orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/09/85)
Frank Adams responded to my point about frequent media bias: > > >*All* the press has > >mistakenly reported many other things which turned out to be wrong. > >For example, *all* the press reported the US government's allegations > >that the Soviets were using "Yellow Rain" as a form of chemical warfare > >in violation of chemical warfare treaties in Southeast Asia. > >Where has the press reported the recent Scientific American article > >which conclusively demonstrates that, in fact, "Yellow Rain" is > >actually bee feces? The New York Times ran a short article on it. > > Actually, it wasn't conclusive. The issue is still open. > > Scientific American is not an unbiased source. Its articles with foreign > policy implications show a distinct "liberal" bias. (I put the word the > word liberal in quotes, because I regard myself as a liberal, but do not > agree with the pacifistic kind of policies thus supported.) They do this > not by publishing unscientific articles, but by being selective about what > articles they print. Note that none of the work supporting the chemical > warfare theory ever appeared there. > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka 1)Please name the articles which substantiated that "Yellow Rain" was in fact chemical warfare. I would be *very* surprised if there were any such articles since the allegations were based on a few findings of tricothecenes in samples by a particular lab, which could never be confirmed by the Army's own lab itself 2)Did you *read* the Scientific American article? Here are its key points: Yellow Rain Summary A yellow substance found on rocks and leaves in Southeast Asia is alleged to be an agent of chemical war. Every consideration is given to this hypothesis and yet there is no evidence that it is in fact an agent of chemical warfare. On the other hand there is very strong evidence that it is in fact bee feces. Evidence Examined 1. In refugee interviews yellow spots seen dropping from indigenous bees were identified as "Yellow Rain" 2. tricothecenes were claimed to be discovered in samples of "Yellow Rain". Out of 100 samples tested, only 6 were ever found to contain tricothecenes and all these were tested by the same laboratory. Since 1982 the Army has tested 80 samples and never found any tricothecenes. 3. every sample of "Yellow Rain" has been found to consist primarily of pollen. 4. the pollens found in "Yellow Rain" samples come from plants indigenous to Southeast Asia that are frequented by bees 5. the Government's description of "Yellow Rain" is an accurate description of fecal droppings of honeybees 6. A comparison of the average size, color, and distribution of "Yellow Rain" samples shows they are similar to that for honeybee fecal droppings 7. pollen from flowers retains a high protein content *except* when digested and processed by bees. Pollen from "Yellow rain" samples had the same low protein content as bee feces. 8. all pollen found in "Yellow Rain" samples come from plants indigenous to Southeast Asia. Moreover they are the *same* pollens found in bees and bee feces indigenous to Southeast Asia. 9. Every spot of "Yellow Rain" examined has showed a wide variety of mixtures of pollen types: the *same* variety characteristic of honeybee feces. 10. Even a "Yellow Rain" sample reportedly containing tricothecene toxins provides detailed evidence that it is, in fact, honeybee feces. 11. no fragments or other evidence of chemical warfare carriers have ever been found despite the many samples of "Yellow Rain" collected. The authors conclude after giving the chemical warfare hypothesis every benefit of the doubt, that Yellow Rain is bee feces. I suggest interested or doubting readers read the original Scientific American article. tim sevener whuxn!orb
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/16/85)
In article <868@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Frank Adams responded to my point about frequent media bias: >> >*All* the press has >> >mistakenly reported many other things which turned out to be wrong. >> >For example, *all* the press reported the US government's allegations >> >that the Soviets were using "Yellow Rain" as a form of chemical warfare >> >in violation of chemical warfare treaties in Southeast Asia. >> >Where has the press reported the recent Scientific American article >> >which conclusively demonstrates that, in fact, "Yellow Rain" is >> >actually bee feces? The New York Times ran a short article on it. >> >> Actually, it wasn't conclusive. The issue is still open. >> >> Scientific American is not an unbiased source. Its articles with foreign >> policy implications show a distinct "liberal" bias. (I put the word the >> word liberal in quotes, because I regard myself as a liberal, but do not >> agree with the pacifistic kind of policies thus supported.) They do this >> not by publishing unscientific articles, but by being selective about what >> articles they print. Note that none of the work supporting the chemical >> warfare theory ever appeared there. > >1)Please name the articles which substantiated that "Yellow Rain" was > in fact chemical warfare. I would be *very* surprised if there were > any such articles since the allegations were based on a few findings > of tricothecenes in samples by a particular lab, which could never be > confirmed by the Army's own lab itself >2)Did you *read* the Scientific American article? Here are its key points: 1) All I saw was a short note; I'm afraid I don't remember where. It was probably in Science News. It contained little more than what I said: that the issue is still open. The negative results cited in the SA article were questioned. I was under the impression that those alleging that the Yellow Rain is chemical warfare had published; do you know for a fact whether they have or not? 2)Yes. In any event, I would call the coverage that I have seen of the whole incident fairly balanced. I don't think I saw a single reference to the incident in the press which did not mention that many scientists doubted the evidence for chemical warfare. I suspect that you find the press biased because it doesn't conform to your biases. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108