It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
From Radiation expert warns of danger from overuse of medical X-rays, claiming they're responsible for many cancer and heart disease deaths
"Prior to 1940, no medical exam was considered complete without X-ray procedures, generally including fluoroscopy where the X-ray beam stays on," he said. "In fact, X-ray exposure began even in the womb for many people who are now age 30 and over, because until 1970, about one birth in every 14 was preceded by pelvic X-rays of the mother shortly before delivery, to measure the birth canal."
From Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer – official
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.”
From Second-Hand Smoke Craziness - Part Two
A World Health Organization study in 1998 showed that there was no significant risk of cancer to children from second-hand smoke. The study showed that the risk of developing cancer was actually lower for children raised in a home where one or both parents smoked.
From The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally "confessed" that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its preconceived conclusions.
And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the "cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as the agency had boldly asserted.