chix96’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  As with many unknown medical conditions, we have to depend on self-reporting before they can be diagnosed! While I am appalled that a former scientist would call such a book "peer reviewed," you are overly critical of Pierpoint. She has not expressed fundamental opposition to wind turbines, simply an examination into possible health affects. While many are decrying that experimentation on the effects of this low-frequency sound will be lengthy and prevent wind turbines from being installed, there is no definitive evidence that answering an important question about human health will slow the installation of new wind turbines. Many chemicals that are still on the market are undergoing substantial toxicological testing in research laboratories to ascertain their sublethal effects; does ANYONE who reads Grist object to testing whether Round Up and triclosan have human and animal health impacts? Pierpoint's book came out 2 weeks ago, and could be likened to theory papers in science that propose new arenas of experimentation. Shame on you Jonathan, for conducting the equivalent of a witch hunt just because she suggested wind power is not manna from the heavens. P.S. She may very well be batshit crazy, but I'm decrying this lousy, thinly-veiled op ed as a poor foundation for facilitating meaningful conversation about clean energy.On One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ posted 1 week, 4 days ago 60 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Take it from a scientist...

  ...who actually read the peer-reviewed article in Environmental Health Journal. Here's a note I composed to my coworkers after reading the article on the day of its release:

  An article came out in Environmental Health recently documenting detectable levels of mercury in 9 of 20 samples of HFCS, which is made using by-products of the chlorine industry: hydrochloric acid and caustic soda. The chlorine industry reports that HFCS manufacturers are the largest end-users of mercury-grade hydrochloric acid and caustic soda; the ingredients can also be made using mercury-free methods (9 of the 11 samples <.005 micrograms of detectable mercury were from a HFCS manufacturer that uses the mercury-free byproducts).

  At the high end, mercury was detected at 0.570 micrograms/g HFCS. The average American ingests 28.5 micrograms of mercury a day; at this rate, that's more than 4 times the EPA's recommended threshold of mercury consumption for a 150 lb person (0.1 micrograms/kg body weight). This is about half of what's in a can of tuna: 3.5 cans of tuna a week, to put it in perspective. The authors of the paper were unable to ascertain what percentage of certain food products are comprised by HFCS as the food manufacturers guard this as "proprietary information." The authors also point out that foods in which the first or second ingredient is HFCS may contain detectable levels of mercury, but the FDA does not test these food products for mercury. I'd like to see another study examining that!

  Oddly enough, I haven't seen a commercial from the HFCS folks recently.On Why is the FDA unwilling to study evidence of mercury in high-fructose corn syrup? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  [insert HFC plug here]

  So what, exactly, is high fructose corn syrup doing in dog and cat food?! Clearly, it is a nutritionally devoid yet caloric filler to make up for the caloric deficiencies of the other ingredients in pet food.On Is organic pet food worth the trouble? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 12 Responses