Ethon is in trouble

Ethon is in danger of deletion. As it says "Google for "ethon + prometheus -wikipedia" gives a handful of hits from nonreliable sources". Eli unreliable? But at least I now know what all that liver stuff was about.


More like this

This comes as no surprise what with the big bird's inactivity due to his regular lunch being on sabbatical in Blighty this year. Enforced diets are tough!

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 21 Sep 2007 #permalink

I added the (as far as I can tell) only ancient reference, Hyg. fab. 31, 5, to the original article's talk page; but I see that the latest editor, Marshall, doesn't treat it as a name. Originally it would have been an adjective, as at Homer, Iliad 15, 690 aietos aithon, the ?glossy brown? eagle. Presumably, it had already been mistaken for a name in Hyginus (who was writing Latin).

[Ah, that seems rather plausible. Nice to have people who know these things -W]

By nigel holmes (not verified) on 22 Sep 2007 #permalink

Lunch is now brunch, courtesy of the New York Times, where this sighting occurred this past week -- a rather admirable example of spinning news, I thought:

He manages to get into print an argument that I think utterly bogus, that they print without comment:

> "That N.R.D.C. suit [on ozone chemistry] was
> critical because it turned the burden of proof
> around from having to show there was a problem
> to proving there was not," said Roger A. Pielke Jr.

And we all know science can't prove a negative. He's claiming the United States was somehow tricked into agreeing to help ban chlorofluorocarbons, apparently. Or into prematurely banning them before anyone was capable of "proving" there was a problem.

I imagine he's thinking that there wasn't any ozone hole occurring in the USA back then. People sunbathing on the beaches in Massachusetts weren't affected by whatever little contribution the USA was making to this alleged global problem.

His name popped up there and I thought, Oh, Lord, first this Tierney hokus-bogus-spin-scientist guy and now -- Roger??

There are so many legitimate scientists they could have interviewed. Heck, there are legitimate legal experts they could have interviewed. But no, they're digging in the cracks looking for something that's neither.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 22 Sep 2007 #permalink