Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
others hoped on the bandwagon and added on to the already flawed research.
use the EPA study as a major reference.
|
What are you talking about?
I've pointed out multiple times in this thread that your concept of why something is included as a reference doesn't align with why it is actually ina study.
Yet, you don't answer my question, you just keep repeating yourself.
You want us to show you how researchers go through and determine which factors cause the most damage? (re: radon and people living at home with smokers)
You need to sit in a multiple regression course. We can't adequately explain that for you on an internet board.
If you were willing to concede that we are trained in these types of analyses, and if you had an inkling about them, then we might be able to at least get somewhere in this discussion. But as it is, KMA, you just keep repeating stuff that is simply not true based on a lack of understanding of how scientific experimentation is conducted and the format of resulting research published from such research.
I was trying to be patient and polite, and I hope this doesn't come across as impolite. But you simply don't know what you are talking about on some of your points.
I also don't know how you come to a rapid dismissal of the smokers at home versus public issue. Look, even if you thought that someone's family was sitting inside the home and smoking 24/7, literally, for an entire year, they would not be able to produce the same amount of smoke as an entire (or smoking section) bar or restuarant does in...what? what do you want? a day? a week? a month? surely not a year? apples to apples--year vs. year, who would be exposed to more smoke? this is common sense, but you are demanding some study outlining it. Someone has, it just is increasingly obvious you wouldn't believe it if I dug around and showed it to you.
They might, for all we know, have a wild, preconceived notion that tobacco smoke actually harms people!!! before they conduct the study--which to your mind invalidates the whole thing.
Then you questioned why people weren't dying en masse if SHS was so terrible given the amount of bars in the US. But you question how 3K could die from cancer and 50K could die from heart disease, because, wait, just wait, SHS smoke isn't...X.
This has become a ridiculous conversation that isn't fun, it's not informative, and it's not productive any longer to me. I actually feel baited because you implied you were willing to budge a bit if you were shown the evidence. But you are disqualifying every piece of evidence provided to you on the basis of a very misinformed position. And I'm not talking about your ideological position here--I'm talking about your knowledge of how scientific research is conducted and reported upon. That's the only thing I'm referring to. If you have statistical background, I'm very sorry that I am assuming you don't. But your positions are so far away from anything I've ever heard that I just don't think you have sat in a methods, stats, or regression class.
So don't take any of this personally, please, because it is not about you or your intelligence, or your political viewpoint.