The stimulus includes "$219,000 to study the sex lives of female college freshmen.

Explanation: McConnell claims stimulus includes $219,000 to study the sex lives of female college freshmen

In an address on the anniversary of the economic stimulus, President Barack Obama boasted that despite the massive and rapid spending in the $862 billion package, you're not hearing about money being misspent. "I was still concerned -- Joe (Biden) and I were just talking in the back -- when this thing passed we said $787 billion -- somewhere there’s going to be some story of some money that ended up being misspent; $787 billion spent out over 18 months, that's a lot -- that's a lot of money," Obama said. "And it is a testimony to Vice President Biden and his team that, as Joe puts it, the dog, so far at least, hasn't barked. " But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell put out a press release titled "Stimulus Anniversary Gifts to Taxpayers: One Year of Spending Taxpayer Dollars Studying Malt Liquor and Marijuana, Researching Drunk Mice, Funding Martini Bars and Steakhouses, and Examining Facebook." It lists 15 stimulus projects. We took a look at several items on this list, as well as a few from House Republican Leader John Boehner to see if they were as billed. In this item, we look at McConnell's claim that the stimulus includes "$219,000 to study the sex lives of female college freshmen." We couldn't resist checking this one out.Especially after reading a Sept. 8, 2009, story in the (Syracuse) Daily Orange, that begins, "Five hundred Syracuse University freshmen will divulge the details of their sex lives as part of a women's health study" ... paid for with $219,000 in stimulus funds.Alas, the academic rendering of the study on the government's stimulus Web site, recovery.gov, doesn't read nearly as provocatively:"Scientific Rationale: The transition from adolescence to adulthood involves important developmental challenges. Events during this key developmental phase can profoundly shape and influence academic and occupational achievement as well as affect health outcomes. During this time, women are particularly vulnerable to a number of health threats including depressive, anxiety and eating disorders; psychosomatic conditions; intimate partner coercion and violence; and sexually transmitted infections. Understanding gender-based health disparities is an important public health goal. Preliminary scientific reports suggest that intimate encounters between partners who have no expectation of a romantic commitment may be increasing and that these encounters may be partly responsible for gender-based health disparities. However, little research has investigated the health consequences of such encounters using a large sample, a longitudinal design, reliable and valid measures, and sophisticated data analyses. "Later, it's translated more plainly: They will study the physical and mental health consequences of hookups.In other words, this is a public health study (funded through the Department of Health and Human Services), not a submission to Penthouse.The two-year survey will track health-related behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol use, exercise and physical activity, sleep and sexual behavior as well as psychosomatic and mental health symptoms. The findings will be used "to inform parents, educators, medical and public health professionals, and to guide the development of more effective health promotion and disease prevention programs. "In the Daily Orange story, the man conducting the study, Syracuse University professor of psychology and medicine Michael Carey, defended it as a worthwhile study that will help improve approaches to intervention in women's health. "The Women's Health Project includes sexual behavior … because of the increasing recognition that social and health problems are linked to sexual behavior … and that there has been little scientific study of the topic despite its potential health implications," Carey said. "Women have been traditionally neglected in health research, even though they are disproportionately vulnerable to a number of health threats," such as sexually transmitted diseases and eating disorders, Carey said. Although Carey applied to the National Institutes of Health for funding long before the stimulus was even being considered, he said stimulus funds are appropriate for the study. "The funds invested in this project do help to support jobs and will quickly find their way back into the local economy," Carey said. "Moreover, investing in health and health research is as important to the revitalization of our economy as are investments in our physical infrastructure. "As for the jobs, there won't be many direct ones. According to the recovery.gov synopsis, the study will involve a half-time research assistant and part-time temporary assistants. While McConnell's characterization of the study packs a good political punch, we think the actual study isn't nearly as ... sexy ... as he makes it out to be. It's a public health study. And so we rule this claim .


Jury clears J&J of liability in New Jersey talc cancer case.

Explanation: A New Jersey jury on Thursday cleared Johnson & Johnson of liability in a case involving a woman who alleged that the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contain asbestos and caused her cancer.

After less than a day of deliberations, the jury in New Brunswick, New Jersey rejected claims by Rosalind Henry and her husband, who had alleged that Henry’s mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos exposure, was caused by the company’s talc products. J&J is facing some 10,600 liability lawsuits across the United States over its talc products, most involving claims that they caused ovarian cancer, and that the company knew of and concealed risks associated with the products. The company, which is based just a few miles from the courtroom where the latest case took place, said it was pleased with the unanimous jury verdict. “We have deep sympathy for anyone diagnosed with any form of cancer and appreciate that people are looking for answers. However, Johnson’s baby powder is not the cause of this disease,” the company said in a statement. It said decades of scientific testing by academic institutions and regulators have shown its talc to be safe and free of asbestos. A lawyer for Henry did not immediately return a request for comment. During trial, Henry’s lawyers said J&J had known for decades about asbestos fibers in its talc, but hid the evidence from regulators and consumers. J&J has been fighting talc cancer lawsuits for several years, but the litigation shifted in recent months to include allegations of asbestos contamination. Plaintiffs now claim asbestos fibers in the products are causing both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. In April, J&J lost the first trial over such allegations when a jury in New Jersey awarded $117 million to a man suffering from mesothelioma and his wife. It lost another trial in May, when a California jury awarded $25.7 million to a woman diagnosed with mesothelioma. Both decisions are under appeal. Since then, the company has had four mistrials in similar  cases because jurors could not reach a verdict or because the plaintiff died. In July, a Missouri jury hit J&J with a massive $4.69 billion verdict in the first trial alleging asbestos contamination has caused ovarian cancer in 22 women. That decision is also under appeal.


More women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year.

Explanation: Variations:   A similar item, circulated during the 2014 World Cup football (i.e., soccer) tournament and based on a study by researchers at Lancaster University, held that “Every time England loses the World Cup, domestic violence against women raises 38%.”

Domestic violence has been a problem all too often ignored, covered up, and swept under the rug. Many well-intentioned and successful efforts have been made in the last few decades to bring the issue to public attention; to get the word out to women that they need not suffer silent, helpless, and alone; to advertise that there are organizations victims can turn to for help and support; and to educate others in spotting the signs of abuse. Unfortunately, nearly every cause will encompass a sub-group of advocates who, either through deliberate disingenuousness or earnest gullibility, end up spreading “noble lies” in the furtherance of that cause. The myth of Super Bowl Sunday violence is one such noble lie. The claim that Super Bowl Sunday is “the biggest day of the year for violence against women” is a case study of how easily an idea congruous with what people want to believe can be implanted in the public consciousness and anointed as “fact” even when there is little or no supporting evidence behind it. Christina Hoff Sommers charted a timeline of how the apocryphal statistic about domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday was widely (if erroneously) publicized over the course of a few days leading up to the Super Bowl in January 1993:  Thursday, January 28 A news conference was called in Pasadena, California, the site of the forthcoming Super Bowl game, by a coalition of women’s groups. At the news conference reporters were informed that significant anecdotal evidence suggested that Super Bowl Sunday is “the biggest day of the year for violence against women.” Prior to the conference, there had been reports of increases as high as 40 percent in calls for help from victims that day. At the conference, Sheila Kuehl of the California Women’s Law Center cited a study done at Virginia’s Old Dominion University three years before, saying that it found police reports of beatings and hospital admissions in northern Virginia rose 40 percent after games won by the Redskins during the 1988-89 season. The presence of Linda Mitchell at the conference, a representative of a media “watchdog” group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), lent credibility to the cause.At about this time a very large media mailing was sent by Dobisky Associates, warning at-risk women, “Don’t remain at home with him during the game.” The idea that sports fans are prone to attack wives or girlfriends on that climactic day persuaded many men as well: Robert Lipsyte of the New York Times would soon be referring to the “Abuse Bowl.”  Friday, January 29 Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist and author of The Battered Woman, appeared on “Good Morning America” claiming to have compiled a ten-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays. Here, again, a representative from FAIR, Laura Flanders, was present to lend credibility to the cause. Saturday, January 30 A story in the Boston Globe written by Linda Gorov reported that women’s shelters and hotlines are “flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year.” Gorov cited “one study of women’s shelters out West” that “showed a 40 percent climb in calls, a pattern advocates said is repeated nationwide, including in Massachusetts.” Commentators were quick to offers reasons why this “fact” was so obviously true: Men are mostly loutish brutes, and football is the epitome of mindless, aggressive, violent, testosterone-driven macho posturing, so certainly during the culmination of the football season and its final, spectacular, massively-hyped “super” game, more men than ever were going to express their excitement or disappointment by smacking their wives and girlfriends around. So much attention did the “Super Bowl abuse” stories garner that NBC aired a public service announcement before the 1993 game to remind men that domestic violence is a crime. Ken Ringle, a reporter for the Washington Post, was one of the few journalists to bother to check the sources behind the stories. When he contacted Janet Katz, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University, and one of the authors of the study cited during the January 28 news conference, he found: Janet Katz, professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion and one of the authors of that study, said “that’s not what we found at all. “One of the most notable findings, she said, was that an increase of emergency room admissions “was not associated with the occurrence of football games in general, nor with watching a team lose.” When they looked at win days alone, however, they found that the number of women admitted for gunshot wounds, stabbings, assaults, falls, lacerations and wounds from being hit by objects was slightly higher than average. But certainly not 40 percent. “These are interesting but very tentative findings, suggesting what violence there is from males after football may spring not from a feeling of defensive insecurity, which you’d associate with a loss, but from the sense of empowerment following a win. We found that significant. But it certainly doesn’t support what those women are saying in Pasadena,” Katz said. Likewise, Ringle checked the claim made by Dobisky Associates (the organization that had mailed warnings to women advising them not to stay at home with their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday) that “Super Bowl Sunday is the one day in the year when hot lines, shelters, and other agencies that work with battered women get the most reports and complaints of domestic violence.” Dobisky’s source for this quote was Charles Patrick Ewing, a professor at the University at Buffalo, but Professor Ewing told Ringle he’d never said it: “I don’t think anybody has any systematic data on any of this,” said Charles Patrick Ewing, a forensic psychologist and author of “Battered Women Who Kill.”Yet Ewing is quoted in the release from Dobisky Associates declaring “Super Bowl Sunday is one day in the year when hot lines, shelters and other agencies that work with battered women get the most reports and complaints of domestic violence.” “I never said that,” Ewing said. “I don’t know that to be true.” Told of Ewing’s response, Frank Dobisky acknowledged that the quote should have read “one of the days of the year.” That could mean one of many days in the year. In addition, Ringle learned that Linda Gorov, the Boston Globe reporter who’d written that women’s shelters and hotlines are “flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year” hadn’t even seen the study she’d cited in support of that statement but had merely been told about it by Linda Mitchell, the FAIR representative who was present at the January 28 news conference that had kicked off the whole issue. Did any evidence back up the assertion that Super Bowl Sunday was the leading day for domestic violence? When the Washington Post‘s Ringle attempted to follow the chain by contacting Linda Mitchell of FAIR, Mitchell said her source had been Lenore Walker, the Denver psychologist who’d appeared on “Good Morning America” the day after the news conference. Ms. Walker’s office referred Ringle to Michael Lindsey, another Denver psychologist who was also an authority on battered women. Mr. Lindsey told Ringle that “I haven’t been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this” and asked, “You think maybe we have one of these myth things here?” The upshot? It turned out that Super Bowl Sunday in 1993 (as in other years) was not a significantly different day for those who monitor domestic abuse hotlines and staff battered women’s shelters:  Those who work with the victims of domestic violence in Connecticut reported no increase in cases [on the day after the Super Bowl], after a barrage of publicity on the potential link between Super Bowl gatherings and family violence. An increase in domestic violence predicted for Super Bowl Sunday did not happen in Columbus, authorities said, and others nationwide said women’s rights activists were spreading the wrong message. Despite some pregame hype about the “day of dread” for some women, Columbus-area domestic violence counselors said that [Super Bowl] Sunday, although certainly violent for some women, was relatively routine. So, on what day of the year is domestic violence against women most prevalent, if not Super Bowl Sunday? It appears domestic violence doesn’t peak on any one specific day, but it does rise at  particular times of the year. For example, a 2006 study published in the Handbook of Sports and Media that examined over 1.3 million domestic violence police reports from every day of the year in 15 NFL cities found only a very small rise in domestic violence dispatches on (or just after) Super Bowl Sunday, but nearly a quintupling of domestic violence police dispatch reports around major holidays such as Christmas. A 2007 study that analyzed patterns of women fleeing domestic abuse found that the highest intake rates of women with children at shelters coincided not with Super Bowl Sunday, but with breaks in the school calendar such as Christmas vacation, spring break, and summer vacation (although that study surveyed when women most often fled from their abusers rather than when they actually experienced the abuse that prompted them to flee). The weeks and months after the 1993 Super Bowl saw a fair amount of backpedaling by those who had propagated the Super Bowl Sunday violence myth, but as usual the retractions and corrections received far less attention than the sensational-but-false stories everyone wanted to believe, and the bogus Super Bowl statistic remains a widely-cited and believed piece of misinformation. As Sommers concluded, “How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained.”


An "abortion procedure is actually safer than a vasectomy.

Abortion, Corrections and Updates, Health Care, Texas, Mary González,

A Democrat opposed to an abortion-related measure suggested that a snip exclusive to men has proved less safe than an abortion. Rep. Mary González of Clint asked the proposal’s author, Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, in May 2017 floor debate: "First and foremost, did you know that an abortion procedure is actually... safer than a vasectomy?" Capriglione, R-Southlake, replied that he hadn’t researched complications from procedures other than abortion and he also doesn’t believe all outcomes of abortion procedures in Texas are currently reported. His House Bill 2962 requires hospitals to submit reports to the state on abortion complications. Capriglione added: "Not all medical procedures are equally important." Maybe not. Still, are abortions safer than vasectomies? Representative cites Texas figures, Kentucky story A González aide, Andrea Chevalier, said by email the legislator based her abortion-vasectomy safety claim on figures in a Texas Tribune news story and a Kentucky report. The cited June 2016 news story says that according to the Texas Department of State Health Services, fewer than 1 percent of Texas abortions in 2014 resulted in any complication to the woman. The story says the overall number of abortions in Texas had dropped to 54,902 from 63,849 in 2013 in the wake of changes in law, advanced by Republicans, expected to drive down the number of abortions by imposing hospital-level safety standards for clinics and requiring physician-providers to hold admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Chevalier said that according to a 2006 article by two Kentucky physicians, the incidence of complications such as infection and bleeding from vasectomies can be as high as 15 percent. The article, published in American Family Physician, includes a chart indicating that how a man’s scrotum is penetrated to begin a vasectomy can result in different complication rates. "No-scalpel vasectomy has been shown to reduce the risk of complications (i.e., bleeding and infection) compared with the incision technique," the article says. The chart, citing three studies published from 1990 through 2002, shows varied complication rates of 0.2 percent to 15.9 percent--and also wide variations in the results:     SOURCE: Study, "Vasectomy: An Update," American Family Physician, Dec. 15, 2016 (accessed May 15, 2017) We tried to reach the lead author of the update, Tennessee physician Paul Dassow, and didn’t hear back. We turned next to our own research. Abortion complications When we queried DSHS officials about complications due to abortions or vasectomies, spokesman Chris Van Deusen said by email the state doesn’t track fall-out from vasectomies. Van Deusen otherwise pointed us to agency-posted counts indicating that 54,310 Texas residents had abortions in the state in 2015. A separate chart says 52,938 abortion procedures led to no reported complications with 25 procedures resulting in complications, including 10 hemorrhages--which breaks out to a complication rate of less than one-tenth of 1 percent:         ^^ Abortions that took place outside of Texas. SOURCE: Chart on web page, "Selected Characteristics of Induced Terminations of Pregnancy, Texas Residence, 2015," Texas Department of State Health Services, last updated March 22, 2017 (accessed May 15, 2017) For national perspective, we emailed Rebecca Wind of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health and abortion rights nonprofit. Wind answered by pointing out the institute’s January 2017 "fact sheet," which states a first-trimester abortion carries a risk of less than 0.05 percent of "major complications that might need hospital care." A footnote notes a California study, published in 2013, that tallied a total of six major complications after 11,487 abortions. The study said complications of any kind--mostly minor--occurred 1.3 percent of the time. Also to our email inquiry, Barbara Tims of the Texas Medical Association pointed out a 2015 review of 57 studies of abortion complications published from 1980 through April 2015. With few exceptions, the review said, 1 percent or fewer first-trimester abortions resulted in "cervical laceration needing sutures or hemorrhage that required medical management." Also, the report said, physicians who provided antibiotics to women after an abortion said that less than 2 percent of the patients developed infections. The researchers wrote: "Major complications following first-trimester aspiration abortion were very rare. Unanticipated abdominal procedures and hemorrhage requiring transfusion occurred in ≤0.1% of abortions, and the proportion of patients requiring hospitalization to treat major complications was less than <0.5% in most studies reviewed. Vasectomy complications Wind said the institute doesn’t have expertise on vasectomy complications. But she helped us track down a 2005 analysis of available worldwide evidence for a British medical journal that said: "Vasectomy, though safe and relatively simple, requires a high level of expertise to minimize complications." An accompanying chart indicates a 2 percent chance of hematoma, meaning swelling due to blood clotting. "The incidence of hematoma formation," the article states, "seems to correlate with the surgical experience. The hematoma rate was 4.6% for those performing 1–10 vasectomies per year, as against 1.6% for those performing 11–50 vasectomies a year," the article states, footnoting a U.S. study published in 1987. On the high end, the chart shows an average 3.4 percent chance of infection which the article says includes wound, urinary and epididymal infection. Separately, Tims of the TMA pointed out a July 2016 article from the Canadian Urological Association, footnoted to studies from 1984 through 2007, describing varied complication rates from vasectomies. The article states: "Men must be informed about wound care and the potential for early complications: infection (0.2‒1.5%), bleeding or hematoma (4‒20%), and primary surgical failure (0.2‒5%). Men should also be made aware of late complications: chronic scrotal pain (1‒14%) and delayed vasectomy failure (0.05‒1%)." We also queried the American Urological Association; by email, spokesman Brandon Corbett guided us to its "Guideline" for physicians, last amended in 2015, which states: "The rates of surgical complications" from vasectomies "such as symptomatic hematoma and infection are 1-2%. These rates vary with the surgeon's experience and the criteria used to diagnose these conditions." Our ruling González said an "abortion procedure is actually safer than a vasectomy." Both procedures rarely have complications, a clarification missing from this declaration. That said, abortion procedures appear to have lower complication rates. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.


Dick Black Says Jill McCabe "supports late term abortions. Larger baby parts are more profitable.

Undercover videos in which Planned Parenthood officials discuss harvesting fetal tissue appall state Sen. Dick Black, R-Loudoun. A staunch opponent of abortion, Black is seeking to link the controversy to his Democratic opponent this fall, Jill McCabe, a pediatric emergency room physician. McCabe "supports selling late term abortions for bigger body parts," Black tweeted on July 28. He renewed the charge on Aug. 4, tweeting that McCabe "supports late term abortions. Larger baby parts are more profitable." So we decided to examine Black’s charge. Let’s start with some background. The controversy over fetal parts erupted last month when the Center for Medical Progress, a conservative group that opposes abortion, released a nine-minute video secretly taped during a 2014 lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services. The center says the tape shows Nucatola talking about performing partial-birth abortions to keep body parts intact in order to "sell" them. The video put Planned Parenthood on the defensive and ignited Republican calls to end federal funding for the group and for investigations into its practices. Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of health services to women -- 97 percent of which are not related to abortions. The organization has denounced the secret taping as a misleading campaign by anti-abortion activists. Officials of the group say fetal tissues are integral to medical research and that the organization does not profit from their sale. Allegations by Black and others that profits were made raise legal questions. Federal law bars clinics from selling fetal tissue for gain. It’s legal, however, for clinics to donate the tissue for scientific research and receive reimbursement for their "reasonable" costs in providing the tissue. Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, has said the organization’s clinics don’t sell fetal tissue for profit but do provide it for research and are reimbursed for their collection costs. In the video, Nucatola discusses fees of $30 to $100 per specimen provided. Arthur Caplan, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, told PolitiFact National that the fees Nucatola discusses don’t appear geared to making a profit. Many of the sales are made to brokers -- middlemen who process the tissue and then sell it to researchers at significant markups. A vial of highly concentrated fetal liver cells, for example, can sell for about $24,000. The brokers say their prices reflect their high costs of buying medical equipment and employing skilled technicians. Now, let’s get back to Black’s claim that McCabe supports selling fetal tissue for profit. Chris Lore, Black’s legislative assistant, told us the senator’s statement isn’t based on any statement from McCabe explicitly supporting the practice. Instead, Lore said, it’s implicit by the support she’s received from Planned Parenthood.The group has endorsed McCabe and has given her a 100 percent rating. Lore also noted McCabe has been endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. In addition to those endorsements, Lore noted that amid the controversy, McCabe was quoted in a newspaper saying she still supports Planned Parenthood. "You take those two facts into consideration and it seems her position is pretty clear," Lore said. Lore forwarded a copy of a Loudoun Times-Mirror story in which McCabe was asked about whether she still welcomed Planned Parenthood’s support in the wake of the controversy. "I'm a doctor, and I take care of patients, including women," McCabe was quoted as saying. "Women need health care choices and Planned Parenthood provides that. That's kind of the end of it for me." We contacted Lore a second time for more information. After we spoke with him, Black posted this message on Twitter: "PolitiFact is desperate to give cover to @DrJillMcCabe to give cover for supporting late term abortions. #MediaLies #PPSellsBabyParts." We also reached out to McCabe to see what her position was on late term abortions and selling tissue for a profit. We heard back from Kyle Sutton, her campaign manager. "Jill McCabe does not support late term abortions, but as a doctor she does understand that there are unfortunately circumstances where a pregnancy proceeding to full-term is not in the best health interest of either a mother, or child," Sutton wrote in an email. What about selling fetal tissue for profit? "Jill does not support selling fetal tissue for profit, the same way she does not support any illegal activities, because they're illegal," Sutton wrote. We also asked McCabe if she supports Planned Parenthood providing tissue for research at cost, without a profit. "As a doctor, Jill McCabe understands life-saving medical research," her campaign manager wrote in an email. In an Aug. 1 story in the Washington Post story said McCabe said she had seen the Planned Parenthood videos and found them "concerning." But the newspaper also quoted her saying that "Planned Parenthood is an important organization that provides vital services." Our ruling Sen. Dick Black says McCabe, "supports late term abortions. Larger baby parts are more profitable." McCabe indicates she supports late term abortions in instances when it is "in the best health interest" of the mother or child. She says she opposes the sale of fetal tissue for profit. Black links McCabe’s qualified support for late term abortions to what he says is an effort to profit from the sale of "large baby parts." In effect, he’s accusing his opponent of supporting an illegal practice because U.S. law bans the sale of fetal tissue for profit. It’s incumbent of Black to prove his inflammatory claim and he offers nothing but speculation.


Donald Trump Says 25 percent of U.S. Muslims "agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.

National, Islam, Polls and Public Opinion, Religion, Terrorism, Donald Trump,

Donald Trump turned to polling data to justify his proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the United States. "According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population," the Republican presidential candidate said in a Dec. 7 statement. "Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing 25 percent of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad, and 51 percent of those polled agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah." There’s a lot packed into that quote, but we decided to focus on Trump’s claim that 25 percent of Muslims polled by the Center for Security Policy agree that global jihad justifies violence against Americans. While the study Trump cited does exist, it’s not at all clear that it supports his argument that "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population." There are several important problems with the survey that call into question whether the results are representative of the entire U.S. Muslim population. Trump’s poll The Center for Security Policy, a hawkish think tank, surveyed 600 Muslims and released findings in June under the headline, "Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad." Among the findings is 25 percent of respondents agreed either slightly or strongly with the statement "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad." About 64 percent disagreed. The first problem with the Center for Security policy poll has to do with methodology. It was an online, opt-in survey, which tend to produce less reliable samples because respondents choose to participate. In traditional polling methods, everyone in a population has a chance of being selected for the survey, meaning the results generally reflect the country’s demographics. Numerous respected polling groups, like Survey Monkey, use opt-in surveys, said Christopher C. Hull, a former adjunct professor at Georgetown University who now works with the Center for Security Policy and answered an inquiry from PolitiFact on the group’s behalf. He added that the method is useful for reaching small populations, such as U.S. Muslims, who only make up about 1 percent of the population. Hull did caution, however, that "one cannot extrapolate directly from an online, opt-in survey to the broader U.S. population." One notable finding buried in the full survey data: It found that 23 percent of the U.S. Muslims surveyed said they are "not at all familiar with" the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, and 18 percent said they are not familiar with al-Qaida. Experts said it seems illogical that such a large percentage of American Muslims would not have knowledge of the two groups. "The al-Qaida number seems entirely implausible and likely a canary in a coal mine as to the unrepresentativeness of this survey," said David Dutwin, executive vice president and chief methodologist at SSRS, a research firm. There may be further problems with the poll, including the reality that many American Muslims are immigrants and not fluent in English, and that the survey asked leading questions with limited response choices, according to a critique by the Washington Post’s Philip Bump. It’s also worth noting that the head of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, has articulated a variety of theories about Muslim extremists that verge on conspiracy, such as the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the United States government and the false narrative that President Barack Obama is Muslim. Robert Oldendick, executive director of the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina, reviewed the survey methodology made available by the Center for Security Policy but said he still didn’t have enough information to assess whether it’s a good or bad poll. The group has not disclosed how the surveyors targeted participants and what the response rate was. "I would view these results very cautiously," Oldendick said. "It may be right, but it may not be. But the information to identify the quality of the sample is just not there." Compared with Pew Trump also mentioned research by the Pew Research Center as support for his proposal. On a key point, the results of the Center for Security Policy study diverge from the results of a 2011 Pew Research study, a traditional telephone survey of 1,033 U.S. Muslims. The methodology of the Pew poll, and the organization’s reputation, is considered solid by public-opinion experts. The Pew survey asked whether "suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies." Just 1 percent said it is "often" justified, while 12 percent said it is "sometimes" or "rarely" justified. Eighty-one percent said it is "never" justified. According to Pew in 2011, about 13 percent of American Muslims said they believe that violence in the name of Islam is justifiable. That’s half the rate of the Center for Security Policy finding of 25 percent. The 2011 Pew study also found that a "significant minority" -- 21 percent -- of American Muslims feel that there is a great deal or a fair amount of support for extremism in the American Muslim community. The Center for Security Policy survey results do not directly back up Trump’s proposal to stop Muslims from entering the United States, said Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company, which conducted the survey on the center’s behalf. "We did not -- nor would we -- ask whether the U.S. should ban all Muslims," she said. The Center for Security Policy poll has touched a nerve because it "asked questions that other polling firms are refusing to ask," Hull said, defending the results. "When people do not like the results of a poll, they attack the poll’s methodology and sponsor," he said. "This situation is no different." Our ruling Trump said that 25 percent of U.S. Muslims "agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad." Trump is referring to a poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy. However, polling experts raise numerous questions about the validity of the poll’s results, including its "opt-in" methodology and the dubiously large percentages of respondents who said they were unaware of ISIS or al-Qaida. Moreover, an official with the Center for Security Policy cautioned against generalizing the poll results to the entire Muslim-American community. Another survey, which experts consider credible, found levels about half as high as what the Center for Security Policy poll found.


In 2019, California education authorities formulated a policy that, if implemented, would force parents to allow their children to be taught that "there are 15 genders.

Explanation: When asked what consequences there might be if a parent or guardian declined to read any of the suggested books with their child, the Department of Education spokesperson replied simply, “None.”

Politics, faithwire, freedom project, gender identity

In January 2019, right-leaning websites responded with outrage to what they presented as a new curricular requirement for schoolchildren in the state of California. In a viral 27 January Facebook video, the “Freedom Project’s” Duke Pesta claimed that “The state of California is now moving to mandate that kindergarten teachers teach five-year-olds 15 different genders in every single California kindergarten school.” FreedomProject’s Alex Newman joined in, calling the purported policy “absolute insanity masquerading as education,” “sick,” and an example of “the destruction of civilization”:  “The California Department of Education is working on a plan to teach kindergartners that there are at least 15 different ‘genders.’ The materials under the scheme also claim it is impossible to know whether babies are boys, girls, or something else, because they cannot talk yet. Parents will not be notified and are not allowed to opt their children out of the indoctrination sessions.” That Freedom Project article carried the headline “California Wants to Teach Kindergartners There are 15 Genders” and cited an earlier report from the right-leaning FaithWire website headlined “15 Genders? California Educators Push to Force Progressive Ideology on Elementary Students,” adding that: “California elementary school students could soon be the targets of progressive sexual indoctrination if new health guidelines are approved. The guidelines, listed under the California Department of Education’s proposed Health Education Framework, include educational resources that teach children to reject gender stereotypes and embrace a rainbow of possible gender options. One recommended book called Who Are You? teaches that there are at least 15 genders, and that it’s impossible to determine whether a baby is a boy, a girl or something else.” In reality, FreedomProject and FaithWire’s coverage of the guidelines was grossly misleading, as a brief examination of the guidelines revealed. The Health Education Framework (HEF) is a lengthy document created by the California State Board of Education (SBE) and designed to set out various policies and guidelines on several areas relating to the health, well-being, and development of K-12 students. In January 2019, the SBE updated and revised the HEF for the year ahead, and as part of that effort, the document was put through a process of public feedback and consultation. As of 28 January, the draft of the HEF was around 820 pages long and had nine chapters. In one section of Chapter 3, the document set out guidelines for educating first-grade students (not “kindergartners,” as FreedomProject falsely claimed) about growth and development, and a sub-section called “Partnering with the family” made the following suggestions (on page 70): At this young age, it is important for students to recognize parents, guardians, caretakers, and other trusted adults as resources for information on growth and development…Setting a foundation for dialogue at this early age can establish a comfortable rapport between students and their parents, guardians, or caretakers as they encounter more complex subjects related to growth and development. Parents, guardians, or caretakers receive a handout with suggestions on how to initiate a conversation on growth and development with their child. Books such as It’s Not the Stork! A Book About Girls, Boys, Babies, Bodies, Families and Friends by Robie H. Harris (2008) or Who Are You? : The Kids Guide to Gender Identity by Brook Pessin-Whedbee (2017) can be shared together. So FreedomProject’s Pesta made two substantive factual errors within the first sentence of that group’s viral Facebook video, claiming “The state of California is now moving to mandate that kindergarten teachers teach five-year-olds 15 different genders in every single California kindergarten school.” In reality, the relevant section of the guidelines related to first-graders, not kindergartners, and provided recommended reading materials for parents, not teachers. Pessin-Whedbee’s book Who Are You? addresses issues surrounding gender identity among children and advises that an individual child is best-placed to decide his or her own gender identity, which the book distinguishes from “the sex assigned to you at birth, male or female.” Parents and adults “make a guess” at a baby’s gender, the book says, “by looking at their bodies.” Pages 16-21 of Who Are You? read as follows: Some people say there are only two genders. But there are really many genders. You are who you say you are, because YOU know you best. For some people, the grown-ups guessed right about their body and their gender. This is called cisgender — when someone’s identity matches their sex assigned at birth. And for some people, there are more than just two choices. These are just a few words people use: trans, genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, gender neutral, agender, neutrois, bigender, third gender, two-spirit … and there are even more words people are using to describe their experience. This is called the gender spectrum. It’s not clear what the source was for the figure of “at least 15 genders.” Who Are You? mentioned 12 descriptive terms for the concept of gender identity, not 12 (or 15) separate and distinct gender identities. The other suggested book, It’s Not the Stork!, addresses issues around how babies are made, how children grow and develop, and how they can become familiar with their own bodies and understand personal physical boundaries, among other questions. Interestingly, that book only mentions and recognizes two genders, male and female, and many pages are dedicated to explaining to children how “boys and girls” differ — especially anatomically — and the ways in which they are similar or the same. Although Robie H. Harris’ and Michael Emberley’s book makes a point of showing children that gender stereotypes are not set in stone, it does not differentiate between birth-assigned sex and gender identity, stating: “One of the ways that you can tell boys and girls apart is by their bodies. Girls’ and boys’ bodies are mostly — but not exactly — the same. Girls and women have a vagina. Boys and men have a penis. These are some of the special parts of our bodies that make a person a boy or a man — or a girl or a woman.” Although the book acknowledges same-sex relationships and parenthood (“Some families … have two mommies, some have two daddies”), it does not mention or acknowledge gender fluidity or transgender identity, stating more than once that “Girls grow up to be women, boys grow up to be men.” These explanations go against those contained in Who Are You?, which explicitly states “there are really many genders,” as opposed to the two (male/female, boy/girl, man/woman) outlined in It’s Not the Stork! This is significant because the same sentence in Chapter 3 of the draft HEF suggests both books to parents to read with their children. However, neither the FaithWire nor FreedomProject coverage of the document mentioned the second book. This was a conspicuous omission that created the grossly misleading impression that the California Department of Education was engaged in an effort to force only one view of gender identity on parents and children. Clearly, that was not the case. After all, if the inclusion of Who Are You? in the draft framework meant, as its critics claimed, that the education department was attempting to “indoctrinate” children into the view that “there are really many genders,” then as a matter of logical necessity the inclusion of It’s Not the Stork! in the same sentence and the same section of the draft framework would mean the department was also attempting to “indoctrinate” children into the view that “Girls and women have a vagina, boys and men have a penis” — the very same viewpoint that FreedomProject and FaithWire purported to be defending in the first place. Perhaps the most serious factual error in FreedomProject and FaithWire’s coverage of the draft 2019 HEF was their claim that the curriculum (which they said included the book Who Are You?) was mandatory, and that parents and guardians who did not approve of it had no recourse. In their article, FaithWire wrote: “What about parents who would prefer that their children not be exposed to errant gender ideology? Unfortunately, there would be no opt-out option.” In his article, Newman claimed that “Parents will not be notified and are not allowed to opt their children out of the indoctrination sessions.” In FreedomProject’s viral Facebook video, Pesta solemnly warned: “Moms and dads will be utterly unable to opt their kids out of this. You will not be able to hold your five-year-old kindergarten kid home if they’re teaching ’15 genders,’ you’re going to have to — under the peril of the law — compel your kids to attend this.” That claim was utterly false. As we’ve established — and as even a brief check of the draft framework would have revealed to FreedomProject — Who Are You? was recommended as reading material for parents, not teachers, and the document said only that the two books listed there “can be shared” between parents and their children, not that they must be shared. A spokesperson for the California Department of Education confirmed the optional nature of the recommendations, writing to us in an email that: “The purpose of the framework is to provide guidance for teachers and administrators. There is nothing mandatory about the guidance offered in the framework … LEAs [school districts] are not obligated to use any suggested curriculum or handouts referenced in the framework.”


In Small Test, Experimental Prostate Drug Shows Promise

Explanation: Notwithstanding the headline, this is a story about two drugs for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer – Provenge, a drug recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer and XL184, a compound currently under study. Combining the information for these treatments is a bit confusing. The news about XL184 reflected results which at that point had not yet been presented at a cancer conference in Berlin. While indicating that it is too early to say whether XL184 actually affects the cancer, the story should have reminded readers of the importance of things like quality of life and survival time. And there isn’t evidence about those factors yet with XL184. At issue is that, while advanced prostate cancer is a challenge, not all men with advanced prostate cancer would benefit from Provenge, though the story neglected this. And it is not clear that XL184 is of benefit to anyone. News about results from a small study that is still ongoing cannot carry enough caveats. It is really too early to know whether XL184 really shows promise or not. It is bad enough when journalists write glowing stories based on reports from scientific meetings. This story goes one step beyond that and reports on the outcome of a small trial before the scientific meeting has even been held. Although there are numerous caveats embedded in the story, it still provides a rather optimistic view of a drug based on early testing in 20 men. For reasons that we don’t understand, the story only reports on 20 of the 99 men enrolled in the study and only reports on the more positive results (those related to bone scans). This selective reporting provides the readers with a very limited and imbalanced view of the study results.

The story provided the costs for the FDA approved Provenge ($93,000/patient); as XL184 is under study and not available for sale, there was no information about what its costs might be. The story included the numbers of men who were seen to have improvement in their bone scans. While reporting on the improved bone scans seen in the men treated with XL184, the story did include some balance by indicating that this scan change might not translate into a change in the cancer in the bone and that nothing was yet known about how the drug affected longer term outcomes. The increase in median longevity observed with Provenge was reported from one study, without including the insight from the two other larger scale studies. In a split decision, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. There was no mention of any possible harms associated with XL184 even though information available from the company indicates that fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, high blood pressure, rash, ‘hand-foot syndrome’, and cough have been seen in the small cohort of men treated with XL 184 for 6 weeks or more. And while indicating that Provenge helped men with advanced prostate cancer live 4 months longer, there was no mention of any harms associated with use of this drug. This story provided no information other than positive findings of the study and the number of men treated. There was no information about the study design, length of treatment, length of follow-up or adverse events that were reported. The story did not do an adequate job detailing the level of information coming out of the ongoing study on XL184. While reporting that 19 out of 20 patients experienced improvement in their bone scans, it only mentioned that ‘some’ patients were able to stop taking pain medications as after taking XL184. Having a better looking bone scan is really not a meaningful endpoint for patients. Although the story indicated that the results reported on were ‘very early results’ it should have explained what was meant by this statement. XL184 is currently being studied in a shotgun trial where the investigational compound is being tried in patients with a variety (in this case 9) different solid tumors. It is a phase II trial; and it is currently underway. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story quoted at least one clinical expert who did not appear to have ties to the study reported on or the company that makes the drug. It would have greatly improved this story if insight from an expert on prostate cancer, especially castration-resistant prostate cancer had provided a context for evaluating the benefit of the drugs reported on – including quality of life issues. The story did an inadequate job of explaining the target group of men who would be appropriate candidates to consider Provenge or for the study of XL184. And while mentioning that Taxotere, a drug currently used to treat advanced prostate cancer, has not been shown to have much affect on bone scans, the story could have seized the opportunity to explain that the benefits seen with Taxotere have not yet been demonstrated for XL184. The story went on to add that drugs like Zometa and denosumab, used to treat bone lesions in men with advanced prostate cancer, haven’t been shown to fight cancer itself. In fact – neither has XL184. At this point – what we know is that after 6 weeks of treatment XL184 improves the picture seen on bone scan. But we do not yet know whether it changes the course of the cancer itself – i.e. do men live longer? The story provided clear information about the availability of Provenge and XL184. The story was clear about the novelty of the two drugs presented. We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. We know there was independent reporting because we know that several interviews were conducted. But if the study results had yet to be presented and have not been published, where did the information come from? There was a company press release (http://www.exelixis.com/investors-media/press-releases ) and/or review of a poster before it was presented and/or there were advance interviews with researchers promoting their work.


Trading tires: How the West fuels a waste crisis in Asia.

Explanation: When night falls in the Indian village of Nabipur, the backyard furnaces come to life, burning waste tires from the West, making the air thick with acrid smoke and the soil black with soot.

Not long ago, Nabipur was a quiet farming village in northern India. Now the village is home to at least a dozen furnaces burning a steady stream of tires to make low-quality oil in a process known as pyrolysis. Global trade in waste tires has almost doubled in the past five years, mainly to developing countries like India and Malaysia, according to customs data provided to the United Nations. Britain is currently the largest exporter, followed by Italy and the United States. India is by far the biggest buyer, accounting for 32% of global imports last year, up from 7% five years ago, the U.N. data shows. Many of the tires are sent to recycling operations that comply with emissions and waste disposal regulations. But there is also a vast trade to backyard pyrolysis operations that do not, according to local authorities. In May, Reuters revealed that a mass poisoning in southern Malaysia had links to companies engaged in pyrolysis. Using unpublished customs data and interviews with dozens of industry sources, Reuters documented a growing international trade in waste tires that pollute the communities that host them, according to local authorities and health experts. For many developed countries, shipping tires abroad is cheaper than recycling them domestically. That helped drive international trade in rubber waste to nearly 2 million tonnes in 2018, equivalent to 200 million tyres, from 1.1 million tonnes in 2013. The trade has also been fed by ravenous fuel demand for industrial furnaces in countries like India, the emergence of inexpensive Chinese pyrolysis equipment, and weak regulations worldwide. FACTBOX on the tyre trade:  Tires are not defined as hazardous under the Basel Convention, which governs trade in dangerous waste, meaning there are few restrictions on trading them internationally unless specified by the importing country. In most countries, including China and the United States, the majority of scrap tires are handled domestically and dumped in landfills, recycled or used as fuel in factories producing products like cement and paper. (GRAPHIC: Recycling and reuse of tires - here)  Pyrolysis supporters say the process can be a relatively clean way of disposing of tires and turning them into useful fuel. However, controlling emissions and processing waste residue from the burning of a product that is made up a wide range of chemicals, and synthetic and natural rubber is expensive and difficult to make profitable on a mass scale. State-of-the-art plants can cost tens of millions of dollars, whereas basic Chinese-made pyrolysis equipment is available from online retailers for as little as $30,000. An Indian government audit found that as of July 2019 there were 637 licensed pyrolysis plants countrywide, of which 270 were not complying with environmental standards and 116 had been shut down. The audit said most operators used rudimentary equipment that exposed workers to fine carbon particles and led to dust, oil and air pollution leaking into the plant and surroundings. Industry sources say several hundred more unlicensed pyrolysis businesses are operating across India. Pyrolysis plants have mushroomed in the southern Malaysian state of Johor over the last decade, industry sources said, where they supply fuel for ships. At one plant visited by Reuters near the Johor town of Kulai, Bangladeshi immigrants covered in carbon dust shovelled tires imported from Australia and Singapore into a Chinese-made furnace. They lived onsite in a hut next to the kilns. “People don’t know where old tyres go,” said the owner, who gave his name only as Sam. “But if my factory doesn’t exist, where will the tires go?” He said he had a license to operate. Reuters could not verify this. The environmental impact of pyrolysis in places like India and Malaysia is making some exporting countries take notice. Australia, a major exporter of tyres to Southeast Asia and India, said in August it would ban waste exports, including tires, although it did not give a timeline. Australia was “aware of allegations of unsustainable processing of waste tires in some importing countries” and did not want “to be part of such practices”, said a spokesman for Trevor Evans, the official who oversees waste reduction. Burning tyres without adequate emissions controls can release numerous toxic chemicals and gases into the environment, as well as particulates, said Lalit Dandona, head of the India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative, a group of research bodies mapping health issues across India. (GRAPHIC: What's in a tire? - here)  He said the short-term effects for those exposed to smoke from burning tires included skin irritation and lung infections and that prolonged exposure could result in heart attacks and lung cancer. Other government bodies worldwide, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have made similar conclusions. In a 1997 report, the EPA said emissions from burning tires included dioxins, sulphur oxides and a range of metals including mercury and arsenic. Many of the tires that end up in Indian villages like Nabipur start their lives in Britain. Indian waste tire imports from Britain alone in 2018 amounted to 263,000 tonnes - 13% of the total volume of tires traded worldwide - compared with 48,000 tonnes in 2013. (GRAPHIC: Where India imports its waste tires - here)  Most European countries require tyre manufacturers and suppliers to organize tire collection and treatment, meaning there are more home-grown recycling operations. There are no such requirements in Britain, however, which means that small firms can easily obtain licenses to collect waste tires and sell them abroad. Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said it fully implements the rules of the Basel Convention but needs to do more about waste tires. DEFRA said it planned to make producers more responsible for old tires, as well as increase monitoring of shipments. (GRAPHIC: Top tire waste importing countries - here)  Once in India, the tires are dispersed between recyclers who shred them for use in road-building or sports fields, firms that burn them as cheap fuel to make cement or bricks, and legal and illegal pyrolysis plants, importers and exporters said. India’s Automotive Tyre Manufacturers’ Association estimates that most imported waste tyres end up in pyrolysis plants, according to the group’s deputy director, Vinay Vijayvargia. Faced with a growing backlash from environmental groups and residents living near pyrolysis plants, India is considering banning all but the most sophisticated operations. The country’s environmental court is expected to rule on the proposed ban in January. Six years ago, there were no pyrolysis plants in Nabipur, 70 miles south of New Delhi. Now there are 10, with most operating at night to avoid scrutiny, residents said. Reuters visited three small plants in the village. At one, tires embossed with ‘Made in Germany’ and ‘Made in U.S.A.’ lay strewn on the floor and thick sludge seeped from pipes protruding from incineration drums. Most tires used for vehicles in India are made domestically. Workers wore no safety equipment, and their skin and clothes were covered in black soot. The owner, Pankaj, said a trader sells him tires imported from abroad. Villagers said they have suffered from breathing difficulties and eye and throat infections since the plants began expanding, and farmers had found black dust in their soil. Reuters could not independently verify the claims. It was also not possible to verify if the operations were licensed. “Used tires are not available locally, so they import from abroad,” said Shiva Choudhary, a businessman who leases out construction equipment in Nabipur. “They clean their own country and dump their garbage on us.”


When Size Matters, Men Can Turn to Penile Extenders: Study

Explanation: The lack of cost information was a significant hole in the story, and there was no discussion of the limitations of the study or alternatives to treatment, especially given that the consensus in this story appears to be that most men with dissatisfaction about their penis size are suffering from a perception problem, not a physical problem. With some of these improvements, the story could have provided a much better service to readers. There’s a lesson in this story for journalists to do a better job checking conflicts of interests in sources. The story didn’t disclose that one of the authors has conducted research on a penile traction device and is quoted on the company’s advertising materials. Penile enhancement — along with hair replacement — is one of the most popular medical interventions targeted at men, and it is often the purview of medical providers outside the mainstream. Because men who perceive themselves as being sexually inadequate are particularly vulnerable to aggressive marketing about ostensible cures, it is especially important to evaluate the claims being made by plastic surgeons and the like. This story does a decent job doing just that. Several of our grades for different criteria were toss-ups, but we hope that our comments – far more important than the overall “star score” – will help guide journalists and consumers in evaluating the evidence.

No cost information was provided, leaving a big hole in the story. The range in costs here is wide, and some of the more invasive procedures would be quite costly. None would be covered by insurance unless necessitated by a medical condition. The benefits are discussed but not adequately quantified. Harms are mentioned here, and we appreciate that. We do think, though, that some hard numbers should have been put to the risks associated with more of the enhancement procedures. We give it a pass, though, for at least providing harms data for the penile extenders that are touted as the method with the biggest benefit. It says, “More than 70 of them used penile extenders, with six experiencing minor problems such as bruising, pain and itching. These devices yielded average flaccid length increases of between 0.2 inches and 1 inch, Gontero said, and men achieving better results noted their satisfaction.” The story provided some information about the study design (a retrospective review of the literature), and the way it examined various aspects of penile enhancement. But the story lacked any discussion of the study’s limitations, including the methods for choosing studies to review, the homogeneneity of the populations studied and the like. Importantly, none of the studies examined actually compared treatment approaches, and the authors concluded that comparative studies need to be performed. The story does an adequate job avoiding disease-mongering, explaining that most men who seek penile enhancement are, in fact, quite average. It quotes one of the urologist-authors: “most men complaining of inadequate penile size do have associated sexual problems even if their penile dimensions fall within the normal range — so-called dysmorphophobic penis.”  The story also notes this “is a condition consisting of an imaginary flaw in the physical appearance”. Some authors have addressed the medicalization of dysmorphophobias in general, not the specific “dysmorphophobic penis” referred to in the story: Given all of the concern about past editions of the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual – the psychiatry tome that names and categories psychiatric disorders) and the current DSM redrafting underway, the story could have done more on this point. But we’ll give it a satisfactory score, nonetheless, since it at least used terms such as “average…normal… imaginary flaw.” The story uses independent sources, and we applaud that. We wish that the second independent source quoted had not been a penile enhancement practitioner. The story did not, however, note that the co-author of the study has conducted research for a European company that produces a penile traction device and is a member of the company’s medical advisers (http://www.andromedical.com/medical-committee/committee-members/). This was not included in the conflict of interest statement that was published with the study, but this is a reminder that reporters should perform basic background checks when covering research and quoting experts. Given that so much of the story comes back to the idea that men don’t really “need” these procedures, it would have been worth discussing whether there are any other ways to help men feel better about their body type or their perceived sexual inadequacy. Obviously people seek therapy for sexual disorders, but that was addressed only briefly: “Gontero noted that cognitive behavioral therapy might help build confidence in some men.”  After all of the attention the story gave to medical/physical interventions, the cognitive behavioral work seemed to deserve more attention. The story suggests but does not makes it clear that many “treatments” are available. It implies that surgical procedures are performed by urologists and plastic surgeons. We would have liked to have seen some additional comments about the availability of and a definition of traction methods. A comment on the frequency of these procedures from one of the plastic surgery societies would have been a good addition. Besides the comment, “urologists are constantly approached by men concerned about their penis size,” we are not given any idea about how widespread or available are the methods to address these concerns. And cognitive behavioral therapy isn’t given much attention at all. Because the story adequately explained that it was reporting on a retrospective review of the medical literature – by definition it was not reporting on novel conclusions – only the overview of past studies. The story does not rely on a news release.


A Russian asbestos company placed a seal with the face of President Donald Trump on their product with the note "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States.

Explanation: In June, when Uralasbest posted their message of support, then-Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt had recently announced new interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act that could allow for “new uses” of asbestos to be approved in the United States. While this move would not allow for previously banned uses to be considered, it was a reversal of Obama-era rules that barred the EPA from considering any new uses for asbestos.

Politics, asbestos, donald trump, russia

On 25 June 2018, a Russian mining company named Uralasbest, which is one of the world’s largest producers of asbestos, posted a message of support for President Trump on their official Facebook and VK (a Russian version of Facebook) pages. The post included photographs of packed asbestos material adorned with the face of Trump and the text “Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States.”  Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in construction projects for its fire resistant properties, but research has since linked it to a variety of cancers, most notably lung cancer and mesothelioma. The non-profit health and environmental protection Environmental Working Group, who first called attention to the Uralasbest post, provided an English translation of the text that was shared alongside the image: “Donald is on our side! … He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos ‘100% safe after application. '” These images, as they were posted to the official social media accounts of Uralasbest, are genuine. Also genuine is President Trump’s support of the asbestos industry. Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was “100% safe” once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-led conspiracy: “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.”


Death and disease from leptospirosis is spread by rat urine on soda cans.

Explanation: What's true: The potentially deadly illness Leptospirosis can be contracted through exposure to the urine of diseased animals (including rats). What's false: Rat urine is not ordinarily toxic to humans, a stock clerk in Hawaii did not die after being sent to clean up a storeroom containing rat droppings, a woman who had gone boating in Texas did not die after drinking from a can of Coke, one member of a family picnic 'on Sunday' did not die after drinking from a soda can that had mouse urine on it.

[Collected via e-mail, June 2012] IMPORTANT PLEASE READ: Do Not Delete this message until it is extended to others .. On Sunday, a family picnic, brought with them few drinks in tin. However, on Monday, two family members (who joined the picnic) were admitted to hospital and placed in the Intensive Care Unit space. One died on Wednesday. Autopsy results concluded it hit Leptospirosis. The bacteria, known as LEPTOSPIRA interrogans, is stuck to the tin cans, and were drunk, without the use of glasses, cups or sip straws. Test results showed that the soda tin was infected from mice urine, and that had dried, the mice’ urine containing Leptospirosis. It is highly recommended to rinse the parts evenly on all soda cans before drinking it. Cans are usually stored in the warehouse and delivered direct to retail stores without cleaning. A study shows that the top of all beverage cans are more contaminated than public toilets (full of germs and bacteria.) So, clean it with water before putting it to your mouth in order to avoid contamination. [Collected via e-mail, 2005] DEADLY SODA CANS VERY IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This incident happened recently in north Texas. We need to be even more careful everywhere. A woman went boating one Sunday, taking with her some cans of coke which she put in the refrigerator of the boat. On Monday she was taken into Intensive Care Unit and on Wednesday she died. The autopsy revealed a certain Leptospirose caused by the can of coke from which she had drunk, not using a glass. A test showed that the can was infected by dried rat urine and hence the disease Leptospirosis. Rat urine contains toxic and deathly substances. It is highly recommended to wash thoroughly the upper part of soda cans before drinking out of them as they have been stocked in warehouses and transported straight to the shops without being cleaned. A study at NYCU showed that the tops of soda cans are more contaminated than public toilets i.e.. full of germs and bacteria. So wash them with water before putting them to the mouth to avoid any kind of fatal accident. [Collected via e-mail, 2002] FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT DRINK STRAIGHT FROM THE CAN. This incident happened recently in Belgium. A woman went boating one Sunday, taking with her some cans of coke which she put in the refrigerator of the boat. On Monday she was taken into ICU and on Wednesday she died. The autopsy revealed a certain Leptospirosis caused by the can of coke from which she had drunk straight out of, not using a glass. A test showed that the can was infected by dried rat urine and hence the disease Leptospirosis. Rat urine contains toxic and deathly substances. It is highly recommended to wash thoroughly the upper part of soda cans before drinking out of them as they have been stocked in warehouses and transported straight to the shops without with being cleaned. A study in Spain showed that the tops of soda cans are more contaminated then public toilets i.e full of germs and bacteria. So to wash them with water is advised before putting it to the mouth to avoid any kind of fatal accident. Please pass this on. [Collected via e-mail, 1998] Whenever you buy a can of coke or whatever, please make sure that you wash the top with running water and soap or if not available drink with a straw. A family friend’s friend died after drinking a can of soda! Apparently, she didn’t clean the top before drinking from the can. The top was encrusted with dried rat’s urine which is toxic and obviously lethal!!!!! Canned drinks and other food stuff are stored in warehouses and containers that are usually infested with rodents and then get transported to the retail outlets without being properly cleaned. So you know what to do from now on folks. Please forward this message to the people you care about…  Ever since the late 1990s, multiple accounts shared online have been spreading the tale of deaths purportedly caused by people who unwitting drank from soda cans whose exteriors were contaminated with rat urine. In keeping with standard scarelore, the names of the victim and where and when these tragic events happened were not included in these stories (although when writer informs us that the victim was “a family friend’s friend” in an attempt to establish his connection to the events described), and a search of news items fails to turn up anything about anyone’s having died in the fashion described. By September 1999 a expanded variation of the “deadly rat excretions” theme with additional details appeared on the Internet:  A stock clerk was sent to clean up a storeroom at their Maui location. When he got back, he was complaining that the storeroom was really filthy, and that he had noticed dried mouse or rat droppings in some areas. A couple of days later, he started feeling like he was coming down with stomach flu, achy joints, headache, and he started throwing up. He went to bed and never really got up. Within two days he was so ill and weak. His blood sugar count was down to 66 and his face and eyeballs were yellow. He was rushed to the emergency at Pali Momi, where they said he was suffering from massive organ failure! The doctor, in ER, transferred him to St. Francis Hospital and notifies all his relatives as he didn’t have long to live. In ICU of St. Francis Hospital, a team of doctors were trying desperately to stabilize him. They said that even if by some miracle he pulled through, he would need a new liver, kidneys, pancreas and bladder. He died shortly before midnight. None of us would have ever made the connection between his job and his death, but the doctors specifically asked if he had been in a warehouse or exposed to dried rat or mouse droppings at any time. They said there is a virus (much like Hanta virus) that lives in dried rat and mouse droppings. Once dried, these droppings are like dust, and can be easily inhaled or ingested if a person is not careful to wash their hands and face thoroughly, or wear protective gear. An autopsy is being conducted to verify the doctors’ suspicions and tissue samples have been sent to the CDC in Atlanta. Please be extremely careful to always rinse off the tops of any canned sodas or foods, and wipe off pasta packaging, cereal boxes, etc. Almost everything you buy in a supermarket was stored in a warehouse at one time or another, and stores themselves often have rodents. I worked in grocery wholesaling long enough to know that even the cleanest store has mice or rats. Despite the vividness of the story, nothing about such a death turned up in the news, and there was no record of anyone, store clerk or otherwise, dying at the St. Francis Hospital after coming in contact with rodent droppings. Adding to this story’s implausibility were the questions raised by the few checkable details offered in the text. The St. Francis Hospital is in Honolulu, as is the Pali Momi Medical Center. Honolulu is on the island of Oahu. We’re told the doomed store clerk was working in Maui. Someone who’d become ill on Maui likely would have first gone to a medical facility on that island even if he was later transferred by air or sea 75 miles to the larger facility in Honolulu. More simply, even if a sickly store clerk in Maui did end up in the St. Francis Hospital on Oahu, he shouldn’t have been seen in an emergency room on Oahu; he should have first visited or been taken to an emergency room on Maui. As the National Center for Infectious Diseases noted of this e-mail:  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received several inquiries about an e-mail report of a stock clerk who became infected with hantavirus while working in a storeroom. According to the e-mail message, the infection resulted from exposure to dried rodent droppings that were contaminated with hantavirus. The e-mail message warns the reader to take precautions when handling items such as soda cans and grocery packages (for example, cereal boxes) because they may be contaminated with hantavirus. The e-mail report is untrue. CDC could not substantiate this report of a hantavirus infection, nor has CDC been asked to participate in an investigation of the incident described in the e-mail. Most scares contain a vague whiff of plausibility, and this is true with both stories listed above. Although there is nothing inherently toxic about urine or feces from a healthy rat, excretions from a sick rat are another kettle of fish, and perhaps that is what this bit of scarelore is addressing. There have been several rat urine stories in the news of late. Leptospirosis, better known as Weil’s disease, is a potentially deadly illness caused by bacteria passed along to humans in contact with urine from diseased animals (rats, frogs, rabbits, snakes, pigs and dogs). It is picked up rurally from swimming in contaminated lakes and reservoirs. In cities, the bacteria are passed along more easily — people splashing through puddles in areas that have a large rodent population might contract the disease, and eating or drinking contaminated food and water is always a danger. Leptospirosis can also be contracted by rubbing eyes with dirty hands. People with open cuts and wounds are especially vulnerable to the bacteria, as it can be picked up almost anywhere. As the rat population in cities grows, so does the potential for contact with this disease. Leptospirosis typically causes aches, pains and fever that go away on their own. One in ten cases includes high fever, jaundice, meningitis (inflammation of the brain lining), acute kidney failure, internal bleeding and, occasionally, death. Victims can die if they develop serious kidney or liver complications. In extreme cases, death follows three to six days after infection. The disease is treatable with antibiotics. In November 1998 leptospirosis killed eight people and hospitalized one hundred in China. In the same month in 1997, 22 people died from the same cause out of the 300 who were infected with it. In the United States, 100 to 200 cases of leptospirosis occur each year (with about half of those in Hawaii), according to the Center for Disease Control. Another disease passed on through rat urine is hantavirus. It is transmitted to humans through breathing in particles of an infected rodent’s urine, droppings or saliva. The virus becomes airborne when excrement dries. Early symptoms mimic the flu and can progress to respiratory failure. Since 1993, 21 deaths in the United States have been blamed on this disease. In general, urine-encrusted soda cans are not the most likely purveyors of these diseases. Most cans of soda are packaged into cardboard boxes while still on the production line and thus aren’t at any risk of contamination. Additionally, once bottlers have mixed soft drink syrup in with soda water and sweetener, they try to get the finished product to the consumer as expeditiously as possible. Soft drink bottlers don’t warehouse large inventories of finished product for any length of time — freshness is everything, so the product is moved out quickly, leaving little opportunity for rodents to use the tops of cans as latrines. Nonetheless, it’s still always a good idea to wipe off cans from exposed six-packs or those dispensed from drink machines, if for no other reason than to avoid picking up something passed on by the human handlers of the product.


Explanation: Supreme Court candidate Green, former state rep, says he was fourth-most conservative

Rick Green of Dripping Springs, in an April 13 Republican primary runoff for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court, told a Montgomery County group that voters don’t have to guess his judicial philosophy -- they can look at his legislative voting record. Green served two terms in the Texas House from 1999 to 2003; he lost his seat in 2002 to Democrat Patrick Rose. According to a video of his Jan. 14 Montgomery County remarks posted on his campaign Web site, Green encouraged listeners to check his House history, saying: "As a state rep, I was considered the fourth-most conservative in the Legislature.”Is that so? To support his claim, Green's campaign pointed us to the 1999 Texas Conservative Report, a publication of the Free Enterprise PAC, an advocate for limited government and "traditional values." It has since become the Heritage Alliance PAC.The 1999 report tracks dozens of votes made by every legislator in that year's regular session. To evaluate House members, a panel chose 64 votes on "economic, social, governmental and education issues" that the group said “showed signs of a liberal or conservative philosophy.” Lawmakers were graded based on the number of times they voted with the conservative position.Green and two other members of the 150-member House voted the group's preferred way 88 percent of the time; only three members leaned the group's way more often. (The average score was 43 percent.) By that measure, Green shared the “fourth-most conservative” honors with GOP Reps. John Davis of Houston and Charlie Howard of Sugar Land. Senators were rated separately, leaving Green's statement open to interpretation whether he was claiming to be the fourth-most conservative in the whole Legislature (which would be an overstatement) or just the House (which was accurate).The report lists 28 criteria that define how positions were identified as conservative, including if legislation made government more efficient, strengthened the family's importance as the foundation of the nation, reduced the overall tax burden or protected a citizen's ability to make a living.In summarizing its ratings, the group highlighted 12 votes on topics ranging from property taxes to abortion to standardized testing.One vote was on a bill that would have expanded the state's hate crimes law by, among other things, enhancing criminal penalties and specifying which groups would be protected against bias crimes, including those targeted because of their "race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, status as a pregnant person, gender, or sexual preference." The Free Enterprise PAC said "nay" was the conservative vote in this case because the measure would have given "special rights to an individual or group" and did not support "traditional Judeo/Christian moral values." Green was in the minority in voting no. That bill eventually failed, though a hate crimes measure later passed into law during the 2001 legislative session. Green also received a thumbs-up from the group for voting against a bill requiring people younger than 18 to wear a bicycle helmet when riding on public roads or paths. That measure did not become law. All in all, Green was one of 32 House members the group designated a Leader of Excellence in 1999. Not noted by Green in Montgomery County: Based on some of his votes in the 2001 legislative session -- Green's last -- he slipped in the group's conservative rankings.Not that Green became a liberal. The group's 2001 report states that Green took its favored position 65 percent of the time, compared to a House average of 34 percent. He tied with three others as the 11th-most conservative House member. Thirty members sided more often with the group's preferred positions. Green, who served on Heritage Alliance's board of directors from March through November 2009, was not designated a Leader of Excellence by the group in 2001 because he sided with it in less than 70 percent of the rated votes.As before, the group's 2001 report spotlights 12 votes, which covered topics ranging from the death penalty to the minimum wage to mental illness. The votes included two that the group penalized Green for, both voice votes, in which passage is determined by choruses of "ayes" and "nays" on the House floor.The first was on a proposal to mandate that health insurance policies in Texas cover anorexia and bulimia as serious mental illnesses, and the second was on a bill requiring the state attorney general's office to use gender-neutral terminology in publications. Neither became law. For both, the group's preferred position was to oppose them. When we asked Heritage Alliance President Richard Ford how the group was able to tell tell whether a legislator had voted yes or no in those instances, he said he could not recall how those votes were treated because the report was done so long ago.We have a hunch why the group marked Green as voting the wrong way on the two bills. After a voice vote is held, individual members may request that their vote be separately recorded as for or against. It appears that Free Enterprise gave conservative credit only to the lawmakers who did that on those two measures, and Green was not one of them, according to the House Journal.His wife, Kara Green, the campaign's treasurer, said her husband did not support either measure. Summing up: Green accurately recaps his conservative ranking — albeit by a single group, the Free Enterprise PAC, during his first of two terms. He omits the fact that he was not considered fourth-most conservative in his second term, according to the group.


The Obama administration created a program to provide free cell phones to welfare recipients.

Explanation: What's true: A federal program subsidizes providers who supply telephone services to low-income consumers. What's false: The Obama administration did not create a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.

Politics, barack obama, cell phones, obamaphone

Imagine for a moment what your life would be like without a phone, corded or wireless. How would you contact emergency services if there was a fire or a serious injury? How would you contact a potential new employer, or keep in touch with a current one? How would you contact your utility company about a power outage, or a doctor about your sick child? How would you keep in touch with your loved ones and your community? In this day and age, telecommunications services are a real necessity, and not being able to afford them is a real liability. Those types of questions prompted the Federal Communication Commission to implement the Lifeline benefit program for income-eligible consumers in 1984. That program had two parts: Lifeline Assistance, which provided discounts on basic monthly landline telephone service at the primary residence of qualified telephone subscribers, and Lifeline Link-Up, which provided discounts on the initial installation fee for landline telephone service at the primary residence of qualified telephone subscribers. As cell phone usage has increased and cell phone service fees have dropped, the Lifeline program has been expanded to include wireless technology. Prepaid cell phone companies have spun off government-approved subsidiaries (such as Safelink Wireless, Assurance Wireless, and Reachout Wireless) to specialize in providing Lifelife-covered telephone services to qualifying participants: Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Have you heard this one? THE OBAMAPHONE Actually in the state of Wisconsin it is 250 minutes of Free Air Time and they are running TV ads promoting it. No Bull Just when you think you’ve heard it all,, our illustrious Congress quietly comes up with a new zinger to put their hands in your pockets, and pick them while you aren’t watching. Isn’t this just wonderful! I was standing in line at the checkout counter at Wal Mart and as I looked at the line behind me, I saw a couple of people talking about what looked like identical new cell phones, bragging about the fact that their phones were free and so was the airtime. The woman in line behind me had heard the same exchange and turned to the young man behind her and asked, “Is that a new type of cell phone?” The young man replied, “Yes, this is my new ‘Obama phone'”. She asked him what an “Obama phone” was, and he went on to say that, “Welfare recipients are now eligible to receive” what he described as (1) a FREE new cell phone, and (2) approximately 70 FREE minutes of air time every month. Needless to say, I was a little skeptical about his answer, so when I got back home, I ‘Googled’ it, and lo and behold, he was telling the truth. This was what I discovered: SafeLink Wireless is a government supported program that provides a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers. In other words, your tax dollars are being distributed to a wireless phone provider to provide welfare recipients with free cell phones and airtime. I don’t know about you, but as for me, enough is enough. We are $14 Trillion in debt, Congress is balking at continuing unemployment payments to those who want to work, and Congress is increasing the dole-out to dead beats. The ship of State is sinking, and it’s sinking fast. The old concept of getting ahead through hard work has flown out the window. It has been replaced by Obama’s and Congress’ idea of “Hope and Change.” The country has changed all right, changed to “Why should I work for it, when I can get it for free?” [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Here’s another Obama program that we taxpayers are footing the bill for. I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in.” From that basic framework, rumors like the ones encapsulated in the Examples cited above have circulated, claiming that “the Obama administration created a program to give free cell phones paid for by taxpayer money to welfare recipients.” All the elements of such statements are erroneous or exaggerated: All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer’s phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect any fees from a Lifeline program participant. The costs of administering the Lifeline program have increased greatly with the move towards cellular telephone services, leading the FCC to approve a comprehensive overhaul of the program in January 2012 intended to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. A number of web sites touting Lifeline benefits and imitating the look of government web sites have sprung up on the Internet, but those sites are privately operated ones created to promote the sales of cellular services and have no official connection to the federal government or the current presidential administration: By 2010, Virgin Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, i-Wireless, Head Start, Consumer Cellular, Midwestern Telecom, Allied Wireless, and others had free phone plans. That’s why you can find all these “free cell phone” websites that look kind of shady, like Obamaphone.net or FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net. In 2011, the FCC said that these carriers were “fiercely competing for the business of low-income consumers by marketing ‘free’ phones.” TracFone spokesman Jose Fuentes [said], “We’ve had a lot of fly-by-night companies come in.” Fuentes estimated that more than 1,700 wireless companies were part of Lifeline. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of people with Lifeline phones grew from 7.1 million to 12.5 million. These companies may be fly-by-night at providing cell phone service, but they are pretty good at marketing, and as the rush of merchandise tied to his inauguration showed, Obama’s name seems to move product. Additional information: AFFORDABLE TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR INCOME-ELIGIBLE CONSUMERS


A video shows the fluff of poplar trees burning across a field in Spain.

Explanation: “The heavy seed load within Assiniboine Forest may have had an influence on the ease of ignition and speed which the fire was able to move,” said the city in a statement to CTV News.

In May 2020, a video supposedly showing a line of fire burning across a field was widely shared on social media. On the Nature is Fucking Lit section of Reddit, this video was shared with the caption: “Poplar fluff burning in Spain.”  🔥 Poplar fluff burning in Spain from      NatureIsFuckingLit    The visuals in this video are unusual, to say the least, and left some viewers wondering if the attached caption was accurate. Is this a real video or a digital edit? Was this video really taken in Spain? What’s poplar fluff? The earliest version of this video that we could find was posted to the Club De Montaña Calahorra Facebook page on the afternoon of May 6. This Facebook page posted two videos of the incident, one of which was accompanied by a simple caption warning viewers to “cuidado con las pelusas” or “watch out for lint.”  The video was quickly picked up by Spanish news outlets, such as Cope, which reported that the video was filmed at a park (Parque del Cidacos) in Calahorra, a municipality in La Rioja, Spain. The local news outlet La Rioja reported that a “white cloak” had covered Parque del Cidacos for the last few days, but that this fire suddenly turned everything green (translated via Google): During the last days, everyone who walked through the Cidacos de Calahorra park did so surrounded by a white cloak. It had not snowed, no. It was the color that the poplar fluff left on the green areas. Well, all that white color has been removed in one fell swoop. It has burned and the moment has been captured by a reader who has passed the video to us. As if it were a choreography, the fire has eliminated the lint, revealing the green color of the lawn before the gaze and surprise of those who have been caught that moment in the park of the town of La Rioja. The “fluff” in the above-displayed video is actually seeds from the poplar tree. The city of Calgary provided the following information about “fluff” on a web page dedicated to the “problems with polar trees”:  This “fluff” is actually poplar seeds that are produced by the female trees of the species, but it’s not the fluff or the seeds that are making you sneeze. Most allergists agree that the real culprits are native grasses and other plants that are flowering just as the poplars are seeding. Poplar trees do create pollen, but it is produced by the male tree in early spring, long before fluff season. Cutting down the female trees won’t cure your pollen allergy. In addition to creating literal headaches for those with allergies, this fluff is also flammable and can contribute to the spread of wildfires. In June 2019, the City of Winnipeg told CTV News that an unusually large amount of poplar fluff likely worsened a fire in Assiniboine Forest: