1st Lesson: Where did I go wrong?
Let’s get started. The thread “King of the Kill” began with Mr. Bneter’s mention of water pollution as being a factor in cancer becoming the No.1 killer in the U.S. You jumped to the conclusion that he was wrong, and called him “an idiot.” The thread continued with the question of whether pollution was a factor in the rising rates of cancer. You made the following statements with regards to my posts:
“I was mocking your implied “rising cancer rates are related to rising rates of ‘pollution’” premise, because it’s flat out wrong.” and;
“Environmental pollution is a tangent you added based on conjecture.” and;
“Where you get that idea, I have no clue. I’m just familiar with the topic.” and
“If you want to go off with hyperbole and unsupported conjecture be my guest.” and
“You making up counter-arguments out of thin air is just the icing on the cake. “ and
“Nice try. The rising rates of cancer /= cancer.”
Assignment: read the abstract of this scholarly article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/193/4247/55.short: The abstract states ““Multivariant regression analysis indicates a statistically significant relation between cancer mortality rates in Louisiana and drinking water obtained from the Missippi (sic) River. This is true for total cancer, cancer of the urinary organs, and cancer of the gastrointestinal tract.”
And this one: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/6/652.abstract: In the full text of the article, under Background: “The pollution of drinking water has long been recognized to be associated with an increased risk of cancer in some epidemiological studies.” Under Discussion: “In fact, the real association is due to the water quality, i.e. the carcinogens in water and the degree of pollution. Pesticide remains and nitrate pollutants were examined with interest and taken as having positive correlation to CRC .”
And this one: http://jech.bmj.com/content/44/2/114.short: “CONCLUSIONS–Under conditions found in Cracow, air pollution may increase lung cancer risk, acting multiplicatively with known risk factors such as smoking and industrial exposure.”
And this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637154/: “Occupational studies confirm that pollutants present in town air are capable of causing lung cancer in man and suggest that the pollutants and cigarette smoke act synergistically. The trends in the mortality from lung cancer in young and middle-aged men in England and Wales provide uncertain evidence but support the belief that atmospheric pollution has contributed to the production of the disease.”
As it turned out, the OP’s point was not so ridiculous. In other words, he was RIGHT, and you were WRONG. You know what they say – “Winning isn’t everything, but losing is nothing.”
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!
I would probably be justified in calling you a dumb fuck, but in fact, there is no real difference in intelligence between you and the OP. He continued the thread by making other original, if controversial, observations. The real difference is that you are nothing but a self-serving, arrogant asshole, who doesn’t know when he’s getting himself in trouble.
Homework:
-
Explain the terms “multiplicatively” and “synergistically.”
-
Where does pesticide in the water come from? Discuss
-
Write an essay on why we need to know what we are talking about before we reveal our posing and make ourselves look like a witless imbecile.
Tomorrow, Lesson No. 2. Class Dismissed.
