The Incomplete Cynic

Your awesome Tagline

Posts tagged statistics

3 notes &

Second Hand Smoke Linked To Kids' Depression, Anxiety, ADHD

pickpocketI love reading Michael Crichton’s speeches about science and global warming. He blows me away. A few years ago I read “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, which has a lot to say about scientific “consensus” and junk science. Included is this statement about secondhand smoke:

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA, or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that “Second-hand smoke is the nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death.” The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent. In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun”, and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.” The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: “We stand by our science…there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems.” Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.

Before I go on, I’ll mention that the court ruling was vacated in 2002, not because the ’98 ruling was wrong, but because the report had no regulatory weight. Anyway, my quote of the minute is this:

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

Secondhand smoke stole my wallet!

Filed under secondhand smoke epa junk science made up statistics statistics

Notes &

Apparently “only” has a new standard

Charles Blow referred to a Quinnipiac poll in a recent column that he says shows that the Tea Party movement is “not the future”. He quotes the poll in saying the movement is “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” I’m not sure who Joe and Jane are, but based on the last question in the poll, the membership is just as educated as the Democrats (both less educated than Republicans) while those who are favorable to the Tea Party are more educated than Democrats.

But the real problem with the Quinnipiac article announcing the poll results is the opening line: Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement.

“Only” thirteen percent? Thirteen percent is not a small group. This is a poll of registered voters, who in 2008 numbered just over 231 million. That means there are 30 million members, based on this data. By comparison the ever-important MoveOn organization has 5 million.  When was the last time it was implied that they were irrelevant because they had so few members?

Sounds like someone’s trying to move the target.

Filed under politics bias polls statistics wiggle words