Originally posted by Elok
You mean a growing body of research indicates that this is bad for FISH. There's nothing in that article about humans being harmed. They make sure to mention that it "could potentially harm humans," in much the same sense that shaving could potentially cause you to slit your carotid artery and die. "Scientists discover some threat to a bunch of fish" doesn't make great copy like "scientists discover potential threat to human race" does.
Some scientists believe it could pose a threat, but as the Kansas school board insists, there are some scientists who doggedly maintain that creationism is a more viable scientific theory than evolution. The trick is how many scientists as a percentage of the whole believe that, and whether that belief is backed up by hard data. Do you have anything indicating a respectable consensus?
You mean a growing body of research indicates that this is bad for FISH. There's nothing in that article about humans being harmed. They make sure to mention that it "could potentially harm humans," in much the same sense that shaving could potentially cause you to slit your carotid artery and die. "Scientists discover some threat to a bunch of fish" doesn't make great copy like "scientists discover potential threat to human race" does.
Some scientists believe it could pose a threat, but as the Kansas school board insists, there are some scientists who doggedly maintain that creationism is a more viable scientific theory than evolution. The trick is how many scientists as a percentage of the whole believe that, and whether that belief is backed up by hard data. Do you have anything indicating a respectable consensus?
a combination of pharmaceutical compounds inhibits the growth of embryonic kidney cells in laboratory tests
It doesn't just harm fish and frogs. It harms all animals. I don't see how someone could think otherwise.
Comment