Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Yellow Rain: re to Frank Adams
Message-ID: <893@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 09:26:12 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.893
Posted: Mon Dec 16 09:26:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 19:19:21 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <362@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 46
Summary: 


In article <868@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>Frank Adams responded to my point about frequent media bias:
>> >*All* the press has
>> >mistakenly reported many other things which turned out to be wrong.
>> >For example, *all* the press reported the US government's allegations
>> >that the Soviets were using "Yellow Rain" as a form of chemical warfare
>> >in violation of chemical warfare treaties in Southeast Asia.
>> >Where has the press reported the recent Scientific American article
>> >which conclusively demonstrates that, in fact, "Yellow Rain" is
>> >actually bee feces?  The New York Times ran a short article on it.
>> 
>> Actually, it wasn't conclusive.  The issue is still open.
>> 
>> Scientific American is not an unbiased source.  Its articles with foreign
>> policy implications show a distinct "liberal" bias.  (I put the word the
>> word liberal in quotes, because I regard myself as a liberal, but do not
>> agree with the pacifistic kind of policies thus supported.)  They do this
>> not by publishing unscientific articles, but by being selective about what
>> articles they print.  Note that none of the work supporting the chemical
>> warfare theory ever appeared there.
> 
>1)Please name the articles which substantiated that "Yellow Rain" was
>  in fact chemical warfare.  I would be *very* surprised if there were
>  any such articles since the allegations were based on a few findings
>  of tricothecenes in samples by a particular lab, which could never be
>  confirmed by the Army's own lab itself
>2)Did you *read* the Scientific American article? Here are its key points:

1) All I saw was a short note; I'm afraid I don't remember where.  It was
probably in Science News.  It contained little more than what I said: that
the issue is still open.  The negative results cited in the SA article were
questioned.  I was under the impression that those alleging that the Yellow
Rain is chemical warfare had published; do you know for a fact whether they
have or not?

2)Yes.


In any event, I would call the coverage that I have seen of the whole
incident fairly balanced.  I don't think I saw a single reference to the
incident in the press which did not mention that many scientists doubted
the evidence for chemical warfare.  I suspect that you find the press
biased because it doesn't conform to your biases.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108