I Can't Make This Sort Of Stuff Up.

Somebody posted this link on one of my work forums and this was the reply received from one of the environmental warriors here at work:

"The cited website has an obvious agenda, imo. For a fairer history of the so-called “Alar scare”, e.g., see:

http://www.ewg.org/node/8005 "

Not a hint of irony. I have to admit that I can't even bring myself to read the whole thing, but to link to the EWG while claiming another site has an agenda is rich. Also, notice the very first argument cites peer-reviewed studies. They love their "peer-reviewed" studies.

UPDATE: Because I need you all to understand what I am up against here at my work, I must show you some of the give and take. First someone calls out the guy from above thusly:

Hmmmm...that website you listed doesn't have an agenda?

Even from your website it was determined that the lifetime cancer risk from Alar consumption was "23 in 1 million". The lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are roughly 12,000 in 1 million. The lifetime risk of dying in a fall is roughly 3800 in 1 million.

So, was it hype and hyperbole for CBS to claim "kids are at high risk because they drink so much apple juice" and "It's supermarket roulette"? I guess that depends on how much of a ninny you are. In my opinion the EPA sets ridiculous limits for everything in order to continue to justify its existence. I even remember awhile back when California actually was approaching meeting all EPA emissions standards, then suddenly they just revised their emissions standards. Anyways, If you are concerned about things like Alar you really shouldn't be driving.

From your linked website:"EPA calculated the lifetime risk of cancer from Alar consumption at 45 in 1 million - 45 times the agency's "negligible" risk level. EPA announced the beginning of a process that would eventually result in a ban on Alar, but before it could take effect, Uniroyal pulled it from the market and its registration, or license for use, soon expired. In 1991 and again in 1992, the EPA reconfirmed its decision that Alar poses an unacceptable risk as a probable human carcinogen, although its new estimate of the cancer risk was about 23 in 1 million - still more than 20 times the acceptable risk level."

Here is the reply from the EWG guy:

Comparing driving a car, which has so many obvious benefits for the consumer that it is for many a necessity, to apples laced with Alar, which have no benefits for the consumer, is utterly ludicrous.

As to agendas, the website that I cited is run by the EWG, a non-profit, 96% of whose funding comes from private non-profit foundations and individuals. The ACSH, which was the principal group that propagandized against the “Alar scare”, is a chemical and pharma front group, 75% of whose funding comes from those industries.

Maybe I'm just terribly jaded by this crap, but the Smug seems to be getting awfully thick. Oh, and the EWG guy always ends his "arguments" with, "Best regards," because apparently he is quite civilized.

Update to Update: So I had to get involved there:

Me: I was unaware that non-profit organizations were incapable of having an agenda. Thank you.

Him: I didn’t say they were incapable of having an agenda. I was asking C**** to use common sense in comparing the motivations of an industry protecting its profits vs. the motivations of organizations that lack profits to protect.

Me: Beliefs and money are both pretty big motivators. Of course, if you’re arguing that the EWG and its contributors are not arguing beliefs then we’d have to go ahead and agree to disagree.

Him: Both groups have beliefs. Only one has billions in profits to protect.

Me: Come on, those chemical and pharma guys don’t “believe” anything! I’m talking about the kind of righteous belief that can only come from “knowing” in your heart that you are fighting the good fight. Which one do you really thinks carries more weight in the motivation department?

Him: I assume you’re actually serious, so I’ll bow out here.

I guess I am just too absurd for anyone to spend their time arguing with.