobacco -- by creating special filters, washing the tobacco leaf and genetically altering tobacco plants, but ultimately failed. Instead of coming clean, the companies kept their internal research on polonium and information about their unsuccessful efforts to remove it secret. They didn't want to heighten public awareness of polonium in cigarettes. Polonium-210 is the lethal radioactive substance that was used to poison Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. Merck Makes Science SellTopics: health | marketing | pharmaceuticals | science
An analysis of Merck internal documents concluded that the pharmaceutical company carried out a clinical study of Vioxx in 1999, "primarily to support a marketing campaign before the drug's launch." Merck stated that the study was done "to test side effects of the painkiller Vioxx," which was pulled from the market in 2004, after being linked to an increased risk of heart attacks. The 1999 study compared Vioxx to the widely-used painkiller Naproxen, in order "to accelerate uptake and advocacy for Vioxx," according to the Merck documents, which were disclosed during litigation. Another document -- a nomination of the 1999 study for a marketing award -- said the study was "designed and executed in the spirit of Merck marketing principles." Carrying out clinical studies for marketing purposes "would raise ethical and scientific questions, from whether study participants were unknowingly -- and needlessly -- put in harm's way, to whether a company's research is reliable." Earlier analyses of Merck documents found evidence the company ghostwrote academic articles and minimized patient deaths in Vioxx trials. The authors of the Merck document analyses were paid consultants in Vioxx lawsuits against Merck. Toxic Smoke and MirrorsTopics: corporations | health | science
Overexposure to manganese has caused Parkinson's-like symptoms for thousands of welders, but the makers of manganese-containing welding wire and electrodes are avoiding liability by manipulating science. Jim Morris writes that "the welding companies paid more than $12.5 million to 25 organizations and 33 researchers, virtually all of whom have published papers dismissing connections between welding fumes and workers' ailments. ... The pattern doesn't surprise George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, author of Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Corporate-funded research articles are often 'advocacy documents that are being produced purely for use in court cases,' he says. 'It's unfortunate, because it really pollutes the scientific literature.'" Industrial toxicologists have known since the 1930s that manganese exposure damages the brain and central nervous system. Morris notes that "if you were to graph out the welding industry's spending on science, you'd see a dramatic uptick in 2003 -- the year an Illinois jury awarded $1 million to a welder named Larry Elam." Since then, mounting lawsuits by injured welders have driven a funding boom for pro-industry scientists. Climate Change Skeptics Found Wrong but not HarmfulTopics: global warming | media | science
The British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ironically, Ofcom said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers." Global Warming's Deadly DenialTopics: global warming | issue management | propaganda | science
Reviewing the continued campaign by climate change skeptics, David McKnight, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales (Australia), notes that there several reasons why companies such as Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. "First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument," he writes. While the tobacco industry is often referred to as the template for the fossil fuel industry's campaign, McKnight argues that there is an important distinction. "There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign," he concludes. Nuclear "Renaissance" Dismissed as a "Carefully Fabricated Illusion"Topics: environment | global warming | international | nuclear power | public relations | science
Asked why people like Patrick Moore and Stewart Brand, who made their name as environmentalists are now nuclear power advocates, the highly regarded energy efficiency analyst Amory Lovins was blunt: "I think they haven't done their homework. And I keep asking for their analysis and not getting it, because I don't think they have one." Nuclear power, he argues, is no solution to global warming. "If you buy more nuclear plants, you're going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you'll get it about twenty to forty times slower" than efficient use of electricity, renewables and micropower, he said. Lovins is also dismissive of claims that a "nuclear renaissance" is sweeping the world. "It's a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn't happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies," he told Amy Goodman. Researchers Uncover How Tobacco Companies Use MentholTopics: corporations | health | marketing | science | tobacco
French Nuclear Plant Slow to Admit LeakTopics: environment | health | international | nuclear power | science
FTC Considers Dropping Its Tar and Nicotine Measuring Method
Europe Backpedals on BiofuelsTopics: agriculture | environment | international | politics | science | secrecy
|
Weekly SpinRecent blog posts
Upcoming events |