Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Suckers for science

A month ago, Canada took the extreme measure of declaring Bisphenol A a toxic substance, which will in the future determine how the plastic additive can be used in products sold across the country.

A month ago, Canada took the extreme measure of declaring Bisphenol A a toxic substance, which will in the future determine how the plastic additive can be used in products sold across the country. Last week we had the federal government calling for a voluntary ban on jewelry made with cadmium, which can cause serious health problems if ingested.

Around the same time the David Suzuki Foundation (www.davidsuzuki.org) released a "Dirty Dozen" list of toxins found in cosmetic products, both as a way to educate consumers as well as to apply pressure on governments and companies to get these toxins off the market.

On the one hand we have the government finally acknowledging that a toxic substance is toxic and asking for a voluntary ban on another substance that is also widely known to be toxic. On the other hand we have scientists telling us that other substances that are known to be toxic are in cosmetic products that anyone can purchase over the counter.

All good things, but it raises some important questions:

Why did it take so long to declare BPA toxic? Why only a voluntary ban on cadmium jewelry? And why are so many toxins in everyday products?

The most obvious reason is that, in Canada, the onus is on government to prove without a doubt that a substance is toxic and to either ban or regulate the use of that substance. Instead of requiring companies to prove things are safe, it's all up to the feds and their limited resources. I once read that it takes about seven years to properly study a material or compound for safety and that there are about 10,000 substances out there in consumer products that haven't been tested by government. We err on the side of business rather than on the side of caution.

Part of the problem is that scientists themselves are reluctant to say anything is certain, even if they're 99.9 per cent sure a substance is toxic. Since it's almost impossible to be 100 per cent sure of anything in this world, even the most well-established science is still presented as theories and hypotheses.

On top of that, we're in an era where science is becoming more and more politicized, where scientists on the government payroll are having their work modified or shelved if the results disagree with the official policy.

So where do you go for the genuine facts?

For Canadians, since last week, the answer is PublicScience.ca, a new web portal launched by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Under the banner "Science that Protects You," the website takes all the middle men in government and industry out of science reporting and puts the unvarnished facts on the table.

The goal for all issues, whether it's climate change, fish farming or the oil sands, is to be impartial, and let the science and scientists speak for themselves.

 

The beginning of the App age

Apps on phones are a good idea. With all the features that a typical smart phone has - touch screen, accelerometers, built-in GPS and mapping - plus the unique screen sizes and touch interfaces, typical applications are not a good idea. Apps are smaller to reflect the limited memory available, sleeker to reflect the interface and purpose-built.

But Apple changed the game with the release of their iPad. Rather than run their OSX operating system, something that allows a high degree of choice and customization by the user, they went with the same App-based model they use for their iPhone and iPod Touch. For a niche product it's not a bad idea, but the iPad is being promoted as the future of computing - and if that's the case, then some believe that we're all in trouble. Some pundits are concerned that the App Store gives Apple too much power over its users and developers. They can easily shut out competing software companies, favour one company over another, favour one platform over another (e.g. HTML 5 instead of Flash) and generally dictate what you're allowed to do with the hardware you purchase. When you buy their hardware, you're stuck buying their approved software as well.

It seems that the App store concept didn't stop at the iPod either, as last week Apple announced plans to spread their App store to laptop and desktop computers. So far you still run the operating system of your choice and can acquire all your software in the usual ways, but you can also download software in App form. There are some advantages, such as automatic updates, and the ability to more easily sync and share with your iPhone or iPad, but it also creates a situation where software companies may feel they have to go through the App Store to reach the public. It discourages open source development, and makes it impossible for companies to develop a business model separate from Apple's. For example, some companies give software away for free but ask for donations, or offer free software but charge for plug-ins or premium versions. The App Store also sets the price, and may force some companies to charge less than they normally would.

If this becomes the model that other companies go with it could fragment the computer world into smaller pieces - assuming that not everybody will buy Apple products. This would kill all the progress that has been made to unify all the different types of computers and operating systems out there through online software.