<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Angry Toxicologist</title>
      <link>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/</link>
      <description />
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:08:20 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.261</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

      
      <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/AngryToxicologist" type="application/rss+xml" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>AngryToxicologist</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item>
         <title>I'm pregnant, should I avoid deli meat or bacon because of the nitrates?</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maybe, but you should certainly avoid deli meats for the &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listeria"&gt;listeria&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (If you follow through that link and read you'll know why). This isn't an abstract risk, Listeria out breaks are happening all the time (&lt;a href="http://www.blogher.com/listeria-hysteria-continues-meat-recall-expands"&gt;just ask a Canuck how their year went&lt;/a&gt;). Let's not go down that road and get back to the nitrates.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Nitrates can convert to nitrites in your gut if you have high pH. If you're normal almost all of the nitrates are not converted or absorbed into your body. Now, there's no good way to tell if you have a high pH gut so you're going to have to assume that you do. So, these converted nitrites get absorbed and do one of two things: they form N-nitrosamines which are cancer causing agents, or they latch on to hemaglobin to form &lt;a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000562.htm"&gt;methemoglobinemia&lt;/a&gt;, a condition that makes it so your blood can't carry oxygen around. When you're pregnant, you're worried about the second issue.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;How that lack of oxygen leads to the effects nitrates are known for is unknown. Perhaps it through a different pathway. Regardless, from animal studies, we know that nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds cross the placenta. Methemoglobin probably can't after the 4th month or so but this doesn't ease the problem of low oxygen delivery to the placenta. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The most consistent finding from nitrates is that of spontaneous abortion. This occurs in some studies at as little as 2.5mg/kg in not in others and seems to be about the break point. A pregnant rat is roughly 200 g or little under so that's about 0.5 mg/day for a rat. To convert to an equivalent human dose toxicologists (good ones anyway) use a mg/m^2 basis. So 2.5 mg/kg is about 15 mg/m^2 in a rat; 15 mg/m^2 in a human is about 24 mg/day for an average person. The amount of nitrates in meats has gone down quite a bit over the past couple years and meats have between 6-20 mg/kg of nitrate so you'd have to eat over a kg of a highly perserved meat (like salami for instance) to get close to this. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;You can see where I'm going with this: if you eat a small amount of food with nitrates once in a while you're fine but it's a good idea to generally avoid them. Interestingly enough, most of your nitrate intake comes from really healthy things like dark green veggies that you need to keep eating especially while pregnant (although a daily spinach salad may be overboard). All things in moderation. Oh, one more thing. If you eat a lot of vitamin C with the nitrates, it reduces the amount that's converted to nitrites.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is a better way.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Don't want high nitrates or listeria? Do what I do: make your own! Last year I &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2007/11/angryfoodie.php"&gt;posted on my favorite breakfast sausage recipie&lt;/a&gt;, and you can make your own small hams and bacon and use very little or no nitrates. An excellent source is &lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/Charcuterie-Craft-Salting-Smoking-Curing/dp/0393058298"&gt;Charcuterie&lt;/a&gt; (I've got their breakfast sausage beat, though). The thing about making your own sausage is that it tastes much, much better, you'll enjoy the product even more (and likely the process too), but best of all, you'll end up eating less because you recognize the work that went into it and will view these cured meats as the treats they are.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks to Liz for asking the question.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/im_pregnant_should_i_avoid_del.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/uV0U7tL0t3o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/uV0U7tL0t3o/im_pregnant_should_i_avoid_del.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/im_pregnant_should_i_avoid_del.php</guid>
         <category>Food</category>
         
         <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:08:20 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/im_pregnant_should_i_avoid_del.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>BPA update: Bisphenol A alternatives available now. Why not use them?</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;The evidence BPA (bisphenol A) is having toxic effects on humans is becoming more and more solid. Just recently a paper in &lt;a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/11/1303"&gt;JAMA&lt;/a&gt; found BPA may be associated heart disease and other probelms in humans. Other research has shown possible association with &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/plastics_make_you_fat_too_angr.php"&gt;metabolic disorders&lt;/a&gt; (one thing I didn't note in the second post is that the two studies reinforce each other with the metabolic findings like diabetes).  Furthermore, the FDA's own panel called FDA's okey-dokie/industry-studies-only assessment of BPA flawed and it was announced yesterday that the &lt;a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200812151205DOWJONESDJONLINE000540_FORTUNE5.htm"&gt;FDA has called a do-over&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it may surprise you to know that there exist (and have existed for a while), FDA-approved alternative coatings as &lt;a href="http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/86/i50/html/8650sci1.html"&gt;Chemical and Engineering News reports&lt;/a&gt;. Why aren't they being used? From the C&amp;EN article it seems that the simple reason that BPA is still being used is that you would have to use different coating for different applications (gasp!) as opposed to the one-toxic-chemical-fits-all approach.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sigh...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PS Reading the C&amp;EN article, you now have another reason to buy the 'fresh' sauerkraut or &lt;a href="http://www.wildfermentation.com/resources.php?page=sauerkraut"&gt;make your own&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
PPS Can a fermented product be classified as fresh? That doesn't seem right to AT.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/bpa_update_bisphenol_a_alterna.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/EbAYqsS5teo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/EbAYqsS5teo/bpa_update_bisphenol_a_alterna.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/bpa_update_bisphenol_a_alterna.php</guid>
         <category />
         
         <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:25:09 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/bpa_update_bisphenol_a_alterna.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Non-Science Fridays: ERs are almost worthless</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't go to the ER.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So yesterday I was excersizing relatively strenously and after about 40 minutes I started to have some chest pain on the left side along with tightness in my neck and shoulder. Hmmm...good time to stop. It wasn't really severe so I took a shower but the tightness and some pain remained but decided to head home as it was likely just some pectoral strain. Then I realized that if I heard about me, I'd call me stupid so I thought I should go to the hospital just in case. Well, &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; was the dumb idea. I was directed to an urgent care: "You'll get seen right away, but in ER, unless you've lost a limb, are unconcious or got shot it'll probably be 6-8 hrs". How sad a statement is that? (The &lt;a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11621"&gt;IOM agrees&lt;/a&gt;) I got the picture and went to an urgent care and got seen within 20 mins plus it was probably cheaper for my insurance.  (I'm fine by the way, they also think some chest muscles are spasming). Today, I'm feeling fine, eating a doughnut, but exasperated with ERs to the point of laughing.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Gov from Illinois&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
You've all heard of this but I implore you to &lt;a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/10illinois_complaint.pdf"&gt;read the transcript&lt;/a&gt; if you haven't. It's just way too good. (the first part is dull, you've got to get to the wire tapped stuff). Rod isn't stepping down (just like you don't name your daughter Candy if you don't want her to be a stripper, you don't name your son Rod if you don't want him to be a mafia hit man, foulmouthed corrupt pol, or crack-showing plumber). Why isn't he stepping down? He doesn't say. I've been trying to contemplate his possible defenses.&lt;br /&gt;
1) I was rehersing for a play called "Rod Blagojevich sells his soul and Illinois down the river".&lt;br /&gt;
2) My wife made me do it (reading the transcript this may be 10% true).&lt;br /&gt;
3) Um, isn't that how politics work, you [expletive] [expletive]?&lt;br /&gt;
4) Do your worst, my hair will protect me.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Others?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weekly Aural Pleasure&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, it's Mr Scruff again. I love his music and find his videos...um, charming is the word I think I want. The pear dance at 2:31 especially makes me smile. Happy Friday.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ojl2KLCGT4I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ojl2KLCGT4I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;PS That's the wonderful &lt;a href="http://www.myspace.com/alicerusselluk"&gt;Alice Russell&lt;/a&gt; on vocals in case you're curious.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nonscience_fridays_ers_are_alm.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/IPFfkTzolVg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/IPFfkTzolVg/nonscience_fridays_ers_are_alm.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nonscience_fridays_ers_are_alm.php</guid>
         <category>Non-Science Fridays</category>
         
         <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:28:09 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nonscience_fridays_ers_are_alm.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>In alternative animal testing, a pessimist really is a well-informed optimist</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;Back in March in Toxicological Sciences there was a great &lt;a href="http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/1/1"&gt;LTE from Dr David Basketter&lt;/a&gt; regarding an &lt;a href="http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/1/110"&gt;in vitro sensitization assay&lt;/a&gt;. The part I thought most on the money was this:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Overall, a prediction accuracy of about 82% was achieved, which is only a little lower than was obtained during the validation of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) (NIH, 1999), although some might be concerned by the failure of this in vitro system to detect almost 20% of the sensitizers. The authors address this issue by invoking the conduct of complementary assays, such as peptide binding or in silico methods. For example, an example of a chemical class that is not well predicted is aldehydes, where the possibility of employing an existing predictive Quantitative structure activity relationships is suggested. Of course, such devices are most easily implemented for chemicals where we already know what the answer should be, whereas the most critical assessment is for new substances where we do not already know the answers.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Preach on. With out huge and complete data sets we are only training a system to catch stuff we only know about. A reply (not by the authors of the critiqued article) that was published this month contains, among other arguments, the argument that boils down to, "Hey, it actually works near 100% of the time for the right chemical classes". Now, I get their point, that it could be restricted for use in those classes but that's not really where the need or the problem exists for alternative animal testing. We need something that's comprehensive. Beyond that they say that you could use other models, structure/activity models (QSAR), for the classes that don't work. But, that's why they're trying to develop in vitro tests in the first place! Because QSAR doesn't work well enough! I'll end by saying, 'keep trying guys and gals!' and echoing the statements of Dr Basketter in his reply to the reply:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;I note an accusation of pessimism and I would simply respond that generally speaking, a pessimist is merely a well-informed optimist.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
  &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/in_alternative_animal_testing.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/8oz_1dJPYOc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/8oz_1dJPYOc/in_alternative_animal_testing.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/in_alternative_animal_testing.php</guid>
         <category>Animal Testing</category>
         
         <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:57:43 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/in_alternative_animal_testing.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>What kind of toxic chemcials would you be worried about from that jet crash in San Diego?</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;You've probably heard that a &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18"&gt;F/A-18D&lt;/a&gt; jet &lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120802438.html"&gt;crashed in San Diego on approach to Miramar&lt;/a&gt;, killing 3 on the ground (the pilot ejected and is fine). A lot of the news reports noted that ~20 homes were evacuated due to 'toxic chemicals'. What sort of chemicals would you be worried about?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First Responders and Bystanders&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Beyond the physical hazards (things under pressure like hydraulics, O2 canisters,...etc), there's all kinds of stuff to worry about like fuel, oils, hydraulic fluids, beryllium, lithium, chromium, mercury, and possibly radioactive compounds. But the biggest hazard is simply the burning of Advanced Composite Materials (ACM). According to the military, aircraft can contain anywhere from about 175-33,000 lbs of ACM. Upon burning, a lot of these Advanced Composite Materials release lots of carbon monoxide (obviously), nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide. An air craft explosion could produce these chemicals above levels that would kill you in short order as long as the temp was above 300 deg F. The F-18 has a lot of Graphite-epoxy ACM which is probably better short term than if an Apache helicopter crashed due to the kevlar/graphite-epoxy used on that aircraft. So, in short, you're most worried about death from CO or cyanide poisoning. After that you'd worry about the more exotic stuff, but it's not likely that you'd be exposed to this junk after the crash so it's not as big of a concern.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clean-up crew&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Clean-up crew would have to think about all the exotic chemicals abounding but would not have to worry so much about the CO/NO/SO/CN issues. They would, however, have to worry about all the respirable fibers that may be floating around due to the ACM. Particularly troubling are the boron-epoxies since they are able to penetrate protection to some degree. These fibers cause long-lasting harm if inhaled in sufficient amounts.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bonus explainer: How do you respond to an aviation crash?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If we're talking about you the citizen, the answer is to stay inside, close all windows, doors or other air intakes and wait for instruction. If you're talking about the responders, they evacuate the area around the crash and smoke plume, and cool the crash site down while trying not to break apart the plane further with high pressure. They do not use aircraft (such as helicopters) around a crash because it disperses the chemicals downward and in an unpredictable manner. Once they've identified the immediate hazards (always using proper industrial hygiene, of course), they spray a fixicant like acrylic floor wax over the crash to keep fibers and chemicals where they are.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/what_kind_of_toxic_chemcials_w.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/Nm0zC8JcdHw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/Nm0zC8JcdHw/what_kind_of_toxic_chemcials_w.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/what_kind_of_toxic_chemcials_w.php</guid>
         <category>Toxics</category>
         
         <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:26:05 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/what_kind_of_toxic_chemcials_w.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Watching the sausage get made at the EPA</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;The EPA held a "Public Workshop to Discuss Management of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Geologic Sequestration Under the Safe Drinking Water Act" last week. I've talked about this issue before &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/07/under_the_radar_epas_proposes.php"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. This process continues to not get the attention it deserves as it may drastically effect drinking water quality. The workshop is a decent look at part of the 'sausage making' process so here are some random thoughts (the quotes aren't quotes, they're paraphrased but I blockquoted them for clarity). &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EPA:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;We can regulate the injection but can't use the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate indirect risks to drinking water.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Isn't it nice when they just come out and tell you they can't protect drinking water? I find this refreshing. And yes, I RO the drinking water in my house.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EPA:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;Maybe the states can do it!&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Punting when you're down by 40 rarely saves the game.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dude for BP:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;Very pure CO2 is needed for injection. CO2 is ~15% out of the stack so it will take a lot of energy to purify it.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So we need to produce more energy to clean up the energy we are producing. How's the view from down the rabbit hole? Also, does this remind anyone else of using ethanol for fuel?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mutiple people:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;CO2 wont &lt;em&gt;necessarily &lt;/em&gt;contaminate ground water.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Well, I feel better.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Panelist (I think AWWA):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;We may need even currently non-potable water in the future (I think he was refering to salty water in the west) and we should be careful about putting CO2 near any areas that might be used in the future.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Didn't you hear the EPA? We can't protect water! It's not like it's a precious resource or anything. Kudos.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Panelists (now using brains):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;Speaking of salty water, wont the high pressure injections make salt leach into current water sources making them non-potable?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Other panelists (not using brains; or using them for evil):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;You don't know that. Maybe good things, like better water, will be leached in.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Yeah, that's the way it always works. Someone injects some crap into your ground water and you've got better water and less cancer. It's like that hcivokcorB nirE movie.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everybody (all together now!):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;We need more research.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ooooo. &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/07/science_the_enemy_of_public_he.php"&gt;Stunner.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some other panelist:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;Mitigation is actually pretty easy. Just decrease the pressure.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hey, that's actually some good news. Does it make me too cynical to admit that I don't really believe it can be that easy?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group discussions:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;It seems that some drinking water will be contaminated no matter what.&lt;br /&gt;
Um, what about earthquakes&lt;br /&gt;
Who takes care of a mess once the injection is done?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I'm going to stop here but to give you an overall sense for what these things are like: Everybody seems to think that there are a lot of reasons for not allowing this to go forward, but the very fact that there is a process almost assuredly means it's going forward in some manner. It's like an avalanche, it's quite possible you could divert it the smallest bit by massive amounts of work, but it's going to the bottom of the hill whether you like it or not. A couple of times people mentioned that someone should weigh the risks of injected CO2 to the risks of keeping it in the air. Although no friend to global warming, it seems pretty stupid to inject it. But it sounds cool, so let's just go with the flow.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/watching_the_sausage_get_made.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/cbgv8Th5ww4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/cbgv8Th5ww4/watching_the_sausage_get_made.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/watching_the_sausage_get_made.php</guid>
         <category>Regulations</category>
         
         <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:57:48 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/watching_the_sausage_get_made.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Non-Science Fridays: Repeal Day and Bailout the Daylight</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Give us our Daylight!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I was discussing with some friends last night what I think is the most important item on Obama's adgena. Getting working on the Daylight bailout. We were saving daylight hours all summer long. I presume all those hours went into some daylight bank. But now, we find ourselves in a daylight credit crisis; the winter solstice being very stingy with it's daylight. However, it seems that all the hours we saved are nowhere to be found - likely a daylight bank failure. I propose that the government bail us dark-dwelling denizens out and then make sure it never happens again by creating an daylight savings deposit insurance similar to the FDIC. Please contact your representitive immediately.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Repeal Day!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5th, 1933, the 21st admendment was ratified, which allowed all right thinking citizens to partake in a short one (&lt;a href="http://www.repealday.org/"&gt;read more here&lt;/a&gt;). I'll celebrate tonight with a pear sidecar. I had one last night with ginger but I prefer it like this:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;4 parts pear brandy&lt;br /&gt;
2 parts pear juice or nectar (preferably non-sweetened&lt;br /&gt;
1 part lemon juice&lt;br /&gt;
1 part simple syrup (if your pear juice is sweetened, omit this syrup which is equal parts sugar and water heated till disolved)&lt;br /&gt;
2 thin slices of fresh pear as garnish&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mix in cocktail shaker and pour into a martini glass.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Like you need more blogs to read. But, seriously &lt;a href="http://www.themilliondollararm.com/blog/"&gt;you can't miss this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Two Indian guys, Rinku Singh, 20, and Dinesh Kumar Patel, 19, were signed by the Pirates. They won a competition called the "Million Dollar Arm". They are blogging about their experience in the US and it's a funny, insightful, and heartwarming read. Take this from their Thanksgiving experience:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;The choices of foods was crazy.  Everyone is just stuffing their heads.  I like sweet potato pie.  Very tasty.  All the people were very nice to us and we have a good time.

&lt;p&gt;Dinesh and I still not understand why they have this festival, but it is good for eating.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I think he understands better than he thinks (stuffing ourselves in pleasant company is probably as good a reason as giving thanks). Also, one of my favorites from when Rinku cut his hand:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;I reeled at the bill they produced for some simple bandaging and a tetanus shot. 300 bucks! It's whooping. They took me to the emergency room for such a clear-cut case (pun intended). I didn't get any meds and neither did they do anything to ease the pain. To put salt to injury, we had a stack of forms to sign as a procedure. Deepesh sir and I went into hysterics and laughed our guts out. It was crazy. Back home in India, we would've gotten treated just fine for a mere twenty rupees. Healthcare here is indecently expensive. I hope I don't make another visit to a hospital here for whatever reasons.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Welcome to the USA. Nice people, expensive health care.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weekly Aural Pleasure.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The very lyrical and harmonic quality of the song is what draws you in, but it's the odd lyrics - I think he's saying "fence" the whole time...At least I hope he is - that keep you coming back. That and the guitar hero sections are surprisingly seamless. Or maybe it's the lab outfits in a wood shop. Who knows. Just enjoy. Happy friday.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WFM_kTAYVsU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WFM_kTAYVsU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nonscience_fridays_repeal_day.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/pcYQU-oFYWk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/pcYQU-oFYWk/nonscience_fridays_repeal_day.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nonscience_fridays_repeal_day.php</guid>
         <category>Non-Science Fridays</category>
         
         <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:31:08 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nonscience_fridays_repeal_day.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>NAS says the EPA needs to overhaul risk assessment. Duh, but easier said...</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;NRC (part of the NAS) released a &lt;a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12209"&gt;report&lt;/a&gt; saying that EPA's risk assessment is bogged down with all the details they don't know and burdened with assumptions that aren't helpful. Since they were piling on the agency, they threw in the fact that it was silly to look at chemicals in isolation as opposed to a mixture. Well, they were right. As to the issue of always wanting more information, I've wrote about that before, this, I think, is a huge issue for public health today (&lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/07/science_the_enemy_of_public_he.php"&gt;Science: the enemy of public health&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;They are right about the other stuff too. If you're interested, you can go read the report. However, spend some time to shed a tear for the EPA because while the recommendations make sense, some are completely impractical given the statues that give authority to the EPA. For one, how in the heck do you regulate a mixture. Let's say that chemical A, B, and C all contribute to some disease through drinking water. They are all produced by different companies. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Problem 1: Who should have to pay for the research into the mixture? Dividing up this cost is likely to take a long time. Especially since EPA doesn't have very good ways of forcing companies to do toxicology tests on single chemicals. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Problem 2: If each one alone isn't enough to cause the problem, how do you decide how to regulate them. There isn't a way that is obviously fair and therefore, every decision will be fought in court saying that the EPa can regulate it and once that winds it's way through the courts, we'll start another round saying the other company should be the one cleaning it's act more. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Problem 3: How do you test mixtures that exist in different proportions in different communities? You can't do tox tests on every combination that exists and a method that tries to determine what the combinations will do is near impossible (we don't know how to do it for one chemical. How much luck do you think we'll have with a handful?)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I could go on about other practical barriers that the EPA has in implementing these results. But suffice it to say, the EPA can't apply these recommendations under the current laws. But that's not enough; as the NAS notes, the carcinogen TCE has had risk assessment in progress since 1980 and it is projected to be done in 2010. One could rightly ask why bother doing risk assessments at all? It seems that we can either watch the toothless EPA become more and more irrelevant, or Congress can rethink the laws that govern the EPA. And it's not as hard as you would think. Only a few miles away, the FDA does full reviews on drugs to be marketed with greater scrutiny in 9 months or less. There's no reason why the government should make timely and sound decisions about chemicals we take intentionally, but not those that we are involuntarily exposed to.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nas_says_the_epa_needs_to_over.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/2BxisHprJS4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/2BxisHprJS4/nas_says_the_epa_needs_to_over.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nas_says_the_epa_needs_to_over.php</guid>
         <category>Regulations</category>
         
         <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:13:46 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/nas_says_the_epa_needs_to_over.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Plastics make you fat too? Angrytoxicologist reboots.</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSxihhBzCjk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSxihhBzCjk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Well, if MacGuire was talking about getting into toxicology research on plastics, he was right on. EHP has &lt;a href="http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/11537/11537.html"&gt;published a study showing that the additive BPA can cause cells to suppress adiponectin&lt;/a&gt;. That would cause insensitivity to insulin and may be behind "&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome"&gt;metabolic syndrome&lt;/a&gt;". Let's pause for a moment and think about that name. That's got to be the worst name for a syndrome ever. It could only be more vague by being called 'syndrome'. I prefer something that creates a nice visual, like &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2007/09/recycled_obliterating_your_lun.php"&gt;bronchiolitis obliterans&lt;/a&gt;. Nothing like an obliterated lung to get your attention. I propose cardiolipoinsulinobesity disease. Hmmm...okay, we'll stick with metabolic syndrome...or the slightly more technical, "F'ed up". Seriously, it's also called insulin resistance syndrome. It's symptoms include obesity, heart disease, diabetes, general inflammation, prothrombic state (meaning you're more likely to stroke out). Sweet.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It's not clear how the BPA does this, though it's likely due to it's ability to disrupt hormones. In the study, estradiol (the potent estrogen) had the same effects on breast and abdominal fat tissue. They used human fat tissues that were removed from patients undergoing other procedures. The one issue I have here is that it may be that those undergoing the procedures have cells that react differently than the rest of the population. The samples came from patients getting breast reduction sugery, a tummy tuck, or gastric bypass. The people may have bodies that like to build up fat anyway, especially in the last two. Even if this is true, however, it at least means that some people are effected by BPA; in fact, it may be those who can least afford it. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There was a wide variety of effect of BPA (i.e. some patient's tissues were sensitive to it and others weren't). However, on average, BPA was more potent than estradiol at equimolar doses (that's an equivalent dose based on the number of molecules, not weight, for those of you who didn't take or don't remember chemistry). Yikes!&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Anyway, here's the kicker. The levels were environmentally relevant. 1-10 nM are common in people (some up to 20 nM). The study found effects at 0.1 and 1.0 nM. Good 'ole plastics. Is there anything they can't do?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PS &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/01/practical_water_bottle_advice.php"&gt;Here's my water bottle advice&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/plastics_make_you_fat_too_angr.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/g6sfntHO4jc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/g6sfntHO4jc/plastics_make_you_fat_too_angr.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/plastics_make_you_fat_too_angr.php</guid>
         <category>Toxics</category>
         
         <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:41:58 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/12/plastics_make_you_fat_too_angr.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Does ezetimibe (Zetia, and in Vytorin) cause cancer? and who cares?</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;Cutting to chase for those of you who want a quick answer: we don't know, there aren't enough people to study yet. There are hints, though.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ezetimibe is commonly used in combination with a statin as Vytorin to reduce heart disease in patients. It doesn't work all that well. I should say, it decreases cholesterol fine but whether that leads to less overall heart disease isn't conclusive (&lt;a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0804602"&gt;latest study released today &lt;/a&gt;says maybe a little). Of course that study found an increase in cancer in those taking the drug. However, &lt;a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0806603"&gt;another analysis&lt;/a&gt; released today found that cancer deaths were increased but cancer cases were decreased (both were on the verge of stastical significance). Based on that reverse finding alone, it seems that not much is happening here, or if there is, not much. Animal studies show nothing that would indicate a problem.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This seems like a bit of ho hum but think about what this means for drug approval for a second. This drug was approved in 2002. It's 2008 and we don't really know if it decreases death an disease. This is the problem with approving on surrogate markers - that's where the FDA says "well, you don't know if it reduces heart disease but you know it decreases cholesterol and those are known to be related so good enough". Sadly, this is very common with many types of drugs. The problems with this approach are four-fold (at least): &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One, there may be a diluted association. For instance, if there is a certain amount that arterial plaque has to be lowered to effect risk and the drug lowers cholesterol a little bit which in turn effects plaque, by the time you look at an overall effect, it may be tiny or insignificant. Even if it exists, it may be so small as to not outweigh the risks from taking the drug. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Two, the surrogate may not be a causal factor, it may be a good marker. Take markers for cancer such as PSA for prostate cancer. Generally as the PSA level goes up that means the cancer is getting worse. However, the marker isn't causing the cancer. Therefore, a drug that lowers PSA isn't necessarily curing the cancer, only lowering the marker. This is like putting a picture of a empty highway infront of a traffic camera and concluding that there is no traffic today. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Three, the more assocaitions you make the more likely you are wrong. This is similar to one but isn't talking about the magnitude of the effect but the likely you are plain old wrong. If each association has a uncertainty of 5% or so and you are using a couple of links, the possibility that the drug has nothing to do with the disease increases dramatically. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Four, if you don't do a large study to figure out if it works, then you find out less about the toxicity; cancer for one among many.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you do a big ol' study, it takes longer to get the drug to market. I say FDA shouldn't use surrogates unless there either aren't any treatments available at all, or the new drug show a drastic improvement above the existing treatment. Of course, if the later is true, the study wouldn't take as long so it could probably be limited to the former exemption. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Starting to wonder under what 'good enough' method the drugs you take got approved? So am I...&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/09/does_ezetimibe_zetia_and_in_vy.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/_8VsSk2wQ4U" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/_8VsSk2wQ4U/does_ezetimibe_zetia_and_in_vy.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/09/does_ezetimibe_zetia_and_in_vy.php</guid>
         <category>Consumer Tox</category>
         
         <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:13:04 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/09/does_ezetimibe_zetia_and_in_vy.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Stupidity about cancer and meat</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;There's a story in the WashPost today about how &lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082201119.html"&gt;spicy marinades decrease the heterocyclic amine (HCA) content in grilled meat&lt;/a&gt;. They think you should care because HCAs are likely carcinogens. There are many things about this that get my back up so lets make a list:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;1) Nobody knows how much cancer HCAs may be causing. As far as I can tell (I'd be glad to be e-mailed some reasearch that disputes this), there isn't any study that directly links HCAs to human cancer, qualitatively or quantitatively. I'm not saying they're not carcinogens, I'm pretty certian they are, but the only studies that I know of look at the link between cancer and how much well-done meant someone eats. Well-done meat has more HCAs, but heck, it's also got a lot more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, as well as a whole host of other baddies. So we can't really pin this on HCAs alone.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;2) If you're eating enough meat for HCA risk to be a problem, you've got much bigger problems. Namely, risk of serious heart disease. Cut down on the meat.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3) If you're eating meat that's well-done, you're also a bad cook. Beef should be cooked to 135 deg. (internal) for tastiness (that's medium rare); 140 if you must. By the time you form enough HCAs to be a problem you've ruined your dinner. For people that worry about pathogens, consider this: Any bacteria should be on the outside, it's toast. Also, when was the last time you heard about anyone getting sick from beef that wasn't ground?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So, what have we learned here? You shouldn't eat too much meat (we already knew that). You shouldn't ruin your dinner by overcooking it (we alreday knew that, too). Marinades are good (with the exception of a T-bone/porterhouse/cuts contained therein, I'll concede this).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Can we stop doing studies that tell us things we already know? I get sick everytime I see that our tax dollars fund these stupid things (&lt;a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1832033,00.html"&gt;like this gem that tells us that runners are healthier&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;PS And for goodness sake, don't follow the advice at the bottom of the article about nuking your meat before grilling. A crime against eaters! Do follow the advice about veggies; grilled portobellos are a wonder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/stupidity_about_cancer_and_mea.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/TZXHp6RKUew" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/TZXHp6RKUew/stupidity_about_cancer_and_mea.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/stupidity_about_cancer_and_mea.php</guid>
         <category>Food</category>
         
         <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:01:17 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/stupidity_about_cancer_and_mea.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>'Cause you're giving your neighbors asthma, you jerk</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;Terry Box &lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080802940.html"&gt;wrote an piece in the WP the other day&lt;/a&gt; about how despite the melting glaciers and rising gas prices, he's not giving up his muscle cars. Terry, I have to admit that I love cars. I always have and always will. The thrill of a powerful car or truck can get your adrenaline going and put a smile on your face. For those of a mechanical bent, it's also a source of wonder. That said, I'll also have to admit that, Terry, you're a complete jerk.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Juliet Eilperin &lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081101323.html"&gt;wrote a response to Terry in yesterday's WP&lt;/a&gt;, but I think it only partially hits the mark by only focusing on the selfish part. There's a lot more going on here and reflects how our society has yet to automatically equate pollution with health.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Reader, you have to admit that Mr Box's bluff attitude is charming in it's own way. He can get this in because he is mistaken about what his car choice is. It's a bit easy to say "I don't care about the glaciers, I'm driving my car". Let's make it real, though, shall we? Terry, your choice is contributing to emergency room visits by children who can't breathe and panic stricken parents. Your choice is contributing to high ozone making the great outdoors unsafe for the eldery, the sick, and children. Your choice is making us more dependent on foreign oil, making us less safe and tying our diplomatic hands.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Now, if you're still willing to make that choice after having thought about the consequences, I'll say it again: You selfish jerk.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/cause_youre_giving_your_neighb.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/kVCE_GzVLi4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/kVCE_GzVLi4/cause_youre_giving_your_neighb.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/cause_youre_giving_your_neighb.php</guid>
         <category>Depressing/Infuriating</category>
         
         <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:34:12 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/cause_youre_giving_your_neighb.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>More responsibility the Gov't doesn't have or need.</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;A reader (thanks Jen) alerted me to this article on Forbes,&lt;a href="http://www.forbes.com/healthcare/2008/08/06/pharmaceuticals-fda-biz-healthcare-cx_mh_0807fda.html"&gt; The FDA's Black Box&lt;/a&gt;. The basics of the article are that the FDA can't say anything about drug approvals or non-approvals (or anything else relating to a drug for that matter) if it deals with information that the drug company submitted, since that information is confidential by law. The article thinks Congress should give FDA the ability to release this to the public. Here's why Forbes thinks this is a good idea:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;1) Companies fool Wall Street all the time into thinking a drug is the next best thing only to find out all of a sudden that FDA's final decision is 'no go'. Investors lose a lot of spondulic* this way. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;2) They just should.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It's interesting that the article really says nothing about whether the decisions were bad or good. In fact, of the decisions, it puts the FDA in a pretty good light. That said here's why I disagree with the article:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;1) The FDA is in the business of ensuring safe and effective drugs, not in the business of business. I'm sure the FDA is really sorry the striped-suit boys have no flow*, but it probably cares more about patients getting a drug that works with acceptable risk-benefit.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;2) Here's the biggie: Shouldn't investors be informed about what they're investing in? Here's the issue that's a non-issue from the article:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;"One thing I've said now for several years is, if a company is telling you about the letter, I would ask to see the letter, because that's the only way to know what the FDA said," says John Jenkins, director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs.

&lt;p&gt;But in recent months, the FDA sent out "not approvable" letters for an anesthetic from Japanese drug maker Eisai, an antipsychotic from tiny biotech Vanda Pharmaceuticals (nasdaq: VNDA - news - people ) and a pain drug from UCB Pharmaceuticals. In none of those cases did the company make the full text of the letter available.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Well, let's see here, the FDA sends out a letter to the company. You, as an investor, don't know what's in it. The company refuses to show you but tells you everything's great.  You can:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;a) Use good judgement and put your money else.&lt;br /&gt;
b) Believe the company and then be stunned when your investment dies.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Companies are BSing all the time to keep their stock up. If they didn't, we wouldn't have any of these stories which leads me to... &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3) The government isn't where the pressure should be. If industry is being sneaky (read: lying), doesn't it make sense to use moolah as a weapon? Demand transparency by allocating your investments to those who provide it, don't come crying to the FDA. They hide stuff because Wall Street lets 'em get away with it. What we need here is not more things for government to do, we need Wall Street to stop acting like such dopes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weekly Aural Pleasure&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In honor of the Olympics, I'm choosing 'Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger' ("&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_rings"&gt;Faster, Higer, Stronger&lt;/a&gt;" is the Olympic moto). I had a hard time picking the video to embed but since this one takes a lot of amature talent, I figured it a better choice over the official anime version.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bl6RJyZdBSU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bl6RJyZdBSU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Have any great slang for money? Other favorites: oomph, scratch, green, happy cabbage, bucks, sawbuck ($10), coin, bread, dough, chips (I'm getting hungry here), large (as in $1K).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/more_responsibility_the_govt_d.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/dr7pmIM0MyQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/dr7pmIM0MyQ/more_responsibility_the_govt_d.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/more_responsibility_the_govt_d.php</guid>
         <category>Regulations</category>
         
         <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:59:05 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/more_responsibility_the_govt_d.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Teflon chemical causes cancer in trout and why I care.</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;Read some background on PFOA and Teflon &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2007/08/chemical_trespass_redux.php"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A couple of years ago DuPont and other perfluorochemical industries were dismissing evidence of PFOA-caused cancer in rats, saying it was due to peroxisome proliferation in rats, which some argue isn't relevant to humans. However, PFOA may have other mechanisms of action (disrupting thyroid hormones, gap junctions, and estradiol among them). You can read more about the evidence &lt;a href="http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/kropp-ewg_appendix.pdf"&gt;in this EWG submission to the EPA&lt;/a&gt;. Well, EPA must not have payed too much attention to those other mechanisms because they basically ignored them and wanted to discount the cancer. In fact, they didn't do a cancer risk assessment at all. The EPA's &lt;a href="http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/pubs/pfoarisk.pdf"&gt;draft risk assessment &lt;/a&gt;isn't very good but it does contain most of the background info if you're interested.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Speeding forward to now, &lt;a href="http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/11190/abstract.html"&gt;we have a paper in EHP showing &lt;/a&gt;that PFOA causes liver cancer in trout without causing peroxisome proliferation. In fact, it finds that PFOA administration leads to changes similar to, you guessed it, estradiol.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Gee, look how that turned out. Not as if a scientist should need convincing of this but...Never ignore data, it will turn around and make you look like a fool someday.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/teflon_chemical_causes_cancer.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/HTSara1I0M0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/HTSara1I0M0/teflon_chemical_causes_cancer.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/teflon_chemical_causes_cancer.php</guid>
         <category>Toxics</category>
         
         <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:28:32 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/teflon_chemical_causes_cancer.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Non-science Fridays: Welcome to the USSA</title>
          <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And our divided country will produce the worst of both worlds.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The&lt;a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-fastfood30-2008jul30,0,7844906.story"&gt; LA city council has passed a resolution &lt;/a&gt;that bans fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods (via &lt;a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2196397/"&gt;Slate&lt;/a&gt; - worth moseying over for). This is so paternalistic it's disgusting. Do poor people make bad food choices? Yes. Should we thus deprive them of choosing all food we consider bad? Don't make me answer that. If you want more health choices, put incentives in for a decent grocery to move in or a farmers market (although you are still left with the issue that healthy foods are more expensive). Beyond that, you can eat relatively healthy at many fast food places if you want to; but-&lt;em&gt;news flash&lt;/em&gt;-people don't. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The sense of paternalism seems to be growing in the country equal to the sense that the government is responsible for everything, both reinforcing each other. I was listening to a radio recently and heard some city government official railing against Verizon for not putting FIOS into the poor sections of town as fast as the richer sections. Umm, gee, ya think? One, they're a business, they install where they can get money back on their investment. Two, super-high-speed internet is a main concern for the poor in the city? Now, I know that there is a digital divide and we need to make sure people have access but maybe we should get crime, housing and social services in order first before we start worrying about fiber optic internet access.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So where do we stand? We have torture, hugely increased executive power, weak consumer rights, diminishing civil rights in the areas of surveillance and detention along with policies that take away choice, forcing us to live "better". Ah, the worst of conservative and liberal wing ideas. It's heading down the road of a communist country except we don't even have health care. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And don't blame the government. We &lt;em&gt;are &lt;/em&gt;the government. Beyond that, we are the people eating too much, buying houses we can't afford, not saving, not exercising, running up credit cards and equity loans, wasting food and products. I'm all for the gov't stepping in when the public isn't able to either control a problem (factory pollution), when they can't be expected to know enough (banning harmful pesticides), or to level the playing field (financial regs) but lately ours only seems to step into areas where we know what we should be doing and do the opposite. If the future of the country is looking to the government to compensate for our bad habits so we can escape the consequences, the future is bleak indeed.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weekly Aural Pleasure&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
I'm actually &lt;em&gt;going &lt;/em&gt;to the sea this weekend but this excellent Blood Red Shoes song has been in my head all week. No White Stripes comparisons, please.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ap2oXTQBSfk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ap2oXTQBSfk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;a href="http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/nonscience_fridays_welcome_to.php#commentsArea"&gt;Read the comments on this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~4/O9R4u-42N50" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AngryToxicologist/~3/O9R4u-42N50/nonscience_fridays_welcome_to.php</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/nonscience_fridays_welcome_to.php</guid>
         <category>Non-Science Fridays</category>
         
         <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:00:57 -0500</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://scienceblogs.com/angrytoxicologist/2008/08/nonscience_fridays_welcome_to.php</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
