Page last updated July 20th 2013 NAVIGATION BAR FOR THIS PAGE
Richard Wilson's HOME PAGE
The home page has links to may other webpages on this site (blog) including links on
risks of human extinction.
This is a "working page." It is constantly "under construction" and also constantly under destruction. It started on March 9th 2002 and received international attention within a few days. On this page we hope to have information about various issues where "junk science" has been used and must be replaced by sound science whenever possible. Please suggest additions and subtractions.
The Atlantic Legal Foundation is dedicated to helping ensure that whenever science is used in a courtroom that it shall be sound science. On behalf of the Atlantic Legal Foundation the web master of this page requests any and all information, in ANY format but preferably electronic for ease of use, that can help us. This information can be links to other sites, references to scientific (even unscientific) data, published papers, whether peer reviewed or not, articles, comments and court cases. An example of the type of information we hope to provide can be seen on the arsenic web site at arsenic.ws.
lawsuits became so popular, the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir
suggested criteria to identify what he called pathological, or
fraudulent, science (now called junk science). Society
should ignore claims of hazard when:
1. The maximum effect is observed by a process of barely detectable intensity, and the effect is largely independent of the
intensity of the apparent causal agent.
2. The effect remains close to the limit of detectability.
3. Claims of great measurement accuracy, or of profoundness, persist in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
4. Theories are put forward that fail the test of being the simplest explanation for the available information.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc explanations: the proponents "always have an answer -- always."
Another more succinct criterion is: "The skeptics attack the facts, or the science, but the junk scientists resort to ad hominem attacks on the skeptics."
The following non inclusive list of situations where society must be wary of junk science has been prepared by the Science Advisory Council of the Atlantic Legal Foundation. Please suggest additions.
If you have a legal case involving one of these issues that could benefit from the help of the Atlantic Legal Foundation please contact the general counsel. The Atlantic Legal Foundation has represented many distinguished amici in cases before the courts. The most important were probably the trilogy of briefs, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire, presented to the US Supreme Court in cases establishing the role of scientific experts and the admissibility of proffered testimony.
In Daubert, a lady took the drug Bendectin during pregnancy and blamed
her child's birth defects on the drug. In the resultant law
suit, an expert proffered an unpublished "reanalysis" of
previously published human statistical studies (a "meta
analysis") and purported to show that it was "more likely than
not" that the Bendectin caused the
problems. In remanding the case the Supreme
Court mentioned (on pages 593 and 594) several
non-exclusive criteria by which such proffered testimony may be
judged. None of the items in the list are absolutely necessary;
nor is any individual item conclusive:
1. Has the theory been tested or can it be tested? In other words, is it falsifiable?
2. Has the theory been peer reviewed and published?
3. What is the known or potential risk of error?
4. Has the theory been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community?
5. Is the theory based on facts or data of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field?
6. Does the testimony have probative value that is greater than, or not outweighed by, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury?
Joiner was an engineer who had worked with transformer oil containing PCBs, and who alleged that the PCBs were the cause of his small cell lung cancer. The testimony of two supposed "expert" witnesses were rejected by the district court, accepted by the appeal court, and finally rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court because it did not "rise above subjective belief or unsupported speculation." The Court held, inter alia, that the proffered testimony must be not only relevant but also reliable. In addition the Supreme Court emphasized that a lower court may "on its own motion or on the motion of any party" appoint an expert to serve on behalf of the court, and this expert may be selected as "agreed upon by the parties" or chosen by the court to aid in the gate keeping role. This is sometimes arranged in a preliminary panel. Such a procedure has become known as a "Daubert Hearing."
In Kumho Tire, an automobile tire which everyone concerned agreed had a tread which was badly worn (nearly bald), exploded, and caused a crash in which a personas killed. An "expert" claimed that since he knew of no other obvious cause of the tire failure, the cause must be a manufacturing defect. His testimony was rejected by the circuit court and accepted by the court of appeals who argued that Daubert did not apply because "engineering is an art and not a science." The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this suggestion, and argued further that the less scientific the evidence, the more the cautions that the Court had expressed in the Daubert judgment must apply.
There are many discussions of these three
important decisions. Here I refer to a whole web site
devoted to Daubert and its
implications. There is now a proposal to
incorporate Daubert priciples into administrative
law. This is discussed in a
whole issue of "Law
and Contemporary problems." ICTM also has a n
interesting comparison of scientific
and legal certainty. However it is important
to address the concerns of others who disagree.
Also the Office of Management and Budget proposes that all
agencies should carry out a formal
analysis of Regulatory proposals.
A recurring theme in many of the cases where the Atlantic Legal Foundation has submitted a brief, is that the existence of a statistical correlation between two variables does not, by itself, imply a causal connection. This is well illustrated in an article by Dr H. Sies in Nature (volume 332 page 495; 1988) where he plots in the following figure the number of brooding storks in Germany (bottom line; open squares), and the number of new born babies (top line; closed squares), by year from 1965 to 1980.
Then he shows in the next plot the excellent correlation between those two variables. Any 4 year old will tell you at once that storks bring babies. A more sophisticated 20 year old might calculate the correlation coefficient (which is well over 0.9) and note that the correlation is exceptionally good. But he might also remind us that the data also might suggest that babies bring storks. If the x axis is changed to the concentration of some pollutant, and they axis to incidence of some ailment, some judges and juries might jump to a premature assignment of causality. More mature scientists, such as those represented by the Atlantic Legal Foundation, would be more cautious.
Another recurring theme is the importance of understanding the scientific procedures for assigning causation. A group of amici successfully raised this issue in both Kennedy and in Navarro. (Kennedy Opinion) (Navarro opinion). There is a great confusion in some quarters between "Differential Diagnosis" - the deciding between differnt diseases which might have similar symptoms, and assignment of Causation - the assignment of a probable cause for a disease once the diagnosis has been made. If , for example, the diagnosis is Measles, the cause is obvious: an infection. If cancer, the cause may be far less obvious. Indeed most cancers have no known cause. A recent paper describes the distinction.
Providing incomolete information is often as misleading as providing bad information.. Of course the ordinary legal procedures should cope with that. For example in a recent conference a puzzled judged asked "If there is a cancer found in a worker in a workplace and then a second cancer is found, am I not entitled to let the jury know that?" The simple answer is of course Yes, but it must be in context. Much medical research starts with an speculation by an observant physician. This is not proof. He then publishes the interesting observation in a journal, to see whether other physicians have seen similar occurrences. If, for example 30 physicians note that they have, this is ground for caution, but is not proof and not, by itself a reason for assigning blame. It should be a reason for conducting a proper epidemiological study. Even if a subsequent case-control study shows an effect, many past situations show that there can still be excellent reasons to question the resuult until a full cohort study has been performed. If an expert witness denies or waffles about this context of the simple statement he is clealy misleading whoever he is talking to. Hopefully not talking to a jury. ICTM has an interesting electronic article on speculative vs fact based evidence .
Among the most important
misconceptions that is common in the lay public is that
many cancer clusters exist that are evidence of
environmental pollution. These misconceptions occur in
legal liability cases mentioned throughout this
page. A recent web page from the
It has been said that the science of epidemiology started, when Dr. Snow marked cases of cholera upon a map and found that they clustered around a particular (water) pump. Since then looking for clusters is clearly in the public mind. Clusters of infectious diseases are often found-such as the cluster of legionnaire's disease at a hotel in
To have a cancer cluster one needs to have a high exposure localized to the group containing the people who get the cancer. This can occur in occupational settings but is rare in the environment where exposures are more diffuse. The clusters that have been claimed to exist are usually due to chance or to some common lifestyle factor. In 1990, Neutra suggested 8 characteristics that might enable one to distinguish real clusters from false ones (Neutra, remembering Cervantes' Don Quixote, calls the procedure distinguishing giants from windmills). The more of these characteristics a cluster shows, the more likely it would be that a multicommunity investigation would be fruitful.
1. There are at least 5
cases and the relative risk is very high (e.g. 20 or more).
2. The disease is one, like mesothelioma, for which an (almost) unique and detectable class of agents has been responsible in the past, or for which the pathophysiological mechanism is well understood.
3. The agent is persistent in the environment and can be measured there (there are relatively few such agents).
4. The agent is persistent in, or leaves a physiological response in, the bodies of those who have been exposed, and (the response) is rare in the normal population, so that it can be used as an index of exposure.
5. There is heterogeneity of exposure within the neighborhood so that the effect of exposure can be assessed.
6. The plausible route of exposure is such that subjects would be able to assess their own relevant exposure on a questionnaire or it
could be reconstructed from records.
7. It would be feasible to carry out a multicommunity study consisting of several similarly exposed and some unexposed communities.
8. The cluster represents an as-yet-uninvestigated, endemic space-time cluster. This suggests a stable, persistent problem and perhaps a persistent agent to be found in the environment.
There are various examples of cancer clusters, although few can be explained by exposure to environmental agents; the others have not been explained. Outcroppings of erionite in a Turkish
In the above paragraphs the word "cluster" was used to describe a small group of people closely related by something-usually geography. This is distinct from a group of people with the same ailment in a larger region. In
There have been claims since the 1970s that low intensity magnetic fields cause leukemia or brain cancer. They have constantly been refuted by scientists and others have just as constantly brought up new information.
In 1990 it was
estimated that these claims had already cost the
The issues at stake are large. The physics of electromagnetic fields is one of the best established and precise of scientific studies. Cells obey all the laws of physics and chemistry. No scientist has proposed an acceptable mechanism whereby electromagnetic fields of low intensity can have an appreciable effect on a biological system. By acceptable is meant of course that it has acquired scientific acceptance in the field. Even appliers of the "Precautionary Principle" must not ignore this. Secondly the epidemiological criteria (the Hill attributes) often used in discussing epidemiological principles in the court room are not satisfied.
A detailed comment on a draft report by NIEHS which was close to calling ELF a carcinogen was made by the master of this web page. The final report was improved. The Atlantic Legal Foundation also commented .
"Electromagnetic Fields and the Law", R. Wilson and M.S.
Kaufman, in Science and the Law,
The issue has
partially opened again (but so far without lawsuits) with a
report from the state of
We propose to assemble a list of references, cases and published papers.
John Moulder maintains an up to date site concerning this issue
database on measurements in various places
NIOSH procedures manual for measuring electromagnetic fields
The Canadian Health Ministry's report on electromagnetic fields
A report from International Agency for Research on cancer : (IARC summary of volume 80)
Proceedings of NIOSH/DOE Workshop on "EMF Exposure Assessment and Epidemiology: Hypotheses,Metrics, and Measurements".
Breast implants can obviously cause irritation at the place that they are located it was claimed that silicone breat implants caused a variety of other diseases including cancer. The industry was slow to address this clain which went to the courts and bankrupted the principal manufaturer. No valid scientific proof of causation was adduced and it is now widely believed that the claims were fals. The most complete discussion of the issue of Breast Implants is the book "Science on Trial" by Dr Marcia Angell (excerpt, speech at the National Press Club). The Atlantic Legal Foundation has only become involved in the last 2 years with a brief before the Supreme Court of Oregon in JENNINGS. Although in this case the Supreme Court of Oregon did not follow the advice of the amici, the case was referred back to the earlier court and amici may find another opportunity to express their views.
It is interesting that a special committee has recommended (in October 2003) to the FDA that silicone breats implants be allowed once more.EPA have an excellent site: mold basics. Molds have been known for centuries. We are all exposed to molds of some sort. Anyone who worked near the Pharmacology Laboratory in
Less clear is
what should happen, and what the landlord's responsibility
should be when there is a smell but no visible sign of
dampness, yet dampness with concomitant mold spores may be
present between the walls. (Of course the smell could
also be a dead rat or dead cat). These are independent
of the effects of mold. The issues, in which the
Atlantic Legal Foundation are interested, are the claims of
disease and or general deterioration of health as a
consequence of dampness or mold. ALF emphasize that not
only is it crucial to establish causality, but also to be
clear that the disease is being objectively diagnosed and not
merely reported. ALF has represented a group of distinguished amici in a brief submitted to the Massachusetts Superior Court in a
workmen's compensation case (the case of Theresa Canavan). This case involved "multiple chemical
sensitivity" or MCS. MCS is a widely reported
disease. An important paper, with more detail in a report to
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ASTDR) (report number
PB96-187646) shows that 6.3% of people in a
There seems to be little doubt that there are a number of allergens associated with dampness. Molds can be among them. About 1990 evidence was adduced that the mold Stachybotrys chartarum is the source of the problems. The evidence for this is weak, and has not get stronger. This evidence is briefly discussed in a public statement of the
The state of
sponsored by the International
Center for Toxicology and Medicine, on "Mold
Medicine - Mold Science" was held in
In June 2004,
List of Mold Websites.
It has been reported that there are now over 100,000 websites about mold. We report on only a fraction of them here.
Academic Mold Sites
Misapplications of Science in Personal Injury Claims: A
Periodic Report with Supporting Citations."
(ICTM) new collection of electronic reports available via email/this link.
A recent legal review can be downloaded here
Our expert on the Science Advisory Board is Dr Ronald Gots
Dr Gots' short paper on Mold Misinformation .
Dr Gots has a longer paper:
" Mold and Mold Toxins: The Newest Toxic Tort" 8 Journal of Controversial Medical Claims 1 (2001)
A Mold Page from Stanford University
Kansas State University report on controlling mold
Government Mold Sites
hearing on molds
CDC Environmental Health Services: Water Damage
CDC on Pulmonary problems and also in infants
EPA mold basics
EPA: Healthy Indoor Air for America's Homes
EPA: Mold Resources
EPA: Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings
California's information page on mold
New York City Department of Health “Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments”
Newark City's Fact Sheet
state of Minnesota's report on Mold in Homes
Minnesota Department of Health: Another report on Mold in Homes
North Carolina's mold information page
Report by Harriet H. Amman, PhD, DABT Department of Health State of Washington
Texas Department of Insurance mold page
General sites that mention Mold
: Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), National
Center for Environmental Health
American Board of Industrial Hygiene: Certified Associate Industrial Hygienist
General Site American Indoor Air Quality Council
National Jewish Medical and Research Center on molds
Managing a mold invasion (by Conservation Center for Arts and Historic Artifacts)
Toxic mold research reports by Ontario tenants.
The Allergy Buyers Club
We deliberately leave out sites which seem to be badly identified or seem to be nothing but advertising for lawyers. We would be happy to list remediation options and links to clean up organizations.
Other Mold sites
A government document
on trends in drug related emergency room
The FDA official site; a warning by Dr Reder of FDA; Qand A on oxycontin from FDA
NIH site on use and misuse of prescription drugs.
Testimony by the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); another DEA link
The legal firm of Pitcoff and Riff discuss oxycontin and advertise for clients
See also the web site of the American Enterprise Institute
At Lockheed aviation many people worked on the Stealth Bomber and used many epoxy materials. The Exact composition was secret and no detailed harm was proven. Nonetheless thousands of workers sued. The cases were originally in one class action but were later bifurcated and compensation was awarded to many of them. The case in one group depended on the "expert testimony" of one person which was challenged by many distinguished scientists in a brief presented by the Atlantic Legal Foundation. Although not specifically stated, the court in its decision agreed with the amici. So also did the appeal court, but at the present time the matter is being appealed by the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of California. ALF is representing a group of amici in this case supporting the decision of the lower courts.
Various EPA and NRC regulations are concerned with radioactivity and the doses produced by radionuclides as pollutants. Scientists have done a lot of work to calculate what the dose is under various circumstances. Early calculations were too pessimistic by a factor of five. The EPA still use the old pessimistic formula but NRC use a new formula. This is important because the cost of unnecessary cleanup of water supplies, and costs of additional protection for Yucca mountain, run into billions of dollars. EPA argues that to change the formula, even for new regulations, would mean changing hundreds of early regulations. Others say "good: change them".
On December 7th 2000 the EPA promulgated "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides"; in the Federal Register, (Volume 65, Number 236)] [Page 76707-76753]. This web page master had made two (very similar)"public comment(1)" "public comment(2)" which, as usual for EPA, were not acknowledged and seemed to have no effect. At issue are standards for radium, uranium and several beta and gamma emitters. The regulation was challenged by a group of organizations: City of Waukesha, Nuclear Energy Institute, National Mining Association and Radiation, Science and Health Inc with several intervenors. The US Court of Appeals, DC circuit, number 01-1028, dismissed the case in spring 2003. The web page master believes that the issue will certainly come up again.
There are several situations arise where radiation exposure is at low intensity and consequently the doses are small. The cases in the above two examples are two of them. An interesting, even fascination, scientific disagreement arises. Is there linearity and the risk remain finite (but small) at low doses? Does the risk go to zero below a threshold dose? Does it matter? This web site manager has an annotated set of references on the subject primarily for scientists. Professor Ed. Calabrese has been active in raising the issue in proper scientific fora. He has a newsletter - Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures He has also held several conferences on non-linearity in biological systems - whether stimulated by radiation or by other insults such as chemical carcinogens. The most recent was held in
Meanwhile in Kennedy a group of distinguished amici argue that in many situations it does not matter. In this case, exposure was so low, even under extreme postulates, that the risk was negligible in either case. This argument was accepted by the appeals court which reversed a decision by a three man panel of the same court. In another case, a group of distinguished amici point out that the radionuclides (mainly radioactive iodine) emitted at Hanford nuclear reactor (mostly during 1945) produced doses that were too low to cause any effect that is measurable by the best epidemiology. In no group of people was it shown to be "more likely than not" that their thyroid problems were caused by this radiation. A three man panel of the appeals court held that this decision of the district court was improper and remanded it. The amici agreed with the district court that plaintiffs would have to surmount this hurdle before a case could be made and requested the court of appeals review the district court decision en banc. The full appeals court declined to review the case, and the case is now back with he district court.
A very important issue is the compensation being paid to former DOE and other workers who may have been exposed to radiation during cold war activities. The issue is the Probability of Causation when a cancer has arisen which could have been caused by radiation if the dose is high enough. The procedures for deciding whether and to whom to award compensation are generous to the worker. They reward ignorance. 91% of lung cancers become compensable, an unbelievably high figure. 100% are compensable when the cigarette smoking status is unknown! When there is no information about the primary cancer again, most of the applicants are compensated. Indeed Ignorance is Bliss! While it may be proper to give generous compensation, it is grossly improper and dangerous to claim that it is being done in a scientifically defensible manner. The statement by Ms Elaine Chou of the Department of Labor that "Many of these workers developed cancer and other serious diseases because they were exposed to radiation .... in the course of doing their jobs." should NOT be taken to imply that there is scientific proof of that statement.
ALF scientists expect to monitor the situation to ensure that the procedure is not extended to areas beyond those specifically authorized by Congress.
On 17th January 2003, the European Parliament called for a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by EU and NATO members citing the "Precautionary Principle." This will have profound public and legal implications in which ALF will, no doubt, become involved. No legal situations have yet arisen but if they do, ALF will probably wish to become involved. On this section of the "sound science" web page I discuss with links and references some of the issues involved.
The name uranium
is given to chemical element 92 and exists in two common
"isotopic" forms with different atomic weights, U235 and U238.
U235 easily undergoes nuclear fission and is used for nuclear
fuel - either for bombs, or for nuclear electric power
stations. After removal of much of the Uranium 235,
Depleted Uranium (DU) has much less commercial value than the
original chemical. About 200,000 tons of DU are easily available world wide. At
one time uranium was used in denture ceramics. The fluorescence
increased the whiteness. This has now been phased out, but
to the wearer was small. (0.05 mRem or 0.5 microSv per year, about 1/4000 of the
annual background dose). There are other
industrial uses. Depleted Uranium was also used as a
counterweight for some aircraft and was involved in two aircraft
crashes (and subsequent fires). In one crash an Israeli Cargo
jet crashed into houses in
DU is available in metal form which is dense and hard. DU is almost twice as dense as lead and has the ability to self-sharpen on impact with armor, thus making it ideally suited for use as a kinetic energy anti-armor penetrator. The US and
Depleted Uranium, being the same chemical
element as natural Uranium, has the same chemical properties and
the same chemical toxicity. Any radiological hazard of
Depleted Uranium will be less than that of natural uranium (for
the same amount absorbed in
tissue) because the major radioactive emissions from natural
uranium come from the isotope U235 which is present in smaller
quantity in Depleted Uranium. It is well known that a
block of uranium metal produces a very small hazard. For
example, in 1945-1950, Professor Sir Francis Simon of
Oxford University, used a large block of uranium on his desk as
a paper weight. This webmaster copied him with a small
chunk. One of the first Atomic Energy Commissioners,
Professor Robert Bacher, told this
webmaster that in 1945 he handled with his bare hands every
piece of metal in the
The Royal Society of the
The links to the "Post Conflict" Reports of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) on:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Serbia and Montenegro
seem not to work. But I find on the IAEA site the:
Final Kosovo Report
IAEA report on Kuwait and the Gulf war is also available
UNEP is holding a meeting during the first week of April 2005 in Amman Jordan, to begin their post conflict report on DU in Iraq.
Report of US Department of Defense
NATO has a list of communications and reports
Rand Corporation study on effects of the Gulf war (Volume 7) “A review of the Scientific Literature as it pertains to Gulf War Illnesses,” Naomi H. Harley, Ernest C. Foulkes, Lee H. Hilborne, Arlene Hudson, and C. Ross Anthony, Depleted Uranium report MR-1018/7-OSD.
A whole issue of J.Environmental Radioactivity, volume 64 discusses DU; I especially note a review article "Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium" J. Environmental Radioactivity, 64:93-112 (2003)
International Atomic Energy Agency page on Depleted Uranium:
The International Nuclear Information System (INIS) run by IAEA
INIS search engine with several thousand references on DU:
US Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses (OSAGWI) DU library
These reports all seem to agree that
the widespread claims that DU has increased leukemia and other
diseases among the veterans and the local population are
groundless. A few personnel inside a struck military
vehicle struck by a shell, who miraculously survived the more
ordinary hazard of war, might ingest enough material to cause
chemical toxicity effects on the kidneys. There does not
seem to be enough inhalation exposure to the evaporated material
for the alpha particles to cause observable increases in lung
reports, such as the attached by Dr Al-Azzawi.
continue to appear that claim widespread effects on public
health in southern Iraq which are attributed to depleted
Nonetheless, on 24th January 2003, the European Parliament called for a moratorium on the manufacture and use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions citing the "Precautionary Principle" - a somewhat vague term which nonetheless is the official foundation of their environmental policy. They claimed that NATO’s use of such weapons during the war in
Knee-jerk reactions by prosecutors can increase pain
Two films of court cases where science was ignored
The Atlantic Legal Foundation does not wish to enter into issues on which there is legitimate scientific disagreement even when they have a major impact on public policy. However, the Atlantic Legal Foundation has an important role to play to ensure that the scientific discussion remains legitimate and is not misused. Issues so far include:
Anti-ballistic Missile Systems
This is an extraordinarily serious issue. Claims have been made by no less than the President of the United States that Americans can be protected by an Anti-Ballistic Missile system (ABM). Bethe and Garwin in 1968 wrote in Scientific Amercan claiming that it is false Richard Wilson wrote an article about the recent proposal for a system in Poland and the Czech republic, and an article by the late "Pief" Panofsky appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle just after he died. The danger is that the people of the world will be persuaded erroneously that there is a technical solution to a problem that demands the best diplomacy of which the world is capable.
Corn Based Ethanol
For 30 years corn distributors such as Archer-Daniels-Midland have suggested that ethanol be used instead of gasoline to reduce imports and reduce carbon-dioxide caused climate change. While they were lobbying outside the House of Representatives 30 years ago this webmaster was testifying to a committe inside that almost as much carbon dioxide is emitted in pesticide manufacture and other agricultural activities as the carbon in the gasoline it would save. The uncertainty of the calculation has improved, but the conclusion is the same as discussed by Michael McElroy Michael McElroy reported on this in the Harvard Magazine in November 2007. Reports by Julia King on low carbon cars released by the UK Government in 2008, Part I , and Part II, agree. Nonetheless the corn growers persuaded the US government to subsidize corn based ethanol. Fortunately this error is slowly being realized in the world. The same argument does not apply to the same extent to cellulose based ethanol, but in 2008 it is not yet economically viable.
Global climate change:
Although a Nobel Peace Prize was
awarded in 2007 for advertising that the climate is changing,
there remain some scientists who disagree. Here we
merely link to the 10+ year old report The
Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change (IPCC3) (the"official view")
IPCC3 working group 1, IPCC3 working group 2, IPCC 3 working group 3,
and the more recent (2006) report which overcomes some of the problems of the earlier study.
IPCC 4 working group 1, IPCC4 Working group 2 IPCC4 working group III
There is a discussion group of skeptics about climate change and a report of skeptics in March 2008
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Particulate air pollution
at low levels. Is there a threshold below which particulate levels do no harm? This is discussed in the book by Wilson and Spengler , and especially in Chapter 9 by EvansCosmic Risks
Please bring to our attention any other important issue.
These pages cost money. Taking cases cost money. Any contribution to these costs, big or small, should be sent to the treasurer of the Atlantic Legal Foundation, Steven Harmelin Esq., at Dilworth Paxon LlP, 1735 Market St.32nd floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395. Gifts of appreciated securities are welcome.
Foundation main page
Atlantic Legal Foundation Mold web page (www.moldscience.org)
Annapolis Center for Science and Public Policy
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis tries to be balanced
"Correcting Misapplications of Science in Personal Injury Claims: A Periodic Report with Supporting Citations."
(ICTM) new collection of electronic reports available via email/this link.
American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) studies and issues reports on science issues related to health
ACSH has a new "blog" or weblog page
The George C. Marshall Institute is committed to investigating the facts behind global climate change, and problems surrounding the politicization of science in this area
The Competitive Enterprise Institute often has useful articles.
Junk Science (run by Steven Milloy) is a deliberately provocative site which raises a flag when the authors feel that the science is incorrect
Medical quackery is exposed in "Quack Watch" by Steven Barrett, MD
Michael Fumento writes about incorrect or exaggerated newspaper articles on health
Tech Central Station is a web site that complains about many things - including a lawsuit against MacDonald's for encouraging Obesity.
The Union of Concerned Scientists best known for their activities opposing nuclear power, tries to raise a cautious approach to many scientific issues
Wilson and Crouch book on Risk Benefit Analysis
Richard Wilson (webmaster) has a HOME PAGE (http://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson) where many other pages may be found