My guess is that this figure comes from a very narrow and carefully cherry-picked metric.
Also, this? I'm starting to think that the figure just comes from a bunch of out-and-out lies. Just for sick, bitter fun, last week I started going through one pro-life org's list of scary scary cites for peer-reviewed articles that prove the cancer link, but probably 3/4 of the list was pure bullshit. Real articles, sure enough, but real articles that state right in the conclusions (and sometimes in the abstract, in bold), "THESE NUMBERS FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE ANY INCREASED RISK."
I still don't know why I'm so shocked, except that I had been so prepared to find a bunch of cherry-picking that it had never crossed my mind that they might jump straight to naked lying.
Yeah, it's ok to lie if it's for Jesus.
And yet, isn't "Thou shalt not bear false witness" one of the Big Ten?
I guess the pro-life people think the National Cancer Institute [link] is lying because it's a tool of the pro-abortion liberal thugs. Also, facts have a liberal bias.
re: moot
Entmoot! Where Ents go to talk endlessly of things! Of course!
Connie Neil, being slow on the uptake since 1961.
Entmoot! Where Ents go to talk endlessly of things!
Moot is derived from the Germanic word for meeting, meetings being places where people talk endlessly of things that make no difference.
My sister is trying to get my opinion on something recent to do with Kirk Cameron. She must think I'm joking about refusing to read about him since the banana bullshit.
t raises eyebrow
Banana bullshit?
Note to self: Do not click in ita!'s links and do not Google that which she will not discuss.
There's a video floating around where he cites the banana as evidence of Intelligent Design.
I got a lot of room for a lot of stupid stuff in my brain apparently, but I refuse to use any more of it on him.
I googled it. It's not dangerous.
[link]