Fake Banner
TSCA: Here Is What You Need To Know About EPA Taking A New Look At Formaldehyde

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has signaled it will once again examine formaldehyde under...

Sending Health Care To Homes Is Better And Cheaper Than Hospital Stays

Due to the rising costs and inability of doctors to own hospitals since the Affordable Care Act...

If You Want To Golf Better, Don't Play With A Democrat

Sports used to bridge a lot of cultural gaps. You could walk into any bar and ask what the score...

The Organic Foods You Need To Avoid This Thanksgiving To Stay Cancer-Free

Though vegetable oil is all the rage this year, we need to remember that food scaremongering is...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Fred Phillipspicture for picture for Patrick Lockerbypicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Ilias Tyrovolas
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll
In the modern era we can detect anything in anything. Being able to detect in parts per billion, trillion and even quadrillion means that if an epidemiologist can "correlate" a chemical to harm in a spreadsheet, someone raising money opposing science can weaponize the result.

A new paper finding that they can detect chemicals linked to harm in rats with the urine of 201 preschool kids is a new battle in the War on Moms that activists continually wage, but there is no reason for parental concern. Unless you believe in homeopathy.

If you need any new evidence that science is just another arm of politics, look to the switch in the Republican party once President Donald Trump embraced former Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer, friend of Obama, and anti-science zealot Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.(1)
In 1915's The Temperance Program, Thomas F. Hubbard et al. laid out the progressive case for why alcohol needed to be banned so convincingly that in 1917, with Democratic control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they got the 18th Amendment to the Constitution out of Washington, D.C. and into voting by the states.(1) Because people irrationally sided with elites then as they do now, Democratic states immediately ratified it and it raced to the 36 needed so quickly that the two Republican-controlled states that voted it down, Connecticut and Rhode Island, were irrelevant.
Former Natural Resources Defense Council Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. didn't get more pro-science by becoming Secretary of Health and Human Services, he instead acts like his beliefs in The Ancient Ways - no cell phones, no vaccines, food scarcity - have been validated.

He has proposed "wellness farms" to combat various problems he insists are lifestyle issues only government can fix. Basically, he is piling onto beliefs he advocated when his friend and fellow Democrat President Barack Obama was in office.(1) By his second term, President Obama wanted government so desperately in the lives of people he manufactured two things that "Obamacare" could fix; a prediabetes and a vaping epidemic.
In the 1980s, there was a conflict raging about recycling. Governments were starting to do it while states that had a 'bottle bill' - a deposit on bottles you got refunded upon return - wanted to keep their success.
Over 40 years ago, President Ronald Reagan, the most pro-science president of the 20th century, proposed a lot of bold initiatives. A Superconducting Super Collider was one goal, a big boost for government funding of basic research was another, and he also laid out a Strategic Defense Initiative. A missile defense system. That last one was dismissed by Democrats in Congress and media corporations as "Star Wars" fantasy.