Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Because if the null hypothisis (null hypothesis means that the RR=1) turns out to be correct, that's important information for science to consider.
At the very beginning of this, you said you could find studies that disprove the cancer risk associated with secondhand smoke if you looked hard enough. If the science journals refuse to publish an article with a low RR, you're never going to be able to find those studies and the world gets a very incomplete picture of science. We would only see the extremes, and we would never see the subtle nuances and really figure out what has an impact on our health and what doesn't. Both sides of the story need to be fully examined, if only to discard a theory of risk.
And while the lower than 2 RR in the secondhand smoke lung cancer studies may be unimportant to you, it may be important to the estimated 3000 or so people a year who die of lung cancer because of second hand smoke. Or it may matter a little more to the person whose risk was already elevated due to family history or asbestos exposure back or radon exposure.
|
OK. I see the sense in publishing (and that it would tend to bolster my earliest point from an angle I hadn't considered).
The thing I have a serious issue with is the misrepresentation of those 3000 people as 3 million. 3000 cancers a year from second hand smoke doesn't seem a senseible basis for banning smoking on a beach.
The public takes medical research and twists its findings to their scariest ends. yet no one stands up and says "Hey, wait a minute. NOBODY. Nobody ever, ever will get cancer from second hand smoke on a beach." My gripe here, which I think you understand, is the manipulation of data into hysteria-causing lies, which lead to silly, ineffective do-gooderism, and the fact that if you challenge it, you're seen as evil. Why can't somebody honestly say "Yeh, the chances of getting cancer fro 2d hand smoke on a beach are zero, and anyone who says otherwise is being hysterical." You say that and the PC police kill you, even though the data (and common sense) back you up.
I don't like stats being twisted to fit anyone's agenda, particularly by our govt, because people believe them like they're divine edicts. Hence, we get nonsense like Dow Corning being sued into bkcy over implants which never caused the diseases they were blamed for causing. Why aren't the people who trumpeted shit science there being sued by the company's estate?
Its politically ok to lie in this country if it supports something a swath of do-gooders (or neocons) like. It shouldn't be. The people in San Diego have a right to know the real absolute risk of 2d hand smoke on a beach.
