National Academy of Sciences Reports Genetically Modified Food is Safe

Posted on by

The report concludes that “Genetically engineered crops appear to be safe to eat and do not harm the environment…” However, it is certain the report does not end the controversies. An organization of companies selling genetically modified seeds observes the report demonstrates “…that agricultural biotechnology has demonstrated benefits to farmers, consumers, and the environment.” However, Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union “…pointed to the lack of a significant increase in yield.” Several carefully worded statements in the report leave the door open to critics of GMOs. For example, it says “…foods made from such crops do not appear to pose health risks, based on chemical analysis of the foods and on animal feeding studies…” Critics will focus on the “do not appear” part of the statement and will add that the report also “…says many animal studies are too small to provide firm conclusions.” Those kind of criticisms are certain to continue despite the fact that “…several other regulatory, scientific, and health organizations have previously also concluded the foods are safe.”

The report does address the myth that GMOs have harmed the environment, to include monarch butterflies. It says there is “…no conclusive evidence of a cause-and effect relationship between G.E. crops and environmental problems. It says it has not been proved that the increased planting of such crops is indirectly responsible for the decline of the monarch butterfly.” I’ll warn that no one will go back and delete Internet stories that GMOs are killing butterflies.

My favorite part of the article is a quote from a professor who is a proponent of biotechnology. “The inescapable conclusion, after reading the report, is the G.E. crops are pretty much just crops. They are not the panacea that some proponents claim, nor the dreaded monsters that others claim.”

Growing Pains – Really

Posted on by

Imagine my surprise to discover “growing pains” are a real phenomenon for some children and not merely a colloquial phrase! A quick google yields many hits on these “real” growing pains. These overwhelm the usage I was looking for: any problems encountered early in an undertaking.

Growing pains probably have little to do with growth. The pains are most common in children ages 4 to 12, whose growth rate is lower than that of both infants and adolescents; most growth occurs near the knees, but the pain isn’t centered there; children who have growing pains grow at the same rate as those without. straightdope.com

breakingmuscle.com says “the origin of the term ‘growing pains’ is disputed. The Cleveland Clinic for Children maintains that the phrase was coined in the 1930s to 1940s, while several other studies claim that the term has been around since the 1800s.”

I guess I was lucky to never encounter these physical growing pains.

Settlement Reached in Homeowner Lawsuit Against Rocky Flats

Posted on by

Two operators of the Rocky Flats Plant have agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by nearby homeowners in 1990 after the Justice Department raid of the plant. The announced settlement is $375 million. The homeowners had accused Rockwell International (now owned by Boeing) and Dow Chemical of devaluing their property with plutonium releases. The settlement, if it is approved by a federal judge, would involve as many as 15,000 homeowners in an area involving neighborhoods surrounding Standley Lake. The people who owned property in that area must have owned the home on June 7, 1989, which was the first day of the Justice Department raid. Anyone who sold their property before that date or bought property after that date will be excluded. Approval of the settlement and establishing a claims process could be “months away.”

There are several aspects of the settlement that make no sense to me. A jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2006 after at least one juror who had been against that ruling was thrown off the case after complaining to the judge about harassment from those who favored the ruling. The primary “evidence” that had been presented was that (and I give attribution to someone else who offered this) was that “…the FBI had raided the plant, thus something bad HAD to have been going on…and lots of people had negative things to say about the plant…” The judge awarded $926 million, but the award was thrown out by the appeals court based on improper instructions from the judge. The rejection was based on the fact that an irrational fear was not adequate proof of harm. The Supreme Court refused to take the case. Thus we have the mystery of why Dow and Rockwell agreed to a settlement when it had been legally determined the plaintiffs weren’t damaged unless the plaintiffs went back to trial and proved damage they couldn’t prove in the first trial.

One part of the answer to why the two companies settled is that the Department of Energy is expected to pay the bill because federal contract law indemnifies the companies. DOE agreed to the settlement, so taxpayers will ultimately pay something to about 15,000 homeowners after the attorneys subtract their nice multimillion dollar fee from the total award. There’s at least one more mystery. Most actual environmental damage occurred while Dow was managing the plant and Rockwell has agreed to pay most of the settlement.

See my book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked” if you want to learn more about releases from the plant and the raid. The Kindle version costs $3.99, and it has some great pictures including two different kinds of multi-kilogram plutonium ingots. You might want to entertain yourself by reading 25 reviews of the book on Amazon. The reviews can serve as a primer for the controversies surrounding the Rocky Flats Plant. One review gives the book a “Poorly written” one star. Another gives it a “Good Read” and five stars. (The average of the 25 is 4 stars.)

After that bit of self promotion, perhaps the judge will refuse to approve the settlement, which I believe would be the reasonable thing to do. However, I’ve learned there is seldom anything that is based on reason when it involves the Rocky Flats Plant. I observe in my book that the real cause of fear from landowners around Rocky Flats was the raid, which found nothing that hadn’t already been known and didn’t identify anything that should concern the neighbors of the plant. I would agree if the settlement had been made against the Justice Department officials who raided the plant based on bad information and then didn’t have the courage to admit they had been duped.

Writing on the Wall

Posted on by

Quora.com posts an explanation for the origin of the expression, which refers to “…any bad omen that predicts a bad outcome,” after warning that both Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln both said, “Don’t believe quotes on the Internet.” Perhaps that is a hint the explanation that is given might not be accurate, but it is interesting. According to Chapter 5 of the Book of Daniel in the bible King Belshazzar sees strange words written on a wall (apparently by the hand of God). Daniel interprets to words to mean “Numbered, numbered, weighed, divided.” The “writing on the wall” was further interpreted to mean there were plans to invade and divide the kingdom.

Let Science Rule on Flats Access

Posted on by

The controversy continues over whether cities and counties will contribute to construction of a bridge and underpass for hiker and animal access to the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Failure to contribute could kill the Rocky Mountain Greenway Trail, which would eventually connect the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats Refuges to Rocky Mountain National Park. A recent Denver Post editorial gives an excellent summary of the issue. It says that critics, “…simply do not trust assurances from federal and state officials that the area is safe and the cleanup has been successful. Basically, they don’t trust the available science. This is par for the course for activists who have been pushing exaggerated claims of plutonium contamination around Rocky Flats for decades, but it’s sad to see local officials buying into it.”

Some cities and counties are planning to collect soil samples of the area “to determine whether the trail would be safe” I sent a letter agreeing with most of the editorial, but warning that the results of sampling will be meaningless unless they are compared to samples taken by the exact techniques from some city parks and trails that are considered to be “safe areas.” What will be found is that all of Colorado contains plutonium fallout contamination. An extensive study of transuranics in the environment completed about 1980 found the entire earth is contaminated with plutonium. Denver is in the latitude that had some of the highest average plutonium levels. I predict the area of the project will have virtually the same amount of plutonium as samples from local cities or from the western or eastern areas of the state. Only if they make the mistake of sampling ski areas will there be much of a difference. Snowfall efficiently washes plutonium fallout out of the atmosphere.

Dead Ringer

Posted on by

This is one of the most famous expressions that is attributed to a fanciful (i.e. false) origin. Mentalfloss.com explains the tall tale is that digging up coffins to reused grave space found many with scratch marks, which indicated the people were buried alive. The alleged solution was to install a string to the wrist of the corpse and attach it to a bell. People sat in the graveyard to listen to a bell ringing as a plea for help. The truth is that a “safety coffin,” which monitored the corpse for movement and triggered a bell and waved a flag, was patented in the 19th century. The expression actually originated from substituting a look-alike horse in a race or athlete in a sporting event. The talented look-alike was the “dead ringer.” “Dead” refers to “absolute, exact, complete” while “ringer” originally was the person arranging the swap and later came to mean the substituted competitor.