. . . Ken Ham’s creationist museum is established. An amateur geologist/paleontologist in Cincinnati lets the rocks tell their own story. Interestingly, the story they cry out is not the one promoted by Ken Ham.
Tip of the old scrub brush to Panda’s Thumb and P. Z. Myers.
Leave a Comment » | 
Bogus history, Creationism, Hoaxes, Museums, Natural history, Reason, Science and faith | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Sheesh! I thought Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., pretty much took the cake in fanatical ideas close to insanity in the calumny campaign against Rachel Carson. I may have erred.
Please understand, it is important that good people speak up for science, for political sanity, for reason and reality. There are forces of ignorance and evil who willingly fill the information vacuum with excrement, and who thereby pollute political discourse — if you don’t speak up.
Here: Send Sen. Tom Coburn a note, tell him you think he should come to his senses and stop blocking a bill giving a minor honor to Rachel Carson. He needs to do the Christian thing and stand up for truth, for health care, for honesty, you should tell him. Here’s his official message-leaving site.
No, he’s not answered me, either. Swamp him with mail. Or telephone his office: 202-224-5754 (Washington, D.C. office).
Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, Bogus history, Citizenship, Conservation, DDT, Ethics, Natural history, Rachel Carson, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
This is the second in a series of Fisks of “100 things you should know about DDT,” a grotesquely misleading list of factoids about DDT put up a site called JunkScience.com. While one would assume that such a site would be opposed, this particular site promotes junk science. I’m not taking the points in order.The “100 things” list is attributed to Steven Milloy, a guy who used to argue that tobacco use isn’t harmful, and who has engaged in other hoaxes such as the bizarre and false claim that Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) can pose serious toxic hazards in your home (and therefore, you should continue to waste energy with less efficient bulbs); and to J. Gordon Edwards, a San Jose State University entomologist who, despite being a great entomologist, was a bit of a nut on some political things; Edwards assisted Lyndon Larouche’s group in their campaign against Rachel Carson before his death in 2004. (Did Edwards actually have a role in the development of this list?)
100 things you should know about DDT
Claim #8. Some mosquitoes became “resistant” to DDT. “There is persuasive evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to DDT. That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, especially cotton growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes.”
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
Cover of The Malaria Capers, by Robert S. Desowitz
This was what Rachel Carson warned about. Indiscriminate use of DDT, such as broadcast application on crops to kill all insect, arthropod or other pests, would lead to mosquitoes and other dangerous insects developing resistance to the chemical. Of course, resistance developed as a result of overspraying of crops has exactly the same result, in the fight against malaria, as overuse in the fight against malaria. Cover of The Malaria Capers, by Robert S. Desowitz
Worse, such overuse also killed predators of mosquitoes, especially birds. In an integrated pest management program, or in a well-balanced ecosystem, birds and other insect predators would eliminate a large number of mosquitoes, holding the population in check and preventing the spread of malaria. Unfortunately, when the predators are killed off, the mosquitoes have a population explosion, spreading their range, and spreading the diseases they carry.
Assuming Milloy quoted the book accurately, and assuming the book actually exists, this point says nothing in particular in favor of DDT; but it reaffirms the case Rachel Carson made in her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Contrary to suggestions from the campaign against Rachel Carson, she urged that we limit use of DDT to tasks like preventing malaria, around humans, to preserve the effectiveness of DDT and prevent overspraying.
And then, there is this: Milloy doesn’t bother to quote the first part of the paragraph he quotes, on page 214 of Malaria Capers. Here is what the paragraph actually says:
There were a number of reasons for the failure, not least that the anophaline vector mosquitoes were becoming resistant to the action of DDT both physiologically — they developed the enzymes to detoxify the insecticide — and behaviorally — instead of feeding and wall-resting, they changed in character to feed and then quickly bugger off to the great outdoors. [from this point, Milloy quotes correctly]
In other words, the DDT-based campaign against malaria failed because DDT failed; mosquitoes became resistant to it. DDT’s declining ability to kill mosquitoes is one of the major reasons DDT use plunged after 1963, and continues to decline to no use at all.
To combat the dastardly campaign of calumny against Rachel Carson and science, you should also read: Deltoid, here, here and here, and the rest of his posts on the topic; Bug Girl, here, at least, and here, and the rest of her posts; denialism, here; and Rabett Run, here.
4 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Citizenship, DDT, Economics, Environmental protection, Ethics, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Malaria, Natural history, Public health, Rachel Carson, Science, War on Science | Tagged: Bogus history, DDT, Environmental protection, Malaria, Public health, Rachel Carson, War on Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Title of a book that documents and discusses the omnipresence of DDT and related pesticides in waters all over the world, even in places far from any known application, such as the Arctic and Antarctic.
Cover of Cold, Clear and Deadly, by Melvin J. Visser. Michigan State University Press; at Thrift Books
More:
Leave a Comment » | Bogus history, Business Ethics, DDT, Education, Ethics, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Natural history, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo science | Tagged: DDT, Great Lakes, pollution, Rachel Carson, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Gordon Brown may face a situation Tony Blair didn’t imagine: An invasion of ducks.
Plastic ducks. An armada of ducks.
Quack! Quack!
Or, maybe more appropriately, “Rubber Ducky, you’re the one!”
Geography fans everywhere are salivating. History fans already recognize the ducks bear no resemblance to the Spanish Armada, but may be interested anyway.
Plastic duck toys, survivors from an original lot of about 30,000 knocked off a container ship in the north Pacific in 1992, could be drifting onto the shores of the British Isles this summer. A reward is offered for the first one found and reported to a scientist who has tracked the ducks from their accident, through currents in four of the world’s five oceans, to landfalls in North America, South America, Southeast Asia, Indonesia — and through the Arctic.
The Times of London carried a story today: Read the rest of this entry »
3 Comments | DBQ sources, Economics, Geography - Physical, Historic documents, History, Natural history, Research, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Looking at the odd campaign against the reputation of Rachel Carson, conducted largely by a group of corporate-paid, political scalawags, one will eventually come across a site named JunkScience.com, which has as a motto, “All the junk that’s fit to debunk.”
One might be forgiven if one assumes that the site debunks junk science claims. But that does not appear to be it’s aim at all. On this page, for example, “100 things you should know about DDT,” the site perpetrates or perpetuates dozens of junk science claims against Rachel Carson, against public health, against government and against reason. The site promotes junk science, rather than debunking it!
For example, I had just read a chunk of history reminding me that our first Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, had been ordered by a federal court to review the pesticide certification for DDT, and had acted against DDT only after two different review panels recommended it be phased out, and states had already started bans of their own. At the time, in 1972, Ruckelshaus faced a heap of criticism for moving so slowly on the issue.
![EPA history caption: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring led to banning DDT and other pesticides. [EPA iimage]](https://i0.wp.com/www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/aboutepa/history/images/form5.jpg)
EPA history caption: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring led to banning DDT and other pesticides. [EPA iimage]
You wouldn’t quite recognize the events — and I doubt you could verify other oddities the JunkScience.com site claims:
17. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
18. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.
[Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]
19. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner’s decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just “internal memos.” Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus’ “Opinion and Order on DDT.”
I propose to Fisk much of the list of 100 claims against Carson (which is really a list over 100 items now), in a serial, spasmodic fashion. I’ll post my findings here, making them generally available to internet searches for information on Rachel Carson and DDT. Below the fold, I’ll start, with these three specious claims listed above.
17 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Cost of Green, DDT, History, Hoaxes, Natural history, Politics, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: Accuracy, Bogus history, Cost of Green, DDT, History, Hoaxes, Natural history, Politics, Rachel Carson Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Several outbursts of insanity in Washington, D.C., lately make one wonder if there is some contagious disease that prompts these outbursts.
Although, I must admit, this outburst was before the Cheney/Snow claims that the nation’s chief executive and vice chief executive are not executive branch members.
In a flash of irony that shattered irony meters across libraries, laboratories and the research facilities in Oklahoma universities, Oklahoma’s U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn placed a hold on the bill to name a post office in honor of Rachel Carson, accusing Carson of “junk science.” What Coburn failed to say — or, God forbid, failed to notice — is that the criticisms of Carson are truly junk science.
In the Washington Post Coburn offered this inexplicable explanation:
In a statement on his Web site yesterday, Coburn (R) confirmed that he is holding up the bill. In the statement, he blames Carson for using “junk science” to turn public opinion against chemicals, including DDT, that could prevent the spread of insect-borne diseases such as malaria, which is spread by mosquitoes.
Coburn, whose Web site says he is a doctor specializing in family medicine, obstetrics and allergies, said in the statement that 1 million to 2 million people die of malaria every year.
“Carson was the author of the now-debunked ‘The Silent Spring,’ ” Coburn’s statement reads. “This book was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT.”
This issue is arcane enough that history aficionados reading may not be fully aware of the problems with Coburn’s claims. Let me explain.
First, Carson didn’t complain about insecticides, but instead pointed out that overuse of some insecticides is damaging to the environment, and ultimately frustrates their use as intended. As Carson pointed out, DDT was ceasing to be effective in the fight against malaria due to this overuse. In other words, Carson’s advocacy, if it was as effective as Coburn imagines, saved DDT as an effective tool in the fight against malaria. But Coburn blames her for the opposite. It’s as if he were treating a kid who fell out of a tree, and he blamed the broken arm on a cold virus, because the kid’s nose was running.
Second, DDT is a deadly killer. It’s not like DDT is perfectly harmless. Carson, using studies by insecticide manufacturers and entomologists accumulated over the previous 20 years, pointed out that broadcast use of DDT to protect cotton from boll weevils not only failed to protect the cotton, it also endangered humans. Overuse of any insecticide tends to drive evolution of resistance in the insects targeted, and this is exactly what happened, and what Carson reported. That’s not junk science in any form. It’s accurate, real science, that benefits humans.
Had Carson’s book not appeared when it did, it is quite possible, maybe even likely, that it would have been rendered completely useless against insects.
But even worse, animals don’t evolve resistance as quickly as insects can, and the levels of DDT and its daughter compounds were multiplied in living things as they were higher in a local food chain. DDT is absorbed into living tissues very effectively, so it does not remain floating about, say, in the water of a swamp where it is sprayed for mosquitoes. Instead it is absorbed by other insects, by plants, and then by the animals that consume those insects and plants, and then by the predators at the top of the food chains. Carson was way ahead of her time in understanding this relationship, but the science at the time supported her conclusions exactly, and every study done since then has reinforced Carson’s reporting of the scientific conclusions.
This was important because, as concentrated especially in birds, DDT and its daughters cause eggs to be non-viable, and it even changes the behaviors of birds in raising their young. DDT kills the next generation of birds. It is especially deadly against raptors at the top of the food chain — America’s symbol, the bald eagle, for example, was driven to the brink of extinction by DDT — but it also kills the songbirds which, in a well-balanced ecosystem, keep mosquito populations down and prevent the spread of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria or dengue fever.
So DDT use, as Sen. Coburn appears to defend it, would have left the world malaria and mosquito-ridden, exactly the opposite of his claims.
Third, Carson’s book has been verified in hundreds of studies. To call it “debunked” is either a total purchase of junk science, or a dastardly distortion of the the facts. Carson worried that DDT might be a cause of cancer, a carcinogen. Knowledge of carcinogens was so limited when she wrote that Congress and the medical establishment — two groups Coburn belongs to — endorsed the Delaney Clause to the Food and Drug Act in 1957, ordering that nothing that caused cancer be allowed as an additive in foods or food supplements. This seems almost naive today, when we know that some things, like selenium, are both essential nutrients and carcinogenic, and when we can detect vanishingly small traces of carcinogens in almost everything. Carson called our attention to potential dangers of DDT.
And, it turns out, she was mostly right about DDT and cancer. The good news is that DDT is not a potent carcinogen in humans that we know. Coburn appears to rest his entire case on a misunderstanding of that last sentence. Anti-Carson screeds tend to note that DDT has not been found to be a major cause of breast cancer in women. While true, that study leaves these facts: DDT is a known carcinogen in mammals (and we know of no carcinogen that affects other mammals that is not also a carcinogen for humans, who are mammals); DDT’s effects would be expected to show up in liver cancer, because DDT is a toxin and toxins damage the liver even as the organ does its job in cleaning the toxin out; DDT is a known toxin to human livers, causing liver damage leading to liver disease. Liver disease is a frequent precursor to liver cancer. We need more studies, but it is simply false to say that we know DDT is not a carcinogen. DDT is a carcinogen; the only thing we don’t know is how potent it is in humans.
So here we have Sen. Coburn, an MD in the Senate, a man who has the training of a scientist, a guy who used to practice medicine, helping people avoid things that harm or kill them, falling victim to junk science claims about Rachel Carson and her work, and DDT and what it does, and how it does it.
It ain’t the things we don’t know that get us into trouble, some wag once said: It’s the things we know that ain’t so.
Perhaps you could drop Dr. Coburn a letter, gently inform him of the facts, and ask that he release the hold on honoring Rachel Carson, winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the woman who saved DDT from becoming a useless limb in the war against insect-borne disease? It would be the patriotic thing to do.
5 Comments | DDT, Ethics, Evolution, Hoaxes, Junk science, Natural history, Public health, Rachel Carson, Science, U.S. Senate, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Evolution is the subject of a special edition of the Science section of the New York Times today. The section features articles by most of the best of the stable of science writing contributors the paper has, covering up to the latest developments in the field of evolution.
It’s available on-line, too, for a week or so — free subscription required. Or, Times Select customers will be able to access the stuff so long as they subscribe.
Since the section covers the best of science, there is nothing on intelligent design or other forms of creationism. The aim of the editors is the best of science, not “balance” in presenting opposing views even if vapid.
So, for $1.00, biology teachers can get a dozen weeks’ of enrichment material for this fall’s classes.
Run, don’t walk — your local Starbuck’s should have the paper, if your local newsstand doesn’t. It’s worth it just for the lead article featuring evo-devo, if that’s all you read.
Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, Charles Darwin, Darwin, Evolution, Geography - Physical, Intelligent Design, Natural history, Public health, Research, Science, Science and faith | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Bug Girl sleuthed around a bit, and found information from official sources that really demonstrates the critics of Rachel Carson are using Gillette Foamy to make us think “mad dog!”
Chart from US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) illustrates biomagnification, by which a minuscule dose of DDT to small plankton gets magnified a few million times by the time the top predators in the food chain get it.
So the evidence continues to pile up that Rachel Carson was simply a fine writer, a good scientist, and correct about DDT’s dangers.
Check out the Fish and Wildlife Service’s site, here; notice especially their structure of the site, to dispel the falsehoods.
FWS quotes Carson on DDT use:
In Audubon magazine she wrote, “We do not ask that all chemicals be abandoned. We ask moderation. We ask the use of other methods less harmful to our environment” (4). Countering claims that she was advocating a back-to-nature philosophy, she said, “We must have insect control. I do not favor turning nature over to insects. I favor the sparing, selective and intelligent use of chemicals. It is the indiscriminate, blanket spraying that I oppose” (5).
Evidence mounts that claims against Rachel Carson are sheer calumny. While the political motivations of this smear campaign are not clear, we don’t need to know for certain who is telling lies about a great American hero, or why. As Americans, as concerned citizens, as teachers and parents — as patriots — we only need to know that the claims against Rachel Carson are false.
And now it is our duty to call on Oklahoma’s Sen. Tom Coburn to stop the campaign against Carson. Coburn is the point man in the smear campaign right now: He has put a committee hold on the well-intentioned, justified bill to name a post office in her hometown after Rachel Carson. It is time for Tom Coburn to stand up and do the right thing for a great American. Sen. Coburn needs to lift his committee hold and allow committee action on this minor honor.
Other sources of note:
Bruce Watson, “Sounding the Alarm,” Smithsonian Magazine, September 2002. (Watson, Bruce. Sounding the alarm. Smithsonian, v. 33, Sept. 2002: 115-117. AS30.S6)
“The Berry and the Poison,” about methyl bromide and its ban, Smithsonian Magazine, December 1997.
3 Comments | Accuracy, Conservation, DDT, Environmental protection, Ethics, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Natural history, Politics, Public health, Rachel Carson, Research, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: DDT, Environmental protection, Ethics, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Natural history, Rachel Carson, Science, War on Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Anti-environmental long-knives leave the impression that Rachel Carson knew little about science, and had a crabby disposition toward business and life in general.
Go read this: “Rachel Carson: I knew her when.”
She was a poet and a scientist. You won’t learn anything about the controversy, really, other than the fact that Rachel Carson was a genuine woman, a very nice person. But it’s worth the read.
While you’re at Mort Reichek’s site, noodle around and see what else he’s got. He is a retired journalist with a lot to say. Pay attention. [New Jersey history and economics teachers: Do you realize what a resource you could have in this guy? Washington correspondent for Business Week? Hello!!???]
Update: Sadly, Mort passed on in 2011. His blog remains up as a tribute to a great journalist and early blogger.
Leave a Comment » | DDT, Environmental protection, Heroes, Natural history, Public health, Rachel Carson, Research, Science, War on Science | Tagged: DDT, History, Rachel Carson, US Fish and Wildlife Service | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Vicki Thaxton all by herself has saved more water usage in the Dallas area than can be contained in one of our Army Corps of Engineers water projects — say, Joe Pool Lake (yes, it really is named “Joe Pool Lake” — named after Congressman Joe Pool).
How did she do it? How did she save so much water?
Vicki advises Texans on planting their gardens, and for the 20 years or so we’ve known her, she’s been spreading the word, and sometimes spreading the mulch and fertilizer, about xeriscaping with native plants. “Xeriscaping” means landscaping that relies on natural water, rain and dew, instead of irrigation from a hose.
Vicki has been at the same place for all that time, but the establishment’s name has changed — the nursery in Cedar Hill where you find her and get advice is Petal Pushers, on Old Straus Road. (No promotional consideration, by the way.)
Plus, Vicki’s a nice lady. It’s good to see her getting a wider audience for her flower indoctrinations, even if just for a few minutes, on our local NBC affiliate, KXAS-TV, Channel 5. For at least a short while you can view this piece with KXAS’s weatherman, David Finfrock.
Leave a Comment » | Conservation, Education, Environmental protection, Natural history, Texas, Texas history, Video and film | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Barry Commoner turned 90 on May 28. He is profiled in The New York Times Science section on June 19, 2007 (if your local newspaper has a science section half as good, I’d love to hear about it). Commoner is a plant physiologist and great eminence at Washington University in St. Louis for 34 years, now at Queens College. He was a key informant of public opinion during the rise of ecological awareness in the 1960s and 1970s, probably the nation’s best known “ecologist.”
In 1980 he helped found the Citizens’ Party, and ran for the presidency their ticket.
The peak of the campaign happened in Albuquerque, where a local reporter said to me, “Dr. Commoner, are you a serious candidate or are you just running on the issues?”
Time Magazine cover from February 2, 1970; Time sells replicas of historic covers.
1 Comment | Accuracy, Business Ethics, Citizenship, Economics, Environmental protection, Ethics, Good Quotes, Natural history, Quotes, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
The Physical Environment offers a text for geophysical classes, on-line. It sorta looks like it’s free. In any case, check it out.
Then look at the supporting blog.
Is there any inherent reason you can’t do that in your classroom? You could start by using this “book,” The Physical Environment.
Leave a Comment » | Education, Geography - Physical, Natural history, On-line education, On-line learning, Technology, Technology in the classroom | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
For those of us who worry at every eruption of intentional ignorance, such as Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, the comments of BBC’s correspondent Justin Webb produce a little salve:
There is nothing remotely convincing about the Creation Museum and frankly if it poses the threat to American science that some American critics claim it does, that seems to me to be as much a commentary on the failings of the scientific establishment as it is on the creationists.
And a bit later:
At the Creation Museum, goggle-eyed children watch depictions of the Great Flood in which children and their mums and dads are consumed, because God is cross.
In a nation of kindly moderate people I am not sure this is the future.
I put my faith – in America.
Mencken’s hoax about bathtubs in the White House was innocent enough, but impossible to kill (yet). Ham’s hoax about science, at $27 million (U.S. reports) or $30 million, doesn’t have the grace of its perpetrator confessing the hoax and urging correction (yet).
Faith in America is reassuring, until one remembers P. T. Barnum’s faith that Americans include a “sucker born every minute,” and Tom Sawyer’s assessment of small town politics: ‘Ain’t we got every fool in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?’
3 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Museums, Natural history, Science, Science and faith, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
This is a little test of reading comprehension for the Texas State Board of Education.
So if you’re not one of those people, you can click to the next post. Of course, if you’re reading this, it’s unlikely that you are a board member, but a Texas parent can dream, can’t he?
Here’s the point: When you review biology texts for adoption next time, someone will testify that the books you review have errors in them because they carry copies of Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryoes, and those drawings are “known to be fakes.”
But that’s not exactly accurate: Not since 1923 has any book carried the Haeckel drawings, except to point out that they are fakes.
P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula has a post today that lays out the details, “Return of the Son of the Bride of Haeckel,” as he Fisks another Chicken-Little-sky-is-falling press release from the Discovery Institute.
So, in short: When that first person testifies to you, saying the Haeckel drawings are in some book, ask that person if they’ve read Dr. Pat Frank’s account of searching for that book, and whether they can explain why they think the Texas State Board of Education would be so stupid as to buy that claim, since it hasn’t been accurate in 84 years, since 1923 (older than all of the members of the SBOE, at least).
Then politely thank the witness for their concern, go to the next witness, and don’t ever, ever, ever claim that you think the current textbook publishers need to “get their act together” or whatever language you want to use, to get rid of the Haeckel drawings.
The drawings are gone, long gone, and you know better.
Back to our regular programming: Did you know that it’s not true that Millard Fillmore put the first bathtub in the White House?
1 Comment | Accuracy, Evolution, Natural history, State school boards, Texas, Texas Freedom Network, Textbook Selection, Textbooks, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
You are currently browsing the archives for the Natural history category.
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 