Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the basis for saying RR under 2 is negligible? If the findings have a high degree of statistical certainty, why shouldn't one care even about a 10% increase in risk, if the risk is sufficiently costly? All of these calculations are meaningless without recognition of the costs of both the regulation and the harm. What are the costs of banning smoking in many public places (they do exist, for sure). What are the costs of not banning smoking in public places if we are confident that doing so will reduce the incidence of lung cancer by even 10%?
|
I assume this is directed to Sebby. Because I noted that the discussion was predicated on accepting his hypothesis. So Sebinski, have at it.
