[succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

«‹›10783 »

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

mawarannahr posted:

Even a Stinker Like Hitler

He sure was a rascal, wasn�t he!

# ? Feb 19, 2023 00:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 17:53

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

the_steve posted:

Talking about the train derailment:

Followed by the Succ:

I know a lot of people avoid the biosphere thread so I'm cross posting some right wing disinformation itt. removed some pesky numbers and long citations and focus on the succitude

Vinyl Chloride: A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation (2005) | Environmental Health Perspectives | Vol. 113, No. 7

ehp.niehs.nih.gov posted:

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its 2000 update of the toxicological effects of vinyl chloride (VC), it was concerned with two issues: the classification of VC as a carcinogen and the numerical estimate of its potency. In this commentary we describe how the U.S. EPA review of VC toxicology, which was drafted with substantial input from the chemical industry, weakened safeguards on both points. First, the assessment downplays risks from all cancer sites other than the liver. Second, the estimate of cancer potency was reduced 10-fold from values previously used for environmental decision making, a finding that reduces the cost and extent of pollution reduction and cleanup measures. We suggest that this assessment reflects discredited scientific practices and recommend that the U.S. EPA reverse its trend toward ever-increasing collaborations with the regulated industries when generating scientific reviews and risk assessments.
. . .
When OSHA issued the new exposure limit of 1 ppm, industry spokespeople issued dire predictions of job loss and plant closures. However, in < 2 years virtually all U.S. manufacturing plants were able to meet the new standard while still maintaining rapid growth of sales volume. . .
### Early Suppression of Evidence of Liver Damage

Industry leaders privately acknowledged that the existing limit of 500 ppm was excessive long before the OSHA standard (OSHA 1975). In 1959, internal industry experiments had revealed micropathology in rabbit livers after repeat exposures to 200 ppm VC monomer (Markowitz and Rosner 2002), causing Dow Chemical toxicologist V.K. Rowe (1959) to admit privately to his counterpart at B.F. Goodrich:

quote:
We feel quite confident � that 500 ppm is going to produce rather appreciable injury when inhaled 7 hours a day, five days a week, for an extended period. As you can appreciate, this opinion is not ready for dissemination yet and I would appreciate it if you would hold it in confidence but use it as you see fit in your own operations.

. . .
After the IARC evaluation, the industry commissioned British epidemiologist Richard Doll to review the previously published VC epidemiology. Doll combined data from four studies finding an aggregated excess risk of brain cancer [29 observed vs. 19.54 expected, standardized mortality ratio (SMR) = 148; confidence limits were not reported]; he reported this as �not statistically significant� and �nothing to suggest that they are occupational in origin� (Doll 1988). Doll (1988) downplayed risk of cancer in all sites other than liver . . . [and] did not acknowledge funding sources in his article (Doll 1988), but in a legal deposition taken in a toxic tort case brought by a worker dying of brain cancer, Doll testified for the defendants that his 1988 report was conducted �on behalf of the Chemical Manufacturers Association� for which Doll received 12,000 British pounds (~ US$21,000) as �a donation to a charity in recompense� for his work (Doll 2000). The charity Doll selected was the Green College at Oxford, of which Doll is the founder and first warden (president).

Evidence of VC-associated brain cancer continued to accumulate after 1988. A 1991 Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)�sponsored follow-up study by Wong et al. (1991) reported significant excess deaths from cancer of the brain and central nervous system . . .Two years later, in a highly unusual reversal, two of the original four authors published a retraction, saying �we conclude that our finding of an excess of brain cancer among U.S. vinyl chloride workers reported earlier was not likely related to the chemical� (Wong and Whorton 1993). The Houston Chronicle described the retraction and the uses made of it:

quote:
Wong hadn�t received permission from the study�s sponsor, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, to publish his data�data that could be used against the industry in lawsuits, that might alarm workers and attract regulators. The unauthorized publication provoked members of the CMA�s Vinyl Chloride Panel and touched off a months-long effort to persuade Wong to recant, documents show. Although Wong denies that he was pressured, he changed his story on vinyl chloride, declaring that the apparent excess of brain cancer deaths among workers might well be the result of �diagnostic bias��better reporting and diagnosis of the disease in industry than in the general population �. Reprints of the Wong and Shah letters were distributed among the chemical companies and their attorneys. They are still cited by defendants in brain cancer cases, and are used to reassure workers about the safety of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride. (Morris 1998)

. . .
In 1994, the CMA�s Vinyl Chloride Panel initiated plans to work with the U.S. EPA on its IRIS assessment of VC. H.C. Shah, the industry panel manager, confirmed that the U.S. EPA �expressed an interest in working with industry to develop a scientifically-sound vinyl chloride risk assessment� (Shah 1994a, 1994b). At the meeting, CMA-sponsored scientists made presentations to the U.S. EPA on both the CMA-sponsored epidemiology and a prepublication risk model (Reitz and Gargas 1994; Shah 1994a, 1994b). . . Although internal documents demonstrate that the U.S. EPA and the VC industry had been in joint discussions on an updated IRIS assessment of VC since 1994 (Shah 1994a, 1994b), it was not until 1996 that the U.S. EPA issued a public notice inviting submissions of technical information for VC and 10 other industrial chemicals to be assessed for the IRIS database (U.S. EPA 1996).
. . .
In its May 1999 draft VC assessment, the U.S. EPA had proposed to apply a protective 3-fold factor to adjust for VC�s possible induction of nonliver tumors (U.S. EPA 1999a). However, in a letter to the U.S. EPA, chemical manufacturers protested that

quote:
[T]he available epidemiological evidence does not support an association between vinyl chloride exposure and human cancer except angiosarcoma of the liver. The ill-advised three-fold uncertainty factor introduced by EPA to account for possible tumor induction at such sites can therefore be eliminated. (Price 1999)

In response, the U.S. EPA final VC assessment completely eliminated the protective factor it had originally included (U.S. EPA 2000a). In the same letter to the U.S. EPA, chemical manufacturers disputed the U.S. EPA statement that there is �suggestive epidemiological evidence that cancer of the brain, lung, and lymphopoietic system are associated with exposure,� saying it �should be deleted from the final review� (Price 1999). The U.S. EPA complied (U.S. EPA 2000a).

The U.S. EPA assessment�s exclusion of risks to organs other than liver is striking. The U.S. EPA justifies this approach on two grounds: first, relying on the conclusions of Richard Doll that evidence for induction of nonliver tumors is weak (Doll 1988); and second, suggesting that the liver is the most sensitive end point and therefore regulatory standards protective of liver cancer would adequately protect all other sites from cancer risk (U.S. EPA 2000b). However, this limited view precludes the U.S. EPA from developing a standard based on an assessment of the total cancer risk to all organs from VC exposure, as required by U.S. EPA guidelines for calculating carcinogenic risk (U.S. EPA 1999b, 2005).

Downplaying risk to nonliver cancer sites leaves the public and exposed workers inadequately informed of the health threat posed by exposure to VC-containing products, processes, and pollution. Medical professionals are less likely to suspect a link to VC exposures in patients with nonliver cancers, and thus causal links are more likely to be overlooked. Downplaying of nonliver cancer risks by the U.S. EPA may also have important implications in litigation of compensation cases, because claims for cancers at sites other than the liver are vigorously disputed in the courts.

### Peer Review Reflects Industry Participation

The U.S. EPA�s external peer review process is intended to ensure that a scientifically credible assessment is produced. However, at least 7 of the 19 external peer reviewers of the VC assessment were chemical industry employees and consultants, 4 were government representatives, and none represented unions or public interest groups (U.S. EPA 2000b). . .
. . .
### The Trend to Incorporate Industry Participation in U.S. EPA Scientific Assessments

For some of the most widespread and toxic chemicals under regulation, the manufacturers are generating much of the data (often unpublished) used for risk assessment and are working closely with the U.S. EPA to evaluate available data and produce risk assessments. Unfortunately, the efforts of the regulated industries often outweigh the ability of the public, unions, and public interest groups to participate in developing regulations. . . Nonetheless, in late August 2004, the U.S. EPA announced changes to its pesticide review process �that would give industry officials greater input in the science behind its risk reviews � in an effort to reduce the agency�s review times� (Inside EPA 2004).

The trend toward increasing industry participation allows corporate interests with products under regulation to more effectively recommend acceptable limits of public exposure to their own products and wastes, while placing an unrealistic burden on the U.S. EPA scientists and the public to provide adequate peer review and oversight. Public confidence is undermined when commercial interests, instead of scientific evaluations, shape public health policy.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 00:23

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1626660380985491457

# ? Feb 19, 2023 00:30

Vim Fuego: Jun 1, 2000; Ultra Carp

camoseven posted:

book bans, but wokely

They don't gotta ban the books they just rewrite em

# ? Feb 19, 2023 00:34

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

https://twitter.com/RachelBitecofer/status/1626777087624503296

# ? Feb 19, 2023 00:42

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/RachelBitecofer/status/1626777087624503296

The government should ban all cable news.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:06

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

mawarannahr posted:

I know a lot of people avoid the biosphere thread so I'm cross posting some right wing disinformation itt. removed some pesky numbers and long citations and focus on the succitude

Vinyl Chloride: A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation (2005) | Environmental Health Perspectives | Vol. 113, No. 7

Congrats on your future forum ban from D&D for this post

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:06

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Trabisnikof posted:

Congrats on your future forum ban from D&D for this post

I shan't be going back when posts there are replies to my posts here. it's nice to have fans I guess

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:17

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1626660380985491457

If I learned anything from 2020 it�s that even suggesting that a woman has a tougher road to the whitehouse than a man is the greatest act of misogyny you could ever do, bar none

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:24

RadiRoot: Feb 3, 2007

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1626225684371890176

RadiRoot has issued a correction as of 01:36 on Feb 19, 2023

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:33

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Radirot posted:

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1626225684371890176

He's not wrong but he probably wants to vote for like Howard Schultz or some other ghoul.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:38

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1626653474107625487

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:52

thats not candy: Mar 10, 2010; Hell Gem

is it poll season already gently caress

# ? Feb 19, 2023 01:58

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1626653474107625487

Russian poll. Putin puppets! :colbert:

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:10

Animal-Mother: Feb 14, 2012; RABBIT RABBIT
RABBIT RABBIT

in honor of jimmy carter, lil wayne has delayed the release of tha carter 6

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:15

Andorra: Dec 12, 2012

mcmagic posted:

He's not wrong but he probably wants to vote for like Howard Schultz or some other ghoul.

That's his whole shtick. Talking about a real problem most other dems ignore and proposing the absolute dumbest solution to it

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:17

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Radirot posted:

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1626225684371890176

Fact check: you actually do get a say in the VP�s nomination, through your votes for your local delegates that eventually vote for the DNC delegates. Sure, they always approve the presidential nominee�s pick, but you actually do get to vote (for your county or congressional district�s delegate).

It�s a representative democracy after all, read your freaking DNC 2024 handbook (to be published at some point in the future.)

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:33

BIG-DICK-BUTT-FUCK: Jan 26, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1626653474107625487

I don�t like the looks of these can we get an unskewing until the numbers align w my preferred outcomes? Thanks

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:37

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1626653474107625487

If joe biden loses his reelection bid I'll laugh until the end of days

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:41

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

remember when bernie delegates to the national convention were holding fundraisers bc it cost like $6k to fly yourself & stay in some hotel that had jacked its prices then you had to wear silly hats & blow horns & if you acted up & said something radical like "no more war" the entire seating section near you would be blacked out from lighting & all the hillary delegates would scream USA! USA! to drown you out? :allears:

I just looked it up & the 2024 DNC host city finalists are atlanta, chicago & nyc.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:45

Some Guy TT: Aug 30, 2011

thats not candy posted:

is it poll season already gently caress

its always poll season but noone likes my piss poll thread so i cant post them as often as id like

well that and i dont have enough piss content to even it out i got too much waffles and not enough chicken

# ? Feb 19, 2023 02:50

The Voice of Labor: Apr 8, 2020

bedpan posted:

If joe biden loses his reelection bid I'll laugh until the end of days

with afroman as president, laughing will be easy

# ? Feb 19, 2023 03:23

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

mawarannahr posted:

I know a lot of people avoid the biosphere thread so I'm cross posting some right wing disinformation itt. removed some pesky numbers and long citations and focus on the succitude

Vinyl Chloride: A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation (2005) | Environmental Health Perspectives | Vol. 113, No. 7

mawarannahr since you're operating in this space I wonder if you could humor me by investigating this claim

I saw a tweet, since been deleted, saying that the CDC's document for the "Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride", which had been sitting idle since July 2006, had a new draft issued in January 2023.

this is the link to the CDC page: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=282&tid=51

the Wayback Machine has a copy of the page daying back to March 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210318115529/https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=282&tid=51 - and the PDF links still work on these

the allegation is that the new 2023 version drastically increased the parts-per-million safety margins for exposure to Vinyl Chloride, compared to the old 2006 version, specifically in the chapter for Relevance to Public Health

old: https://web.archive.org/web/20210321225318/https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp20-c2.pdf
new: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp20-c1.pdf

I feel a little insane even just talking about it, but I don't know what to make of it

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:09

Animal-Mother: Feb 14, 2012; RABBIT RABBIT
RABBIT RABBIT

Willa Rogers posted:

I just looked it up & the 2024 DNC host city finalists are atlanta, chicago & nyc.

im shocked that kind of decision isnt finalized already, but besides wheeling Joe out to wave and say things are great before putting him back in the Bacta Tank, what of import is going to happen at the dnc?

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:11

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

silicone thrills posted:

I think if they had had drones in Carters presidency i'd end up regarding him with the disdain that I have for Obama.

Least bad president in living memory I guess.

lmao don sent you money and gave you content and you are going with the undertaker of the american dream, jimalaise?

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:30

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Jane Fonda was on some interview and she got bullied into saying that going to Hanoi was a mistake. Weak.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:38

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

Willa Rogers posted:

was joseph conrad problematic? bc lol at keeping hemingway but getting rid of conrad.

Depiction = Endorsement 💅

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:47

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

Animal-Mother posted:

im shocked that kind of decision isnt finalized already, but besides wheeling Joe out to wave and say things are great before putting him back in the Bacta Tank, what of import is going to happen at the dnc?

Don't forget the keynote addresses by such Democratic Party luminaries as George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and (if DeSantis wins the GOP nomination) Donald Trump

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:50

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

mcmagic posted:

Jane Fonda was on some interview and she got bullied into saying that going to Hanoi was a mistake. Weak.

her repudiation will do nothing to convince the tens of millions of americans who know, perhaps more deeply than anything in their life, that the vietnam war was won until jane fonda intervened

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:50

Excelzior: Jun 24, 2013

docbeard posted:

Don't forget the keynote addresses by such Democratic Party luminaries as George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and (if DeSantis wins the GOP nomination) Donald Trump

I will die laughing if Trump eats poo poo in the primaries and then gives a keynote address at the DNC to a fuming Hillary Clinton in the front row seats

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:52

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

mcmagic posted:

Jane Fonda was on some interview and she got bullied into saying that going to Hanoi was a mistake. Weak.

I still run across jane fonda stickers in urinals at places.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 04:57

tristeham: Jul 31, 2022

lolling at the carter eulogies

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:14

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

tristeham posted:

lolling at the carter eulogies

it is impressive how lovely he managed to be in just the four years he was in office

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:18

TheIncredulousHulk: Sep 3, 2012

I didn't agree with everything he did in office, but it's important that we never forget that Jimmy Carter's head game was fire

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:18

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

https://twitter.com/tuckwoodstock/status/1626558386740383744?cxt=HHwWgMC-gYSP2ZItAAAA

:whitewater:

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:22

spacemang_spliff: Nov 29, 2014; wide pickle

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1626962438548512771

Shut up meg

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:37

spacemang_spliff: Nov 29, 2014; wide pickle

BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:

I don�t like the looks of these can we get an unskewing until the numbers align w my preferred outcomes? Thanks

lol meatball Ron has loser stink all over him

Guido jeb

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:39

Uncle Wemus: Mar 4, 2004

What's Willas opinion of jimmy

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:39

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

AnimeIsTrash posted:

https://twitter.com/tuckwoodstock/status/1626558386740383744?cxt=HHwWgMC-gYSP2ZItAAAA

🙅‍♂️

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 17:53

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

gradenko_2000 posted:

Carter:

* deregulated the trucking industry
* deregulated the airline industry
* pardoned the My Lai guy
* ended the Church Commission reform effort
* supported the genocide in East Timor
* supported a coup in Turkey
* began Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan

in a lot of ways he was the proto-Obama

rest in piss bitch

# ? Feb 19, 2023 05:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

«‹›10783 »