On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:41:58 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 2/8/2015 2:04 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:43:20 -0500, Frank
wrote:

Who would have thunk it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the
relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of
asbestos.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility.


I don't go for the second hand smoke argument either. Everyone knows
that toxicity is dose related.

Non-sequitur, I am afraid.

It isn't an "argument." It is scientific fact. Does one argue about
1+2=2? The existence of hats, perhaps?

And, asbestos won't jump up and bite
you, you have to breathe it into your lungs and you also have to smoke
to get cancer from it.

Two out of two. Care to go for a trifecta? Tell us what you think
about spontaneous generation.

I am not surprised you posted the link you did. I consider the source.