Posts Tagged ‘junk science’

fraud.png

FBI, DOJ And Their Forensic Scientists State They’ll Continue Using Discredited Junk Science To Put People Behind Bars

 

 

The questions that DNA analysis had raised about the scientific validity of traditional forensic disciplines and testimony based on them led, naturally, to increased efforts to test empirically the reliability of the methods that those disciplines employed. Relevant studies that followed included:

• a 2002 FBI re-examination of microscopic hair comparisons the agency’s scientists had performed in criminal cases, in which DNA testing revealed that 11 percent of hair samples found to match microscopically actually came from different individuals;

• a 2004 National Research Council report, commissioned by the FBI, on bullet-lead evidence, which found that there was insufficient research and data to support drawing a definitive connection between two bullets based on compositional similarity of the lead they contain;

• a 2005 report of an international committee established by the FBI to review the use of latent fingerprint evidence in the case of a terrorist bombing in Spain, in which the committee found that “confirmation bias”—the inclination to confirm a suspicion based on other grounds—contributed to a misidentification and improper detention; and

• studies reported in 2009 and 2010 on bitemark evidence, which found that current procedures for comparing bitemarks are unable to reliably exclude or include a suspect as a potential biter.

Beyond these kinds of shortfalls with respect to “reliable methods” in forensic feature-comparison disciplines, reviews have found that expert witnesses have often overstated the probative value of their evidence, going far beyond what the relevant science can justify. Examiners have sometimes testified, for example, that their conclusions are “100 percent certain;” or have “zero,” “essentially zero,” or “negligible,” error rate. As many reviews—including the highly regarded 2009 National Research Council study—have noted, however, such statements are not scientifically defensible: all laboratory tests and feature-comparison analyses have non-zero error rates.

 

image

 

  • Question: How much radioactive cesium is safe to eat?
  • Answer: Zero.

“On average, fish in the 33,000 tests had 18 becquerels per kilo of radioactive cesium… Some fish samples tested to date have had very high levels of radiation: one sea bass sample collected in July, for example, had 1,000 becquerels per kilogram of cesium.” –CTV

The Japanese government is now responsible for contaminating a large swath of the north Pacific and the fish that live in that irradiated environment.  This contamination is undeniable and continues daily constituting a crime, a massive crime on a scale seldom seen.  The collusion of other nuclear states in trying to minimize the perception of harm from this contamination makes them partners in the crime.  Fukushima is perhaps the greatest environmental crime ever perpetrated and it continues every day.

Legions of troll shills — and deluded true believers — attempt to type away the real harm spewing into the ocean.  They rely on old and discredited studies to pretend that the cancer and disease risks are negligible (to them), and that we should just accept this poisoning without taking action to oppose them.  This immoral position they hold must be challenged and their junk science called out as a fraud.

The Children of Chernobyl

The Future Children of Fukushima

Cancer Risk Model Undercounts Victims: