Yes and now a 12 year public education is basically worthless. After 12 years all your worth to the market is ~10$/hr. Going to college doesn't make people smart, smart people go to college because they understand and realize the benefits of the cost. (Generally speaking)

Those words are incorrect. A non smoker in that town is much less likely to get cancer than a smoker in any other town.

Thanks for the clarification David - could you please rephrase that to be accurate, for the benefit of all our readers here?

This post is worth about as much as you believe a 12 year public education is.

So we have more coal coming online, and possibly a repeal of Obamacare. Those things should both really help bahbah's career.

The greater America gets the greater my bank account gets.

A simplification of tax law would also help him.

Even if you pretend that there are huge numbers of people coming out of high school incapable of making more than min wage (i would guess in most cases people just prefer the low paying jobs because they're more fun) that doesn't mean it's worthless it just means that the same curriculum isn't applicable to all people.

It's just an argument for more vocational schools, or at least encouraging more people to go to them.


... i guess some would say it's also potentially an argument for a voucher system. would be more persuasive if it wasn't championed by a guy who ran a scam school and a woman whose husband runs the worlds biggest pyramid scheme.

Even worse, it's 41.0% on the RCP average, which is incredible considering it includes FoxNews and the always-generous-to-Republicans Rasmussen.

This type of error often occurs in the field of medicine where a certain drug triples the incidence of one type of cancer while cutting another much more common type in half. In this case you go from one in a million to one in a thousand. That still is probably unacceptable but misleading arguments should not be used. I could use similar arguments to try to persuade you not to get on a bus with unless their are no Muslim passengers. My chances of dying in that bus from a suicide bomb is almost certainly less than one tenth of what it would be in the Muslim occupied bus.

I'm just asking how you would frame the increased risk of cancer more accurately, and in this case where we're quibbling about inaccurate statements:

I feel pretty confident in stating the neoprene plant is not curing anyone of any more common types of cancer here.

His post seems to suggest that he thinks the people in that town are smoking at rates that far exceed the national average (or some other factor that those increased risks are attributable to).

The article specifically says that the increase in risk factors is specifically attributable to air conditions though.

Bahbah would most certainly benefit from a flat tax. Make marginal tax rates extinct!!

I know I'm going to be sorry for asking. Why do you think the Bonanno arrests are Trump related?

It depends on what that rate is.

Well aside from the fact that you simply don't understand marginal tax rates, I would guess your effective tax rate is in the high single digits or low teens. If you've just done your taxes you should know this.

The point is that "times as bad" is an irrelevant measure. Suppose zero people got a certain type of cancer without that plant being there. Now one case is infinitely times as bad.

The relevant measure is the actual probability the plant will give you cancer. Which in this case is about one in a thousand. That is the number that should be weighed against whatever upsides are involved.

Okay. I would go beyond your previous statement that 1 in 1000 is "probably unacceptable" and say it's "pretty ****ing terrible".

So 8x a specific cancer not 8x of all cancer. Still bad though and mostly an issue of semantics since we're not yet calculating what a fair compensation package would be but recognizing that there's a need for estimating the damages.

If people in the area were made aware of the costs and then made whole in terms of the decrease in value of real estate associated with those costs (implying they can move to a comparable place without a nearby plant and be equally well off) that should be acceptable. If the production is still viable after compensating all who're negatively impacted so as to make them equally well off it's good business and the companies will naturally gravitate to areas where the costs to compensate victims are the lowest, which is why you see this happen in these decrepit towns.

Dissolving or reducing the influence of the EPA in spirit though is saying that they just have to eat the costs themselves. And that's where it crosses the line from making way for progress to disregarding the value of human life... a signature trumpism.

800x (not 8x) risk of cancer from air pollution, to be specific, to a level of 1 in every ~1300 people (national average is <1 per million).

Whether it is or not is completely besides the point that one should not be making misleading statistical arguments or using them in headlines..

The article itself didn't include it in the title, it was him paraphrasing the article. Possibly misleading but probably not intentionally so - within the article they're claiming that there're several cancers (some of the most common ones) that people are at an increased risk for from exposure to it (though hard to say to what magnitude and whether the situations are directly comparable without reading more into it than im prepared to).

Links to said reports/studies are in the article.

We're cool. I've been surprised at my own anger towards mainstream democrats who I see as partisan, dishonest traitors at best, closet imperialists at worst. Until this last year I have always been perplexed at the violence of the French revolution, in particular the level of violence of the in-fighting between seemingly close ideological kin- same for the Russian revolution. My attitude was always "Hey, we're not that far apart here. Let's work together." Now, I completely understand the sentiments there and what went down. And as much as I despise true right wing humanoids (who I actually see as a scourge upon humanity and who I suspect of being genetically variant), I find democrats who are cool with the actual real agenda (as opposed to the stated) of the current democratic party even more detestable. It's not even healthy. In my fantasy life, rows of gallows have replaced a WSOP final table and it's pile of 100K bricks.

So the guy lecturing liberals on their morality admits to having fantasies of murder. Shocking development.

Murder? No. These are fantasies of justice for murderers. And I'm not lecturing liberals. I'm shaking my finger at those who build paths toward fulfilling pure greed, which end in serious threats to human survival, while criticizing Trump/republicans for doing the same damn thing.

This election has drawn out and laid bare the true nature of the leadership of the democratic party. The curtain has been raised. We've run out of the convenient ambiguities which previously held the party together. The mask is off. When you see the democratic mayor of Baltimore announcing (as happened yesterday) her veto of a minimum wage increase, after campaigning on that exact increase, do you not see that as a sort of unmasking? If you don't despise such a person, then it's likely you never really cared about the issue in the first place.

As I have grown older my tolerance for liars and false people has shrunk. When it comes to liars and false people who ruthlessly exploit their fellow people with theft, torture, and murder, my tolerance is about exhausted. Get them off the planet in my estimation.