Timeline for Lung cancer due to inhaling oily steam in the restaurant kitchen for a long period of time
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2016 at 3:55 | vote | accept | Display Name | ||
| May 17, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | Crashworks | I think this is an ideal answer for this question: it cites on-point peer-reviewed primary sources, and provides enough context to understand what the epidemiology says and what it doesn't. | |
| May 17, 2016 at 13:04 | history | edited | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
"hard to interpret"
|
| May 17, 2016 at 11:50 | history | undeleted | Gareth Rees | ||
| May 17, 2016 at 11:35 | history | edited | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
better explanation of odds ratio
|
| May 17, 2016 at 11:12 | history | deleted | Gareth Rees | via Vote | |
| May 16, 2016 at 17:51 | history | edited | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 68 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2016 at 16:55 | history | edited | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1787 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2016 at 16:53 | comment | added | Gareth Rees | @Bakuriu: The site rules discourage original research: "It is acceptable to provide a collection of evidence, but not to apply non-trivial calculations that require a community of experts to evaluate." I did look for a systematic review but did not find one that was open access. | |
| May 16, 2016 at 16:49 | history | edited | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1787 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2016 at 16:18 | comment | added | Bakuriu | I agree with Zack. An answer is expected to contain citations to data but not exclusively citations. Not everybody interested in a skeptical answer is able to easily extrapolate an answer from "raw articles", and that's one reason why this site is useful... | |
| May 16, 2016 at 14:09 | history | edited | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 186 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2016 at 13:55 | history | answered | Gareth Rees | CC BY-SA 3.0 |