Meryl Streep, a proud Vassar grad, recently received a Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater. But rather than stress her stellar career as an actor, she discussed an earlier moment as a citizen-scientist. “Once you know how to search out and credit the facts around certain problems, you are called on by your conscience to act on them. The Vassar conscience rings a bell in your head; it’s a call to action in your heart.” The problem? Alar.
Navalny, a Russian anti-corruption activist and well-known critic of President Vladimir Putin, is being treated in Germany for an apparent case of poisoning by an "organophosphorus neurotoxin." But which one: the insecticide or the chemical weapon? Here are some clues.
Another day, another chemical scare: this time, baby clothing. According to the NGO Green America, there are 8,000 chemicals used to manufacture clothing and some of those are gonna harm your kid. That's why the group is going after Carter's, the biggest manufacturer of kids' clothing, including OshKosh B’gosh! Classic shakedown? You tell me.
To kick off our "12 Days of Christmas" holiday list, highlighting the top stories that we've debunked this year, we start with ... the perennial nuisance, the National Resources Defense Council. Those folks made our 2016 list because they just love scaring people over nothing. Here are a few examples.
The health website WebMD supposedly gives us scientifically sound advice. So why is it following in the footsteps of the Natural Resources Defense Council with respect to pesticide scares? As a result we think the Web Doctor's health advice on this issue is decidedly unscientific.
Environmental groups really dislike the weed killer 2,4-D. So much so, that they routinely play the "let's scare the public by calling it something else" game. What are the rules? Just make sure that whenever 2,4-D is mentioned, also refer to dioxin and Agent Orange so that everyone thinks they're the same. But they aren't. Not even close.
A new version of the Toxic Substances Control Act, called "reform," is well on its way to passage in Congress. Why is this necessary? It's not but a strange alliance of anti-chemical activists and some industry collaborators seem to agree that more onerous, expensive regulation is a good thing.
ACSH friend John Stossel, writing for, calls out the EPA for its much-too-cozy relationship with activist groups espousing environmental causes. But the NGOs goals are ideological, not scientific. Perhaps the best example: NRDC and its revolving-door with the federal environmental agency.
Despite the old adage about what pots call kettles, we would be remiss in our duties if we did not point out the arrogance of the title in a new piece about sunscreen in Time: This Is the Only Sunscreen Article You Need to Read. ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom says, When I start calling others arrogant, it is not unfair to wonder if I have clinched first place in the Hypocrite of the Year award. But in this case, it s not as bad as it seems. If Time is making such a grandiose claim, one would hope that the information
A new report published by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) counters claims by an environmental activist group that chemical exposures have led to numerous disease clusters throughout the country.
Overview Ten years ago, on February 26, 1989, an environmental health canard was made public, hyperbolically. The principal result was mass hysteria over Alar¨¬a chemical product that was not otherwise noteworthy except for its usefulness to apple growers and apple consumers. This unfounded yet widespread public-health fright tops the list of such frights in the latter half of the twentieth century.