2 ms·
At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. That's a significant effect, because it means 900% more people will get lung cancer on
by Retra 11y ago
At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. That's a significant effect, because it means 900% more people will get lung cancer on average. People are getting killed, it's just hard to say how many without better numbers.
- ekianjo 11y ago> At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. You can extrapolate linearly such numbers, it makes absolutely no sense. This is not a math class, we are talking about clinical effects with actual thresholds.
- Retra 11y ago"35% per 10µg" expresses a linear relationship. If someone says that's what it is, I'm going to assume they measured a linear relationship. It makes perfect sense if that is indeed the reality, and I see no reason why it cannot be. Unless you've got some actual conflicting data, it just sounds like you have unfavorable agenda.
- ekianjo 11y agoEven if it's a linear relationship, it can only exist within the demonstrated range. You should know that not everything is linear when you go outside of the range you have studied. So unless proven this linear relationship is valid across all the spectrum (which is obviously is not), then you should take whatever is written with a big grain of salt and thing twice about it before making over simplistic assumptions.