That's quite a potty-mouth, you have there, for the big HE-MAN you posture yourself to be, Frank. You always say things without supporting evidence, Frank. Why is that, Frank? Why can't you do that, Frank? That's not very professional of you, Frank. Could I have a citation, or shall we just chalk this up to another load out of your backside, Frank?
" I get paid for regulatory consulting." ROLF, snark,
So now it is biased. By your judgement. It is your judgement that there is not enough evidence that BPA is potentially harmful even for restriction under the precautionary principle. OK, other disagree but OK for now.
Now back to the original point. What political end is being served by this bias? Why is the PCP biased?
David
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required