[FoRK] Bush's tanking approval ratings

Jeff Bone jbone at place.org
Tue Apr 12 09:59:26 PDT 2005

On Apr 12, 2005, at 11:55 AM, Karl Anderson wrote:

> Right, the WHO study was a *study*, not a smoking gun.  Go ahead and
> call it nonsense because you don't want to believe it, but please, in
> the future, start by saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA NA".

Karl, my issue here is that you make a broad assertion and then back it 
up by citing a sketchy study --- no doubt politically motivated --- 
from a source (the WHO) that is, in its own right, questionable.  
(Don't you think there's a question of motivation *inherent* in such 
studies when they come from politically-motivated sources rather than 
real researchers?)

IMHO, this kind of thing is just as credible as, for example, some of 
the "studies" (always commissioned by right-wing political interests) 
supporting a putative connection between abortion and rates of 
incidence of breast cancer.  To wit, *not* credible at all, simply by 
virtue of the above.  It's an unfortunate but pragmatic reality that 
some input should be screened out simply by virtue of its provenance.  
IMHO, "studies" from / commissioned by the WHO fall into that category.

And for the record:  there are other studies --- I'll mention them 
anecdotally, I'm not citing them as authoritative --- that suggest that 
the total impact of ALL auto emissions on the environment and on public 
health pales in comparison to the impact of industrial, power 
generation, air travel, and other such emissions.  And given that, 
those sources of pollution (common sensically) are *far* more likely to 
be a contributor to any respiratory, cardiac, and other illnesses that 
*might* be tied to air quality.


More information about the FoRK mailing list