Sciblogs science and environmental conflicts e.g., 1080 poison electricity and magnetism purcell pdf


How each person interprets temperature is a consequence of complex interactions between brain and body, physiological and neurological processes, culture and values, and experience. Everybody interprets feelings of temperature differently and those interpretations will also vary over time. The differences of interpretation are not wrong or right. They’re just the reality – the real world is a place of variable realities (values and beliefs). A professional error

And, that people vary in their interpretations of temperature is also a measurable (scientific) fact. Thus, for me to impose my belief that it is cold on others would be to contradict the scientific fact that my belief cannot be true for everyone. I would be pretending to know a universal the “truth” when no such thing exists. I would also then be using my authority to subjugate other people and their different beliefs.

Then, if I was to use my authority (individually or collectively with other scientists) to legitimise the use of power by a third party (e.g., police) to enforce my belief that it is cold, I am being a bully (actually, the technical term is fascist because I would be legitimising the use of government authority to subjugate dissent from minority or less powerful communities). 1080 facts and scientists’ values – ETHICS

And so it is with conflicts over 1080’s use. Science can tell us what and how many are killed by a poison. It can tell us what happens if we do and don’t poison. It can tell us how poisoning might be done. Those can be measured, like temperature. But it cannot tell us that 1080 is good or bad, right or wrong. gas out game directions It cannot tell us whether it is safe or humane.

Whether 1080 is used is a decision which our nations’ communities and communities of stakeholders must decide – together. Different decisions will be arrived at in different places at different times that reflect different communities’ values. Sometimes 1080 will be used, sometimes it won’t. Sometimes it will be used more, sometimes less. That is for them to decide.

Vaccinations seem like an apt example. There’s much misunderstanding, sometimes outright lies, being spread by certain groups. Sometimes because they genuinely believe it and perhaps sometimes driven by ulterior motives. Maybe they have moral values which are suspicious of vaccinations, but then utilise the various mis-information and lies in discussions when trying to justify values which they can’t otherwise justify with clarity in a discussion.

Scientists and other medical professionals with facts have to compete with frequently-unjustified highly emotive paranoia being rapidly spread by social media. An outcome of this is that significant populations of people are choosing not to vaccinate their children due to values which tend to be primarily based on false understandings, and a consequential outcome is that it doesn’t just put those children at risk, but also (due to the herd immunity thing) the children of parents who are unable to vaccinate their children for genuine medical reasons. Do you disagree with Dr Lance O’Sullivan’s assertion that parents should be penalised if they refuse to vaccinate their children? (Ref: )

Thank you for the clarification. As you said science is the indisputable fact of a given thing and how we observe it. electricity usage calculator The quantum mechanics can change particle behaviour just by observation. When we conduct experiments are we really trying to confirm our beliefs? The New Yorker a few years ago wrote an interesting article “The truth wears off” ( about the waning efficacy when studies were re tested a few years later. I think we confirm our expectations in the initial smaller studies, and not really take into account the importance of outliers, but as we spread it out to the wider population over time we see the enormous differences in people. gas 0095 download As experienced by the simple example of Dr. Linklater. Vaccination is an example of the waning efficacy and overlooked adverse effects that now has a strong bias placed on it either way. So parents should not be penalised for not vaccinating as their decision is usually informed differently.

Values aside, there is still a big issue concerning the so-called “facts” regarding 1080, particularly relating to possible public health effects. There are no long-term studies on possible health effects of exposure to small concentrations. It is therefore risky to put significant amounts of 1080 near to a major public drinking water reservoir, i.e. the Hunuas. The concentrations which are considered “safe” are based on limited studies, mostly on animals. The crucial point to understand is that people aren’t going to drop dead en masse from contamination of drinking water with low concentrations of 1080. That much we do know. HOWEVER, in the long run the contamination could result in an increased level of health issues which are difficult or impossible to relate back to the 1080 contamination, except by long term statistical studies looking at particular health issues. For example, people with cancer typically do not know what caused their cancer. These unknown risks to public health have been dismissed outright by those who stand to benefit financially from the “predator free NZ” economy!

What we do know is that if the entire contents of toxin in a pellet were released into a moderately small stream all at once, which simply doesn’t happen, it’s diluted to levels easily within Ministry of Health guidelines. Within a matter of hours, it’s always undetectable. Soon after it’s diluted far beyond detection, it biodegrades. Even if there wasn’t very strong evidence that it passes straight through the systems of people and other organisms that don’t ingest enough to be harmed, how do you propose that people even get any at all?

If you don’t trust tests which aren’t detecting anything below their best possible detection limits, which themselves are orders of magnitude more sensitive than limits officially deemed safe, which themselves are additional orders of magnitude more sensitive than limits known to have any measurable effect, then imagine all the other crazy things we could be ingesting which we have no idea of knowing they’re there.

If you think 1080’s a risk at such small concentrations because it *might* cause harmful health effects at those levels, then we may as well stop doing everything, just in case. Stop going outside because undetectable levels of pollen might have unanticipated negative effects on human health. Stop driving cars because undetectable levels of engine fumes might have unanticipated negative effects on human health. Stop. Stop. Stop.

@MikeM You line of argument is the standard rhetoric, the logic in which soon falls apart under careful scrutiny. Firstly, you don’t seem to grasp the concept of risk. The recent 1080 drop in the Hunuas hopefully did result in none getting into the public drinking water supply, and hopefully nobody got sick or will get sick down the track. electricity year 6 However, the point was that it was a risk taken by those who benefit financially, who played down the risks. Secondly, the rate of breakdown of 1080 in water varies with environmental conditions (temperature, etc.), and the literature seems quite inconsistent regarding the details. Secondly, your argument to the effect that we can’t know that anything is 100% safe, so by my argument we can’t ever do anything, is bogus. Whether or not we should proceed with a plan that is not known 100% to be safe depends on a risk assessment involving weighing up the potential risks with the likely benefits. In this case, the potential risks to public health greatly outweigh the likely “benefits” of “more birds”. The scenario has been misrepresented as saving native birds from extinction, but it is just “more birds”, and this could be a bad thing if native bird numbers increase unchecked within the limited remaining fragments of native forest. Many native birds eat native insects, some of which are themselves threatened by extinction (from habitat modification, not necessarily from predation by introduced mammals), so an exploding native bird population could tip these native insects over the edge into extinction. Fiddling with ecosystems is never a good idea. a gas has no volume Things are stable at the moment with reduced native bird levels due to predators. There will be no ecological catastrophe from maintaining the status quo, but there could be from “fiddling”!

Well, @Grant Jacobs, you too fail to understand the concept of risk. Hopefully, no 1080 was detected in drinking water after the Hunua drop (though testing should continue for a while since 1080 dropped on land could end up in the waterways at any stage). But the point is that something could have gone wrong (such as an undissolved lump of 1080 somehow finding its way into drinking water, or into an animal which was then killed and eaten by humans), and the risk to public health was taken just for the sake of “more birds”! While I do take your point about 1080 not being polonium, we do seem to have cases where health problems can result from say, too much salt in the diet, possibly also excessive tea drinking, etc., so low levels of various substances can cause heath problems down the track (not necessarily leading to death). My main point is not about the details of the risks in this case, but mainly how risks suddenly seem negligible when there is money to be made (i.e. the “predator free economy”). Usually we err heavily on the side of caution!