RE: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 14:02:07 EST

At 12:51 PM 2/17/2006, Ted Davis wrote:
> >>> Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> 02/17/06 12:07 PM >>>writes:
>
>### Here is an inconvenient fact which you may not have seen since
>it doesn't fit the template of leftist, junk-science promoting
>publications like the NY Times or the Washington Post:
>
>90% of hospitalized lung cancer patients are smokers. However, only
>10% of heavy smokers develop the disease, suggesting involvement of a
>personal genetic susceptibility. ..." More:
>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/wi-nbt090203.php
>
>Ted replies:
>Janice, if the inference here is that smoking does not "cause" lung
>cancer, ie. smoking does not significantly contribute to a person's
>chances for getting lung cancer, then that inference is
>junk-science, whether it comes from the left, right, or center of
>the political spectrum.

### The bottom line FACT is that only 10% of HEAVY smokers develop
lung cancer.

How any given person will choose to "interpret" that fact won't be
based upon his IQ or education - it will instead be based upon his
emotional maturity.

>We know experimentally that components of tobacco smoke are carcinogens; ..

### We also know that organic apple juice often contains up to 137
naturally occuring volatile chemicals, of which five have been
tested. Two of these five have been found to be carcinogenic in
laboratory animals. Alcohol is also another human carcinogen.

>....we also know statistically that smokers are far more likely to
>develop lung cancer (or throat cancer, or cancer of the jaw/mouth
>for that matter) than are non-smokers.

### Yes - to REPEAT: 90% of hospitalized lung cancer patients are smokers.

But only 10% of heavy smokers develop lung cancer.

>Interestingly, Janice, and perhaps you recall this (I don't know how
>old you are), in the 1950s and 1960s it was conservative Protestants
>who tended to push this information--that is, they tended to be the
>ones pushing the medical establishment to admit what the facts were
>indicating, to admit that smoking is a very significant factor in
>causing various cancers. I recall seeing a little book by a
>Christian physician, "None of These Diseases," which advanced this
>point of view and promoted a lifestyle of abstience from alcohol and
>tobacco as a way of honoring the God-given "temples" that are our bodies.

### That just proves that a kook is a kook regardless of whether his
agenda is to promote his "heart-felt" junk science beliefs or his
junk religious beliefs.

It gets really funny, too when we see spectacles like that of an
air-head Hollywood actress being called to testify before Congress as
a scientific expert on the eeeevils of ALAR, and how it's "killing
our children" and we have to "do something" before we all DIE!!!

>What is your view of these comments, Jancie? *Your view* is what I
>am interested in reading, not the views of various websites. Ted

### Are you saying that you haven't been able to discern "my views"
from my posts up to now?

~ Janice
Received on Fri Feb 17 14:03:03 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 17 2006 - 14:03:03 EST