Please provide the casual reader with any facts that are based on known science that proves your guess work.<quoted text>
Only if you can show that a cancer occurs because the number of molecules interacting with the body achieves a size where the system is overwhelmed. That is CONTRARY to the science of cancer.
Granted that an increase in the number of cancer cells created increases the probability that one will get past the body's defenses and become a tumor, a tumor may STILL develop from a single mutated cell.
Provide cancer-specific science that disputes that, if you can. If you CAN'T, then stipulate that it is CORRECT.
Granted that an increase in the number of carcinogenic molecules present increases the likelihood that ONE of them WILL trigger a lethal mutation, it STILL requires only ONE to do the job.
Provide cancer-specific science to dispute that if you can. If you can't, then stipulate it as CORRECT.
IF it only takes ONE carcinogenic molecule to do the deed, and IF it only takes one mutation to do the deed, then any time ONE such molecule is present, there is the possibility of carcinogenesis.
Provide cancer-specific science to dispute that if you can. If you can't, then stipulate it as CORRECT. In this instance, even something RATIONAL to dispute it seems completely out of range.
IF this is true, then there is NO level of exposure to a carcinogen below which anyone can GUARANTEE that cancer will not result.
IF yo are so sure that it is NOT true, please provide cancer-specific science that shows one of the elements of this argument is incorrect.
Your mantra of the first law of toxicology is satisfied by the stipulations I made in my points. Increased dosage DOES increase likelihood of carcinogenesis. HOWEVER, there is no dose beneath which all is safe.
The potential to cause harm does not imply the certainty of harm. Nor does the anecdotal escape from harm disprove the potential.
If only something would render your keyboard "mute".
Oh, you mean you are being irrational when you demand proof that there is no safe level of SHS exposure?
Science offers no proofs. Science deals in most likely explanations. Find a better than that provided above. Satisfy the requirements I laid out. Find a scientific reason for rejecting the concepts involved OR show how the concepts do NOT lead by direct and irrefutable logic to the statement that there is NO threshold for exposure to SHS (apart from the complete line of crap about there being no carcinogens in SHS to start with--the idea that THAT had anything to do with science was debunked long ago).
As noted earlier and often, virtually ANY carcinogenic molecule fits this model, so your constant strident shrieking about wanting a list is empty posturing.
You are a bore, boor.
Come back when you have the cancer-science refuting the specific points I raised. Or, if you'd rather, stay away even then. We won't mind.
One can not prove a negative you moron...so your entire post is an illogical joke.
Since you make these ridiculous claims...the burden of proof is on you.
Now prove it...or simply admit your entire premise is nothing but "faith based".
Keep in mind you are going against known science...such as the first rule of toxicology.
Your "religion" also defies the fact that there are many people who live into the 100 year range that do not develope cancers.
Try to expain that one with logic based on what you have "faith" in.
There is "no safe level"...really? LMAO
You are the one making illogical claims...so it is up to you to prove your position based on known science.
Perhaps it is time to admit your position is "religious" by nature?
If not...then quote the real science that proves your position.
You can't...can you.