Yes, this is an honest-to-god flame, so put on that asbestos suit. That way we'll at least have one agreed upon carcinogen in this thread.
They more than adequately provided cause to assume
Science and medical research according to all commonly accepted practices does not allow assumption to be the basis for conclusive findings.
I'm not going to waste further time copying the endless lists of links obtained by doing a simple websearch
Because you can't find any that are from impartial sources.
You'll only dismiss them en masse as the product of deluded junk scientists.
I never have and I won't. I'll view them as BIASED, and as such, suspect. What is it about the word "biased" that you don't understand?
Let's see: 61 studies say that secondhand smoke is dangerous, 10 studies say it isn't and 29 are discounted for probable bias. 10 vs. 61. What does this suggest? It certainly doesn't lend weight to your viewpoint.
Yes, it does. 16% (a very conservative number) is a huge discrepancy when dealing with research statistics of this nature.
You seem to be claiming that a flawed methodology of study constitutes proof of incorrect results.
NO! For the 500th fucking time, I am saying they are INCONCLUSIVE results!
In other words, they are 90% sure that passive smoking is a health hazard.
Apparently 61 of 71 studies are 90% sure that you are poisoning those nearest to you.
With these two sentences you have demonmstrated a complete lack of any understanding of statistics. You are not qualified to argue these points because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
The conclusions drawn by the EPA do not meet the accepted criteria for medical research. I have shown what that criteria is. I have shown why the EPA's findings don't meet it. Governmental policy decisions have been based on a conclusion that does not meet accepted scientific standards. That is wrong. Scientific methods do not allow you to apply looser standards to research just because you have a vested interest in the outcome.
One more time for those with thick skulls:
I have never claimed that second-hand smoke isn't a carcinogen. What I have done is proven that linking secod-hand smoke to cancer is a guess, an assumption, an unproven hypotheses. When you make public policy based on guesses and assumptions you do a serious disservice to the interests of valid research. That's why there are such rigid standards for research in the first place - to eliminate the possibility of tainting; to promote a set of guidlines such that, if they are followed, there can be no reasonable debate about the outcome. This was NOT done with the EPA study. This is why there is controversy. This is why they were sued. This is why a state supreme court ruled against the study as being valid for basing laws on.
Since you have put so many words in my mouth, allow me to return the favor:
You are saying that the issue of whether or not second-hand smoke is carcinogenic is important enough to completely disregard accepted research practices. If you can not see the fallacy, and outright danger, of this position then you are an absolute fool.
[ Parent ]