The Burden of Proof

Discussion on health consequences of air particulates

Moderator: pm2.5mary

The Burden of Proof

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:55 am

The Burden of Proof

Here is an excerpt from a rebuke I had given to one obnoxious poster on another 'smoke' forum.

the poster:
"The burden isn't on us to prove it's harmless. The burden's on you to prove it's harmful." (wood smoke)

rebuttal from yours truly:
"I think the opposite is true, since it is you who are performing the action. Smoke has been proven harmful:"

There is No Risk-Free Level of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke ... heet7.html

The Surgeon General has decided there is no safe level of smoke; this can be considered to be a citation of
Haber's Rule. The report refers to tobacco smoke, yet I have not heard advice citing this definition. That is, no
one has stepped up to the plate and said "The Surgeon General did not mention wood smoke; only tobacco was
mentioned." I am waiting for this rebuttal. I am waiting, so that I can proceed to smother with pertinent facts,
whomever is bold enough to challenge the many correlations we have carefully demonstrated, allying these
two species of invasive poison-delivery systems.

I am still waiting...
User avatar
Posts: 6075
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby turning_blue » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:24 am

Wood smoke HAS to be added.

That is a great fact page you found. I'd like to keep that on a special link page.
User avatar
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 am

Return to Health Matters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests