re: Meanwhile, back in the land of "peer-reviewed journals..."

Current Events » in reply to re: Meanwhile, back in the land of "peer-reviewed journals..."

p — 6/19/2005 3:18:23 PM (archived)

Good point. Most reporters and the public can't or don't do the numbers to see that the risks are tiny, the chances low and the quantities of offending substance in question high. They just see the authorities' warnings and freak out.

The whole thread (11 posts)

Meanwhile, back in the land of "peer-reviewed journals..." - Tom Brosz - 6/19/2005 5:00:06 AM
- Ebb and flow - Mary Anne - 6/19/2005 3:37:29 PM
  - re: Ebb and flow - Tom Brosz - 6/19/2005 9:24:45 PM
    - re: Ebb and flow - pwokenyaw - 6/20/2005 2:40:53 PM
      - In other words, "Their garbage must be worse than our garbage?" (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 6/20/2005 5:12:22 PM
        
        Their garbage hasn't been filtered, so yes it surely is worse (n/t) - pwokenyaw - 6/25/2005 7:02:26 AM
        
        Presumes a functional filter, doesn't it? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 6/26/2005 1:05:13 AM
- re: Meanwhile, back in the land of "peer-reviewed journals..." - Doug Ellison - 6/19/2005 3:01:46 PM
  - I learned to be skeptical back in the 1970s... - Larry J - 6/19/2005 9:01:18 PM
  - The problem of tiny but measureable amounts of toxins - Gary - 6/19/2005 5:59:19 PM
  - re: Meanwhile, back in the land of "peer-reviewed journals..." - p - 6/19/2005 3:18:23 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (11 posts)