"Outdated Science"

The earlier DDT post got me to thinking. https://permies.com/t/280151/DDT

Our attitude in general is that if a lot of people are saying yes to something, our automatic answer is no.

This comes from a distrust of just about every conventional institution out there such as medical, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.

The distrust comes, in part, from people saying to "trust the science".

Which science? The older, middle, or newer guidance?

Do you have any examples of this to point out? I would like to hear them if so. Here is the one I posted in the other thread.

I think it is easy to come to the comfortable feeling that 'science' is a settled thing but the more we learn, the better stewards of the earth we become.

Guys, out in the country during the 40's and 50's, it was a fairly common practice to spread used motor oil on the many unpaved roads to try and control the dust.  Of course we kids would have a feet scrubbing session outside before being allowed in the house.

I wonder where all that oil went !


Peace

It’s the nature of the beast.  Legit scientific approaches call for ongoing refinement.  Publications in professional journals call for additional research.  It is sort of like the idea of walking 1/2 way from point A to Point B. ….and then 1/2 way again…etc.   You steadily approach your destination. You never reach it.   As such, we are always challenging, progressing, replacing, and refining, our knowledge.  To what purpose?

There was a humorous minor sci-fi novel that presented the concept that the planet earth was a biological computer constructed to determine the meaning of life.  Some days I wonder.

https://permies.com/t/124292/margarine-effect

Also, the population in general are weirdly blind to how the scientific method works.  It can only disprove.  Not prove.

It also helps to look at history and how much influence mosquito based disease has on humanity - especially in North America.  This changed dramatically when DDT came on the scenes and we now live several generations away from the devastation these had on families and communities.  It's easy to forget just how much this one chemical changed the path of the world.

They were blinded by the shine of how many lives it saved in the moment, they didn't see the long term problems.  

r ranson wrote:https://permies.com/t/124292/margarine-effect

Also, the population in general are weirdly blind to how the scientific method works.  It can only disprove.  Not prove.

Someone should let the scientists and politicians know that lol.

r ranson wrote:It also helps to look at history and how much influence mosquito based disease has on humanity - especially in North America.  This changed dramatically when DDT came on the scenes and we now live several generations away from the devastation these had on families and communities.  It's easy to forget just how much this one chemical changed the path of the world.

They were blinded by the shine of how many lives it saved in the moment, they didn't see the long term problems.  

It seems this is the context of so many things. I want to believe, for a lot of people involved, their motives are good. I have no way of knowing that though.

However, I think some people have already decided these things are "good" and will fund studies until the studies agree. There also seems to be a lack of humility in some scientific/research circles in that instead of changing course, they double down.

From what I understand, the answer is usually not that complicated. I am thinking of things like herd immunity or the relationship of cleanliness and disease.

Deane Adams wrote:Guys, out in the country during the 40's and 50's, it was a fairly common practice to spread used motor oil on the many unpaved roads to try and control the dust.  Of course we kids would have a feet scrubbing session outside before being allowed in the house.

I wonder where all that oil went !


Peace

I am old enough to have heard this being discussed between my dad and grandpa. I have not though about that in a long time.

Josh Hoffman wrote:

Deane Adams wrote:Guys, out in the country during the 40's and 50's, it was a fairly common practice to spread used motor oil on the many unpaved roads to try and control the dust.  

I am old enough to have heard this being discussed between my dad and grandpa. I have not though about that in a long time.

Wow, me neither!
When I was young we moved from a more urban place to the ass end of nowhere in rural NJ, the roads were not paved with asphalt: they spread tar and then threw stone chips down on top. The tar would boil on August days and stick to your shoes, and with traffic the stone chips would move and build up on curves, not great for cycling (and accounting for about half the scars on my body). But those were the "nice" roads-- the crummier dirt ones were sprayed with oil a few times a year. It never occurred to me that it was used motor oil, but (being New Jersey) it certainly could have been.....  This was mid to late 80s.

I don't think 'stupid' is going away for a long time

This is recent.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2022/08/08/researchers-find-spreading-drilling-wastewater-on-pa-roads-can-be-harmful/

  Penn State researchers recently briefed a state advisory board on studies that found the common practice of using wastewater from oil and gas drilling to keep dust down on unpaved roads is causing more harm than good.

Wastewater from oil and gas drilling has been used as a cheap dust suppressant in rural Pennsylvania for years.

But wastewater can contain toxic chemicals that run off those roads.

If you're interested in how badly the oil as a dust-control measure can go, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri -- I lived 25 miles from there when the town was evacuated.

Christopher Weeks wrote:If you're interested in how badly the oil as a dust-control measure can go, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri -- I lived 25 miles from there when the town was evacuated.

Wow!

Speaking of oil and mosquitoes... it wasn' that long ago that people would spread oil on top of the ponds to stop mosquitoes finishing their lifecycle.

Interestingly I came across a recent article about using vegetable oil instead for a "safe" alternative. I'm not sure how I feel about spreading vegetable oil over the top of a pond.

Christopher Weeks wrote:If you're interested in how badly the oil as a dust-control measure can go, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri -- I lived 25 miles from there when the town was evacuated.

Also, this is a good example of the doubling down I was mentioning.

This man had to have know that all of those horses got sick and died due to his application of the oil but kept on "treating" horse arenas.

Just to summarize... the "used motor oil" is about the contaminants in the oil, not the nature of oil itself. Used motor oil is best cleaned and turned into 'new motor oil', but you still need a responsible way of dealing with the contaminants.

Hubby is always happy to remind me that in order for something to get "clean", something else has to get "dirty", and people who don't care, will do whatever's cheap or makes them the most money, if we don't have strong environmental protection laws preventing that.

Paul Stamets did studies reported in his book, Mycelium Running, that showed that certain mushrooms have the ability to break down used motor oil into it's component parts, and there are soil microbes capable of sequestering certain of the nasties that are left over. Oil is a naturally produced material, produced from plants with a lot of time and a lot of pressure. It makes sense to me, that equally old creatures, like mushrooms, have ways to reverse that process.

The trouble comes when humans turn that oil into other stuff that nature didn't make and that they've added chemicals or shapes to it that are not natural processes. We are discovering microbes that can eat plastic, but they're rare. I'd like humans to stop doing things that they can't undo!

Jay Angler wrote: people who don't care, will do whatever's cheap or makes them the most money, if we don't have strong environmental protection laws preventing that.

I'd like humans to stop doing things that they can't undo!

I think the people doing the most damage have ways around the laws or lobby to get them to be in their favor or just compensate others so they break the law.

As an example and I may not have this exactly right, but I think Clarence Thomas worked for one of the GMO seed companies as an attorney and cast a vote once he got to the supreme court to allow them to patent GMO seed.

I am sure there are worse examples that would make my mouth hang open. I have only met a few people with the integrity to do things in a mostly impartial way. I say mostly to allow for the human condition.

I would like to add one more thing:
Sometimes, it only requires one seriously concerned and committed person, to make valuable changes at the community level.

There is someone local to me who is very concerned about local streams and keeping them healthy. He created a voluntary organization to support this. He created a program and visited all our local industries about having a "spill containment plan". He wanted no spills, but he respected that "shit happens".

One day, a company had shit happen - something on their nasty list spilled. The Manager immediately called this man because he knew that they would have volunteers to give him the extra manpower to contain the spill as quickly as possible, and that's *exactly* what happened.

Later, when the gov't  got involved, the company was fined only the cost of the cleanup - no fine for screwing up. That was supported by the volunteer organization because the company had done everything right except for having an accident, and everyone involved wanted the message to be - if shit happens, *don't* try to hide it. Get help, get it contained, get it cleaned up, and evaluate if the system worked.

I wish we could export that attitude all over the world!

I'm most suspect of anyone who insists we shouldn't test an assertion.
Testing assertions is as old as wishing on one hand and spitting in the other, to see which gets wet first.
It shouldn't be controversial.
If the manner of testing is flawed, we should reject the manner of testing,not the very idea of questioning the assertion.

If you are insisting something is true and we should enact policy based on that assertion, you either have evidence to back up your claim, or you are trying to force your personal  faith on others.

Right now I am afraid for autistic people, as their very existence is asserted to be a disease to be eradicated.
The evidence given for this assertion is not objective and is also easily disproven, but that doesn't matter to many people here in the US.
This is an echo of all the "science" ever used to justify the oppression,erasure and destruction of people.

It has been announced that the cause for autism will be know by a certain date.
I'm not clear how this knowledge will be acquired, but I will interested in seeing the evidence presented.

William Bronson wrote:
Right now I am afraid for autistic people, as their very existence is asserted to be a disease to be eradicated.
The evidence given for this assertion is not objective and is also easily disproven, but that doesn't matter to many people here in the US.
This is an echo of all the "science" ever used to justify the oppression,erasure and destruction of people.

This is one of the things I am hoping to hear different opinions on and one of the things I had in mind in the original post, because;

Group A says what has been said up until now. We have the evidence, they don't or it is not objective and can be easily disproven.
Group B says it is from vaccine injury. We have the evidence, they don't or it is not objective and can be easily disproven.
Group C says it is from genetics. We have the evidence, they don't or it is not objective and can be easily disproven.
Et al.

They all have studies, they all cry foul on the other studies.

It may come down to how you define disease.

Here is a definition from MW.
noun
1: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms



The original post ad on DDT had studies to back it up as safe. There were other people, with other studies, that got other results.

So which do we choose? The one with the most people supporting it? The one our political party supports? Are we as individuals, educated enough to review the different positions and make a determination? Probably depends on the individual.

I have seen so many reversals on so many things that have all been supported by science and studies. There was a short period of time that the safety of DDT was doubled down upon. Some countries still use DDT.

I think we have a lot of modern day "DDT is good for me" ads that our children will not believe existed and were supported by studies.

The original post ad on DDT had studies to back it up as safe.

This goes back to my thing about the scientific method.  The moment a study says it proves anything, I know for certain the is a flaw in their method (and methodology which is mildly different but applies here) and I treat that study accordingly.

Jay Angler wrote:Just to summarize... the "used motor oil" is about the contaminants in the oil, not the nature of oil itself. Used motor oil is best cleaned and turned into 'new motor oil', but you still need a responsible way of dealing with the contaminants.

A permie asked me very nicely to clarify this in case some people reading this, need the basics:
"Organic material" which are "hydrocarbons", can be broken down into their 2 basic atoms: carbon and hydrogen. Mycelium can often do this, even if the shape is fairly complicated.

However, when humans add things like dioxin, we are now dealing with much more complexity. Dioxin contains Chlorine, and depending on the number and location of the Chlorine atoms, it can be more or less toxic, and take longer or less long to naturally degrade. Most people consider many forms of dioxin to be a "forever chemical". Spreading those in the environment qualifies in my book as a *really bad idea*.

Humans also tend to add "Heavy Metals". Lead is a heavy metal. There are many good reasons they stopped using it in gasoline. There are some plants that will remove lead from soil (sunflowers are one example.) I read once that on a "Brown" site in England that was heavily contaminated with lead, they grew plants that absorbed the lead, dried them, took them to a lead specialist company who burned them and recycled the lead into new products. Using plants to concentrate nasties and then preferably recycle them (after all, a land fill isn't really "away" either), is an area where I'd like to see much more research done. Plants deserve our respect and can absolutely help us clean up our messes if we do the research.

Heavy Metals are atoms: there is no "away" unless the sun expands and engulfs earth which personally I would prefer it not do! There are ways to recapture some of the heavy metals, but generally it's best not to let them loose where we don't want them in the first place.

Both heavy metals and other "contaminants" can be more toxic or less toxic depending on many factors. Time, concentration, combinations, chemical shape, etc. on the part of the contaminant and species, age, health status on the part of the receiver. Teflon, another forever chemical, when heated can be deadly to small birds, but I haven't heard of humans dying of it in their kitchens.  

Ultimately, we humans need to do the research and learn how to clean up anything that we create *before* we let it loose in our environment!

r ranson wrote:

The original post ad on DDT had studies to back it up as safe.

This goes back to my thing about the scientific method.  The moment a study says it proves anything, I know for certain the is a flaw in their method (and methodology which is mildly different but applies here) and I treat that study accordingly.

I am thinking about the "margarine effect" you posted the link to above and what you say here.

A thing I am starting to notice more and more (but I do not mean that it is new) is this idea that we can completely know something. This could be part of the reason folks double down like the situation you describe with your grandmother.

If you can allow the different elements of the human body, plants, animals, etc. to retain some mysteriousness, you may be more prone to humility. Wendell Berry does a good job of bringing this out in his writings.

That humility may prevent the doubling down or black and white or know it all thinking.

This thinking would leave room for unexplained/miraculous healing or keep you more open to treating the whole person rather than the symptoms of your medical specialty, for example.