[dekhn]

That is a non-scientific thing to say in response to what I said.also it's not specifically very clear to me that there is a much higher death rate there than the general population that can't be explained by things like socioeconomic status which are almost always the most powerful cause of these kinds of problems.

[g3houdini]

Scientifically speaking do cigarettes cause cancer?

It may not be scientifically clear because you and other scientists and lay-people do not have access to the PG&E maintenance records that indicate they were pumping large amounts of Chromium 6 into the water table (drinking water). If it was not an issue, then why did they settle and buy out all the properties?

[dekhn]

the case for inhaled tobacco smoke causing cancer is undisputed in the scientific field. Not only associational, it's causal (IE, we can explain precisely how it works with full generalizable predictive ability). That's true also for C-VI in occupational situations where individuals are exposed to large amounts of inhaled material, but that is also associational, not causal. The reason PG&e did what they did is because it was cheaper to settle and pay off and move on.

In short, there is little to no convincing evidence that residents in Hinckley were harmed by PG&E's actions.

[kuuspa]

I like you.