Rain water unsafe to drink. Anywhere. Part Two.

RetiredUnit1

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jun 18, 2022
Posts
948
Age
66
Location
SoCal
That's ridiculous. If you don't believe anything you read on the internet, it's the same as believing everything you read, because you're just refusing to do basic due dilligence. MSN is just a portal. If you refuse to believe the study, you are attacking the credibility of the scientists who completed it or the organization that paid for it. If you have some dirt on them, please share.
Ahem. Did you READ the study? They took FOUR samples and said "Yes, the entire earth is contaminated"

That "scientist" deserves banishment, nothing less. In addition the study starts with "It was hypothesized". That's not how respectable studies begin. Normally it's "It was noticed that a large number of unexplainable cancers.... bla bla bla"
 

billy logan

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Posts
1,274
Location
weatherford tx
I was born SEVERAL decades ago within the watershed of this little river, the Black River, in sweet Lorain County, Ohio :)

... ... ... ... .. V Area Of Concern. If you hate fish tumors you'll be glad to hear of cleanup measures:
black-river-aoc <--- in that link
.... ... ... ... ^

btw Cleveland Ohio intakes its water (to be treated and distributed) from an intake 3 miles from shore in Lake Erie. I googled it. The Cuyahoga river (Cleveland) and the Maumee (Toledo) empty into Lake Erie, also.
 

bottlenecker

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
6,605
Location
Wisconsin
Ahem. Did you READ the study? They took FOUR samples and said "Yes, the entire earth is contaminated"

That "scientist" deserves banishment, nothing less. In addition the study starts with "It was hypothesized". That's not how respectable studies begin. Normally it's "It was noticed that a large number of unexplainable cancers.... bla bla bla"

I did read it. My post wasn't about the study.

But let's talk about it now. What are your qualifications? I wouldn't claim to know "how respectable studies begin". I'm a blue collar tradesman. But I don't think the information in the study was useless. It sounds like your objection is that it sounds alarmist, and you don't want to be alarmed. Maybe they should've held your hand and told you everything is going to be ok.
 

SRHmusic

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Posts
1,874
Location
North Carolina, USA
Ahem. Did you READ the study? They took FOUR samples and said "Yes, the entire earth is contaminated"

That "scientist" deserves banishment, nothing less. In addition the study starts with "It was hypothesized". That's not how respectable studies begin. Normally it's "It was noticed that a large number of unexplainable cancers.... bla bla bla"
We already had this conversation in the other thread,, no? The study is most certainly not about only four samples, and it's easy to find the original paper which includes references to 34 or so studies they summarize.

And the words you quote about a hypothesis don't really relate to the quality of the study. Experiments and statistical analyses need a hypothesis to test, even if they start their paper with different words. This statement is in the abstract and relates to the background motivation, not the details of the study, which is a meta-analysis of other studies.


(There's no need for anyone to "believe" MSN or any particular news outlet or article, either, when primary sources are so readily available.)
 

memorex

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Posts
5,992
Age
72
Location
Sweet Lorain, OH
I was born SEVERAL decades ago within the watershed of this little river, the Black River, in sweet Lorain County, Ohio :)

... ... ... ... .. V Area Of Concern. If you hate fish tumors you'll be glad to hear of cleanup measures:
black-river-aoc <--- in that link
.... ... ... ... ^

btw Cleveland Ohio intakes its water (to be treated and distributed) from an intake 3 miles from shore in Lake Erie. I googled it. The Cuyahoga river (Cleveland) and the Maumee (Toledo) empty into Lake Erie, also.

The Cuyahoga River has caught fire many times in it's history due to the oil and other hydrocarbon slicks that polluted it for decades, but the fire in 1969 was the one that got everybody's attention.

 

telemnemonics

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Posts
34,640
Age
63
Location
Maine
Ahem. Did you READ the study? They took FOUR samples and said "Yes, the entire earth is contaminated"

That "scientist" deserves banishment, nothing less. In addition the study starts with "It was hypothesized". That's not how respectable studies begin. Normally it's "It was noticed that a large number of unexplainable cancers.... bla bla bla"
Are you a chemical corp exec?

Misread scientific data, attack science, love your corporate polluters!

What could possibly go wrong?
 

ChicknPickn

Friend of Leo's
Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
4,406
Location
Ole Virginny
That's ridiculous. If you don't believe anything you read on the internet, it's the same as believing everything you read, because you're just refusing to do basic due dilligence. MSN is just a portal. If you refuse to believe the study, you are attacking the credibility of the scientists who completed it or the organization that paid for it. If you have some dirt on them, please share.
Except that the scientists didn't do the writing or the editing of the stories.
 




New Posts

Top