Category Archives: Risk assessment

Trying to kill coal people or make them wish they were dead

Paul Driessen explains.

Continue reading

About these ads

Why does it not surpise me that Paul Krugman–idiot economist–would defend Michael Mann.

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.

Continue reading

Gordon Fulks corrected

Some screw up in the post, but here’s the more accurate Fulks piece.

Continue reading

Charles Battig and the nonsense at WSJ

I have to laugh that the WSJ would publish things this way–but what do I know–I live in Texas.

Continue reading

Charles Battig does good

What can I say–extraordinary human effects scientist for NASA and physician/anesthesiologist.

Continue reading

EPA damage to the economy? Easily more than 100 billion in 20 years.

NCPA report, but they are conservative. I recall the Carol Browner EPA ozone regs that were based on crapola human effects studies.

Continue reading

Thyroid CA over diagnosed and overtreated

This is similar to other cancer treatment approaches and overdiagnosis that comes from better detection by imaging and testing.

Continue reading

The states make noise again about EPA misconduct

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.

Continue reading

Let’s just remember Mount Sinai has the monopoly

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.

Continue reading

More discussion of the Pebble Mine affair

My brother in law Fred got this fine summary of the issues and forwarded it to me.

I agree with the writer.

Continue reading

Guns are an epidemic? Only in your small brain, nannies

If I kill you with a knife, is that the beginning of a knife epidemic? Huh?

Continue reading

Streetwalking Bishops and Baptists–government money turns a trick

We have mentioned many times before the corrupting effect of government grants on climate and environmental research.

Continue reading

Pistachios are healthy? Really? I say this is a weak study

Look at this study, and see if you see what I see. This is a problem with these food magic risk assessment studies.

Continue reading

Since we be talking smoking–how bout a toke?

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.

Continue reading

Let’s talk smoking cigarettes

It’s worth a little reality testing.

Continue reading

Statins, Cholesterol, confusion

I can always count on some interest among old white guys about cholesterol and cardiovascular health.
Continue reading

Vaxphobia discussion redux by Sierra

Sierra Rayne is a Canadian chemist by professional training, but writer on climate and statistics maven.
Continue reading

Peeing in the pool, Danger, Danger

Oh, be afraid, be very afraid.

Continue reading

FDA’s latest advice on aspirin vs. heart attacks…. kind of, yes, for many, but not all….

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

Milloy slams Grasshopper, Common Rule is Inadequate to stop Guinea Pig studies.

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.

Continue reading