Dead Pig Count Now Past 6000 In Shanghai River But Chinese Officials Insist Water Is Fine For Drinking

China's flagWe previously saw how Chinese environmental officials are struggling to pull dead pigs out of the river in Shanghai while assuring people that the tsunami of dead pigs has no effect on drinking the water. Now the body count is up from 900 to 6000 and some articles suggest the number is more like 9000. Yet, Chinese officials insist that they are unable to locate the source.

The pigs appear to be infected with porcine circovirus, a virus affecting pigs. It seem likely that the pigs were dumped once found to be contaminated. They were first found in the Huangpu River about 40 miles north of Shanghai. Tags on their ears trace them to the city of Jiaxing in Zhejiang province which is known for pig raising. However, Jiaxing city government officials denied responsibility for the dead pigs and said that the tags may only show where they were born.

The government has tried blaming farmers in Jiaxing but this seems more likely the result of a large factory operation. Farmers routinely throw tainted animals in the river and there are reports of the dead animals being pulled from the river and used for food in China.

Source: ABC

58 thoughts on “Dead Pig Count Now Past 6000 In Shanghai River But Chinese Officials Insist Water Is Fine For Drinking

  1. These are the people or masters want us to emulate – unfettered industrialization, no EPA, of health and safety regulations. A brave new world of unlimited potential . . . for death, disease and destruction.

    Drink deeply.

  2. Well…. If you believe the Chinese government, you also probably believe Pigs fly. Obviously they fly at night and bathe in the river.
    Sadly, their wings weigh them down and the poor pigs drown.

  3. Reblogged this on Jesse Talks Back and commented:
    Interesting, the people are so afraid of the state that they would rather ignore potential catastrophe. I find the above comment incredibly ignorant, someone who truly does not understand how Chinese society works. They are regulated, extremely regulated to the point where those who break protocol are “disappeared”, you desire more regulation. You desire the EPA and yet, you do not even understand that this is exactly what causes this. Regardless, maybe this is the viral epidemic we have been waiting for? I wonder how long before it jumps carriers and adapts to humans?

  4. Argument by false equivalence and incomplete comparison. Regulation of business and pollution in an attempt at responsible stewardship is not the equivalent of authoritarian totalitarian oppression. Get back to me when the EPA disappears a Koch or a DuPont.

  5. Gene H:

    Back in the day when we were much more free than we are now, before the EPA, the FDA and DAg, what happened to ranchers and farmers when their herd caught an infectious disease?

    I doubt very much they were put in the river.

    I am going to bet that these pigs are a result of some government fuk-up. It always comes down to that. Government somehow, somewhere made some stupid decision which violated market forces and there you go-dead pigs.

    Maybe the “brilliant” central planners screwed with the price of corn or wheat or even orange juice and that led to a decrease in the price of pork to the point where the farmer was better off killing his pigs.

  6. “Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern is a travel and cuisine television show hosted by Andrew Zimmern on the Travel Channel. The first season debuted on Monday, February 26, 2007 at 9pm ET/PT.

    Bizarre Foods focuses on regional cuisine from around the world which is typically perceived by Americans as being disgusting, exotic, or bizarre. In each episode, Zimmern focuses on the cuisine of a particular country or region. He typically shows how the food is procured, where it is served, and, usually without hesitation, eats it.” – Wikipedia

  7. “Back in the day when we were much more free than we are now, before the EPA, the FDA and DAg, what happened to ranchers and farmers when their herd caught an infectious disease?

    I doubt very much they were put in the river.”

    Yep. They ended up on somebody’s plate instead. But you’ve ignored the history that led to the creation of the FDA and EPA when it has been relayed to you in the past, Bron. No sense in repeating again if you’re simply going to ignore it because it’s inconvenient to your Austrian School of “Economics”.

  8. Gene H:

    Some may have but then people still get sick today from food and we have how many agencies of government looking into things? And from what I here most are spread thin so basically the market is protecting consumers.

    Here is an example of how the private sector handled things before the EPA, FDA and DAg:

    “By the mid 1870s, most researchers believed that anthrax was an infectious disease, but there was disagreement as to its specific cause. In 1876, Robert Koch, a Prussian physician, isolated the anthrax bacillus and pointed out that the bacillus could form spores which remained viable, even in hostile environments. According to Koch, “this remove[d] all doubt that Bacillus anthracis is the actual cause and contagium of anthrax.” Shortly after this, John Bell linked anthrax with “woolsorter disease” and developed a procedure to disinfect wool.

    William Greenfield was the first to immunize livestock successfully against anthrax in 1880. However, credit for the use of a live vaccine against anthrax is usually given to Louis Pasteur, who tested a heat-cured vaccine on sheep in 1881. Celebrated in the contemporary French press, Pasteur’s vaccine solidified his status as one of France’s greatest scientists. By the late twentieth century, extensive animal vaccination programs led to an overall decline in anthrax, although the disease still occurred in poor and unstable regions. For example, between 1978 and 1980, a civil war in Zimbabwe caused a breakdown in veterinary care; the result was an anthrax epidemic that spread from animals to humans.”

    Funny how it wasnt cured by government but by greedy people worried about profits.

    I know that is inconvenient to your world view.

  9. Bron – yes, I am sure to you this was the result of a government f up. To you no bad is ever done that is not a government f up. Does that horn you blow play any other notes?

  10. Bron,
    Does the book “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair ring a bell to you? The government was responsible for cleaning up those hard working and non greedy industrialists!

  11. Seriously, Bron. Your dedication to laissez-faire capitalism and the power of greed is truly touched, er, touching. Too bad your cherry picked example does nothing to invalidate the very real need for regulation and enforcement to prevent and punish deliberate ecological damage done in the name of profits.

  12. rafflaw:

    Sure it does, I have read it. But I am not so sure he was telling the truth.…on+the+So-called+%22Beveridge+Amendment%22+to+the+Agricultural+Appropriation+Bill,&source=bl&ots=3j6Qi_MOvS&sig=5n7JIhK1-PVpyaDe8GEb7-froBI&hl=en&ei=LNCTTIXbGYL2tgOlrqDACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    from that report:

    “A 1906 report [link above] by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.” Quoting Mr. Crumpacker on Sinclair’s allegations of diseased meats, “the chief inspector said there was not a single animal that went into the slaughterhouses that was not inspected before it went on foot; and if one was diseased, had a lumpy jaw, or appeared to be out of condition, he was separated, and then a skilled veterinarian made a thorough examination of that animal after the rest had been passed; and then they had inspection on the inside.””

  13. here is what one industrialist had to say:

    “Jonathan Ogden Armour, President of Armour and Company, one of the largest meat packing corporations in America, wrote the following in a March 1906 Saturday Evening Post article:

    “To attempt to evade government inspection with beef from a purely commercial viewpoint is suicidal. No packer can do an interstate or export business without government inspection. Self-interest forces him to make use of it. Self-interest likewise demands he shall not receive meats or byproducts from any small packer either for export or other use unless that small packer is also official (under government inspection.) This government inspection thus becomes an important adjunct of the packers business from two view points. It puts the stamp of legitimacy and honesty upon the packers product, and so is to him a necessity, and to the public as an assurance against diseased meats.””

  14. Pig water, ummmmmm tastes like bacon! (I’m sorry for not having a comment more worthy than this, but I just had to say it.)

  15. Darren, not only food but food additives that then go into the assembly process to give us our packaged food and baby food. It doesn’t have to be on the label either. That goes for all food ‘parts’ and additives no matter where they came from. You won’t find a frozen dinner with ‘potatoes from Chile, carrots from China, beef patty from Argentina, US, and Mexico’ on it’s label.

    One thing China is pretty good at (that I have read) is corruption among business and government- yea, just like the rest of the world. I’m thinking that a local factory farm owner or manager paid off someone (or more) in the local government and a very embarrassing failure of production disappeared into the river.

  16. ” This government inspection thus becomes an important adjunct of the packers business from two view points. It puts the stamp of legitimacy and honesty upon the packers product, and so is to him a necessity, and to the public as an assurance against diseased meats.”

    Now what was that you were saying about the good ol’ days before FDA mean inspection, Bron?

    Contradiction is a lonely business.

  17. Gene H:

    Mr. Armour was, most assuredly, looking after his own interests.

    The whole thing is interesting. The big meat packers were lobbying government to start inspecting meat because they wanted to export to Europe and Europe wouldnt take it without an inspection stamp. This was done before Sinclair wrote the Jungle.

    The other reason was to drive out smaller meat packers with compliance costs; which sounds reasonable.

    By the way, do you trust Underwriters Laboratory?

  18. Lottakatz

    I know what you are saying about ingredients being from who knows where, but as far as the full products go I won’t carry in my store any food products or beverages sourced from China. It’s not worth it.

  19. I posted the following articles earlier today on the other “dead pigs in river” post:

    China’s Dead-Hog Scandal Is Gross—But So Are the Hog Feces in US Waterways
    —By Tom Philpott
    | Thu Mar. 14, 2013

    In a river that flows through Shanghai, Chinese officials have pulled 6,000 dead pigs from the water, CNN reported. The situation is undeniably grotesque: “Sanitation workers, clad in masks and plastic suits, have been fishing the bruised pig bodies surfacing in the Huangpu River. The pink, decomposing blobs have wreaked foul odors and alarmed residents.”

    According to CNN, the corpses began turning up in the river after a government crackdown on the selling of meat from diseased pigs. In a bind, farmers sought a riparian solution to the problem of disposing them. Gross.

    China’s pig-dumping scandal must be seen the context of the nation’s rapidly industrializing hog-production system—as this 2011 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy report shows, national policy is driving a lightning-fast switch from backyard hog production to vast US-style hog factories. (And now poultry production is following suit.)

    But as China reshapes its meat production in our image, we have no standing to feel superior when scandals like the current one in Shanghai’s hinterland erupt. That’s because we don’t do a very good job of protecting our waterways from the hog industry, either. Consider Iowa, which houses around 18 million hogs, making it our most hog-intensive state. All of those hogs concentrated into a relatively small space generate unthinkable amounts of toxic manure. How much? Food & Water Watch weighs in:

    • The nearly 733,000 hogs on factory farms in Plymouth County, Iowa, produce twice as much untreated manure as the sewage from the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.

    • The more than 857,000 hogs on factory farms in Hardin County, Iowa, produce three times as much untreated manure as the sewage from the greater Atlanta metro area.

    • The more than 1 million hogs on factory farms in Sioux County, Iowa, produce as much untreated manure as the sewage from the Los Angeles and Atlanta metro areas combined.

    And it’s not just hogs that are crammed into the state’s factory farms. According to FWW, Iowa’s vast confinement facilities also house 1.2 million beef cattle, 52.4 million egg-laying hens, 1 million broiler chickens, and 64,500 dairy cows. Altogether, this teeming horde annually churns out “as much untreated manure as the sewage from 471 million people—more than the entire US population.”

    As you might imagine, keeping such titanic amounts of shit out of water is a near futile task. There are occasional spectacular incidents—FWW points to the time in 2008 when spring floods “destroyed at least 3 hog factory farms near Oakville, drowned up to 1,500 hogs and flooded manure from storage pits downstream into waterways throughout eastern Iowa.” And according to the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, a group that fights factory farming in Iowa, there have been more than 800 documented in Iowa since 1995.


    Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms

    Giant livestock farms, which can house hundreds of thousands of pigs, chickens, or cows, produce vast amounts of manure, often generating the waste equivalent of a small city. A problem of this nature and scale is tough to imagine, and pollution from livestock farms seriously threatens humans, fish and ecosystems. Below are facts and statistics that tell the story.

    Livestock pollution and water pollution

    Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills. In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spill killed about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing.

    In 2011, an Illinois hog farm spilled 200,000 gallons of manure into a creek, killing over 110,000 fish.

    In 2012, a California dairy left over 50 manure covered cow carcasses rotting around its property and polluting nearby waters.

    When Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina in 1999, at least five manure lagoons burst and approximately 47 lagoons were completely flooded.

    Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland and North Carolina is believed to have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fish and causing skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in local people.

    Nutrients in animal waste cause algal blooms, which use up oxygen in the water, contributing to a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico where there’s not enough oxygen to support aquatic life. The dead zone fluctuates in size each year, extending a record 8,500 square miles during the summer of 2002 and stretching over 7,700 square miles during the summer of 2010.

    Ammonia, a toxic form of nitrogen released in gas form during waste disposal, can be carried more than 300 miles through the air before being dumped back onto the ground or into the water, where it causes algal blooms and fish kills.

  20. And that river flows into an ocean. And the oceans commingle. And Christians Mingle- in the oceans. Oceans Eleven– means eleven brands of chinese pig crap. And then there is a tidal wave only now we have to call a tidal wave a Tsunami. All that floats comes to Frisco. My Gott what is dis Vorld cumin to?

  21. Darren, Agreed. I went looking for a report regarding soy sauce made with human hair, including medical waste that was shipped to Japan and caused a near breakdown in trade policy between the countries. My search turned up so many hits on various food scandals that I just went for the Wikipedia article. I did run across a 2010 article about soy sauce and vinegar still being made using hair and fur, several years after the original scandal.'s_Republic_of_China

    Elaine’s link though is very pertinent to the story. Factory farming is a big cause of water pollution as possibly groundwater pollution since in most places the runoff is just channeled to open pits where it sits and leaches into the ground or overflows in heavy rains and floods and contaminates surrounding acreage or rivers. We have our own food production failings to clean up too.

  22. GBK

    That is terrible what the DOE is doing with that. It should not even be considered. 14M pounds of scrap metal is certainly not a huge amount when accounting for the size of the US and the potential to source it from somewhere else fairly easily. They should just deal with it. The created it, they can deal with it.

    I can’t imagine how this could shock the market if people lost confidence in purchasing metal objects due to the radiation fear. If the public believed American sourced metal products could contain higher levels of radiation, they might abandon American products all together. And this is not even taking the more important human health issue.

  23. Darren, GBK, I agree, bad idea. I recall reading about the BB&B recall. I stopped buying little metal charms and do-dads for bead-craft after I read about that (India exports a significant amount of that stuff and I bought some stuff directly from India) and the heavy metal contamination in paint and enamels from China.

  24. Bron,

    Thanks for your one word rebuttal and link. Did you note who funded the study your rebuttal linked to? I doubt it. Your enamoration of authority while claiming to distain the same is tiresome.

    Let’s start with your link — in which you had the graciousness to offer one word of preamble:


    So, a study funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Air Force Material Command should convince me that small doses of radiation and/or, “harmful chemicals,” are actually good for me. And to convince me of this “fact” the author of said study makes observations such as:

    “. . . our cells have developed mechanisms to detoxify harmful chemicals and exposure to radiation—in fact, low doses may even trigger responses that are beneficial . . .”

    Which is it — low doses of harmful chemicals, radiation, or both? Also note the use of the word “may” which brings the results of the author’s study into the hypothetical, or at least unquantifiable.

    The author does not say or otherwise distinguish between chemical or radioactive exposure in this sentence, nor the paper — maybe these subtleties escaped you. The paper’s not well written, actually it’s quite ambiguous in its claims.

    In fact, I’ve never read a peer reviewed paper where the author refers to themself with the proper pronoun, “I.” Yet this author does this many times, in addition to using subservient pronouns such as “our” — which leads me to believe this paper is propaganda.

    Though I’m sure you loved this part of the paper:

    “Even such powerful studies, which were carried out in an acceptable manner and evaluated in extraordinary detail, cannot reliably estimate risks lower than one in 100, let alone one in 1,000,000. But because risks of one in 100 are regarded as being unacceptable to the general public, especially for routine activities, regulatory agencies have found themselves in a position where they have had to adopt the use of the lowest estimated risk, which cannot be checked or verified. This approach clearly is marked by good intentions but paved with a large public cheque book.”

    It’s the last sentence of this quote which I’m sure you agree with — I offered the full paragraph so as to not be accused of being, in your mind, a Marxist/Statist, or possibly a humanist.

    Sleep well, Bron.

  25. gbk:

    I dont know about you but it seems to me arsenic is an example. In a small dose it is beneficial; in a large dose it will kill you.

    Since there is one example, there must be others. Poison is also in the dose.

    The Air Force is in charge of a large amount of nuclear material, I would think they would want to know as much as they can about its effects on humans.

    Is sunlight good for you in low doses? Yes, it is.

  26. gbk:

    I think I can appeal to his authority; here are some of Dr. Calabreses’ papers:

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Hormesis: A conversation with a critic. Commentary. Environ. Health Persp., 117.
    Calabrese, V., Cornelius, C., Dinkova-Kostova, A., Mattson, M., and Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Sirtuins, cellular stress response and the hormesis paradigm: A novel target for new therapeutic interventions in neurodegenerative disorders.

    Mattson, M.P., and Calabrese, E.J. (Editors). (2009). Hormesis: A Revolution in Biology, Toxicology and Medicine. Humana Press Inc.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Once marginalized, evidence now supports hormesis as the most fundamental dose response. In: Hormesis: A revolution in biology, toxicology and medicine. M.P. Mattson and E.J. Calabrese, Editors. Humana Press Inc.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Hormesis and risk assessment. In: Hormesis: A revolution in biology, toxicology and medicine. M.P. Mattson and E.J. Calabrese, Editors. Humana Press Inc.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). The hormetic pharmacy. In: Hormesis: A revolution in biology, toxicology and medicine. M.P. Mattson and E.J. Calabrese, Editors. Humana Press Inc.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Hormesis in central to toxicology, pharmacology and risk assessment. Hum. Exper. Toxicol.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). A Brief History of BELLE: Introduction. Hum. Exper. Toxicol.

    Nascarella, M.A., and Calabrese, E.J. (2009). The relationship between the IC50, toxic threshold, and the magnitude of stimulatory response in biphasic (hormetic) dose-responses. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 54:229-233.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Hormesis, non-linearity, and risk communication. Hum. Exper. Toxicol., 28:5-6.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Hormesis and ethics: Introduction. Hum. Exper. Toxicol., 27:601-602.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Getting the dose response wrong. Why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted. Arch. Toxicol., 83:227-247.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). The road to linearity: Why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch. Toxicol., 83:203-225

    Calabrese, E.J., and Blain, R.B. (2009). Hormesis and plant biology. Environ. Poll., 157:42-48.

    Calabrese, V., Mancuso, C., Tovato, A., Cornelius, C., Cavallaro, M., Di Rienzo, L., Condorelli, D., De Lorenzo, A., and Calabrese, E.J. (2009). The hormetic role of dietary antioxidants in free radical-related diseases. Curr. Pharmaceutical Design.

    Calabrese, V., Cornelius, C., Dinkova-Kostova, A.T., and Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Vitagenes, cellular stress response and acetylcarnitine: Relevance to hormesis. BioFactors. 35:146-160.

    Calabrese, E.J., and Ricci, P.F. (2009). Hormesis in environmental health. Ency. Environ. Health).

    Nascarella, M.A., Stanek, E.J., Hoffmann, G.R., and Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Quantification of hormesis in anticancer-agent dose-responses. Dose-Response, 7:160-171.

    Calabrese, E.J. (2009). Hormetic Vignette – The dose response: Comparing hormesis and threshold models. In: Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology, Third Edition, Chapter 8, pp.274-281.

  27. gbk:

    can you post some of yours so I can know if you even know what you are talking about? If you are going to appeal to your own authority to debunk Calabrese, I think it only fair that I know your academic background and any peer reviewed articles you may have written on biological systems.

    By the way he is a professor at Univ. MA Amherst.

    I think he has been established as an expert in his subject. You, not yet.

  28. Bron,

    “. . . arsenic is an example. In a small dose it is beneficial; in a large dose it will kill you.”

    This is true about many things, Bron. It’s the basis of homeopathy, isn’t it?

    “The Air Force is in charge of a large amount of nuclear material, I would think they would want to know as much as they can about its effects on humans.”

    Which is why a study funded by the Air Force Material Command proposing that small doses of radiation is beneficial should be suspect.

    “Is sunlight good for you in low doses? Yes, it is.” . . . “Since there is one example, there must be others.” . . . “can you post some of yours so I can know if you even know what you are talking about?”

    Post some of my what, Bron? I was commenting on an article you linked to — an article which at best seems self-serving to me given the funding.

    You swallow authoritarian tripe while at the same time lambast others when it suits your argument.

    Go ahead and buy your radioactive frying pan, safe in the knowledge that the Air Force Material Command says it’s actully good for you. It would be a shame to waste 14,000 metric tons of otherwise perfectly good metal, wouldn’t it? Just think of all the financial freedom this metal could bring to someone.

    Actually, this is a great business opportunity for you: you could have the 14,000 metric tons shipped to you, melt it down, and resell it. On every package of slag you sell you could affix a label stating your product is approved by the Air Force Material Command and Dr. Calabrese.

    I’m sure Dr. Calabrese would be your first customer.

  29. gbk:

    you do know we are subject to background radiation on a daily basis, right?

    What is the level of radiation that causes harm to human tissue? Seems to me that would be good to know if you have men dealing with nuclear material.

    And yes, I would trust an authority on a subject over a person on a blog who does not post his credentials and tells me, “believe me, I am thus and such.”

  30. Bron,

    Yeah, I’m very aware of the electromagnegtic spectrum from the sun and the radioactive decay in the planet’s core that drives plate tectonics, etc., etc.

    I never posted anything asking you to believe it, Bron. I just pointed out that the DOE is again trying to dump 14,000 tons of radioactive metal on the country in the form of consumer goods and your response was:


    Then again you state:

    “Seems to me that would be good to know if you have men dealing with nuclear material.”

    I didn’t argue otherwise. I just questioned your one word response and link given the funding of the paper. As is your wont you spread your argument attributing false perspectives and putting words in people’s mouths so that you can give a sixth-grade quip.

    Quip away, Bron. You’re truly a fool.

  31. gbk:

    I showed you the man’s credentials. And asked to see yours.

    You rejected his study on dubious grounds, in fact you impugned his integrity by implying he fudged his research to help the Air Force send men to their death from radiation poisoning.

    If you are going to do that then I think you should have the intellectual chops to back it up.

    So back it up with something other than calling me a fool.

    That is all you ever have, simple ad hominem. And it isnt even creative. You need to take some lessons.

  32. Bron,

    He’s got a point. Or do you think cancer studies paid for by the tobacco industry are an unbiased view of the facts? Who pays for a study is critical, especially when there is an easily identifiable vested interest . . . like the DOE trying to dump 14,000 tons of radioactive metal.

  33. Bron,

    And you insult in your own way Bron, such as this statement:

    “Is sunlight good for you in low doses? Yes, it is.”


    “you do know we are subject to background radiation on a daily basis, right?”

    Like I’m a child.

    Again, I pointed out 14,000 tons of radioactive metal the DOE wants to consumerize and your response was one word, with a link. Which is also quite insulting.

    I never questioned the author’s pedigree, I questioned the paper being funded by the Air Force Material Command.

  34. Gene H:

    On the one hand government should oversee regulation but on the other hand it cannot be trusted to fund a scientific study?

    The Air Force is under the DOD, are the nukes under DOE?

    Hormesis is a valid concept, if you mix that 14,000 tons of steel with 50,000 tons will the background radiation from the steel cause a problem? How long will it take to decay, etc.

    I dont think you can dismiss hormesis as a theory just because one study was funded by an organization that may or may not have an agenda.

    There is a movement to use hormesis to regulate toxins rather than the current methods used to determine acceptable concentrations.

    I for one would like to know if this is a valid methodology.

    I had thought gbk had a background in science based on some of his other posts and might have an interesting take on the concept.

  35. Bron,

    No one said “dismiss”. The question is one of weighting the value of evidence in light of a known vested interest. Not all evidence carries the same weight and doing that calculus includes considering bias in the form of vested interests.

  36. Gene H:

    the calculation should have very little to do with who is funding the study. The question is whether or not the study has merit as a scientific work. I think people too easily dismiss works like this because of the funding source.

  37. Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
    Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others
    By John Vidal, environment editor, Tuesday 28 June 2011

    One of the world’s most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

    Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

    But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world’s largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

    In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN’s leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportely unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies.

  38. gbk:

    here is the post you link to:


    Cantor is just another big government conservative which is really just a neo-con. If you are serious about cutting spending, then cut it all. Government funded science isnt sciene but politics in many cases.

    If republicans in Richmond and elsewhere knew what was good for them, they would send Cantor and his ilk back to Dogpatch.”

    So what?

    You still have to determine if it is politics and you wont be able to do that unless you evaluate the science.

    I can be philosophically opposed to government funding of science and not think all government funded science is political, which is what I said.

    How would you know the science was political unless you evaluated it properly?

  39. Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer’s oil-industry ties
    By Sue Sturgis on Wed, 09/07/2011

    The controversy over a paper published last month in an obscure journal questioning the scientific consensus around man-made global warming is drawing attention to one of its authors, an outspoken skeptic of mainstream climate science who’s come under fire before because of problems with his work.

    A research scientist with the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Roy Spencer is a climate contrarian with solid academic credentials. And his website bio notes that he “has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”

    But Spencer doesn’t disclose his leadership roles in climate skeptic groups financed by Exxon and other key players in what’s been dubbed the “climate denial machine”: the network of companies, think tanks and foundations that have sought to deny and downplay the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity.

  40. Bron,

    Because, “[g]overnment funded science isnt sciene but politics in many cases,” sounds like a bias to me.

  41. Elaine:

    Many in the scientific community, on bothe sides, were pushing global warming for money. Global Warming has pretty much been debunked from what I can see.

    You need to move onto the next “big” fallacy, global water shortages and the exploitation by capitalists of “scarce” water resources.

  42. “Global Warming has pretty much been debunked from what I can see.”

    Then you are not looking at anything other than your pecuniary interest in oil companies or whatever it is that makes you so interesting in pumping more carbon into the atmospheric and hydrological systems, Bron.

    Being an Objectivist? Is a bad idea. Thinking global warming isn’t real and that it isn’t related to human activity? Is simply factually wrong.

  43. Bron,

    “Global Warming has pretty much been debunked from what I can see.”

    How far CAN you see? Do you have proof that it has been debunked by scientists whose research isn’t funded by the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, the Kochs?

  44. Discount vouchers can be used for your acquisition of various items just like clothes,
    electronic devices, guides, travelling packages, gifts,
    games and in some cases food. The customer can then pay for that product or service at the lowered cost and be satisfied with the savings obtained.
    Price reductions in the form of printable PDF files
    are easily subject to alterations which can put the company at risk
    for fraud.

Comments are closed.