05-02-2012, 04:12 PM
QUOTE][/QUOTE]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0711000358
Translation: If we were REAL scientists, and not environmentalits nutbag moonbat activist useful idiots, we wouldn't use 152 measley feathers as a weak implication to a scientific baseline study, from an undisclosed number of birds (did the 152 feathers come from one lead-infatuated condor, 3, 10...?). Notice the non-specific citing of "some individuals". Was it 2 condors? 3? These "scientists" don't specify.
152 feathers gathered from a 1500km span of habitat...wow. That is really falling short of even a rudimentary sampling of the region. Maybe good enough for a public junior high science fair, but not meeting any resemblance of science in the adult world.
To admit that their results suggest that lead MIGHT come from a mix of two types of ammunition sources, the single bit of transparency jumps out to those formally trained in critical thinking skills, as well as those who can simply read and apply logic. Either way, this paper has so many holes in it, that it doesn't even pass the most cursory sweep of inspection at a glance, and further observation reveals a chain of amateur claims of non-specificity, that it's shameful to even associate it with any type of hard science.
But the authors are relying on an unsuspecting audience to assume that their claims of scientific study should hold weight by the mere mentioning of Biological Conservation, and their results should be accepted at face value.
The true goal, as I stated before, is clear for all to see in the final sentence of the abstract: banning of lead ammunition, even after a sorry excuse of a study such as this, based on 152 feathers from an undisclosed number of condors taken from a 1500km stretch of South American territory.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the study included 152,000 feathers gathered from thousands of birds across the region, with isolation of the variables for lead sources, clearly pinpointing ammunition, that would be one thing. Since these populations are so small, they are perfect for lazy environmentalist whackos who couldn't cut it in the real world, so they went into biological sciences studying under some commie professor (who obviously lets work like this example slide as an acceptable academic paper), and rewards the little hippies with passing or even exemplary grades, as long as they toe the party line.
You often find that these "researchers" fabricate their data, like what was done with the bone dust "found" at a Neanderthal grave. After mitochondrial DNA analysis confirmed that the Neanderthal remains aren't related to Cro Magnon species, it sent the whacko academia into a frenzy, shattering pre-conceived ideas about the progression of pre-homo sapien races, assumed to be our ancestors.
At first, they questioned the reliability of mitochondrial DNA science, then fortuitously, some bone dust was found at the scene, and the previous assumptions were placed back in good standing. Hoorah for "science", and the meatheads who adhere to their academic religion of intolerance of actual facts that bring their silly presets into question. It's no different than dealing with the clergy of the Dark Ages, who would call anyone a heretic for actually thinking and doing research, then publishing that research without permission from the ecclesiastical hegemons, who were only concerned with their power over the serfs and monarchs alike.
Quote:Abstract
Lead poisoning is not a new threat for wild birds, but it is now playing an important role in shaping raptor populations. Studies have been focused mainly on Europe, North-America, and Japan, but little is known about the situation in South-America. Lead is a serious threat for wildlife, especially for long-lived species. Nevertheless, no information is available for wild Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) populations. This species, which lives throughout the Andes Mountains, is endangered mainly in the north though it is having problems throughout its distribution. We evaluated lead exposure in the Andean condor by a non-destructive method using feathers. We determined lead concentration from 152 feathers, collected in 15 communal roosts distributed throughout almost all condorÂ’s range in Patagonia (ca. 1500 km north–south). We also looked for the origin of this lead through the analysis of lead isotope composition of feathers and ammunition. We present here the first reference data on lead concentration for a raptor population from Argentina. Lead concentrations were generally low, however, some individuals had concentrations several times above the overall mean (up to 21 μg/g). Our results suggest that lead might come from a mix of two types of ammunition sources, one used for big game and another for hare hunting. Andean condors are at the top of the food chain, thus all the other medium-to-large sized scavengers and predators from this area can be also exposed to this threat. We highlight the need to change hunting policies in Argentina, and in other South-American countries, including the banning of lead ammunitions to protect carnivores consuming hunted animals.
Translation: If we were REAL scientists, and not environmentalits nutbag moonbat activist useful idiots, we wouldn't use 152 measley feathers as a weak implication to a scientific baseline study, from an undisclosed number of birds (did the 152 feathers come from one lead-infatuated condor, 3, 10...?). Notice the non-specific citing of "some individuals". Was it 2 condors? 3? These "scientists" don't specify.
152 feathers gathered from a 1500km span of habitat...wow. That is really falling short of even a rudimentary sampling of the region. Maybe good enough for a public junior high science fair, but not meeting any resemblance of science in the adult world.
To admit that their results suggest that lead MIGHT come from a mix of two types of ammunition sources, the single bit of transparency jumps out to those formally trained in critical thinking skills, as well as those who can simply read and apply logic. Either way, this paper has so many holes in it, that it doesn't even pass the most cursory sweep of inspection at a glance, and further observation reveals a chain of amateur claims of non-specificity, that it's shameful to even associate it with any type of hard science.
But the authors are relying on an unsuspecting audience to assume that their claims of scientific study should hold weight by the mere mentioning of Biological Conservation, and their results should be accepted at face value.
The true goal, as I stated before, is clear for all to see in the final sentence of the abstract: banning of lead ammunition, even after a sorry excuse of a study such as this, based on 152 feathers from an undisclosed number of condors taken from a 1500km stretch of South American territory.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the study included 152,000 feathers gathered from thousands of birds across the region, with isolation of the variables for lead sources, clearly pinpointing ammunition, that would be one thing. Since these populations are so small, they are perfect for lazy environmentalist whackos who couldn't cut it in the real world, so they went into biological sciences studying under some commie professor (who obviously lets work like this example slide as an acceptable academic paper), and rewards the little hippies with passing or even exemplary grades, as long as they toe the party line.
You often find that these "researchers" fabricate their data, like what was done with the bone dust "found" at a Neanderthal grave. After mitochondrial DNA analysis confirmed that the Neanderthal remains aren't related to Cro Magnon species, it sent the whacko academia into a frenzy, shattering pre-conceived ideas about the progression of pre-homo sapien races, assumed to be our ancestors.
At first, they questioned the reliability of mitochondrial DNA science, then fortuitously, some bone dust was found at the scene, and the previous assumptions were placed back in good standing. Hoorah for "science", and the meatheads who adhere to their academic religion of intolerance of actual facts that bring their silly presets into question. It's no different than dealing with the clergy of the Dark Ages, who would call anyone a heretic for actually thinking and doing research, then publishing that research without permission from the ecclesiastical hegemons, who were only concerned with their power over the serfs and monarchs alike.