"10.4 in 100,000 is approximately the same as 1 in 10,000" It looks to me like a deliberate ploy to accentuate the relative harm. The reference to this stat in the Reuters article had no further link and no citation. The inclusion of "firefighter" in the opening paragraph and the "firefighter" stat later in the article was clearly used to link the claim.Originally Posted by Markin
I notice you didn't include that text from my post in your response, I wonder why? Perhaps it looks too silly! Selective commentary under the umbrella of qualifications and a job in a respected Uni is all too common these days. Don't fall for it.
"why is comparing one risk to another 'nonsense'?" Because it trivialises the perceived risk without addressing the real concern people may have. You might as well compare anything to anything, it reveals nothing about the actual risk. Most people know this so don't risk your credibility by supporting it.
"so what if a source article was published in 2007?" Because after 14 years there is likely to be plethora of studies able to support the claim (or not). Grabbing this one is just lazy.
Reply With Quote
