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.
Category Archives: Risk assessment
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.
I put up an explanation of one hit theory of tox that grew from junk radiation biophysics and tox.
However, one of our commenters understands things better then me by far.
There is no carcinogenic or toxic effect of second-hand smoke.
I hate to bust your balloon, but Saul Alinsky, mentor to Hillary and Barack, hated the United States of America and all it represented.
The EPA is making their whole case with small particle air pollution claims that are based in Epidemiological techniques.
Unfortunately epidemiology is problematic and deceptive as used by the EPA researchers.
I have done this so often before. It is about how the EPA perverts epidemiology.