Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (17538)	11/27/2007 10:49:45 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Really?? If the author had made a similarly stupid analysis of Social Security by looking at past population/immigration trends, and income/expenses, what would you think of him? Your statement isn't very coherent. And it starts with the assumption that the analysis is stupid, which isn't exactly a good way to prove it stupid. Nobody is claiming that ANY level of exposure however mild or short is a SERIOUS health risk. Not true. Where the hell do you come up with such nonsense. At least a bit of it from the surgeon general's report. And then more from interpretations of it in articles, blog posts, and posts on SI. I asked a reasonable question, whether it is junk science to claim that kids raised for 18 years in an environment with a couple packs of cigs smoked per day (i.e. one per parent) inside the house are at risk for significant health problems. Yes or no? No that's not junk science, but suggesting that living for a day with a family like that, or occasionally passing close by people smoking on the street or in a bar is a serious or even well established moderate health risk is junk science.