You DO know that CR is a Naderite pub, right?
CR has been begging me for at least 6 years to resubscribe. They has some ugly socialistic editor hag for a while that was pushing hard for single payer healthcare. That was the final straw for me.
Does that mean they're always wrong? Here's a JAMA article that's not too old.
Arsenic Exposure and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes in US Adults
Conclusions After adjustment for biomarkers of seafood intake, total urine arsenic was associated with increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes. This finding supports the hypothesis that low levels of exposure to inorganic arsenic in drinking water, a widespread exposure worldwide, may play a role in diabetes prevalence. Prospective studies in populations exposed to a range of inorganic arsenic levels are needed to establish whether this association is causal.My computer is too old to do a decent and recent search at PubMed. Try entering arsenic and diabetes at Pubmed. The results came up the most recent first when I last used it.
They’re going after ‘big juice’ here, while giving ‘big liberalism’ a pass. There may or may not be arsenic problems from the juice here, there clearly are major arsenic problems from liberalism in Bangladesh. Unicef - a liberal organization if there ever was one - was criminally negligent resulting in several million cases of chronic arsenic poisoning there. The country had been plagued by diarrheal infections from its surface water supply. In the early 1970s Unicef drilled thousands of deeper wells for them but never tested the result. When the epidemic of symptomatic arsenic poisoning presented 15 years later the water was finally tested and was loaded with arsenic. Arsenic contamination of well water was a well known problem in many parts of the world. Testing for it was standard and cheap. But Unicef wasn’t treated like the French silicone breast company nor as the world’s worst mass poisoners. They were treated as liberals. Their good intentions, not their results, were all that mattered to them.