I wonder who funded this study?

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2006, 01:20 PM

Air Pollution Linked to Lung Cancer - Yahoo! News

MONDAY, Sept. 18 (HealthDay News) -- A study of Texas residents suggests that tiny metallic bits of air pollution could account for some cases of lung cancer.

Wait.. hold up.. so they are saying that air pollution is BAD for us?
SHeesh! the next thing you know they will be saying that ciggarettes are bad for ya!

Did they really need a study to find an obvious answer?

7960 · 09-19-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by article

But while air pollution has been directly linked to respiratory disorders and heart disease, its role in lung cancer is still under debate.

They're trying to account for 10-15% cases of lung cancer that are unexplained. This isn't like a scientists saying "cigs cause lung cancer" this is like them saying "and it may cause toe cancer and hand cancer and brain cancer, too."

Did you just want to bitch?

DosEquis · 09-19-2006, 04:19 PM

This is more of a reason that I am "pro-environment" than global warming.

When I eat fish and the mercury levels in my body go up because of some manufacturing waste.

When i breathe air and it can cause cancer... etc.

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

They're trying to account for 10-15% cases of lung cancer that are unexplained. This isn't like a scientists saying "cigs cause lung cancer" this is like them saying "and it may cause toe cancer and hand cancer and brain cancer, too."

Did you just want to bitch?

It just seems obvious. Air pollution is bad for people. What did we really gain by doing this? Either way we already knew it was bad and it needed to be cleaned up. they could have just put this money towards making the air cleaner

Ardentfrost · 09-19-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It just seems obvious. Air pollution is bad for people. What did we really gain by doing this? Either way we already knew it was bad and it needed to be cleaned up. they could have just put this money towards making the air cleaner

Even the most sensical things need to be studied for statistical significance and so the studies can be used in other studies.

It is important

7960 · 09-19-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Even the most sensical things need to be studied for statistical significance and so the studies can be used in other studies.

It is important

it's also necessary.......try telling people "we *think* your pollution is causing cancer" and see how receptive they are to cleaning it up. Tell them "we have PROOF your factory causes cancer" and see how quickly their lawyers tell them to clean it up.

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

it's also necessary.......try telling people "we *think* your pollution is causing cancer" and see how receptive they are to cleaning it up. Tell them "we have PROOF your factory causes cancer" and see how quickly their lawyers tell them to clean it up.

Oh sure. But when it comes to NPR statistics are not important.

I kid, I kid.

ballz2wallz · 09-19-2006, 06:41 PM

I wonder why you didn't read the article?

The findings of the federally funded study appear in the September issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

here:

Journal of Thoracic Oncology - Fulltext: Volume 1(7) September 2006 p 654-661 An Ecological Study of the Association of Metal Air Pollutants with Lung Cancer Incidence in Texas.

We are indebted to David Risser, PhD, Melanie Williams, PhD, and Nancy Weiss, PhD, at the Texas Cancer Registry for providing the lung cancer incidence data. We thank Timothy Antisdel at the Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Release Inventory Division, TRI Information and Outreach Branch for assisting with the development of the study's database. We thank Adi Gazdar, MD, at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, for his assistance in assigning the ICD-O codes for the lung cancer pathologic subtypes. This research was supported by funding from the SPORE in Lung Cancer, P50CA70907, and the Clay Weed Memorial Trust Fund.

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I wonder why you didn't read the article?

here:

Journal of Thoracic Oncology - Fulltext: Volume 1(7) September 2006 p 654-661 An Ecological Study of the Association of Metal Air Pollutants with Lung Cancer Incidence in Texas.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Thread title says "I wonder who funded thsi study" hence his "federally funded" study info.

7960 · 09-19-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Oh sure. But when it comes to NPR statistics are not important.

I kid, I kid.

........and you fail, you fail

Kytro · 09-20-2006, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Did they really need a study to find an obvious answer?

Sometimes yes. They can uncover things that are not as they seem.

WickedLou9 · 09-20-2006, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thread title says "I wonder who funded thsi study" hence his "federally funded" study info.

My question was rhetorical to begin with. Why would I even post this if the study was privately funded? If you want to fund a study on belly button lint, be my guest. If the government wants to fund a study on belly button lint, I'm going to have a problem with that.

7960 · 09-20-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

My question was rhetorical to begin with. Why would I even post this if the study was privately funded? If you want to fund a study on belly button lint, be my guest. If the government wants to fund a study on belly button lint, I'm going to have a problem with that.

So you have a problem with the years worth of studies to prove cigarettes cause cancer?

WickedLou9 · 09-20-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

So you have a problem with the years worth of studies to prove cigarettes cause cancer?

Why would I have a problem with that? They are the leading cause of death in this country.

7960 · 09-20-2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They are the leading cause of death in this country.

1. no they're not, but that's a topic for another thread, and

2. nobody knew cigarettes caused cancer until there were studies that proved it.

It seems so common sense now, but until some scientist somewhere showed a link between cigarettes and lung cancer nobody was going to do anything. Now this study is showing that shit in the air you can't see may be responsible for 15% of lung cancer cases.....that's a HUGE discovery. But apparently to you it should just be common sense and companies that put that kind of pollutant in the air should just volunteer to spend millions scrubbing their exhaust for shit they can't see and hasn't been shown to cause anything. Good luck with that.

WickedLou9 · 09-20-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

1. no they're not, but that's a topic for another thread, and

2. nobody knew cigarettes caused cancer until there were studies that proved it.

It seems so common sense now, but until some scientist somewhere showed a link between cigarettes and lung cancer nobody was going to do anything. Now this study is showing that shit in the air you can't see may be responsible for 15% of lung cancer cases.....that's a HUGE discovery. But apparently to you it should just be common sense and companies that put that kind of pollutant in the air should just volunteer to spend millions scrubbing their exhaust for shit they can't see and hasn't been shown to cause anything. Good luck with that.

Now you are just arguing with me because you think it's fun and you aren't even making any sense. We already knew that pollution was harmful, and the government already regulates it.

And about ciggarettes.. sorry. They are the leading "preventable" cause of death in the US.

PetriW · 09-20-2006, 11:36 AM

Well, common sense also says if you eat fat you will get fat... But it's insulin which triggers your body to build up fat... And insulin is triggered by carbohydrates or excess protein...

Common sense does not mean right. You need proof to make a good decision.

Granted, I'll just get flamed for not knowing anything about metabolism as usual for that comment. :P

WickedLou9 · 09-20-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by PetriW

Well, common sense also says if you eat fat you will get fat... But it's insulin which triggers your body to build up fat... And insulin is triggered by carbohydrates or excess protein...

Common sense does not mean right. You need proof to make a good decision.

Granted, I'll just get flamed for not knowing anything about metabolism as usual for that comment. :P

That's just my point. There have been numerous studies on air pollution. We already know that it's bad. We already know that we have to clean it up because it's harmful to people. We have been cleaning it up. At what point do we say.. OK. We don't need to spend more money on this. We are going to clean it up regardless.

7960 · 09-20-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's just my point. There have been numerous studies on air pollution. We already know that it's bad. We already know that we have to clean it up because it's harmful to people. We have been cleaning it up. At what point do we say.. OK. We don't need to spend more money on this. We are going to clean it up regardless.

"smoking causes cancer so we need you to clean the minute metal particles you're exhausting in the open air"

oh, that's going to go over well..... full circle here, if you're going to tell a company to clean their exhaust you're going to have to first show that the metal particles in their exhaust is harmful. Say "we know some other shit is harmful so we're going to say this is harmful too" and they're going to court before they're buying scrubbing equipment.