Treehugger - Latest Comments in 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

roy — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:24:39 -0000

I for one notice a serious drop in performance and mileage when I use AC in an auto. I may still use the AC, but I'll drive slower to compensate, or I have to budget more for gas. AC is not an insubstantial part of fuel consumption.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

WaterConsNYC — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:16:16 -0000

Yeah, both the "paper v plastic" and cell phone answers were disappointments because they begged to be answered "Neither, reuseable" and "use a headset for more reasons than this." In fact based on personal experience it seems that *most* people use headsets so Tierney's argument seemed to "attacking a straw man who died three months ago."

Similarly, the treatment of the BPA issue failed to mention that there are multiple low-cost alternatives which is why many retailers acted so quickly. Why take a risk when it won't cost us anything to use the alternatives? Just the market at work, something you'd think Tierney would appreciate.

But shame on him, citing the American Council on Science and Health? I thought John was a libertarian, not a tool.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Mike — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:08:52 -0000

So, you know, where's the link to actual evidence that cell phones cause cancer?

Because there is no known method at all where low-dose microwave radiation can even cause a slight elevation in cancer rates. None. It simply cannot happen.

This site is just as clueless at the NYT.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

zaxxon — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:53:51 -0000

i'm very glad this response was written, thank you.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Will — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:05:45 -0000

Well, I must say, for how much you slam him for using poor arguments (sometimes accurately) you use much worse arguments in the rebutting article! For the most part, the points he brings up are valid and true, and he is dead on about the hype surrounding these issues even if his reasons aren't always up to snuff.

Your article on the other hand misses the entire point of the nyt article which was cutting through the hype! For example, many people think that plastic bags are worse than paper ones, and will mistakenly push for bans or limit their own use in favor of paper. This will actually be WORSE for the environment for the reasons stated in the article, yet you still slam him because while perfectly accurate, he writes for a different audience on an entirely different theme

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

master e — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:46:57 -0000

We have many environmental issues to worry about but CO2 and our carbon footprint is NOT one of them.

The whole issue is a fraud to detract from real issues.

please do your own research.

Al Gore is a politician after all.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

bk — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:23:36 -0000

So, I should feel guilty for driving to the beach? Am I to be beachless because I was in the wrong for living in a beachless community? Get your feet back onto the ground and try to imagine what most people have to do: Live with limitations and do the best they can. I live 35 miles away from work ad must drive. No public transportation. Why do I live so far away from work? Because the house values were much better and the potential for growth in my neighborhood was much better.

Didn't the Mythbusters do the whole A/C on vs Windows down experiment? I forgot the exacts of it, but iirc A/C seemed to use less fuel.

As far as plastic bags go, I really think some of these bans on plastic bags are good and bad. It definitely raises the awareness of how potentially harmful plastic bags are, especially to marine life. But it also limits those who reuse plastic bags. All of my small trash cans are lined with grocery bags. I would never have unlined trash cans, mainly because that breeds bacteria and smells. I'd rather reuse a plastic bag than buy plastic bags for trash purposes. My parents reuse plastic bags for picking up after their dog, something I'd loathe to do with a paper or canvas bag. However, I do see a lot of people wasting plastic bags by putting one or two things into each bag. Cashiers routinely ask if I want my gallon of milk in a bag. Huh? Its got a handle...

Live in moderation!

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Pete — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:12:43 -0000

Honestly, as a scientist, I think that this article is way too on the alarming side. The arguments that it uses are way too emotional, and reject Tierney just because he doesn't have the best citations (a fault of ALL newspaper articles).

As I've been able to find, there is very scant evidence for low level BPA exposure to be at all harmful, and bottles do not leak it in the high levels known to do damage. Despite the recent fervor, my own digging agrees with Tierny's assessment. The recent BPA scare is probably a little overblown, which isn't the worst thing, as erring on the side of less foreign chemicals is probably the safer option.

An earlier comment dealt with the cellphone issue. All of the current advisements are merely, with any link between cell phones and tumors being tenuous at best. Yet the author cites the recent hype, rather than the data.

As for the bags: obviously reusable bags are the best. Tierney is not the only one to claim that the plastic/paper issue isn't the simplest in the world though.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Alex — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:09:59 -0000

I stopped reading at cell phones and cancer.

Cell phones emmitt radio frequency radiation, which is only really good for flipping nuclear spin states to the higher energy state. This is how MRIs and NMR work. The thing is, unless you are in a powerful magnetic field the nuclear spin states are degenerate and no radiation is absorbed. Of course the Earth's magnetic field is sufficiently large enough to create a higher energy spin state, but it is no where near the population difference you see in an NMR or MRI experiment or even what the technicians experience by being near the instruments. Honestly it is fool hardy to say that cell phones do not cause cancer, science can never disprove anything, but at the same time it is unreasonable to be afraid of something when really if you were in space and isolated from large magnetic fields you would absorb zero RF. Well unless there are polarization effects, but then we are basically dealing with Raman levels of absorption on the RF frequency which is such a small amount of energy. But last I checked MRI technicians don't have an increased incidence of cancer and they spend long hours in a stronger magnetic field than what you experience by being in the Earth's.

The possibility for the absorption of RF exists so I'd like to see experiements that actually quantify the level of absorption, and how much is retained in tissues as heat, and a quantified risk would be nice too. Until that time I am going to go with what I know, and what I know is that spin active nuclei do not absorb RF frequency radiation in the absence of an external magnetic field.

Now wireless routers, some of them use microwave frequency. It is high enough energy that its absorption is in rotational energy states and without an external magnetic field these states are still not degenerate. If you recall from physics classes rotational energy is one of the degrees of freedom that is included in the total enternal energy of the system, so microwaves cause heating which can cause DNA to do bizzare things which can lead to cancer. Gasp! Where is the article about microwaves not being allowed in homes because there is a potential for them to cause cancer? Oh right, because cell phones are the "hot topic" of fear mongering.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Latren Eodzec — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:57:12 -0000

HAHA... Dont get me wrong, i also hate his Non Scientific article, but to claim you are doing a better job is insane. At no point do you cite an actual study or use a graph that actually has relatively numbers or uncertainties from peer review work.

Look at your arguments against cell phones. None of the article you link to are actual studies, for all we know they could be another journalist like our friend Tierney making shit up. ( the recent warning in Pittsburg is based on unpublished data, not peer reviewed, thus not yet credible.)

Also I notice quite a bit of DISTORTION on john's article on car windows etc. At least if he based it on the only citation he gives, but i give you guys the benefit of the doubt.

And where is the error bars for the efficiency graph ?

These graph and table in the summary wouldnt hold up to any journal's standard for evidence. At least any credible one.

Articles like yours that don't provide real evidence towards or against are the main problem with this ongoing "green society" that has turned to mostly a bandwagon.

I want to "save" the earth just like anyone, but only backed by credible science, that is, its methods not the people who say it.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Bruce LeSourd — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:51:49 -0000

The anti-grocery bag mania is laughable. To demonstrate this, try an experiment:

1. Go to Whole Foods (a mainstream, "eco-friendly" chain that recently cut plastic bags) with your reusable fabric grocery bags.

2. Buy a wide selection of fruits, vegetables, baked goods, staples, etc., and put them in said bags.

3. Return home.

4. Empty all the non-recyclable, non-reusable clamshells for produce and baked goods, plastic produce bags, boxes with plastic bags inside them, and Class 5 plastic beverage containers.

5. Throw these in the garbage can, which is lined with a PLASTIC GARBAGE BAG that you bought separately and will go into the waste stream, when you could have reused the excellent Whole Foods plastic grocery bags as garbage bags.

6. Realize how tiny the impact of your reusable fabric grocery bag is. That is: zero if you reused your plastic grocery bags as garbage bags, miniscule if you didn't.

Grocery bags are part of a large-scale source-to-waste food pipeline problem that is not going to be solved or even substantially improved by moving away from them.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

zeeol — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:41:55 -0000

So can I turn on the AC or what. it's hot. turning it on.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Anonymous — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:21:08 -0000

Two quick comments:

First, I saw some others had mentioned this one but I am really wondering what the units, scale, and general values on the y-axis for the first chart are. If the author has had any scientific experience he should understand that under no circumstances should you introduce data without ensuring all values are properly labeled.

The markers on that graph implies there are 9 exact x-y pairs calculated, but I'm only able to tell 9 x-values. Not giving appropriate y-values is really doing the exact same thing as Tierney, isn't it? I mean you do realize you're using manipulated data, no?

Second, I was curious as to what exactly you think the difference in electro-magnetic radiation exposure you expect between YOU on a cell phone, and say someone across the room on a cell phone? The fact is you have always had EM radiation surging through your body, and the only way to avoid that is to either spend the rest of your life in a thick metal box, or outlaw EM radiation all together.

On a side note, you do know that light is "electro magnetic radiation" as well, correct? Just making sure.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Wayne — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:18:30 -0000

Let me get this straight.... anyone who disagrees with politically correct fad theories are "dangerous" and should be dismissed because they are just telling the uninformed "what they want to hear." What ever happened to allowing both sides of an issue to present their evidence/arguments in a respectful arena and permitting people to make up their own minds. I'm willing to examine the evidence for "global warming" by listening to both sides with an open mind. Present your evidence, but don't demonize or dismiss one side because they don't agree with the current "group-think."

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Tim — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:13:40 -0000

The only distortion of reality is in your article and in your head.

Doctors advocating cigarette use? Please don't tell me you are resorting to using 1980's era Viz cartoon spoof adverts as 'scientific evidence'?

You say "Puleeeze. Pick a two year old report from a regional EPA office to make a specious argument ". Yes, Good God how dare someone quote a scientific report when there are perfectly good made up 'cigarettes are healthy' joke sources to be quoting instead.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

James — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:04:41 -0000

As far as I'm aware New Zealand does not ship any exports by air, as the volume is simply too great for this to be feasible.

All food exports are transported by ship, which on average uses a great deal less fuel than flying the same volume of product.

It may seem counter intuitive, but there is evidence to suggest food produced in one country, shipped, and sold in another can have a lower carbon footprint.

What we really need is more research on food miles to ensure the food we eat really is the most efficiently produced.

Cheers!

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Allison — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:44:16 -0000

Paper bags are no better than plastic. Plastic bags use oil. But paper bags are usually not recycled from previous paper bags, which means they're cutting down trees to make them. I'll be honest here. If I'm without my reusables, I'll take plastic. I can re-use them to take my lunch to work and then drop them in the recycling bin, or I can use them to line trashcans in my home. In some areas where I live, they're also used exclusively to collect recycling.

As for Tierney's point on BPA? Treehugger, you have GOT to make up your mind on BPA. First you tell us it's bad, horrible stuff. Then, in your Walmart is the New FDA article, you tell us that BPA is harmless and that Walmart is TEHEVIL because it removed BPA-containing products from shelves *even though* the FDA never officially came out with a BPA-is-bad report. So which is it?!

LA: I think you misread the wal-mart article. what was interesting there was the fact that wal-mart was essentially making policy, in the vacuum that exists because the FDA does not.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Garrett — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:41:47 -0000

Oh huh, I just realized that the y-axis on the chart up top is in Gal/mile. That's kinda an odd unit to use. When I first glanced at it, it looked like it said that driving with the windows up and no AC was the least efficient.

As is the choice of kph instead of mph for the x-axis. Yes, I realize that most of the world goes by kph but to combine "gallons per mile" with kilometers is a bit strange.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Anonymous — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:51:29 -0000

Maybe Treehugger should police its own outright lies like the one in this blog entry where the author got confused and said we exported 900,000 head of cattle to Mexico and then refused to correct his errors.

http://www.treehugger.com/f...

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

greenz.jp — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:24:48 -0000

Regarding food mileage, Thierney cites just about the only study that I know of which says "don't worry". How about providing data on how shipping food from other countries contributes to green house gas emissions. Even worse is air freight. After seeing this, I am even more worried (because NYT willingly publishes such dravel).

- Martin

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:51:52 -0000

"Feel guilty about being in a car ... "

No thanks. I don't believe I will feel guilty about that, if you don't mind. Mr. Alter, on the other hand, can feel free to knock himself out with guilt, if that's what he enjoys.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

KD — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:41:35 -0000

Concerning plastic versus paper, I assume everyone can agree that re-usable bags are the way to go.

Problem solved.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Chad — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:21:37 -0000

I agree with Jennifer: plastic bags suck, and if I don't have my canvas bags avaiable, I still choose paper. Even though the energy cost is slightly higher, I can compost them or burn them...and if one blows away, it doesn't really matter.

Over the years, I have been involved in many roadside and trail cleanups, and plastic bags are enemy #1. They blow everywhere and get into everything. Every time I see one 20 feet up into a tree, I want to cane the idiot who let it loose.

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

Scott — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:33:43 -0000

I agree with him. I don't worry about any of these things. Why would I worry about AC when I'm on my bike or plastic bags when I have my backpack?

Possibly the worst part of this is leading people to get stressed about their choices. This is what makes them worry and ultimately be resistant to change. How hard is it to just use a tote bag? The annoying part is how much it is publicized, and all the misinformation. It's making me stressed!!!

Re: 5 Ways the NYT Science Columnist Distorts the Facts

John Laumer — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:12:47 -0000

Consistent with everything else Tierney writes. JL