Month: August 2003

EPA Ban on Human Pesticide Data Overturned

In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a moratorium on using data from human tests to formulate acceptable levels of exposure to pesticides. EPA chief Christie Whitman defended the moratorium at that time saying that the human exposure data could not be used until the EPA had thoroughly investigated the ethical and scientific acceptability of such tests.

Representatives of pesticide producing industries sued arguing that the EPA could not issue such a moratorium without first issuing a public notice of its plans and inviting public feedback. On June 3, a federal appeals court agreed and ordered the agency to accept human test data on a case-by-case basis until it establishes a new regulation under existing procedures.

EPA spokeswoman Lisa Harrison told the Associated Press that the decision would not really change much at the EPA as the agency is already on track to create new regulations related to human clinical trials of pesticides. “It actually doesn’t impact us all that much, because we were proceeding on that track,” Harrison told the Associated Press.

Although clinical trials of pesticides are done with willing volunteers, environmental groups generally oppose them as being unethical and instead want pesticide manufacturers to focus exclusively on animal toxicity tests. Animal rights groups, on the other hand, want the EPA to reduce the number of animal tests involved in testing chemicals.

Richard Wiles of the Environment Working Group told the Associated Press,

We hope that the EPA bans the use of human studies by regulation. It’s completely unethical to directly dose humans with pesticides to see what the toxic effects are. We think that’s self-evident.

Source:

EPA told to weight human pesticide test data. Elizabeth Shogren, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2003.

EPA halt of human test data overturned. Associated Press, June 3, 2003.

The Future Is Right Now for Performance Enhancing Drugs

The BBC had a story about performance enhancing drugs which addresses some of the issues raised a couple years ago in this thread at Seth’s web site about the use of PEDs in cycling (if you don’t follow cycling, the short version is that the sport has had a series of high profile scandals involving the use of performance enhancing drugs).

The main problem with existing PEDs, in my opinion, is that they are not safe. But at the same time, most sports governing bodies also ban drugs that are barely PEDs and that are perfectly safe (like stupidly disqualifying gymnasts because they took OTC cold remedies).

The BBC reports on the International Olympic Committee’s concession that it will not have a test in places before the 2004 Olympics to detect athletes who are using Humane Growth Hormone to enhance their performance. The BBC quotes Olivier Rabin, science director of the World Anti-Dopin Agency, as saying,

HGH is one of the main concerns we have. It’s quite a challenge. There are currently six different countries working on the detection of HGH. We would like to have something in place for the Olympics, but this (attemt at) detection has been going on for years. History has shown that you cannot always get tests ready on time, because science does not move forward smoothly.

In fact, the WADA was supposed to have an HGH test ready for the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

I do not know if HGH can be used safely by athletes to improve their performance, but if it can why should we even try to ban its use anymore than we should try to ban any of the other high tech devices and methods that are used to push human performance well beyond what would have been possible 40 or 50 years ago?

One objection is that if PEDs use is widely distributed, then all the competitors end up at the same relative position afterward. So, for example, if a PED increases a runner’s speed in a 10k race by 15 seconds, then all the competitors will take the drug and end up going 15 seconds faster without much of a shakeout in the order of finishing.

But, again, this seems like an objection that could be levelled at almost any sports innovation. Using 300 lb. linemen in the NFL gave the teams who initially adopted that practice a huge (pun intended) advantage. Today everybody uses 300 lbs. linemen and the relative advantage has disappeared.

Similarly, baseball teams whose players began serious weight training likely enjoyed a small advantage over their competitors, but now that weight training and other conditioning methods are widespread, the relative advantage has disappeared (i.e., all teams — except our pathetic Detroit Tigers — hit home runs today at a level above previous generations, though home runs are still distributed in similar ways between teams).

The bottom line is that people watch sports, in part, to see other human beings reaching and even exceeding their potential. People want to see the baseball star who can hit one or two more home runs in a season than anyone else ever has, or who can run 100 meter just a tenth of a second faster than anyone else in the world has.

Why should we hamper such athletes by banning the use of safe performance enhancing drugs, especially given that the future is likely to see treatments that are a) increasingly safe, b) increasingly effective, and b) like HGH, increasingly hard to detect.

Woman Sets New Domino Toppling Record

China’s Ma Lihua has set a new solo record for domino toppling, after spending six weeks setting up more than 300,000 dominos in a chain just to topple them. The dominos stretched for 15 km, according to the BBC, and took six minutes to fall.

Source:

Domino record toppled in Singapore. David Bottomley, BBC, August 18, 2003.

Slashdot Know Nothings Link to Spiritual Kin in UK

Thi Slashdot entry claims that, “Movie Industry Blames Texting for Bad Box Office.” Of course if you actually read the article that is linked to — something Slashdot editors stopped doing years ago, you find that the story doesn’t quote a single person from the movie industry as even suggesting that text messaging has impacted the box office. In fact it’s apparent if you know anything about movies that the author of the article doesn’t have the first clue about box office grosses. Hey, Slashdot should hire that guy — he’d fit right in.

Kucinich Can Stop His Bitching Already

A lot of people are linking to Dennis Kucinich’s whining and moaning about all of the security checks, etc. that he has to go through when he travels by air. Well, duh — Kucinich voted for the final version of the Aviation and Transportation and Security Act that gives the TSA the authority to do so.

The ATSA, you’ll remember, was controversial not for the security provisions but rather due to the debate over whether or not to federalize airport security. So in the House, Kucinich voted for a Democratic version of the bill that included federalization of airport workers. That version failed. Kucinich voted against a Republican version of the bill that did not included federalization of airport workers.

That version passed and went into a conference committee with the Senate, whose bill included federalizing airport security workers. That provision was retained in the final version of the legislation reported out by the conference committee, and then Kucinich (like all but 9 House members) voted to approve that version of the act.

Today, Kucinich whines and moans that,

The transportation security agents inform me that a computer has made this decision. I want to know who programs the computer. Is it John Ashcroft?

Well, what the hell did he think Sec. 101 of S. 1447 meant,

h) MANAGEMENT OF SECURITY INFORMATION- In consultation with the Transportation Security Oversight Board, the Under Secretary shall–

`(1) enter into memoranda of understanding with Federal agencies or other entities to share or otherwise cross-check as necessary data on individuals identified on Federal agency databases who may pose a risk to transportation or national security;

`(2) establish procedures for notifying the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, appropriate State and local law enforcement officials, and airport or airline security officers of the identity of individuals known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety;

`(3) in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies and air carriers, establish policies and procedures requiring air carriers–

`(A) to use information from government agencies to identify individuals on passenger lists who may be a threat to civil aviation or national security; and

`(B) if such an individual is identified, notify appropriate law enforcement agencies, prevent the individual from boarding an aircraft, or take other appropriate action with respect to that individual; and

`(4) consider requiring passenger air carriers to share passenger lists with appropriate Federal agencies for the purpose of identifying individuals who may pose a threat to aviation safety or national security.

Ohio State University Set to Expand Animal Research Facilities

Ohio State University, which came under fire recently over HIV research involving felines, recently announced that it plans a major expansion of its animal testing facilities.

The Columbus Dispatch reported that OSU will undertake a $30 million expansion of its animal testing facilities at Weiseman Hall that will add 35,000 square feet of lab space. The money will be raised through a combination of money from the Ohio legislature and bonds issued by OSU.

OSU’s William Yonushonis told the Dispatch,

It will be a rodent facility, primarily for mice. We’re looking at housing up to 35,000 cages. You can put up to five mice a cage.

This would add to the approximately 75,000 animals that the Dispatch reports are already used annually for research at OSU. Ninety-two percent of such animals are mice and rats.

Ohio-based animal rights group Protect Our Earth’s Treasures criticized the expansion. POET director Rob Russell told the Columbus Dispatch,

There’s a whole bunch of projects that we feel could be stopped today, and we feel it wouldn’t have any negative impact on humans.

OSU is also planning to build a new biosafety level 3 laboratory to study infectious diseases which will house laboratory animals.

Source:

New labs for mice planned at OSU. Alice Thomas, The Columbus Dispatch, July 5, 2003.

Background On Proposed BSL3 Laboratory Planned for Ohio State University’s West Campus. Press Release, Ohio State University, July 26, 2003.