On 29/04/2019 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/2019 09:44, RJH wrote:
On 28/04/2019 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/04/2019 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IIRC if you are aÂ* smoker there is anout a 10% -15% increased risk
of lung cancer.

If you dont smoke there is no increased risk.


Statistics/research suggest otherwise.

Statistics do not,. Research may becuase of confirmation bias.

Did you follow all the links?


I'd doubt it. And those that don't fit are usually dismissed out of
hand as biased, vested interests etc.

The fact is if you bother to try and undtersand the staticistcs is that
we are looking at a variation in a very snmall number of cases of cancer
in a very small population...


As I've tried to explain upthread - you need to be skilled in
statistical methods *and* demographics, cancer, geology and building
construction/design. And that's just what I can think of.

We've got one saying the increased risk is only to smokers. Another
suggesting that in the USA there are a couple of thousand radon
linked excess deaths each year - and they seem to have controlled for
smoking.


See the above. What generally happens here is thet people take the LNT
MODEL and project from it an excess of cancer deaths.
These never ever show upo in studies though.

As with climate change what a faux model based on geovernment regulatins
suggests and what is in practice measured are two different things.


I'm not sure if that's badly written or I don't understand what you're
saying.


It's a manageable, and small, risk. Personally, I'd manage it - but
that's largely because I could afford to. And there's a history of
lung cancer in my family.


But you dont live in a raidaoactive region. and you are implying that
lung cancer is a genetic, not environmental risk. Make up your mind!


Cancer - indeed, most diseases and illnesses - have a combination of
causes: genetic predisposition, personal traits, environmental
conditions (including your 'social environment' - class, poverty,
housing etc) and luck.

There'd have to be a point at which I wouldn't - where cost and other
obstacles make the risk one I'd take. The thing is to be reasonably
informed.

Very hard to be reasonably informed. Very easy to be unreasonably
misinformed.


Yep.


--
Cheers, Rob