Be careful about snooping on Snopes.... and quackwatch.

[Guest guest]

Do you think that snopes is rushing to change their information on cell phones

now? I don't think so. They are intentionally misleading people and

endangering peoples health. Just part of the misinformation machine.

 

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6056325.html

 

 

--- Elaine <MedResearch121 wrote:

 

>

>

> I just found out the cell phone warning was a hoax. I thought it came from a

> reliable source, but I should have checked Snopes first.

>

> Dinah

> REPLY: THIS IS REAL! EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY

> HANDICAP

> Only 1 message in topic - view as tree - edit manager options

> M.M. - view profile

> Date:Sat, Nov 26 2005 6:47 pm

> Email: " M.M. " <m.real...

> Not yet ratedRating:

> show options

> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show

> original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

>

> Hello Sharon,

> If you would have gone to the web site

> http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm#as you would have seen a link to

> the information on snops the reply is below, PLEASE READ IT.

> It is my opinion that Snoops does not seem to give the correct information on

> everything take aspertame or splenda which is a sweet toxin they say all of

> that research is Urban legends, its ok to consume those chemicals, how about

> chemtrails, I see them every day, but according to snops they do not exist,

> how about all of the people that have died from cholesterol meds is that too

> an urban legend, check it out your self. getting back to what you have read

> in snopes is below:

>

> RE: Q & A Section

>

> 1) Question: I read on Snopes that this alert is false. Is that true?

>

> Answer: The Snopes/Urban Legends posting is actually in regards to an EPA

> proposed study called CHEERS and an alert we had sent out regarding that in

> late 2004 (http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm). It is not directly

> related to this alert. The Snopes posting did a great disservice to that

> issue in their inaccuracy and lack of research into this issue. We spend

> massive amounts of staff time researching these issues, confer with outside

> experts on the topic, and cite dozens of references. The Snopes website,

> while valuable with most of its information, is not always accurate, and that

> is the case here. In fact, you'll find they reference only a couple of

> newspaper articles to backup their stance on this issue. Fortunately, enough

> concerned citizens, several nonprofits, dozens of mainstream newspapers, and

> many congress members, actually did their research on the EPA study and found

> that study was, in fact, very problematic. In fact, in early 2005, the EPA

> CHEERS study was permanently dropped, thanks to pressure from Congress. In

> August of 2005 Congress went a step further and mandated the EPA pass a rule

> that bans all testing of chemicals on children and pregnant women, without

> exception. That is what this alert pertains to. Snopes hasn't posted any

> information about this particular alert, and we hope they do their research

> this time. We ask our readers to do your research, as well. No single alert

> or single website will provide you with all of the information you need. We

> provided dozens of links on our alerts to external resources that allow you

> to further research and reference all of the information we provide. If you

> have questions, we're always happy to help out c...

>

> 2)Question: I read the EPA website and part of the introduction of the rule,

> claims the rule is to prohibit all such testing and to establish sanctions.

> That sounds like a good thing. So what's the problem?

>

> Answer: The EPA is proposing a rule that they would like to have approved.

> Anytime you are marketing a product, you sell its best points and hope that

> people won't look too deeply and find its flaws. The EPA website and the

> introductory description of the rule are very long winded and flowery,

> claiming this rule abides by the congressional mandate to ban all testing of

> women and children, without exception. In fact, if you read the rule, which

> is 30 pages of fine print, there are multiple exceptions. We have noted those

> in our template letter to the EPA and on our action alert page. This is a

> specific layout of the problematic text as taken directly from the actual EPA

> rule. In short, these are the loopholes in the document that need to be

> removed, as mandated by congress, which says the rule must have no

> exceptions.

>

> 3) Question: The rule says these waivers apply when the IRB sees a benefit of

> the test for the children involved, and also calls for supplementary

> protective measures when necessary. That sounds like a good thing. So what's

> the problem?

>

> Answer: Actually, you are referencing a point made under subpart §26.405 of

> the rule. That subpart is designed to only address " research presenting the

> prospect of direct benefit to the individual subjects. " In that subpart, it

> says that " more than minimal " risk to children subjects is acceptable if

> there is a chance it could benefit the child. Outside of that subpart, there

> are no stipulations requiring that the studies be beneficial to the test

> subjects. Anywhere else in the document where this type of situation is

> noted, it is under an " or " clause. In other words, the loopholes for this

> rule state that the rule can be disregarded if the study was done overseas,

> OR the test subject's guardian consents, OR if the study may be of benefit to

> society as a whole, OR if the study may be of benefit to the test subject,

> etc. The study also calls for supplementary protective measures when

> necessary but outlines no criteria for how this " necessity " is defined or

> determined. Without a clearly defined line of what is acceptable and what is

> not, it's at the whim of the IRB, EPA administrator or third party research

> organization to determine whether or not supplementary protective measures

> are necessary. In that sense, it could simply mean the IRB might determine,

> for example, a test subject should wear safety goggles when being doused with

> atrazine. In other words, without specific definition of what defines a

> situation that calls for further supplementary protective measures, this

> becomes a simple, flowery token statement with no meaning and no teeth.

>