"Mercury is Good for You!"

[wolven7]

Found through mech_angel: There seems to be a resurgence in Mad Hatter Fashions. I mean, that's the only reason I can think of that would account for people wanting to have their children ingest or otherwise intake mercury.

Because no one would ever intentionally stunt the mental development of children, in the name of "better behaviour." Right? Right.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/280.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZArebYZzdc

Maybe some of you can tell me if there's any actual basis for this seeming pile of crap.

Comments

[nausved.livejournal.com]

That makes me feel sick to my stomach. A lot of children are going to suffer for this little bit of misinformation.

Why do they never tell you the titles, authors, or publishing information of the research they cite in these sorts of things? I've been studying in the science field long enough to know better than to automatically yield to the word of a handful of experts—especially when these "experts" are anonymous.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I didn't know that you could even fully publish these things, anonymously. In certain cases, I can see the benefit, if you're going against an establishment, but fear retaliation against family, or friends in certain positions, but this is just too important to allow people to hide from. Connections and investments need to be transparent, here...

[nausved.livejournal.com]

I don't actually think you can publish anonymously (though I suppose that's really up to the editor), but if the media are citing your findings without citing your paper, you might as well be anonymous anyway.

When I look at research papers, I look at three things (in addition to the body of the paper, of course): the authors, the source of funding, and the journal of publication.

I want to see where these researchers are coming from: does their previous work show any bias, and do they appear to have sufficient experience on the subject at hand? I want to see who funded them: was it a private organization, a government agency, a non-profit, etc.? And I want to see where it's published: is it a peer-reviewed journal, a magazine, etc., and what is its reputation in the field?

I get into a lot of arguments with global warming deniers, and they are perpetually citing research that fails in those three regards. The research is conducted by lead members of the debunked Friends of Science or some other such special interest group, or it's funded by oil lobbyists, or it's "published" in pamphlets put out by private corporations. Often it's all three. And then I feel so bad for my debate opponent; unless they're scientists themselves, there's really no way they'd know how to judge the quality of one source over another. It's not their fault they've been scammed.

I'm very much inclined to suspect that these "mercury-is-healthy" studies are of the same pseudo-scientific sort.

I could be wrong. They could be perfectly legitimate. Maybe these scientists have discovered something important that has never been documented previously. But that's why I need a look at the papers themselves. Until then, it's all bunk as far as I'm concerned.

I'm really sorry for going on such a long rant; this sort of thing—this willful deception and endangerment of the public, for purely selfish pursuits—angers me to no end. People trust scientists so unconditionally, you know? And scientists are very guarded of that trust. They'll bend over backwards, double and triple and quadruple check their work, all to make sure that there are no mistakes or biases—and even then they're almost comically reluctant to form any solid conclusions about their findings, lest their conclusions turn out mistaken in the coming decades.

But there are always a handful of unscrupulous sleazeballs who style themselves as "scientists" and "experts", and use their credentials to dupe the public. I would be in favor of making it illegal to call yourself a scientist if you do not strictly adhere to the scientific method, except that such a mandate would be all too easy to corrupt and use against legitimate scientists who happen to hold unpopular views.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Very well said. Thank you.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

That would be one of the first things to show up at work. I haven't heard anything of the sort.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see links in post following.