[gela]

Well then, show us the questions they used and what all they looked into with that study.. so we can find out if you are right.

Here we go, back to square one.
I've already been through this. If you want the method, you need the journal.

If "we the public" must take their word for it on faith, then you might as blame it on the Devil. that would sound more religious.

No, you take the word of qualified scientists and institutions around the world. There is a difference.

How can those 90% of people escape from being exposed to everyday stress, car fumes, dust, water droplets in the air, or even industrial polution? Where did they find such a study group that would not be exposed to those things on a daily bases? On the moon? Who could possibly be so isolated when such polutions have drifted on air currents all over the globe.

Thats right, everyone is subjected to pollution. Yet those people who smoke seem to get lung cancer alot more then the rest of us.
Those who smoked more seem to get lung cancer more sevearly then those who smoke less.


[/quote]
Your epidemiology studies are done to collect stats based on life styles so what do you mean they "would look into that"? And then censor that data from the stats? They are not lab scientists, they are not biologists, they are not phychologists, they have no background for looking into it. They are collecting stats, and so-called percentages.
[/quote]
By look into it, I mean they will do another study. They will see if people who do 'z' more, get lung cancer more sevearly then those who do 'z' less. If applicable, they will find a group who are not subjected to 'z' at all, or who arn't involved in it all. They will compare their numbers of lung cancer patients to others who are subjected to 'z'.
Its all very simple scientific method.

Taking polls. You are trying to turn those guys into the Saints of Science. And expect everyone to bow down to their divine like truths.

Wrong. I am putting them on even ground with every other kind of science out there.
If the entire biology community agreed on a certain fact - then I would also believe that fact aswell.

They might have looked into it, these blind leaders of the blind, but I want to see the questions used and check out if they are bias or not. What if they looked the other way?

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.
A shit load of studies have been done. If it was 'overlooked' once, then Im sure then someone else on the opposite side of the globe would have picked it up.

All anyone offers are the claims, but no pudding.

Scientific Journal.