>If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they weren't actually? Yeah. It would.
How exactly do you know that "they weren't actually"? Do you have an autopsy that states otherwise? [1]
That the EPA marks such use of fans as increasing "thermal stress and health risks" is an indicator that there ARE health risks associated with the use of fans. If those risks can involve death is up to dispute (without further analysis), but it's a first step towards this hypothesis.
You characterizing them as "random deaths" is a circular argument. It pressuposses what it's supposed to prove. I'd rather go with science and choose my words carefully.
[1] Oh, and to prevent any reading comprehension challenged idiot (tons of them on the intertubes) that would jump and shout: "the lack of an autopsy is not proof that they were indeed caused by fans", I never implied such. I only imply the reverse: that without an autopsy we cannot say they WERENT caused by it.
Donwnvotes? It seems some people hate the scientific method, and only pay lip service to science as some kind of religion ("who needs experiments and proofs").
How exactly do you know that "they weren't actually"? Do you have an autopsy that states otherwise? [1]
That the EPA marks such use of fans as increasing "thermal stress and health risks" is an indicator that there ARE health risks associated with the use of fans. If those risks can involve death is up to dispute (without further analysis), but it's a first step towards this hypothesis.
You characterizing them as "random deaths" is a circular argument. It pressuposses what it's supposed to prove. I'd rather go with science and choose my words carefully.
[1] Oh, and to prevent any reading comprehension challenged idiot (tons of them on the intertubes) that would jump and shout: "the lack of an autopsy is not proof that they were indeed caused by fans", I never implied such. I only imply the reverse: that without an autopsy we cannot say they WERENT caused by it.