HuffPost Detroit

**SimoneLandon** · October-05-11, 06:28 PM

Hello,

I wanted to reach out and let the Detroit Yes forum know that The Huffington Post is soon to launch HuffPost Detroit, a local site dedicated to our city.

I'm a native Detroiter [[grew up in Hubbard Farms) and am really looking forward to bringing the HuffPost mix of blogging, news, culture, and original reporting to the city of Detroit.

You can find [[and like!) our Facebook page here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/HuffPo...78344278908127

The site will go live in mid-November, but I'm putting this out on the forum ahead of time because HuffPost Detroit is all about feedback and serving Detroiters and the broader community as best we can. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have ideas, news tips, causes or events to promote, or if you think you'd like to contribute to our group blog.

You can reach the HuffPost Detroit staff at detroit [at] huffingtonpost.com

Best,

Simone Landon
Editor, HuffPost Detroit

**Carey** · October-05-11, 09:06 PM

Welcome to Detroit, HuffPost. Simone, welcome home. Tell us more: How many staffers will you have; what will they cover; are you hiring; where will you be located; do you think are you competition for the News and Free Press?

**oldredfordette** · October-06-11, 06:36 AM

Is HuffPost Detroit also going to be non-union, and bust the National Writers Union as HuffPo is currently doing? Or would you like the number to the local chapters, or maybe the Newspaper Guild?

http://huffingtonpostunionofbloggers.org/

bartock · October-06-11, 07:47 AM

...and people who post videos on youtube are being exploited too, right? Is there nothing positive through your lenses? I couldn't imagine finding everything in the World so insufferable.

HuffPost is not union busting. The furor over the AOL thing, blah, blah, blah. HuffPost pays its writers and editors. Because blog-sharing is volunteer some people got pissed.

**Goose** · October-06-11, 08:02 AM

it will be good to have a liberal perspective on issues here in Detroit..... hard to find around here....

**JBMcB** · October-06-11, 09:55 AM

The Huffington Post has somewhat interesting articles now and then, but they veer yellow too often for my taste. And the Oprah inspired health section is just awful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sloan-..._b_995154.html

OH NOES there are "toxins" in your body!!! Chemicals, chemicals everywhere!

**Downtown Lady** · October-06-11, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sloan-..._b_995154.html

OH NOES there are "toxins" in your body!!! Chemicals, chemicals everywhere!

Do you think that rampant cancer is just a coincidence?

**Det_ard** · October-06-11, 10:15 AM

Or Chemtrails???

**p1acebo** · October-06-11, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

Do you think that rampant cancer is just a coincidence?

Rampant cancer is a combination of a number of things. Our processed foods, the fact that we are living much longer than we use to, and the over use/abuse mentality our culture has [[over eating, smoking too much, drinking too much). However, you can't really pin it on one fact not to mention there is no proof that having these prenatal "toxins" is a cause for predisposed cancer.

More over, most of the cancer that children develop is genetically inherited and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the enviroment [[i.e. ALL, different forms of brain cancer, etc).

So yes, the article is bogus and pseudoscience in an attempt to grasp the attention of worried mothers. Scaring people into believing something that is unproven seems to be the American way.

**JBMcB** · October-06-11, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

Do you think that rampant cancer is just a coincidence?

These types of articles started popping up en masse about fifteen years ago, when new, super-sensitive models of mass spectrometers came on the market. They can detect as little as a few molecules of a substance in a given compound. You can find trace amounts of just about any compound known to man just about everywhere - from man-made and natural sources. Notice that they never say how *much* of a "toxin" was found - that's because it is usually such an insignificant amount that it wouldn't be worth writing an article about otherwise.

In any case, our average life expectancy keeps climbing and climbing...

**Downtown Lady** · October-06-11, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by p1acebo

Rampant cancer is a combination of a number of things. Our processed foods, the fact that we are living much longer than we use to, and the over use/abuse mentality our culture has [[over eating, smoking too much, drinking too much). However, you can't really pin it on one fact not to mention there is no proof that having these prenatal "toxins" is a cause for predisposed cancer.

The article is about toxins in general, it only briefly mentions prenatal toxins. I agree that cancer being so widespread is a combination of a number of things, including everything you mentioned plus our exposure to so many chemicals. I am not pinning it on one fact.

Originally Posted by p1acebo

So yes, the article is bogus and pseudoscience in an attempt to grasp the attention of worried mothers.

from the article:
• Of the 80,000 chemicals permitted in the U.S., the EPA required testing of only 500.
• Every day, 42 billion pounds of chemicals are produced or imported -- we don't know the health risks of 75 percent of them.

It is certainly your right to be so dismissive; I just don't choose to be so close-minded.

Originally Posted by p1acebo

Scaring people into believing something that is unproven seems to be the American way.

The irony here is that the safety of these thousands of chemicals is what is absolutely unproven.

My apologies to the original poster for participating in this threadjacking.

**p1acebo** · October-06-11, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

The article is about toxins in general, it only briefly mentions prenatal toxins. I agree that cancer being so widespread is a combination of a number of things, including everything you mentioned plus our exposure to so many chemicals. I am not pinning it on one fact.

from the article:
• Of the 80,000 chemicals permitted in the U.S., the EPA required testing of only 500.
• Every day, 42 billion pounds of chemicals are produced or imported -- we don't know the health risks of 75 percent of them.

It is certainly your right to be so dismissive; I just don't choose to be so close-minded.

The irony here is that the safety of these thousands of chemicals is what is absolutely unproven.

My apologies to the original poster for participating in this threadjacking.

First of all, the burden of proof is on the researcher, not for an unknown to be presumed pathogenic. Keep in mind anyone can manipulate numbers and findings to work in whatever fashion they please. If we took an MRI, CBC, or any other diagnostic test of every healthy person in the United States you would find plenty of abnormal values in otherwise healthy people.

And when you talk about safety, if you truly believe that all of these "chemicals" are so pathogenic then you should probably move to a different country because things are not changing anytime soon in the United States. Quiet frankly people don't understand how the body can handle as many non organic molecules as it does, yet you don't see EVERY person in the United States develop cancer. Wouldn't you expect this if you are so sure all of these foreign substances are the cause of cancer. News flash, we are living longer, cancer is a degenerative disease for the most part. Technically, someone could live the healthiest possible live and at the end of the day they will develop cancer if they live longer enough due to telemerase break down which has nothing to do with external interactions.

And additionally, if anything you are the one being close-minded. Do you keep up to date on reputable medical journals? Have you attended lectures describing the mechanisms of many of these cancers that ACTUALLY have had extensive studying done on them? Do you even have a background in basic physiology and pathology? I highly doubt it. To me it seems like you want to put faith in an article that is distributed in mass media that has no real scientific backing behind it.

I could potentially go on and on about this but we kind of already hijacked the threat which is rude... however it just really bothers me when people try to stand on a soap box about something when they don't know what they are talking about. This is how false information gets spread.

**SimoneLandon** · October-06-11, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by oldredfordette

Is HuffPost Detroit also going to be non-union, and bust the National Writers Union as HuffPo is currently doing? Or would you like the number to the local chapters, or maybe the Newspaper Guild?

http://huffingtonpostunionofbloggers.org/

Hi OldRedfordette,
I'd love to chat off-list if you're interested. Shoot me an email at detroit [at] huffingtonpost [dot] com

**Wesley Mouch** · October-06-11, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by SimoneLandon

Hi OldRedfordette,
I'd love to chat off-list if you're interested. Shoot me an email at detroit [at] huffingtonpost [dot] com

Do share at some point, though. I'm interested in this as relates to the future of our media.

**Downtown Lady** · October-06-11, 02:35 PM

P1acebo, you have a hell of a lot of nerve to complain about somebody being on a soapbox when you are doing the exact same thing.

You say I can't prove the chemicals are unsafe, I say you can't prove that they are safe. You live your life however you want and I will do the same.

I find it amusing that I am considered close-minded just because I don't agree with you, because I don't accept wholesale that these thousands of random, untested chemicals that we are breathing and eating are perfectly fine.

[It reminds me of the people hundreds of years ago who were "close-minded" because they didn't agree that the earth was flat.]

Years ago people scoffed at the notion that asbestos was unsafe, and how many people have died unnecessary deaths from mesothelioma?

The suggestion to move to another country is moronic. A practical plan of action would be to avoid what is avoidable: aspartame, monosodium glutamate, mercury, aluminum, fluoride, BPA, triclosan, non-organic produce [[pesticides) and genetically-modified foods [[pesticides have been bred into the food) is a good place to start.

Finally, how the hell do you have the right to assume that I have done no research except to put my faith in *an* article [[singular)?

You live however you want and I'll do the same.

**p1acebo** · October-06-11, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

P1acebo, you have a hell of a lot of nerve to complain about somebody being on a soapbox when you are doing the exact same thing.

You say I can't prove the chemicals are unsafe, I say you can't prove that they are safe. You live your life however you want and I will do the same.

I find it amusing that I am considered close-minded just because I don't agree with you, because I don't accept wholesale that these thousands of random, untested chemicals that we are breathing and eating are perfectly fine.

[It reminds me of the people hundreds of years ago who were "close-minded" because they didn't agree that the earth was flat.]

Years ago people scoffed at the notion that asbestos was unsafe, and how many people have died unnecessary deaths from mesothelioma?

The suggestion to move to another country is moronic. A practical plan of action would be to avoid what is avoidable: aspartame, monosodium glutamate, mercury, aluminum, fluoride, BPA, triclosan, non-organic produce [[pesticides) and genetically-modified foods [[pesticides have been bred into the food) is a good place to start.

Finally, how the hell do you have the right to assume that I have done no research except to put my faith in *an* article [[singular)?

You live however you want and I'll do the same.

I do have the right to assume you haven't done your research because you haven't stated otherwise [[prove me wrong, otherwise it sounds to me like you don't have a background in the subject). I don't understand why you are upset with me defending my points but the fact of the matter is someone questioned the article posted:

The Huffington Post has somewhat interesting articles now and then, but they veer yellow too often for my taste. And the Oprah inspired health section is just awful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sloan-..._b_995154.html

OH NOES there are "toxins" in your body!!! Chemicals, chemicals everywhere!

And you responded with:

Do you think that rampant cancer is just a coincidence?

So based on these string of posts it is safe assume you are linking this article to the "rampant cancer" in our society. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.. or at least if you are going to make that claim it is something you should keep in mind.

If you disagree then that is fine, however that is the time line of posts that occur. I was calling out the article and you decided to disagree, but that does give me every right to defend my views and at the same time dispute yours.

Unfortunately some of the comparisons you are making with other known pathological substances does not apply considering the article was so damn vague [[not to mention you mentioned fluoride which is actually healthy for our teeth in moderation, oh and people do not have issues with aspartame as we are able to metabolize it fine UNLESS you suffer from PKU, which is an enzyme deficiency). Now if you want to talk about the flaws of various studies trying to prove the carcinogenic properties of various substances, that is another subject. Just let me know and we can debate any of this, just perhaps not in this threat.

But again, I do have a right to defend my points considering you wanted to attack them, it doesn't take a lot of nerve to do that.

**Detroit Stylin** · October-06-11, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by p1acebo

I do have the right to assume you haven't done your research because you haven't stated otherwise [[prove me wrong, otherwise it sounds to me like you don't have a background in the subject). I don't understand why you are upset with me defending my points but the fact of the matter is someone questioned the article posted:

And you responded with:

So based on these string of posts it is safe assume you are linking this article to the "rampant cancer" in our society. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.. or at least if you are going to make that claim it is something you should keep in mind.

If you disagree then that is fine, however that is the time line of posts that occur. I was calling out the article and you decided to disagree, but that does give me every right to defend my views and at the same time dispute yours.

Unfortunately some of the comparisons you are making with other known pathological substances does not apply considering the article was so damn vague [[not to mention you mentioned fluoride which is actually healthy for our teeth in moderation, oh and people do not have issues with aspartame as we are able to metabolize it fine UNLESS you suffer from PKU, which is an enzyme deficiency). Now if you want to talk about the flaws of various studies trying to prove the carcinogenic properties of various substances, that is another subject. Just let me know and we can debate any of this, just perhaps not in this threat.

But again, I do have a right to defend my points considering you wanted to attack them, it doesn't take a lot of nerve to do that.

But yet she did bolster her point with:
Years ago people scoffed at the notion that asbestos was unsafe, and how many people have died unnecessary deaths from mesothelioma?

**p1acebo** · October-06-11, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

But yet she did bolster her point with:
Years ago people scoffed at the notion that asbestos was unsafe, and how many people have died unnecessary deaths from mesothelioma?

Look I am not saying she didn't make any good points, but I still have the right to defend my points. People have died from asbestos, and after extensive research it was proven which was beneficial to society. However, you can't just jump the gun on anything the media puts out there [[i.e. vaccines causing autism, researcher admits faking data/it was a faulty study to begin with).

**Downtown Lady** · October-06-11, 03:59 PM

P1acebo, my response about rampant cancer was not in reply to the article, it was specifically in reply to the statement: "OH NOES there are "toxins" in your body!!! Chemicals, chemicals everywhere!"

Fluoride is actually a highly-toxic industrial waste that has never been conclusively proven to benefit teeth. I would think someone as smart as you would know that. And your statement that "people do not have issues with aspartame" is laughable. Google is your friend.

I never said that "you have a lot of nerve" to defend your points; what I stated is that you have a lot of nerve to assume what I do or do not know, or what I have or have not researched.

You make the faulty assumption that I "jump the gun on anything the media puts out there", which could not be further from the truth.

You're asserting that I cannot possibly know anything unless I have "a background in the subject". Is that so? How about if I'm reasonably intelligent? How about if I have an ability to read and make decisions? Will those qualify, or unless I have a medical research background, am I just a dolt incapable of comprehending and interpreting what medical researchers have been so kind to share?

On that note, I'm done unless you want to open a new thread on the topic. My apologies, Simone.

P.S. Thanks but I know that correlation does not equal causation.

**p1acebo** · October-06-11, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

P1acebo, my response about rampant cancer was not in reply to the article, it was specifically in reply to the statement: "OH NOES there are "toxins" in your body!!! Chemicals, chemicals everywhere!"

Fluoride is actually a highly-toxic industrial waste that has never been conclusively proven to benefit teeth. I would think someone as smart as you would know that. And your statement that "people do not have issues with aspartame" is laughable. Google is your friend.

I never said that "you have a lot of nerve" to defend your points; what I stated is that you have a lot of nerve to assume what I do or do not know, or what I have or have not researched.

You make the faulty assumption that I "jump the gun on anything the media puts out there", which could not be further from the truth.

You're asserting that I cannot possibly know anything unless I have "a background in the subject". Is that so? How about if I'm reasonably intelligent? How about if I have an ability to read and make decisions? Will those qualify, or unless I have a medical research background, am I just a dolt incapable of comprehending and interpreting what medical researchers have been so kind to share?

On that note, I'm done unless you want to open a new thread on the topic. My apologies, Simone.

P.S. Thanks but I know that correlation does not equal causation.

Yes but the flouride in our water levels are not at toxic levels, anything can be toxic if you have to much of it.

In regards to aspartame you can "laugh" all you want [[you still have yet to post WHY it is so bad for us when we can actually metabolize it). Aspartame is another example of if you use it in moderation it is relatively safe [[you think everyone that uses sweetener is going to develop health issues?), but if you consider google a quality source to your argument then I guess you don't understand.

I don't care how intelligent you are the argument you presented wasn't valid. The only reason I question is because you didn't provide any proof of anything. It sure looked like you were referring to the statement I posted initially, but at the same time it really doesn't matter.

I was making my statement on the article in reference to your mention of cancer. You were the one to decided to take it a step further as if it was something personal I said to you. Yes, I am done as well, have a nice day.

P.S. Glad you know the concept, apply it to the article.

**Downtown Lady** · October-06-11, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by p1acebo

if you consider google a quality source to your argument then I guess you don't understand

You have just dismissed the entire internet as an information-gathering source. Do you think I'm googling and pulling my info from TMZ? I don't know if you're aware yet but medical journals and scientific studies are also found through Google. [Sidenote: your condescension is incredible.]

Originally Posted by p1acebo

I don't care how intelligent you are the argument you presented wasn't valid. The only reason I question is because you didn't provide any proof of anything.

The argument I presented wasn't valid why? Because you said so? I mean, based on what?

And what proof did you provide? That would be none. But your lack of proof is fine? All of the information is out there. I am not going to spoon feed you.

Originally Posted by p1acebo

P.S. Glad you know the concept, apply it to the article.

I didn't NOT apply it. But thanks. And as a corollary to that concept, people often only see correlation in instances where perhaps they should see causation.

Simone, I will read HuffPost Detroit every day to atone for my part in derailing this thread.

**detroittrader** · October-06-11, 06:06 PM

Hi Simone! Thanks for the advance notice about about Huffpost Detroit. Just adds to my believe that reading DetroitYes is like getting the news a few days to even a few months in advance. I'll be checking it everyday, as HuffPost is one of my daily stops on the internets. Though it's not perfect [[by a long shot), what media is????

Anyone interested can just type her name in Google and read some of her writings at Huffpost and Metro Times.

**oldredfordette** · October-06-11, 06:49 PM

Simone, I'd love to, but in the meantime, I'd like to know if Detroit HuffPo will recognize the HuffPo writers who have joined the National Writers Guild. You can post it here, if union busting is afoot, you'll make many people on this board very happy [[as well as a few very unhappy).

**JBMcB** · October-07-11, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown Lady

The irony here is that the safety of these thousands of chemicals is what is absolutely unproven..

This statement belies your ignorance on the topic. People throw around the term "chemical" without knowing what it is. Water is a chemical. Table salt is a chemical. Chlorophyll is a chemical. Any substance with a homogenous set of physical properties is a chemical.

Also, nearly every chemical is toxic once you reach a certain dosage. You can get water poisoning. Pretty much every vitamin is toxic at a certain level.

Add to that, it's not only the chemical but how it's compounded. Table salt is made up of two incredibly toxic elements - chlorine and sodium. As a compound they are relatively harmless. But your body needs a certain amount to survive.

**Downtown Lady** · October-07-11, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

This statement belies your ignorance on the topic. People throw around the term "chemical" without knowing what it is. Water is a chemical. Table salt is a chemical. Chlorophyll is a chemical. Any substance with a homogenous set of physical properties is a chemical.

Also, nearly every chemical is toxic once you reach a certain dosage. You can get water poisoning. Pretty much every vitamin is toxic at a certain level.

Add to that, it's not only the chemical but how it's compounded. Table salt is made up of two incredibly toxic elements - chlorine and sodium. As a compound they are relatively harmless. But your body needs a certain amount to survive.

Oh, do you mean like when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom? Or when Na combines with Cl?

Uh, thanks...I learned all of that in high school chemistry just like you did. I don't know if you thought your post would be some exciting new information for me?

Some reading on this subject might be beneficial to you, instead of just deciding that you know the unknown -- the effects of thousands of untested chemicals. That, to me, belies ignorance.

And plenty have been studied and show a clear link to health problems. Just for kicks open your eyes and see what the studies say.

I understand about dosage, and yes, I even know about water poisoning. I'm talking about the cumulative effect of long-term exposure to a seemingly innocuous daily dosage.

An example is the carbonation in pop. When transported on its own, the truck carrying the carbonation is required to display a hazardous material sign. Now, when mixed with the other ingredients in pop, what other ingredient do you suggest neutralizes that hazard? When mixed with caffeine or caramel coloring or corn syrup is suddenly the carbonation no longer hazardous?

And the carbonation in pop is now being linked to esophagus cancer. What I'm saying is that people consume this daily for decades and call it safe, and then don't see the causation when they develop cancer of the esophagus.