Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) at 05:17, 18 February 2015 (re to sweet folks & deletion of bullshit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
""Conspiracy theorists" a loaded term ... it was, at least in its current weaponized form, an invention of the CIA. That body, when widespread skepticism of the Warren Commission's findings first emerged, sent a memo to all its bureaus giving specific instructions for 'countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists.' This naturally meant using assets such as "friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" who could be provided with ready-made talking points, magic bullets in their own right. They continue to be in regular use today, consciously or not, even in the pages of The New Yorker" . Esquire - The Big Problem With Calling People "Conspiracy Theorists"
"Misplaced Pages seems more a campground for paid shills and such. No interest without enough finances to hire dedicated campers to squat on pages are going to get past those that have. Some areas are without corporate interest or political controversy but on the pages that are, OCD wins ... Not many people can defend against claims that Misplaced Pages is being distorted by PR agencies and out-of-control employees who won’t disclose conflicts of interest. I myself had found and reported many incidents as such, but I just can’t be bothered anymore. Be cautious of Misplaced Pages. I only fix the occasional typos I come across; for divisive issues or products (monetary interests) I don’t even visit Misplaced Pages." Misplaced Pages Got Ruined by the Likes of Microsoft Who Pay People to Edit Articles About Microsoft
As you may know I've been working on this article and Core has offered to help. I'm still in the process of gathering information...and my thoughts. I was thinking that it should have a substantial section on Corexit since every source I've read so far mentions its use as one of the important unknowns. The GAP report contains a great deal of information and looking at its wikipedia article, it should certainly be considered a good RS source. Reading the report has been on my list of things to do but right now I am going through old news reports to see if there is anything that would be good for the article. However you are very familiar with Corexit already and would perhaps be willing to work on that section? Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The request makes sense, it seems like it would be faster and easier for me to do the section, but due to some good luck, I am too busy in my offline life to make any commitments here. I can dip my toe in once and a while, but not more. However, I did all the work already, in the "Corexit for dummies" section. Don't be intimidated by the GAP report, the review article from which I quoted heavily did all the work for us (see linked section - be sure to uncollapse, especially the bottom part, which is specific to health concerns) The only thing needed is to distill the info and plug it into related articles (4 come to mind - for one of them, you will have to get a court order to add this info, and good luck finding an honest judge!).
The section move to archives, so I'll repeat it here:
Corexit
Here is most of the Corexit story. It is a pre-draft draft that needs a lot of work. None of this is in my own words, but I wanted to get this out of my files and onto this page in case someone wanted to help build this section, which probably fits better under the "Environmental record" or perhaps "Safety and health violations" than under the Gulf spill, since we are only allotted 2 paragraphs. petrarchan47tc23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Easy ways to brush up on the Corexit story (with focus on the recent GAP report and Newsweek investigation):
Conclusions from the report strongly suggest that the dispersant Corexit was widely applied in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion because it caused the false impression that the oil disappeared. In reality, the oil/Corexit mixture became less visible, yet much more toxic than the oil alone. Nonetheless, indications are that both BP and the government were pleased with what Corexit accomplished.
EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman: "EPA....is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous Corexit is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic — it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public."
From the GAP report, "evidence suggests that the cleanup effort has been more destructive to human health and the environment than the spill itself."
BP lied about the size of the oil disaster and the danger posed to its workers, the public and the environment. Lying to Congress about the amount of oil was one of 14felonies to which BP pleaded guilty last year in a legal settlement with US DOJ, which included a 4.5 Billion fine, the largest ever levied against a corp in the US. BP hid the amount of oil from cameras by using oil dispersant Corexit. BP lied about how safe Corexit was for workers, residents and the environment. An anonymous whistle-blower provided evidence revealed in a Newsweek investigation that BP was warned in advance about the safety risks of Corexit. // whistleblowers revealed to the independent Government Accountability Project (GAP) that Nalco had given elaborate instructions to BP about using Corexit and avoiding contact with human clean-up workers — instructions that were clearly ignored during the spring of 2010.
BP used at least 1.84 million gallons, the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history. BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil. 58% was sprayed from planes, sometimes hitting cleanup workers in the face. Workers were denied safety gear and (their jobs threatened for wearing respirators). Soon after the Deepwater explosion, BP stockpiled 1/3rd of the world's supply of Corexit
In May 2010, the EPA told BP to identify less toxic alternatives from a list of government-approved dispersants. If BP could not identify an alternative, it had to offer concrete reasons why not. The company replied that less-toxic dispersants were not available in the quantities needed. BP continued spraying Corexit on the Gulf, at an average ratio of one gallon per 91 gallons of oil, into the summer of 2010.
After the spill, a study revealed that oil mixed with Corexit is 52 times more toxic than oil alone. Wilma Subra, a chemist whose work on environmental pollution had won her a “genius grant” from the MacArthur Foundation, told state and federal authorities that she was especially concerned about how dangerous the mixture of crude and Corexit was: “The short-term health symptoms include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, and short-term loss of memory,” she told GAP investigators. “Long-term impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.” In a survey of health impacts for people along the coast, Orr found The most common ailments were headaches (87 percent of respondents), dizziness and cough (72 percent), fatigue and eye-nose-and-throat irritation (63 percent), followed by nausea, diarrhea, confusion and depression.
Environmental health consultant Wilma Subra, who evaluated the survey data, said oil and dispersant had aerosolized and travelled up to 100 miles inland, potentially exposing tens of thousands of people to the hairspray-like mist. “Now we are seeing the reproductive effects,” Subra said, including high rates of miscarriages, preemies, infant respiratory problems, and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism.
“The workers that BP hired should have been trained and protected adequately,” Subra said. “It was inappropriate to expose them to toxic chemicals as they did their job.” She told federal officials the workers needed respirators, but was rebuffed. “They said I would be killing the workers because of the heat,” she said. “There are suits with piped-in cooling. Cleanups happen all the time in hot weather.”
NOAA scientists/divers getting very sick, told there was no danger. Gulf waters disintegrated the rubber on diving suits.
"Hertsgaard goes on to explain that although BP has set aside roughly $8 billion for medical expenses related to the spill, the illnesses these people are suffering from are not covered under that settlement".
The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera (base of food chain).
I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Eventually coined "BP Syndrome" or "Gulf Coast Syndrome," all GAP witnesses experienced spill-related health problems. Some of these effects include: blood in urine; heart palpitations; kidney damage; liver damage; migraines; multiple chemical sensitivity; neurological damage resulting in memory loss; rapid weight loss; respiratory system and nervous system damage; seizures; skin irritation, burning and lesions; and temporary paralysis.
Interviewees are also extremely concerned about recognized long-term health effects from chemical exposure (from those specific chemicals found in Corexit/oil mixtures), which may not have manifested yet. These include reproductive damage (such as genetic mutations), endocrine disruption, and cancer.
Blood test results from a majority of GAP interviewees showed alarmingly high levels of chemical exposure – to Corexit and oil – that correlated with experienced health effects. These chemicals include known carcinogens.
The Failure to Protect Cleanup Workers
Contrary to warnings in BP's own internal manual, BP and the government misrepresented known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity.
Despite the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed a highly-lauded safety training program for cleanup workers, the workers interviewed reported that they either did not receive any training or did not receive the federally required training.
Federally required worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards (according to a confidential whistleblower) were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, as health problems began.
A FOIA request found that government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks. Yet, divers contracted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and interviewed by GAP dove after assurances that it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary.
BP and the federal government, through their own medical monitoring programs, each publicly denied that any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring. Of the workers GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job and blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image. The federal government permitted BP's retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.
Ecological Problems & Food Safety Issues
A majority of GAP witnesses reported that they found evidence of oil or oil debris after BP and the Coast Guard announced that cleanup operations were complete.
BP and the federal government reported that Corexit was last used in July 2010. A majority of GAP witnesses cited indications that Corexit was used after that time.
The oil-Corexit mixture coated the Gulf seafloor and permeated the Gulf's rich ecological web. GAP witnesses have revealed underwater footage of an oil-covered barren seafloor, documenting widespread damage to coral reefs.
The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP's witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill.
Inadequate Compensation
BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment.
But how do we boil this all down to one para? With only one para from and international panel of experts, the article can't give more copy to a whistle blower group. But more of this info could be used in a separate Corexit article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"Time and again, those working to clean up the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill were assured that Corexit....was as safe as "dishwasher soap"."
"In a statement issued by BP, the oil company said: "Use of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was co-ordinated with and approved by federal agencies including the US Coast Guard and EPA. Based on extensive monitoring conducted by BP and the federal agencies, BP is not aware of any data showing worker or public exposures to dispersants that would pose a health or safety concern."
"According to a new report released by the Government Accountability Project, nearly half of workers reported that their employers told them Corexit did not pose a health risk."
"And nearly all those interviewed, reported receiving minimal or no protective equipment despite warnings clearly spelled out in the manual provided by Corexit's manufacturer."
"Now three years on, many cleanup workers are reporting serious health problems including seizures, temporary paralysis and memory loss."
Tar sands are not "oil sands" except per big oil PR campaigns and Misplaced Pages
Quotation from Little Black Lies, the forthcoming book by Jeff Gailus, on using the terms tar sands or oil sands...What’s in a Name?
The oil industry and the Alberta and federal governments prefer the term “oil sands,” while most opponents use the dirtier-sounding “tar sands.” Technically, both “tar sands” and “oil sands” are inaccurate. The substance in question is actually bituminous sand, a mixture of sand, clay, water and an extremely viscous form of petroleum called bitumen, which itself contains a noxious combination of sulphur, nitrogen, salts, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. A handful of bituminous sand is the hydrocarbon equivalent of a snowball: each grain of sand is covered by a thin layer of water, all of which is enveloped in the very viscous, tar-like bitumen. In its natural state, it has the consistency of a hockey puck.
You might be forgiven for believing that the term has been foisted upon us by nasty, truth-hating environmentalists – but you’d be wrong. The term has actually been part of the oil industry lexicon for decades, used by geologists and engineers since at least 1939. According to Alberta oil historian David Finch, everyone called them the tar sands until the 1960s, and both “tar sands” and “oil sands” were used interchangeably until about 10 years ago, when the terminology became horribly politicized.
With the notable exception of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank that often collaborates with government and industry staff, critics of the way Alberta’s bitumen deposits are being developed use “tar sands,” because that is what it was called when they entered the debate. The term accentuates the obvious downsides of the endeavour – water pollution, for instance, and the decline of certain wildlife species, not to mention considerable greenhouse gas emissions and the infringement of First Nations peoples’ constitutionally protected treaty rights – but it is hardly something environmentalists concocted out of nowhere to give the contested development a bad name.
Even the Alberta Chamber of Resources, an industry lobby group, admits that the term “oil sands” gained popularity in the mid-1990s, when government and industry began an aggressive public relations campaign to improve public perception of the dirty-sounding “tar sands.” “Oil sands,” you see, conveys a certain usefulness, a natural resource that creates jobs, increases government revenues, enhances energy security and makes investors rich beyond measure. Tar, on the other hand, is dark and heavy, the kind of glop better suited to paving roads, or coating dangerous subversives before feathering and banishing them from society altogether. As any corporate communications consultant worth her $1000/day rate knows, there is nothing intrinsically correct, neutral or accurate about the term “oil sands.” Nor is it a coincidence that media coverage has favoured rich and powerful business interests. The media’s preference for “oil sands” is simply the result of the Triple Alliance’s crafty political spin and an aggressive well-funded strategy to brand bitumen development in the brightest possible light, part of a much grander battle plan that relies on a dark web of little black lies to win the day.
Is it tar sands or oil sands?
"a Somalian city"
Apropos of nothing, check out this aerial view of "a Somalian city" (don't know which one), found on Wikimedia Commons:
"A 2013 literature review said that exposure to marijuana had biologically-based physical, mental, behavioral and social health consequences and was "associated with diseases of the liver (particularly with co-existing hepatitis C), lungs, heart, and vasculature". There are insufficient data to draw strong conclusions about the safety of medical cannabis, although short-term use is associated with minor adverse effects such as dizziness. Although supporters of medical cannabis say that it is safe, petrarchan47tc03:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The few studies that exist on the effects of CBD show that this cannabinoid can counteract some of the negative effects of THC (my emphasis)
You can't really get much closer to the source than the actual words :) Nevertheless, I think your change is perfectly reasonable and probably somewhat clarifies the meaning of what I was trying to write. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Why, thank you. Here is the source from your refs for the wording I preferred (as a reader with an inquiring mind):
Dear friend, I can't imagine my wiki experience without you. I feel like we've known each other for years. Here's wishing for another year of happy editing! Gandydancer (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Gandy, i feel the same. Thank you for giving me yet another perma-smile. I am delighted to know it is mutual. Blessings for your '14!!! petrarchan47tc04:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
(friendly stalker) Thanks Buster. Say Petrar, did you catch this Democracy Now show? Buster, speaking of spring, as am avid gardener, I'm sure enjoying seeing the return of another spring. Not only the plants, but it is good to hear the songs of the returning birds as well. On the other hand, it is so sad to see fewer and fewer each year. We used to have bats--they are gone. We had swallows--I saw only two last year. And on and on. It is heartbreaking to see the world die right before our eyes. I remember when the windshield of our cars needed to be scraped of hundreds of bug splats--no more. Moths and butterflys--hardly see any these days. I guess that that is what keeps me posting on articles like BP, but it seems to be a losing cause. Say P, is there anything new on the Decorah (sp?) eagles? My love to both of you, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Total miracle: all three eggs hatched, even though they were laid into a nest that was pure ice, and it was subzero temps for most of the incubation time. Even the pro's said only one would hatch, at most. They've never seen anything like this before. Now they are teenagers, lazy, eating and napping around the clock. Adorable.
The loss of butterflies is most disturbing, and for me, most evident. I'm reading that it's due to GMO crops, and the increased use of pesticides that accompany them. BTW, the first time I heard about MEDRS was when I found a Reuters article showing that Roundup was being found in urine samples, and was leading to cancers. It was the first time I was not allowed to use a Reuters article on WP, and when i met the tight knit crewe at the noticeboard. It turns out that all along MEDRS is being misused, as Gandy and I have been saying for months. It's not a guideline after-all. Interesting to think of how much information is kept from our readers due to this manipulation.
Yes, I've been keeping up to date on the BP issue, though I hadn't yet seen the latest from Buster. Here is an article that goes along with the DemNow interview - basically the blowout preventer has *not* been improved, and BP is now allowed back in the gulf for new leases. This needs to be added to WP. It's funny that we get so much grief for being rough on BP, when little-to-none of this sort of information is mentioned in any WP article. Remember trying to quote RS that BP had the worst safety record? We got our asses handed to us for that. Well, this New Yorker article says it loud and clear, and details a huge chunk of the BP oil spill story that is nowhere to be found on WP. And BP has just declared it won't be funding studies to look into the damage done. Scientists say this work won't be done, as there is no funding elsewhere. Also needing updated: BP says it's done with cleanup, Coast Guard differs. petrarchan47tc22:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Where's the Beef? The talk pages have been quite for a month. I'm reminded of the old west adage..."when yur 6-gun is loaded, ya just wanna shoot sumthin! ```Buster Seven Talk01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Petra, I just realized today how long it has been since I've seen you edit. I hope you're okay, and that you have a good 2015. It would be lovely to hear from you sometime. All the best, SlimVirgin02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I miss you too. It's never been the same without you here Petra. Who else could I ever give hugs and kisses to and get them in return as well? xxxooo Gandydancer (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Bless your hearts! (You too, Core and Buster) Big big hugs go out to you precious people from me - know that.
I am really enjoying my break. Doing lots of healing. WP was nothing but stress for me and a source of much anger... or at least it brought it up in me. (I should probably 'own my feelings'.)
One day I will probably return, and i will check in with you all more regularly in the meantime. Many blessings!! xxooo ~ Sarah petrarchan47tc04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, it's lovely to hear from you. I'm glad you managed to make the break and that you're doing okay. It's Misplaced Pages's loss, not yours, though I add my voice to the others that it would be nice (for us) to see you back. SlimVirgin16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I use Misplaced Pages daily to look up and supplement any research on a wide variety of subjects. If I find a Misplaced Pages entry that has problems, sometimes I will try to correct them. Recently, I have seen a number of false claims of a "scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. I wanted to see how Misplaced Pages handled it, and was floored to see that this false claim was repeated in the article I looked up. I was tempted to fix it, but I also know that correcting a blatant falsehood like that is likely to meet with substantial and unreasonable opposition (from my experience on the Lennar_Corporation page) and that contentious pages are can be more or less "owned" by a small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject, and if one or more of them is an admin, they often threaten novice editors with their power to censure and block, their greater knowledge of the process and connections and credibility (deserved or otherwise), making any attempt to challenge their slanted view almost hopeless, except for those with extreme patience and perseverance.
So before jumping in to correct the bogus "scientific consensus" claim, I decided to see where it came from and who the players are on that page and what kind of resistance I am likely to encounter by stating the "inconvenient" truth.
The "scientific consensus" claim was added to Genetically_modified_food_controversies by a now defunct user "pathogen5" on 14 December 2010 (23:48), with a host of other strong pro-industry statements, some of which were quickly identified by Gandydancer on 24 April 2011 (11:14) and eliminated. Unfortunately, the "scientific consensus" sentence survived and I was unable to find any debate on it on the talk pages there. I looked up Gandydancer and this is how I found you, Viriditas and Groupuscule. From reading Gandydancer's talk page about the March Against Monsanto, I see comments such as "I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page. I get that you see the 'scientific consensus on human health' claim as a lost cause, and maybe you're right." From my limited review of user talk pages of that time period on the subject, I got the sense that a number of the four of you were met with heavy resistance (some even blocked) for trying to put in the truth on this and related subjects. I definitely understand, I have been there too on a page that will remain nameless, but for which I did get the truth in after a 3 year wait!
So, I am contacting you and asking any advice on how to proceed with addressing the issue.
I will likely write up my proposed edits and see what the 4 of you think, before I jump into the water of sharks with them...
Because of this very reality here, and especially because I made an enemy by trying to 'out' the main player(s), I am not active as an editor anymore.
That Misplaced Pages has allowed this takeover to happen has only served to discredit the encyclopedia. I do not hear ANYONE online/IRL who trusts Misplaced Pages, who would cite an article here without some sort of caveat, "Well, it is Misplaced Pages, but, for what it's worth..." I am not exaggerating. Literally no one that I have come across in the last year or so views this site as a trustworthy source. So it makes it less important for me what the articles say. In fact, I no longer care at all.
What has happened to all articles related to GMO and industrial agriculture has also happened to any article that the pharmaceutical industry, the petro industry, and perhaps any profitable industry, would be interested in - and that includes a LOT of articles. Unfortunately they were the areas I was most interested in. The head of the GMO articles here, who is known on the web as a Monsanto shill going back many years, is also very active in the Pharma (or "health") articles. Like Monsanto, this individual has no problems with fighting dirty, and would send sockpuppets and buddies to attack me or challenge me almost anywhere I went. There is a gang who controls those articles, who work here every single day, whilst supposedly having real jobs as scientists, and brutally guard their work.
There is nothing that any one or two or five individuals can do to reverse this, unless some of those are 'high ups' at Misplaced Pages. The high ups have been compromised just as the articles and encyclopedia has. The noticeboards which serve as our court system are a free-for-all fuckfest of buddies and bullshit. Absolute ridiculous waste of time. Totally corrupt.
The one bright light in this, as I see it, is that no one trusts Misplaced Pages anymore, if they ever did. It is beyond obvious that the articles now reflect the corporate/government viewpoint to almost the same degree that the corporate-controlled media does.
What I figured at the end of my editing career was, the very way these GMO articles are written (very obviously by insiders and pro-industry folk) tells the reader at the outset: "This is an ad. You want truth about GMO's (or natural healing, big oil, etc.)? Misplaced Pages is NOT the place to find it"
If I believed that my efforts here could make this message more clear, or even to help create unbiased, encyclopedic articles, I would stick around and help. But after a few years of seeing it only get exponentially worse, whilst actually taking up more time, energy, and causing emotional upheaval in my life, I am very happy to now rely solely on the wisdom of our readers. And I have not been disappointed by that decision. This group overplayed their hand. Now they've muddied the very platform they sought to exploit. petrarchan47tc05:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .
"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ."
(Michael Crichton, reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.)
Kochanowski, M.; Kała, M. (2005). "Tetrahydrocannabinols in clinical and forensic toxicology". Przegl Lek. 62 (6): 576–80. PMID16225128. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep (Review). 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Washington, Tabitha A.; Brown, Khalilah M.; Fanciullo, Gilbert J. (2012). "Chapter 31: Medical Cannabis". Pain. Oxford University Press. p. 165. ISBN978-0-19-994274-9. Proponents of medical cannabis site its safety, but there are clear uncertainties regarding safety, composition and dosage.
