This is discredited ACSH Hank Campbell recruit.Why would you bother quoting anything he wrote?
IARC rulings are, by and large, useless for public policy, because they only address the existence of a risk and not the magnitude. Bacon is a proven human carcinogen but the risk increase is very small so policy has barely shifted due to the ruling
-
-
Similarly acrylamide is also a probable carcinogen but since the risk increase associated with usual consumption is almost too small to define, we haven't taken regulatory action against products that contain it (lile coffee)
-
Who is we? You mean New Zealand Drs should ignore IARC on smoking and just defer to Aussie blogger who once worked as epidemiologist. Ok got it. Silly me for expecting international team of oncology researchers reviewing all published and peer reviewed studies better than
@GidMK - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I wouldn't agree to that. Taken alone they are insufficient to implement public policy. But they provide an important piece of evidence on which to base the next steps. So, necessary but insufficient.
-
AHS study and 5 other epidemiology stidies are "insufficient" then? We can't implement public policy until US EPA decide which epidemiology studies are sufficient.All other data disregarded. So we ignore farmer deaths from NHL or Multiple myeloma until we have sufficient numbers
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So public health researchers here should ignore IARC on tobacco and smoking and wait with baited breath for you to blog? Ok got it...will tell public health promoters here to hold fire.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.