Read on Twitter
when I talk about @Oregonian printing bad information about chemical weapons, @tbottomly , this is the article I'm most thinking of
https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2020/07/unprecedented-use-of-tear-gas-against-portland-protesters-prompts-state-regulators-to-call-for-environmental-testing.html
The false information often usually comes in the form of unchecked quotes from public officials, a thread:
https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2020/07/unprecedented-use-of-tear-gas-against-portland-protesters-prompts-state-regulators-to-call-for-environmental-testing.html
The false information often usually comes in the form of unchecked quotes from public officials, a thread:
"“Maybe these materials aren’t hazardous, maybe they are,” Dulken said. “We’re researching that. There isn’t a lot of information.”"
actually there's plenty of information on the hazardous of the chemical listed on the federal chemical registry https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile
actually there's plenty of information on the hazardous of the chemical listed on the federal chemical registry https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile
"Esteve said that CS gas, a form of which has been used on Portland streets for months, is “not considered a federal hazardous substance.”"
It actually is a federal hazardous substance, under Oregon Administrative Rule 340 101 0030
https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_340-101-0030
It actually is a federal hazardous substance, under Oregon Administrative Rule 340 101 0030
https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_340-101-0030
yes, the state of Oregon extends the federal list, such that it is, in the strict sense, a federal hazardous substance
this isn't trivial word mincing, it's significantly consequential and the fact that the agency whose job it is to know this isn't acknowledging it is bad
this isn't trivial word mincing, it's significantly consequential and the fact that the agency whose job it is to know this isn't acknowledging it is bad
these are the sorts of things that need vetting before printing, esp. given the ramifications
quoting "There isn’t a lot of information" about CS toxicity when there's body of evidence to show its toxicity dating back to at least 1978, is the issue here
https://europepmc.org/article/med/367807
quoting "There isn’t a lot of information" about CS toxicity when there's body of evidence to show its toxicity dating back to at least 1978, is the issue here
https://europepmc.org/article/med/367807
quoting that CS isn't a federal hazardous waste when it is, and needs to be treated as such by the state agency who happens to be the ones telling you that it isn't, is the issue here
I hope you can understand the need for independent scientific input to avoid such biasing.
I hope you can understand the need for independent scientific input to avoid such biasing.
