Steve Milloy
The brand new research the Shopper Product Security Fee desires to depend on to ban fuel stoves is basic junk science.
Right here is the research. The summary is beneath.
Here’s a fast abstract of the a few of research’s precept flaws, in no explicit order:
- It’s not precise analysis on youngsters. It’s a meta-analysis of beforehand printed (and ignored) research — a research of in any other case unpersuasive research. The authors did a literature seek for earlier epidemiologic research on fuel stoves and bronchial asthma in youngsters after which simply combined these outcomes collectively in an effort to contrive statistical signioficance. This can be a bogus method for various causes together with publications bias within the part research — i.e., research with null outcomes aren’t printed.
- The research outcomes, together with the part research, are weak statistical associations — i.e., noise vary correlations. The research outcomes, seemingly together with the part research, usually are not statistically important both.
- Bronchial asthma is an allergic illness. There aren’t any allergens in pure fuel. So the research has no organic plausibility. Nobody is aware of what causes bronchial asthma in youngsters and so competing causes couldn’t be dominated out.
- The declare that fuel stoves are liable for 12% of childhood bronchial asthma – an epidemioogic idea referred to as “attributable danger” – is completely bogus as a result of epidemiological research can solely be used to related exposures with illness. They can’t be used to find out danger of illness as a result of (1) the underlying information will not be consultant of the inhabitants; and (2) epidemiologic research can’t be utilized by themselves to find out cause-and-effect relationships.
If none of meaning something to you. you’ll want to learn “Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Towards well being Scare and Scams.”
