Not to dispute any research you're doing, but we can also draw another conclusion.

Women who have or had breast cancer may have been sitting in traffic with the window down. I'd bet the toxins were more abundant and concentrated there.

Odds are, the family history had more of a role than the 2 stroke.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: reconranger

I do medical research, and this is the kind of thing that we sit around thinking about....so don't mistake me for some kind of wacho environmentalist.



I have two buddies who's wives grew up on 2-strokes...and grew up riding behind other 2-strokes breathing their exhaust. Both of these women got breast cancer, and at a relatively young age!



These are young women in their prime, with little kids...and lucily both of them have survived now several years out from surgery and chemo....</end quote></div>


Kudos Recon.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] This is now one of the most bizarre statements you have ever made. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

I think the tree huggers would of used it as ammo to kill the 2 smokes if it was even remotely possible.

 

Hey reconranger,

You are a helpful guy around here, so I got your back. You did not state there was a specific correlation between inhaling 2 stroke fumes and breast cancer, now did you? The other blokes here took two statements and drew their own conclusion based on the fact two statements just happened to be in the same post.. and the same paragraph.

As a professional researcher you are charged with coming up with many different hypothesis and this might have been just one of many falling out of an informal coffee break brainstorming but certainly not from any scientifically backed research.

Take care.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: windtrader

As a professional researcher you are charged with coming up with many different hypothesis and this might have been just one of many falling out of an informal coffee break brainstorming but certainly not from any scientifically backed research.</end quote></div>

And you got to that conclusion how?

No one is saying he isn't helpful. Pretty sure if you had a question about the 400ex or the 420 he would have a good idea of the answer.

But to post something like that, and not draw the conclusion that he is indeed comparing the two, well, I guess I missed that day on comparative reasoning.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>And you got to that conclusion how?</end quote></div>
Because it was a personal observation and not backed up with any reference to any peer group vetted scientific research. Maybe there are such studies and we surely know intuitively that sucking a bunch of two stroke smoke can not be good for your heath but I've not read that gardeners who strap two stroke blowers on their backs all day or stand behind pushing two-stroke mowers or snowblowers or whatever have a decidedly higher rate of cancer incidence anywhere near the rate of 100%.

Geez. Lighten up. I'm sure he was not making this kind of comment in a recreational forum with a professional researcher's cap but rather an off the cuff personal anecdote and musing about the possibility of such a cause-effect relationship.

 

It could be your wife, your mother, your sister, your daughter.....

Some of you obviously don't seem to be able to handle anything more complicated than a "which one will go faster" kind of post...and that's OK, I was 12 years old once too!