I am curious how many people out there know of someone who has lung cancer
or some other serious ailment which is suspected to be attributable to his
exposure to wood dust. I suspect the risk level is fairly low.

Don't get me wrong, the stuff is messy, gets into everything, is an overall
pain and can make good finishing work hard to do. I have no desire to breath
quantities of it in (although I do enjoy the smell in the air after cutting
hickory and walnut). Yet, my grandfather ran a woodshop for 30 years (age
40 - 70). It would be generous to call the dust collection he used as
primitive. Generally he went without and just swept up. At this point he is
80 and has no health problems attributable to it (I know, 1 data point
doesn't make any headway toward being a credible study).

Now the craft is mine, and I do keep things orderly. With a well engineered
dust collection system and air purification we can keep things fairly tidy,
but not perfect. There is obviously residual exposure beyond what is
captured - especially around a handheld router, etc.

Any thoughts on the level of risk?

It is mostly the fine dust which gives people, and particularly people
with allergies, the most problems. It's not the wood chips. Many exotic
woods also contain carcinogens which are harmful. There has been a lot
of literature written about this. I have, as part of my DC system, a
single stage dust collector with a 5-micron bag, an air filtration unit
and a couple of portable vacs. In addition I always use a dust mask.
Prevention is the best cure I know of.

I am a Radiation Therapist and I work directly with cancer patients
everyday......I have treated hundreds of lung cancer patients over the
years. In my experience 99.9% of the people I have treated have gotten lung
cancer from direct or secondary cigarette smoke, or some type of prolonged
asbestos exposure. That's not to say it cant happen.......the dust from wood
can cause a myriad of other problems.....Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD) being one of them....Just my 2 cents......hopefully some of
the old timers in this group could offer some of their experiences with wood
dust exposure.


"BCD" wrote in message
...
I am curious how many people out there know of someone who has lung cancer
or some other serious ailment which is suspected to be attributable to his
exposure to wood dust. I suspect the risk level is fairly low.

Don't get me wrong, the stuff is messy, gets into everything, is an
overall
pain and can make good finishing work hard to do. I have no desire to
breath
quantities of it in (although I do enjoy the smell in the air after
cutting
hickory and walnut). Yet, my grandfather ran a woodshop for 30 years (age
40 - 70). It would be generous to call the dust collection he used as
primitive. Generally he went without and just swept up. At this point he
is
80 and has no health problems attributable to it (I know, 1 data point
doesn't make any headway toward being a credible study).

Now the craft is mine, and I do keep things orderly. With a well
engineered
dust collection system and air purification we can keep things fairly
tidy,
but not perfect. There is obviously residual exposure beyond what is
captured - especially around a handheld router, etc.

Any thoughts on the level of risk?

Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration of
exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women employed
in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma appeared in women
in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration of exposure, but
only men employed for 30 or more years showed an increased risk of squamous
cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the study provides strong support
to the link between wood dust exposure with various occupations and the risk
of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the evidence with regard to squamous cell
carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html

BCD wrote:

Now the craft is mine, and I do keep things orderly. With a well engineered
dust collection system and air purification we can keep things fairly tidy,
but not perfect. There is obviously residual exposure beyond what is
captured - especially around a handheld router, etc.

Any thoughts on the level of risk?

A friend of mine, who was an avid woodworker, developed a persistent cough with
chest pains. After many test it was determined that he had a fungus infection
of the lungs called Cryptococcal disease (see
http://www.bccdc.org/news.php?item=34 ). This disease is more common in
tropical areas. He hadn't been in the tropics but he did work with tropical
hardwood. There was nothing done to prove that the exposure to sawdust was the
cause but it is something to consider.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:15:27 -0700, "David Hakala"
wrote:

Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration of
exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women employed
in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma appeared in women
in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration of exposure, but
only men employed for 30 or more years showed an increased risk of squamous
cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the study provides strong support
to the link between wood dust exposure with various occupations and the risk
of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the evidence with regard to squamous cell
carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html


Not very helpful. "high", "... also greater", "an excess of .."
"increased risk" are all very fuzzy assertions. What is the definition of
higher risk? Twice as likely? 4 times? These are important questions
since epidemiological studies generally consider anything less than 2 times
as great to be down in the noise and inconclusive -- especially when
dealing with cause and effect kind of numbers over the lifetimes of
individuals. Often there are many confounding factors.

Note, I'm not recommending that people ignore the hazards of wood dust --
just the annoyance should be enough to make one wear a dusk mask. However,
the "moon-suited" woodworker is probably going overboard.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Frank & Renee" wrote in message
I have treated have gotten lung
cancer from direct or secondary cigarette smoke, or some type of prolonged
asbestos exposure. That's not to say it cant happen.......the dust from
wood
can cause a myriad of other problems.....Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD) being one of them....Just my 2 cents......hopefully some of
the old timers in this group could offer some of their experiences with
wood
dust exposure.

Personal observation, not scientific study, having worked in my son's home
medical business.

Most people with COPD are over 60, smokers, often worked in environments
that had dust or other impurities, such as woolen mills, welding,
shipbuilding, wood shops, etc. It is something that can take a long time to
develop, something that can be prevented or at least lessened in severity.

That dust you inhale today won't bother you tomorrow, but can be a real PITA
in five or ten or twenty years. Wear that dust mask, buy that dust
collector.

While on the subject of health concerns. Not to many years ago, latex
gloves were something that a doctor used for an exam. Today I see them
used by forklift mechanics, compressor servicemen, boiler repair men, etc.
It is not a sissy thing to protect your hands from oils and chemicals.

Yes it can cause sinus cancer.
I am a hardwood floor finisher and have heard of others getting it.
I alway's wear a dust mask. (When I remember)
But exposure in a wood shop with dust collection would be less.
My next project is going to be a down draft table!!

"BCD" wrote:
I am curious how many people out there know of someone who has lung cancer
or some other serious ailment which is suspected to be attributable to his
exposure to wood dust. I suspect the risk level is fairly low.

Don't get me wrong, the stuff is messy, gets into everything, is an overall
pain and can make good finishing work hard to do. I have no desire to breath
quantities of it in (although I do enjoy the smell in the air after cutting
hickory and walnut). Yet, my grandfather ran a woodshop for 30 years (age
40 - 70). It would be generous to call the dust collection he used as
primitive. Generally he went without and just swept up. At this point he is
80 and has no health problems attributable to it (I know, 1 data point
doesn't make any headway toward being a credible study).

Now the craft is mine, and I do keep things orderly. With a well engineered
dust collection system and air purification we can keep things fairly tidy,
but not perfect. There is obviously residual exposure beyond what is
captured - especially around a handheld router, etc.

Any thoughts on the level of risk?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...


Not very helpful. "high", "... also greater", "an excess of .."
"increased risk" are all very fuzzy assertions. What is the definition of
higher risk? Twice as likely? 4 times? These are important questions
since epidemiological studies generally consider anything less than 2
times
as great to be down in the noise and inconclusive -- especially when
dealing with cause and effect kind of numbers over the lifetimes of
individuals. Often there are many confounding factors.

Note, I'm not recommending that people ignore the hazards of wood
dust --
just the annoyance should be enough to make one wear a dusk mask.
However,
the "moon-suited" woodworker is probably going overboard.


Up to five hundred times as high as non woodworkers, 500/1000000. Says one
vague reference. Study not controlled for dust versus exposure to solvents
and urea-formaldehyde glues....

Overall, there's probably a greater risk of cancer from taking your breaks
out in the sun on the driveway. Wear a hat, boys and girls!

For those who wish to be scared by experts :
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Inter.../riskstoc.html

Retrospective studies only select for those criteria that meet the study
measures. There's no control on the data, ie...no
cohorts from 'outside' of the study parameters to act as a baseline measure.
So the data is generally poor at best. And 12 cases
doesn't power the analysis enough to statistically challenge the results.
But I'm no expert....I've only been a medical/biological scientist since
1977.

bill

"David Hakala" wrote in message
...
Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration
of exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women
employed in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma
appeared in women in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration
of exposure, but only men employed for 30 or more years showed an
increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the
study provides strong support to the link between wood dust exposure with
various occupations and the risk of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the
evidence with regard to squamous cell carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html

http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/57/6/376

Seems a bit at odds with the original "study", though, as indicated, the
incidence of NPC is so low that any study should only be considered
provisional.

"Bill Otten" wrote in message
...
Retrospective studies only select for those criteria that meet the study
measures. There's no control on the data, ie...no
cohorts from 'outside' of the study parameters to act as a baseline
measure.
So the data is generally poor at best. And 12 cases
doesn't power the analysis enough to statistically challenge the results.
But I'm no expert....I've only been a medical/biological scientist since
1977.

bill

"David Hakala" wrote in message
...
Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE
CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were
pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood
dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among
male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration
of exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women
employed in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma
appeared in women in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the
duration
of exposure, but only men employed for 30 or more years showed an
increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the
study provides strong support to the link between wood dust exposure
with
various occupations and the risk of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the
evidence with regard to squamous cell carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:46:21 -0500, the inscrutable "BCD"
spake:

I am curious how many people out there know of someone who has lung cancer
or some other serious ailment which is suspected to be attributable to his
exposure to wood dust. I suspect the risk level is fairly low.

I didn't use any dust control for the first 12 years of my woodworking
hobby and died of lung cancer 3 years ago. It really hurt, too.


Any thoughts on the level of risk?

Kidding aside, it's the small dust particles that you can't see which
do the worst damage. Make sure your collector is HEPA rated,
collecting dust down to 0.3 microns in size.


--
The clear and present danger of top-posting explored at:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html
------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Premium Website Development

I teach environmental engineering, but not air pollution control. However,
if you go to Google and search using the terms "wood dust health hazards"
you will find more than you probably want to read. You might also go to the
OSHA website, www.osha.gov and the US EPA website, www.epa.gov and use the
same search terms.

Good luck and safe breathing.

Bill






"BCD" wrote in message
...
I am curious how many people out there know of someone who has lung cancer
or some other serious ailment which is suspected to be attributable to his
exposure to wood dust. I suspect the risk level is fairly low.

Don't get me wrong, the stuff is messy, gets into everything, is an
overall pain and can make good finishing work hard to do. I have no desire
to breath quantities of it in (although I do enjoy the smell in the air
after cutting hickory and walnut). Yet, my grandfather ran a woodshop for
30 years (age 40 - 70). It would be generous to call the dust collection
he used as primitive. Generally he went without and just swept up. At this
point he is 80 and has no health problems attributable to it (I know, 1
data point doesn't make any headway toward being a credible study).

Now the craft is mine, and I do keep things orderly. With a well
engineered dust collection system and air purification we can keep things
fairly tidy, but not perfect. There is obviously residual exposure beyond
what is captured - especially around a handheld router, etc.

Any thoughts on the level of risk?

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:46:21 -0500, the inscrutable "BCD"
spake:

I am curious how many people out there know of someone who has lung
cancer
or some other serious ailment which is suspected to be attributable to
his
exposure to wood dust. I suspect the risk level is fairly low.

I didn't use any dust control for the first 12 years of my woodworking
hobby and died of lung cancer 3 years ago. It really hurt, too.


So that's what stinks around here.
--

-Mike-

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:23:28 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:15:27 -0700, "David Hakala"
wrote:

Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration of
exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women employed
in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma appeared in women
in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration of exposure, but
only men employed for 30 or more years showed an increased risk of squamous
cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the study provides strong support
to the link between wood dust exposure with various occupations and the risk
of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the evidence with regard to squamous cell
carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html


Not very helpful. "high", "... also greater", "an excess of .."
"increased risk" are all very fuzzy assertions. What is the definition of
higher risk? Twice as likely? 4 times? These are important questions
since epidemiological studies generally consider anything less than 2 times
as great to be down in the noise and inconclusive -- especially when
dealing with cause and effect kind of numbers over the lifetimes of
individuals. Often there are many confounding factors.

Note, I'm not recommending that people ignore the hazards of wood dust --
just the annoyance should be enough to make one wear a dusk mask. However,
the "moon-suited" woodworker is probably going overboard.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I'm sure all those questions are answered in the study itself. It
wouldn't get into a peer-reviewed journal without a lot of hard
numbers and methodology.

--RC
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

-- Suzie B

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 08:53:14 -0500, "Bill Otten"
wrote:

Retrospective studies only select for those criteria that meet the study
measures. There's no control on the data, ie...no
cohorts from 'outside' of the study parameters to act as a baseline measure.
So the data is generally poor at best. And 12 cases
doesn't power the analysis enough to statistically challenge the results.
But I'm no expert....I've only been a medical/biological scientist since
1977.

bill

I read that as 12 studies, not 12 cases.

--RC

"David Hakala" wrote in message
...
Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration
of exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women
employed in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma
appeared in women in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration
of exposure, but only men employed for 30 or more years showed an
increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the
study provides strong support to the link between wood dust exposure with
various occupations and the risk of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the
evidence with regard to squamous cell carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html





Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

-- Suzie B

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:30:52 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:23:28 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:15:27 -0700, "David Hakala"
wrote:

Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration of
exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women employed
in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma appeared in women
in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration of exposure, but
only men employed for 30 or more years showed an increased risk of squamous
cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the study provides strong support
to the link between wood dust exposure with various occupations and the risk
of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the evidence with regard to squamous cell
carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html

Not very helpful. "high", "... also greater", "an excess of .."
"increased risk" are all very fuzzy assertions. What is the definition of
higher risk? Twice as likely? 4 times? These are important questions
since epidemiological studies generally consider anything less than 2 times
as great to be down in the noise and inconclusive -- especially when
dealing with cause and effect kind of numbers over the lifetimes of
individuals. Often there are many confounding factors.

Note, I'm not recommending that people ignore the hazards of wood dust --
just the annoyance should be enough to make one wear a dusk mask. However,
the "moon-suited" woodworker is probably going overboard.

.... snip
I'm sure all those questions are answered in the study itself. It
wouldn't get into a peer-reviewed journal without a lot of hard
numbers and methodology.

--RC

I'm sure numbers are in the study, but citing the study abstract as proof
does not help. There are cases where some researchers have treated small
correlations as "statistically significant" only to be refuted by other
researchers in the future. It would helpful to know what the numbers are
and what this set of researchers and peer reviewers consider to be
"significant".

Beyond that is the problem with many of these studies is that there are
just so many confounding factors that can obliterate true cause-effect
conclusions. Think about your own life, how many different things have you
done vis a vis life style, eating habits, and living conditions over the
past 30 years? Now, assume some researcher attempts to use your life as a
case study for some particular element of the life you are leading and an
element that may have been one of the constants over the past 30 years of
your life. Should something that happens be linked to that one event in
your life, or could it be a result of something else you did in the past?
The real question is whether various cause/effect conclusions are valid
based upon a single element pulled from a diverse set of lifestyles. The
conclusions based upon a sampling of people in, for example, a certain
industry is also only a starting point -- those people may have a certain
malady, but it may also be due to them having come from similar
backgrounds.

What many researchers will say is that these statistical studies are
useful in identifying areas of further research, not as conclusive on their
own. More detailed research would then identify root-cause mechanisms for
postulated problems or refute the findings by not finding any root-cause
mechanism that would support the statistical findings.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:35:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:30:52 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:23:28 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:15:27 -0700, "David Hakala"
wrote:

Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration of
exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women employed
in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma appeared in women
in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration of exposure, but
only men employed for 30 or more years showed an increased risk of squamous
cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the study provides strong support
to the link between wood dust exposure with various occupations and the risk
of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the evidence with regard to squamous cell
carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html

Not very helpful. "high", "... also greater", "an excess of .."
"increased risk" are all very fuzzy assertions. What is the definition of
higher risk? Twice as likely? 4 times? These are important questions
since epidemiological studies generally consider anything less than 2 times
as great to be down in the noise and inconclusive -- especially when
dealing with cause and effect kind of numbers over the lifetimes of
individuals. Often there are many confounding factors.

Note, I'm not recommending that people ignore the hazards of wood dust --
just the annoyance should be enough to make one wear a dusk mask. However,
the "moon-suited" woodworker is probably going overboard.

... snip
I'm sure all those questions are answered in the study itself. It
wouldn't get into a peer-reviewed journal without a lot of hard
numbers and methodology.

--RC

I'm sure numbers are in the study, but citing the study abstract as proof
does not help.

Actually it does help. It gives you a piece of evidence -- should you
choose to accept it -- and a solid reference to look at for more
information about that piece of evidence should you have questions.

You're quite correct that there are a lot of studies out there that
have to be taken with a grain of salt, but critical thinking is a
critical skill on the Internet. People who brandish studies like
mystical talismans are at best grinding an axe and at worst are
seriously deluded. (And no, I'm not implying that's what's going on
here.)

--RC


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

-- Suzie B

Mark & Juanita wrote:
....
Beyond that is the problem with many of these studies is that there are
just so many confounding factors that can obliterate true cause-effect
conclusions. ...

Correlation does not imply causation is what you're trying to say...

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:20:00 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
...
Beyond that is the problem with many of these studies is that there are
just so many confounding factors that can obliterate true cause-effect
conclusions. ...

Correlation does not imply causation is what you're trying to say...

Yup. Pretty much sums up in 11 words what I was saying in 1100. :-)




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+