[sageikosa]

I agree that the science behind any analysis is what is important, and not the nationality of the researcher, nor the paternity of the researcher, nor the existence of money that the researcher may have had direct or indirect connections to.

The original article was focused on scientists having a pathway to corporate funds, and the original poster in this thread began what I can only see as a rant against scientists akin to creating a strawman, then burning in effigy.

My points were made to hopefully paint a "rebuttal" image that scientists may come to conclusions different than a prevailing crusade without being soul-less foreigners taking money so they can afford to eat other people's children.

As a minarchist, my environmental stance is confined by individual rights infringement; and that does not excuse air and water contamination. One's rights to dump crap in their water-table ends where my aquifer begins; and these types of laws do exist, if they are not being enforced, shame on the hooligans we elected and appointed.

I do not assume a broad conspiracy, if there is malfeasance, it is a non-confederacy of petty malfeasers.

[roc]

> "My points were made to hopefully paint a "rebuttal" image that scientists may come to conclusions different than a prevailing crusade"

Absolutely; we don't disagree on that point.

I was just taking the opportunity to illuminate a common misconception. (That we're still talking about whether it's-inherently-unsafe or not.)