Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Yes, in that case I see it.
I haven't seen a study, yet, that breaks down location of exposure as related to illness (except in-home versus public).
With as many bars and restaurants as there are, you would think, if the risk was as "significant" as many claim, there would be a rash of people dying that used to work in a bar and/or restaurant.
We just don't see that, so, I question the correlation.
By the way, here is one of the studies I read last night. It is pre-1993, so I figured I might learn more from a study that didn't rely heavily on the flawed EPA one from 1993.
1986 Surgeon General Report:
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking |
KMA, keep in mind that "significant" does not refer to magnitude, just the liklihood of something being due to chance. Your commentary on the amount of bars versus deaths is speculative. Sources already posted indicate that a number of people, ~3,000 by one estimation that you discount, are dying. But we have no idea how that relates to the number of bars and their workers, mainly because to my knowledge neither you nor I have an idea of how many bars and etc are in existence.
Now, I went back and re-read your initial post on the EPA study. It doesn't appear that you read the study itself. The two litigants contest whether the judge's ruling was procedural or scientific. I don't have the briefs, the opinion, or anything in front of me and frankly, I don't want to dig through it. I'm perfectly willing to discard that first study. Their is other independent research that has nothing to do with that study, other than acknowledging its existence.
One of your links didn't even really go into the case at all, but seemed to be some kind of inflammatory political statement comparing Bush to the EPA's misdeeds or something. I don't know, that was the free air canada but maybe I mis-skimmed it.
I did find this valuable however, from the cato insitute:
Quote:
|
And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the "cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as the agency had boldly asserted.
|
So they contend that the EPA cherry-picked data and etc. OK, maybe so maybe not. But we need to see these two studies and evaluate them. The article didn't cite them, perhaps an email to the author(s) would net the two they are referring to? Please let me know if you obtain the references and I will pull them from an article database I have access to on campus and we can discuss their methodology and findings. actually, raveneye will do it I hope, finals week is like a few days away and I'm not even supposed to be in politics anymore!!!! my whole plan in exhibition is totally screwed. tecoyah asked that I not permanently take off, just post on occasion so the community didn't lose a valuable member (I'm assuming after a period of inactivity accounts get trimmed) and here I am again posting away every day! LOL.
But I'm totally willing to do what I can and offer some of my, albeit somewhat limited but at least graduate level and not some intro textbook, quantitative methodology training.