I do not ignore them.  I consider their information and results with what I
consider a HEALTHY level of skepticism.

As for "peer" review, I am no longer very impressed.  Much of my "healthy
level" of skepticism is caused in no small part to the social and political
direction that MOST entities that understake such studies have generally moved.

I am not, however, a mind-numbed robot.  I actually downloaded your citation.  
With it on my desktop it is likely I'll read it, especially considering that
you went to the time and effort to find it.  Thanks.  (I'm off to work.)

              :)
JR

I believe you tend to misunderstand some basic things about us from <ahem>
[drum roll] "The Right<tm>".  At the very least, you can rest assured that we
care* about clean air and water, among other things.  For this rather sappy
dog lover, the safety of my beloved pet is high on my list, too.

Given the original context of the topic of poisoning mice that venture into a
field-stored RV, your reaction is extreme.

If my dog began to die like yours, you can bet your bippie I'd have her to the
vet in a heartbeat.

But placing Decon in a stored RV against the possibility of mouse infestation
is REASONABLE, even when alternative but equally effective means of rodent
control are available.

That a dog was "allowed" to find such forage, much less EAT it, is another
debate that makes the one about mouse poison sound light weight.

Hunter, you really don't even KNOW me.  I know that YOU are into horses and
Airstream trailers (waaaay cool).  I am a nice, likeable guy with a camper
next to the two-car-garage split-entry home in a cliche suburb.  I don't fill
landfills by mowing my lawn and BAGGING the clippings.  I leave a campsite
CLEANER than I found it and believe in Leave No Trace.

I am as concerned as any "normal" 52-year-old white guy, married >32-years to
his high school sweetheart and a guy that loves his daughters, grandkids
camping and photography.  I am MORE concerned now about "things" than I have
EVER been.  To your certain puzzlement, they are DIFFERENT things than you (et
al).

My philosophy is simple:  Enough is enough.  We have enough laws, enough
restrictions, enough rules that we really don't need many more, if ANY.  The
job of "Lawmaker" should NEVER have become a FULLTIME job ANYWHERE.

If I can buy Decon right in the same place where I buy my food, and I read the
"Directions For Use" and the ever-popular "It is unlawful to use this product
in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.", it's OK for my purposes.

Do you ever read those STUPID warnings?  It was bleeding hearts, hand-wringers
and lawyers that came up with these warnings designed to save us from
ourselves..  The irony is that, given Decon, those of us that can actually
READ and comprehend (not to mention type from memory) such a warning statement
DON'T NEED it as we are already educated, civilized and SMART enough to know
you don't use Decon as bacon bits on your SALAD!  ...and you don't let your
dog eat mice.  Of the folks that could BENEFIT from such a warning, few will
attempt to read it.  Of those few, even fewer will comprehend its meaning.

If you drive the perimeter of any large store (Wal*Mart, Kroeger, etc) you'll
see "bait boxes" placed a few dozen feet apart along the building where the
walls meet the pavement.  Poisoning pests has evolved along with all of our
other EVIL technologies.  Unless misused and the substance is accidentally
injested, it is safe and effective.  (Yes, I trust the government when it
tells me such things.  What's REALLY weird is that that stuff [warnings, etc]
were mandated primarily by liberal Democrats.  But, to you fine folks, it's
not enough.  It's NEVER enough.

My philosophy calls for "common sense" and "personal responsibility" which,
for the purpose of this topic, requires that the Decon user follow label
directions and the dog owner makes every effort to ensure their dog doesn't
eat a Deconned mouse.  And, in the unlikely event the dog DOES eat a Deconned
mousie, the owner should be ashamed to have let it happen and sufficiently
chastised simply by having to make the vet's next boat payment.

I am missing nothing - and here is where "cold and heartless Conservative
Republican Christian White Man" applies:  Overlooking the likelihood that NO
"endangered" species (listed) is additionally burdened by our "proper" use of
Decon, I am unconcerned about the DEGREE to which other species may run afoul
of the poison - if at all.  (Translation:  Decon is safe and effective and I
am concerned about more important things and don't wish to expend any
"concern" for the impact, if any, that properly used Decon may have on a
"normal" environment.)

          :)
JR

*(Please don't ask.  You presumably come from the "side" of the
social/political spectrum that holds in high regard the statement "That
depends on what the definition of "is" is.".  As such, you are not entitled to
an explanation beyond that which Webster tells you "care" means.)

This could be the best plan of all!