Kohath writes: Bottled water producers applied to the EU for the right to claim that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration”. The health claim was reviewed by a panel of 21 scientists on behalf of the European Food Standards Authority. The application was denied, and now producers of bottled water are forbidden by law from making the claim. They will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the EU edict.
Kohath writes: The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia have produced an analysis of global temperature trends indicating climate warming during the 20th century. Recently, Steve McIntyre from Climate Audit, known for helping discredit the Mann "hockey stick", requested the source data from CRU to validate the CRU's findings. His request was refused on the premise that Mr. McIntyre is not an academic. A subsequent request by Roger Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at UC-Boulder, was refused for a more fundamental reason: the original data is lost. While "climate change" skeptics have jumped on this revelation, professor Pielke is not among their ranks. He laments: "... it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science)".
Kohath writes: In today's Washington Post, Spencer H. Kim, father of the late senior CNet editor James Kim suggests that privacy laws were one factor in the inability to rescue Mr. Kim before he died of hypothermia in the Oregon wilderness. Spencer Kim writes:
Four days passed before we even knew James and his family were missing. But because my family was unable to confirm credit card and phone-use information until days after their absence was discovered, the start of the search was needlessly delayed. Precious time and a precious life were lost.
Like all laws, privacy laws have unintended consequences. Spencer Kim suggests these laws be amended to limit those consequences, even though it means less privacy.
Kohath writes: The Democratic leadership in the Senate today sent a letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger implicitly threatening ABC's broadcast license if they go ahead with the planned airing of the "Path to 9/11" miniseries. ABC has spent $40 million developing the miniseries, which is set to air Sunday and Monday for the 5th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US. The accuracy and truthfulness of this miniseries has been disputed by former Clinton administration officials. But is this kind of censorship really the right answer? And will we ever get to see "The Path to 9/11" miniseries so we can judge the content for ourselves?