[Smacle]

DanSC DanSC:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

None of those involve magical thinking however.

Homeopathic medicine doesn't involve magical thinking?

The placebo effect is well documented.

[CanadianJeff]

Curtman Curtman:

$1:

Nearly a quarter of Manitoba-Saskatchewan respondents, 23%, couldn't decide between evolution and creationism, the highest in Canada,

I wonder if there was an option presented where creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure most agnostics would select that.

Nope sorry. Agnosticism asserts a lack of knowledge on the god/creation question. It simply says "I don't know" or " I do not think it's possible to know". Anyone who would assert they know a god caused the evolutionary process is being dishonest to try and present such a claim as an Agnostic claim.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Just wanted to point out Bart, the irony in these two statements. You believe science when it says Evolution is a long and ongoing process, but you won't believe science when it says that Thimerosol is not a neurotoxin.

Yet the MSDS on it says that it is a neurotoxin so where am I ignoring the science?

Where does it say it's a neurotoxin?

In the section you quoted:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
May cause cancer based on animal data. No human data found. May cause adverse reproductive effects(female fertility - post
implanation mortality, fetotoxicity)and birth defects. May affect genetic material

$1:

Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant).
Severe over-exposure can result in death.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells.
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to
kidneys, liver, spleen, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can
produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by
an accumulation in one or many human organs.

$1:

May also cause central nervous system effects and/or neurological effects, and may affectthe urinary system (kidneys),and liver.

$1:

Products of Biodegradation:
Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Where does it say it's a neurotoxin?

In the section you quoted:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
May cause cancer based on animal data. No human data found. May cause adverse reproductive effects(female fertility - post
implanation mortality, fetotoxicity)and birth defects. May affect genetic material

$1:

Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant).
Severe over-exposure can result in death.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells.
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to
kidneys, liver, spleen, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can
produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by
an accumulation in one or many human organs.

$1:

May also cause central nervous system effects and/or neurological effects, and may affectthe urinary system (kidneys),and liver.

$1:

Products of Biodegradation:
Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely.

But it doesn't say that. It says "may be toxic" "may cause cancer"

My point is, Material Safety Data Sheets and WHIMIS sheets are not based on science, they are mostly based on pessimism. If there is data on animal or human reactions to the substance, it's included. If there is no data (where I quoted) then it's based on known effects of the base compounds. Thimerisol contains Mercury, a known neurotoxin, so they include that because it my just be a neurotoxin too but they have no data. So to err on the side of caution is the preferred error.

Info on Data sheets:

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/msdss.html

Standards for Data Sheets:

http://www.ehso.com/msds_regulations.php

And the relevant bit- how to list Neurotoxins:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hazardoustoxic ... index.html
http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ghd053107.html

$1:

Hazard determination does not involve an estimation of risk. The difference between the terms hazard and risk is often poorly understood. Hazard refers to an inherent property of a substance that is capable of causing an adverse effect. Risk, on the other hand, refers to the probability that an adverse effect will occur with specific exposure conditions. Thus, a substance will present the same hazard in all situations due to its innate chemical or physical properties and its actions on cells and tissues. However, considerable differences may exist in the risk posed by a substance, depending on how the substance is contained or handled, personal protective measures used, and other conditions that result in or limit exposure. This document addresses only the hazard determination process, and will not discuss risk assessment, which is not performed under the OSHA HCS.

[BartSimpson]

In any case, I don't want to be injected with *any* amount of mercury and I will side with parents who feel the same way. The pharmaceutical companies can use another preservative if they want but until such time I'm skipping injections that contain mercury.

Ironically, since I've skipped the flu shots I haven't had the flu.

[CanadianJeff]

Bart that sounds like just sticking your fingers in your ears at this point.

They have shown more then enough evidence to dismiss your initial autism claims so you decided to stick with the mercury angle.

So instead of trying to hit you over the head with another study shall we try common sense?

Have you ever eaten sushi, drank a cola, or put ketchup on your fries? Guess what you consumed directly into your body? Both fish and some products made with high fructose corn syrups can have high levels of mercury.

While human immune and digestion systems can handle the amount of mercury we normally eat a baby's cannot which is why pregnant women in particular are advised to avoid fish.

My point is that your "I don't want mercury in my body" argument looks like it smells. Like really bad fish.

Maybe next time someone defeats one of your arguments with actual evidence you can admit it and change your mind rather then try and find some other stupid angle to stick with to loop around the faulty mindset.

[DrCaleb]

I gotta agree with Jeff here Bart.

You already get larger doses of Mercury in your diet than you would with a flu shot, and as a compund of mercury it will act differently than elemental mercury in the body. I like popcorn. But 100 pounds of popcorn thrown off a 10 story building will hurt me.

As we discussed before; chlorine is a very toxic gas that if inhaled will kill you in small doses. Soduim is a very reactive metal that is dangerous to handle in almost all circumstances. Make a comound from them, and you cant live without salt. A compound of mercury will not always act the same as any other compound of mercury. That why we test things to the best of our ability, then err on the sid eof caution when we can't test.

[raydan]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I like popcorn. But 100 pounds of popcorn thrown off a 10 story building will hurt me.

Depends if it's bagged or loose.

[herbie]

Gee, never had a filling? The generations who made the atomic bomb, went to the moon and invented stealth fighters ran around with more mercury in their face than an old placer mine. And I don't recall shit about autism problems until recently.
More likely caused by the secret sauce in Big Macs as by mercury.
Or more timely to blame the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup in pop in the 70s.