Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think there iare no hard data? If people were going to make up numbers, why not make up even worse numbers?
The statistics are generated from deaths from illnesses that are caused by outdoor air pollution (mainly asthma and respiratory diseases) and deaths from the illnesses that smokers get in higher numbers than people who do not smoke, such as lung and other cancers, chronic obstructive lung disease (emphysema), and cardiovascular disease.
A smoker has a 50% chance of dying from a disease caused by his smoking and will die on average 14 years sooner than someone who does not smoke.
Statisticians can count these illnesses. That is where the numbers come from.
Satan delights equally in statistics and in quoting scripture.... ~H.G. Wells, The Undying Fire
Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases. ~Theodor Billroth
Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt
Evan Esar Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
Aaron Levenstein: Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Why do you think there iare no hard data? If people were going to make up numbers, why not make up even worse numbers?
Well first of all I rarely ask a question in a forum I don't know the answer too.
When I say hard data their is no way to determine if someone died from second hand smoke. You might have someone that drinks a fifth of vodka each day , eats nothing but chicken wings, no exercise and is exposed to second hand smoke...... what kills them? These studies are estimates, yes?
How is it they arrive at that number?
For example you'll often hear claims like "80,000 asthma cases, 40,000 heart attacks....." etc are caused by outdoor air pollutants. They often use a linear dose assessment to arrive at these numbers. Every particle of pollution is assumed to be equally dangerous regardless of total exposure.
For example if we do a study to obtain hard data and have 10 people step off a 20 foot cliff we might come up with a result that 5 of them die from this fall. From that they will extrapolate across an entire population. If 240 of them step off a 1 inch cliff 5 still die, 480 off a 1/2 inch cliff and 5 still die......
So my question really becomes is how many of these smoking studies that cite these huge numbers is using the linear dose asseessmsnt method to produce these numbers?
Well first of all I rarely ask a question in a forum I don't know the answer too.
When I say hard data their is no way to determine if someone died from second hand smoke. You might have someone that drinks a fifth of vodka each day , eats nothing but chicken wings, no exercise and is exposed to second hand smoke...... what kills them? These studies are estimates, yes?
How is it they arrive at that number?
For example you'll often hear claims like "80,000 asthma cases, 40,000 heart attacks....." etc are caused by outdoor air pollutants. They often use a linear dose assessment to arrive at these numbers. Every particle of pollution is assumed to be equally dangerous regardless of total exposure.
For example if we do a study to obtain hard data and have 10 people step off a 20 foot cliff we might come up with a result that 5 of them die from this fall. From that they will extrapolate across an entire population. If 240 of them step off a 1 inch cliff 5 still die, 480 off a 1/2 inch cliff and 5 still die......
So my question really becomes is how many of these smoking studies that cite these huge numbers is using the linear dose assessment method to produce these numbers?
Start with 100,000 smokers, 100,000 light smokers, and 100,000 heavy smokers. By age 65, 57,018 of the non-smokers will still be alive, 52,082 of the light smokers, and 38,328 of the heavy smokers.
How did Pearl come up with theses numbers? He studied over 7000 smokers. The numbers are then standardized to make them easier to compare.
This study followed over 34,000 male British doctors for 50 years. It looked at what they died from and the age at which they died. It looked at what happened if they quit smoking.
The Women's health Initiative Study looked at 79,000 American women from 1993 to 1998.
So, you see, the numbers are derived from observation of real people. They are not made up just to annoy smokers. They should scare you, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
