Paul Driessen explains.
Category Archives: Risk assessment
Krugman is best known as the last living really enthusiastic acolyte of John M. Keynes, a pervert and a really bad economist, by his own admission, after a period of a decade.
Some screw up in the post, but here’s the more accurate Fulks piece.
I have to laugh that the WSJ would publish things this way–but what do I know–I live in Texas.
What can I say–extraordinary human effects scientist for NASA and physician/anesthesiologist.
NCPA report, but they are conservative. I recall the Carol Browner EPA ozone regs that were based on crapola human effects studies.
This is similar to other cancer treatment approaches and overdiagnosis that comes from better detection by imaging and testing.
Again like so many times before, the states file suit to stop another round of overreach. And they will lose, and they still have not consulted with people like us at junk science on how to properly challenge air pollution junk science epidemiology and toxicology.
So the ACSH reports on the ongoing saga that is the WTC disaster, and now, like Agent Orange, and Gulf War Syndrome, a cottage industry of medical care and advocacy has developed.
My brother in law Fred got this fine summary of the issues and forwarded it to me.
I agree with the writer.
If I kill you with a knife, is that the beginning of a knife epidemic? Huh?
We have mentioned many times before the corrupting effect of government grants on climate and environmental research.
Look at this study, and see if you see what I see. This is a problem with these food magic risk assessment studies.
I admire a certain writer who puts up this fine piece on why small particles–tiny dust–don’t kill nobody the way the EPA claims.
I can always count on some interest among old white guys about cholesterol and cardiovascular health.
Sierra Rayne is a Canadian chemist by professional training, but writer on climate and statistics maven.
Back in 1980 or so (as our other esteemed moderator will recall) we started seeing the first reports that aspirin seemed to have impressive cardio-protective action. As one of my relatives (a doctor) said back then “we just have early reports, no really good studies yet, but… every cardiologist I know is taking it”.
And there has been solid research in the last few decades. Short version: If you’ve already had a heart attack there’s definite (as much as anything in medicine can be) help in preventing another one. If you’re in otherwise good health and don’t have a history of issues, then the FDA now says there ain’t much there, there. Continue reading
In the recent past, I have waxed eloquent on why there is no way that the EPA can expose people to toxic, lethal or carcinogenic air pollution.