Talk:Artificial turf–cancer hypothesis

Veterans Stadium
I have to call foul on the stuff about the Vet. It is just a terrible passage in so many ways. Firstly, considering how long the stadium was in use, that 8 players developed cancers is purely within statistical likelihood. So even if correlation implied causation – wait, that's right, it doesn't. So the entire premise of the passage is faulty, as it's implying that without any evidence whatsoever.

Oh, and there also the fundamental issue that the supposed cancer link arises from the crumbled vulcanized rubber infill in the turf. But the Vet used AstroTurf, which has no rubber infill. The whole passage is half truths that don't add up to anything and uses insinuation to lead readers to a conclusion that has no possible basis in reality. I am removing the passage outright, as it is inherently fatally flawed. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)