The government is making too many decisions base on probably!
To: Retired Chemist
I can see how diesel exhaust may aggravate respiratory disorders, and even increase the cancer risk to some extent.
But I notice that this MSNBC report carefully avoids stating any numbers -- which leads me to believe that the actual risk factor may be pretty small.
Fun with numbers, apparently.
2 posted on
09/04/2002 7:16:13 AM PDT by
r9etb
To: Retired Chemist
Diesel exhausts from large trucks and other sources probably cause lung cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded Tuesday in a report More junk science absent peer review.
To: Retired Chemist
Of course. These decisions are for a population that is too stupid to care about - let alone understand - confidence intervals or standard deviations. This population babbles glibly about special rights for -2 s.d. individuals and still denies the existance of >+2 s.d. people. Imagine the conversation between a 0 s.d. and a +4.
Read UncleAl. You may not agree with anything but it's fun to read. That's unlike most drivel from the media.
To: Retired Chemist; *puff_list; SheLion
This is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows that only cigarette smoking and exposure to a whiff of tobacco smoke causes cancer. The EPA told us so. /sarcasm
9 posted on
09/04/2002 7:46:17 AM PDT by
Gabz
To: Retired Chemist
Everyone knows that left-wing politics causes cancer.
To: Retired Chemist
(fill in the blank) causes cancer... according to "scientists", pretty much everything causes cancer...
Sure, if you expose rats to 10,000 times the normal rate of whatever...it will cause cancer. If you feed rats 10 bags of M&Ms every day for 20 years, they will develop cancer.. All we've learned from decades of junk science is.. Lab rats are 20 times more likely to develop cancer.
12 posted on
09/04/2002 7:54:58 AM PDT by
goodieD
To: Retired Chemist
This just in, cellular mitosis causes cancer. Update at 11..
15 posted on
09/04/2002 8:19:42 AM PDT by
Paradox
To: Retired Chemist
"The potential human health effects of diesel exhausts is persuasive, even though assumptions and uncertainties are involved. In other words: I can't even contruct a grammatically correct sentence, and I am TELLING you it is full of assumptions and uncertainties, but I want you to believe me when I say diesel is bad for you "
"the potential [...] effects [...] is persuasive" ????
19 posted on
09/04/2002 9:18:55 AM PDT by
Mr. K
To: Retired Chemist
a push to reduce truck emissions through stricter requirements for cleaner diesel fuel. Is this old news referring to the new diesel requirements promulgated in the opening days of the Bush administration that dealt such a blow to the truck industry that Peterbilt had to lay off so many, or is this a fresh push to further wound the industry?
To: Retired Chemist
Food, water and air also probable cause canser. The leftover clintonistas keep reveling themselves.
25 posted on
09/04/2002 12:15:51 PM PDT by
fella
To: Retired Chemist
Here's the endgame:
Being born causes cancer
The ultimate goal - abort ourselves to extinction....
26 posted on
09/04/2002 12:19:58 PM PDT by
NorCoGOP
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson