It's that time of year and I've decided that I'd pass on a few of my resolutions. I don't call them New Year's resolutions because they are things I've thought about and decided as the year passed by and not ones I've thought up especially for the new year.

One of the things I've decided is that I'm going to speak up more about the idiotic, anti-scientific tripe that passes itself off as popular science. Examples abound and it isn't hard to point out the flaws of those who propound some of this stuff. A simple rule to remember is the old computer saying "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

For example, Rachel Carson is beloved by the environmentalists but she is probably responsible for more death and human misery than anyone but a select few, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

Back when Carson wrote "Silent Spring" decrying the effects of DDT on the avian population the pesticide was widely used. I remember a picture in an old National Geographic of a truck with a spray attachment fogging a beach with DDT powder as children were romping on the beach directly in the spray.

The problem wasn't that DDT was inherently dangerous to the environment, it was the way it was being used. Restricting the use of DDT wouldn't satisfy the environmental Nazis, however, who demanded it be banned for all use.

There are ways to use DDT safely, both for humans and the environment. Using it under controlled conditions and in the proper amounts could stop millions of cases of malaria and other diseases each year but the hysteria created by the apocalyptic vision of Carson's readers wouldn't allow for a reasoned solution that balanced the need for an effective pesticide with the environmental damage caused by unrestricted use.

It's the same old tactic used by bombastic blowhards everywhere. It could be someone screaming "It's for the children" when they want to do something that in any way involves children, the obvious implication being that anyone disagreeing with the blowhard hates children and seeks to do them ill.

Compromise is not an option for these "touchy feely" type of people who use science when it suits them, and when they can twist results, but refuse to allow anyone else to look independently at other results that may disagree with their position.

A good example of bad science is the hue and cry currently under way about the drug Vioxx. A study came out that showed that people taking massive doses of the drug for a long period of time double their chances of having some cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke. What was buried in bottom of the report was that doubling the rate amounted to only 0.75 percent change.

The company, in a move that is about as stupid as the people whining about the problem, voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. This is like sticking your hand in a tank of sharks and inviting them to munch down. Trial lawyers had the first advertisements trolling for clients out before the day was over.

The people who used Vioxx in the regular dose and for short periods of time would experience no change in their risk, and those who took large doses for long periods of time were denied the chance to make an informed decision, they may have chosen to take the increased chance of problems because of chronic pain that Vioxx helped them overcome.

Bad science combined with sloppy sentimentalism and short-sightedness result in bad decisions. We need to confront the people who propound such things and point them out as the hucksters and frauds they are and defeat them wherever they are.