"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


Now, we're going to talk in circles because I'm going to ask you again
what would be required in order to show health problems as a result of
exposure.
That's what epidemiologists do for a living. They're prolific on lead,
etc., but for CCA common as hen's teeth.

--


You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I
need an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure,
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?


I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there were
widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be a world
of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of problems which
had as their underlying commonality some identified connection to CCA
usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There wasn't
any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.

There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations of
children.

There was NOT evidence showing that most kids were exhibiting advanced
stages of arsenic poisoning YET - the kind that would cause the police
and/or health department to begin questioning family members.

And, before some twit asks "Duh how about a controlled study?", it would be
impossible to find enough parents willing to allow their kids to be used for
such a study.