Re: Research hounds needed

On 24 Aug 2005 17:04:02 -0700, longhornster@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article <EdCdnco9mdGf9ZHeRVn-uw@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "PJ"
>> <authoressss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Over and over I was running into statements such as " ... proven or
>> >suspected to cause cancer, brain disorders, and birth defects ..." and other
>> >vague proclamations.
>> You will be getting that alot. The problem is that it is
>> political enough that the whole arena has become more of a sideshow
>> than real science. US law states that something has be considered
>> cancergenic if it causes cancers at any level of dosing in rodents.
>
>That's true, Kurt, but it's a question of definition, isn't it? That's
>how it's defined. That's what "carcinogenic" means. "Can cause cancer".
>It's what conclusion you draw from it that counts.
>
>
>> Even at doses orders of magnitude (on a size basis) above what a
>> person is going to be able to ingest let alone likely to.
>
>Yes, this is what rightwing deniers focus on. It's true of, for
>instance, aspartame, that it's only carcinogenic in very large doses
>(which you'd be very unlikely to ingest), but it's not true of *every*
>carcinogen.
>
>This is what deniers forget to mention. They generalise a specific.
>It's a normal tactic for a rightwinger.
>
>Also, as Hill points out, a large dose in a short time mimics a small
>dose repeated over a long time. Yes, it's not exact, but science is, as
>rightwingers like to forget, about approximation.

> What a safety body is
>concerned with is not to draw the line exactly and say at this point
>you will be poisoned, but to say, at this line you have the absolute
>guarantee of safety. So, with arsenic levels as a good example, the
>corporations say it's not fair that the level is set at X ppm because
>we think Y ppm is safe too. But the level is set at X because it's
>*definitely safe*. The right wing, not just in the States but
>elsewhere, wants to reset safe limits so that they are no longer
>*definitely safe* but are *probably safe*. Corporations like to think
>in terms of risk-reward, but safety bodies prefer no risk.
>
>> Of course,
>> there also hasn't been a lot of work to clarify why megadoses in
>> rats are likely to have the same effects as low or more moderate
>> doses in humans.
>
>Well, it would be difficult, Kurt, because in most cases we're not
>clear why either regimen has the effect it does. We'd need a clearer
>understanding of the mechanism of carcinogenesis before we could say
>why that is. But is it right that we should risk our lives until we do
>have that knowledge?
>
>With most rightwing denials of scientific problems, the same question
>can be asked. Take global warming. Yes, there is a bit of wriggle room.
>We can't be certain about the outcomes of warming because it cannot be
>reproduced experimentally and our data for past warmings are not
>complete.
>
>But do we have to drown before we accept that there's a problem?
>
>> This muddles the conversation in this area.
>> Another caveat is to remember, and try to impart to the kidlets
>> as best you can, that correlation is not causation.
>
>While explaining to them that in other walks of life, correlation *is*
>taken to be causation. There's no proof of causation of cancer from
>smoking, so far as I know. No one has produced a study that
>demonstrates the mechanism. But the clear correlation of smoking and
>increased incidence of cancer is sufficient for governments around the
>world to act.
>
>Another tactic of the right is to tell only half the story. Yes,
>correlation is not causation, but in science, strong correlation, in
>the absence of other explanations, is taken as suggestive of causation.
>The stronger the correlation, the stronger the suggestion.
>
>> Because digging
>> in the dirt in Lovey, KS correlates to nasty things happening,
>> doesn't mean that it causes it unless other studies are done.
>>
>
>Yes, but you need to take care that you understand that if a hundred
>diggings in a hundred places have correlated with nasty things'
>happening, then you have a strong suggestion of causation.

Nicely put.

--
Josh

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've
worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But
that's not the kind of profile you have to have
to get elected to public office." - George W. Bush
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Research hounds needed
    ... instance, aspartame, that it's only carcinogenic in very large doses ... that correlation is not causation. ... While explaining to them that in other walks of life, correlation *is* ... There's no proof of causation of cancer from ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Information-Knowledge Holographic Principle
    ... their real quarrel is not with me but with Causation. ... Having heard that non-spurious correlation is Causation, ... But they tend to get thrown for a loop when asked what is physics ... Everybody, I think, would agree that physics and mathematics intuition ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Clamping babys cord - is baby still breathing through it?
    ... Correlation between 2 phenomena is all that can EVER be shown. ... feel a pain at the moment of impact and a bruise comes up at that site ... accurately-predictive theories that describe the mechanical reactions ... impossible to prove that such a thing as causation even EXISTS! ...
    (sci.med)
  • Quantum Gravity 221.0: Schrodinger-Riccati Relationships and Causation
    ... anything in Causation other than Correlation or "contiguity". ... Hume is not generally considered today as the "last word" on Causation ... This does NOT apply to cases where event A clearly precedes event B in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Some quotes for RH
    ... What you mean is that *you* only use a correlation when it ... "From Association to Causation: ... History of Statistics", Statistical Science, vol 14, no.3, pp 243-258, ... As Hume pointed out causation cannot be demonstrated. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)