LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-17 AT 08:52AM (MST)[p]>>the thing with science is,
>>you can set up the
>>experiment to prove your preconceived
>>ideas, then claim your results
>>reinforce your ideas. Is
>>lead a neurotoxin? Yup.
>> Is eating lead paint
>>chips not a great idea?
>> Nope. But, if
>>you painted over asbestos with
>>lead paint to keep it
>>from being airborne, suddenly that
>>lead paint is beneficial right?
>
>Wrong. That is like covering millions
>of tons of radioactive uranium
>tailings with radon soil. This
>actually exists, on the bank
>of the Colorado River @
>Moab UT.
>
>What is bullsh!t about this thread
>is its clear illustration of
>the strategy of overgeneralization, employed
>by politically-oriented science deniers: Find
>any element in one of
>many studies that was not
>proven via the scientific method.
>Use that example to reject
>all study on the topic,
>scientists, the scientific method, and
>those who rationally accept scientific
>proof. Doesn't matter what has
>been proven, how or by
>whom. All that matters is
>the politics of denial, as
>demonstrated today @ the White
>House.
>
>Hossblur, if there was no bottom
>line of scientific proof in
>your study of microbiology, would
>you have a BA degree
>instead? You know the point
>of the scientific method is
>to test a theory by
>controlling for one variable while
>keeping the others constant. You
>know that a small or
>otherwise unrepresentative sample, or a
>flawed research question, among many
>other biases and variables, can
>yield invalid research. Science yields
>proofs tested beyond speculation and
>opinion, ultimately confirmed by peer
>review. In fact, peer review
>for proof is the difference
>between arts and sciences. Between
>fact and unsubstantiated opinion.
>
>When I wrote that lead is
>toxic to organisms, DW replied,
>"So there is no study
>proving banning lead ammunition has
>lowered the lead level in
>condors?" Why did he introduce
>condors and reduced lead levels
>to my argument? Does that
>somehow challenge the fact that
>lead is a proven neurotoxin,
>harmful to all organisms?
>
>DW is running the deniers' illusion
>of overgeneralizing. See also evolution,
>climate change to illustrate political
>persecution of the scientific method.
>By identifying or just suggesting
>that there is one narrow
>research question (condors will eventually
>have lower levels of lead
>in areas where lead ammunition
>is banned, perhaps) which has
>so far not been proven,
>he tries to deny there
>is proof that lead is
>bad for all animals including
>humans.
>
>I am not willing to abandon
>megavolumes of peer-reviewed research that
>proves ingesting or even handling
>lead is toxic to me,
>you, fish, birds, and children
>in Flint MI. Even condors.
>
>
>My point all along: I oppose
>poisoning animal habitat with lead,
>because is toxic to animals.
>DW, post up studies disproving
>just this: Lead is toxic
>to animals. Start looking here,
>a study of lead levels
>in condors around leaded and
>unleaded ammunition. And it is
>peer-reviewed.
>
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/11449
You wish to speak of overgeneralizations?
"DW, post up studies disproving just this: Lead is toxic to animals"
I don't need a study to prove this, we have plenty of paint lickers right here as living proof. I'm also fortunate to have been given common sense which is becoming rarer by the day!
"When I wrote that lead is toxic to organisms, DW replied, "So there is no study proving banning lead ammunition has lowered the lead level in condors?" Why did he introduce condors and reduced lead levels to my argument? Does that somehow challenge the fact that lead is a proven neurotoxin, harmful to all organisms?"
Not sure I'm the one who introduced this into the thread but the condor has been one of the poster children for the illogic of banning lead ammunition. Yet all the studies have shown that now that they're dining on lead free carrion the lead levels in their blood have not dropped. You know the whole scientific theory you spoke of in your post? This theory of banning lead ammo lowers lead levels in condors blood has been scientifically proven false! So which one of us does this make the science denier? Here's the deal, I see eagles and other raptors feeding on wounded waterfowl all season long. I'm ok with steel shot in waterfowl hunting as I can see it possibly being an issue with my own eyes. But I can't see much lead being consumed by these raptors from wounded ungulates. I'll patiently wait for the link to the study area that shows lower lead levels in condors that I'm sure you have at your finger tips.