U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2012, 06:42 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,427,770 times
Reputation: 7641

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
None of them.

See here for how air pollution studies are done:

PAPA-SAN Study design

For a viewpoint on the 400,000 + smoking related deaths per year:

A Critical Assessment of "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths" by Robert Levy and Rosalind Marimont Published in Regulation,* Fall 1998 > Publications > ACSH

The studies on smoking actually are done with the same methods that air pollution studies are done.

Here is the earliest study, Pearl, 1938:

Premature Smoker Death Rates

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.

Another study:

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors

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.

Women

It shows a link between smoking, second hand smoke, and breast cancer.

And smoking and aortic aneurysm:

Aortic Aneurysm - Conditions and Diagnoses - Women's Heart Health - Brigham and Women's Hospital

It also shows other smoking risks.

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.


Pssst, if you need assistance in starting your own thread DM me and I can help you out...

Otherwise stay on topic:

Quote:
"Ok, well, if your kids had to spend time in a garage with the door closed with me chain smoking inside or with you and your car running, which would you choose?"

Of course I didn't say anything and in reality in might just have been his default face, but sometimes I get a kick out of these hypothetical conversations.
You want to stand on your soapbox and spew garbage?

Start your own thread.

 
Old 02-13-2012, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,440 posts, read 28,297,785 times
Reputation: 29036
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
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?
Why did you ask the question if you did not want to know the answer?
 
Old 02-13-2012, 08:54 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,427,770 times
Reputation: 7641
Getting back to the OP.....

Close yourself into a garage with a smoker for an hour.

Now do the same thing but substitute a running vehicle instead of the smoker.

Case closed.

The only thing more deadly than being inside a closed garage with a running vehicle is having to read the exact same boring BS from people every time the topic of smoking comes up.
 
Old 02-14-2012, 12:38 AM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,639,665 times
Reputation: 3359
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
It's really hard to tell, there are no good studies on either without influence. Car emissions are bad but diluted so hard to compare, smoking studies are weird, if you die of practically anything and smoked or lived with a smoker they list it as a smoking related death so who would really know? What would be nice is to have some actually relative studies on anything. lol

I'm guessing the car but can't be sure.
Exactly! They do the same thing with food borne illnesses and idiopathic illnesses. The health questionnaires are specifically organized and worded to point toward the current boogeyman, whether or not you have actually been attacked by that boogeyman.

Got cancer? Oh you smoked? Written off as a smoking related illness... totally don't look at the fact that you worked at a factory or a garage, or lived by a power plant or a landfill... or even whether the type of cancer you have is has any probability of being caused by inhaled carcinogens from tobacco smoke.

Got "food poisoning"? Oh you can your own food or drink raw milk or have a private well? Written off as your own fault for eating food the USDA told you not to... totally don't look at the fact that something else you ate (like salad!!) might have been contaminated, or the city drinking water, or the real cause isn't even anything you actually ate.

The questions are leading and narrow. They funnel you into the expected culprit then stop. They don't continue on after that to uncover any other possible causes... and then some "true believer" comes along and manipulates the statistics compiled from that already suspect data to "prove" whatever they're peddling.

Doesn't it strike you as bizarre that, all of the sudden, products and procedures that humans have being using "successfully/safely" for hundreds/thousands of years are now agents of the boogeyman?!?
 
Old 02-14-2012, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,440 posts, read 28,297,785 times
Reputation: 29036
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Exactly! They do the same thing with food borne illnesses and idiopathic illnesses. The health questionnaires are specifically organized and worded to point toward the current boogeyman, whether or not you have actually been attacked by that boogeyman.
What questionnaires?

If you mean the ones you fill out a a doctor's office, the ones I've seen are designed to find out if you have any problems the doctor you are seeing needs to address.

If you have a food borne illness, the questions will ask for all potential sources of the organism causing the illness, whether consumed at home or away from home.

"Idiopathic" means the cause is not known. How would that have anything to do with a health questionnnaire?

Quote:
Got cancer? Oh you smoked? Written off as a smoking related illness... totally don't look at the fact that you worked at a factory or a garage, or lived by a power plant or a landfill... or even whether the type of cancer you have is has any probability of being caused by inhaled carcinogens from tobacco smoke.
That is because there are few cancers that are not more likely to happen if you smoke. The studies that look at those things have to control for other possible causes of the illness under consideration.

I would worry much more about cigarette smoking than living near a land fill or a power plant. And what type of power plant are you concerned about? Nuclear? Coal fired? Hydroelectric?

Quote:
Got "food poisoning"? Oh you can your own food or drink raw milk or have a private well? Written off as your own fault for eating food the USDA told you not to... totally don't look at the fact that something else you ate (like salad!!) might have been contaminated, or the city drinking water, or the real cause isn't even anything you actually ate.
How can you get "food poisoning" if "the real cause isn't even anything you actually ate?"

Since there is a public health interest in food borne illness, any clusters of those illnesses will likely be investigated to try to determine the source. If you and your family were the only ones to get sick, that would point to something you ate at home.

If you ate home canned food and got botulism, the home canned food would be a much more likely source than anything you ate away from home.

If you drink raw milk and get sick, would you not want the dairy that provided the milk to be investigated?

Do you not think that potential contamination of a city water supply would make people sit up and take notice?

The thousands of toxic substances in cigarette smoke are distributed by the bloodstream to every cell in your body and can affect every tissue in your body. That means a smoker turns his body into a toxic waste dump. No wonder it increases the risk of just about every cancer there is.

Quote:
The questions are leading and narrow. They funnel you into the expected culprit then stop. They don't continue on after that to uncover any other possible causes... and then some "true believer" comes along and manipulates the statistics compiled from that already suspect data to "prove" whatever they're peddling.
I still wonder what questions you are talking about. How do they "funnel" you anywhere?

The ones I have seen just ask if you have any symptoms, what conditions you have that you are already being treated for, and what your family history is.

What "suspect" data? Do you have any proof that a single study about smoking used statistics that were "manipulated"? Maybe you just do not want to believe the evidence because it would make it very hard to justify continuing to smoke.

Quote:
Doesn't it strike you as bizarre that, all of the sudden, products and procedures that humans have being using "successfully/safely" for hundreds/thousands of years are now agents of the boogeyman?!?
Not at all bizarre. Just because the realization that these substances are harmful is recent does not mean they were not harmful before and now they are.

They were always harmful. The proof did not come until the question about whether it was harmful was asked.

For the record, cigarette smoke contains more toxins, volume for volume, than automobile exhaust.
 
Old 02-14-2012, 11:56 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,427,770 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
What questionnaires?

If you mean the ones you fill out a a doctor's office, the ones I've seen are designed to find out if you have any problems the doctor you are seeing needs to address.
You know darn well that is not what Missing4 is talking about and not the ones you constantly refer to and post links to.

Quote:
I would worry much more about cigarette smoking than living near a land fill or a power plant.
Your extreme paranoia concerning cigarette smoke has been very obvious in all your posts. Seems you are paranoid of almost everything under the sun.

If I drank some milk and got sick I'd throw the rest of the milk away and go buy more, I wouldn't contact the dairy making accusations and demanding an investigation.

You are hilarious
Quote:
Do you not think that potential contamination of a city water supply would make people sit up and take notice?
The POTENTIAL has been there for thousands of years as has meteors, tsunami's, volcanoes, forest fires, floods, war, locust swarms, earthquakes, being hit by lightning. I realize I left out a few thousand others but please tell us why are these less important for people to "sit up and take notice" of than the contamination of a city water supply?

Do you take tranquilizers before you get behind the wheel of your car contemplating the number of potential ways you could be crushed, maimed, disfigured or killed?


Last edited by plwhit; 02-14-2012 at 12:33 PM..
 
Old 02-14-2012, 12:04 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,427,770 times
Reputation: 7641
Getting back to the OP suzy....

Close yourself into a garage with a smoker for an hour.

Now do the same thing but substitute a running vehicle instead of the smoker.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the result would be...

Case closed.

Last edited by plwhit; 02-14-2012 at 12:33 PM..
 
Old 02-14-2012, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,586 posts, read 10,778,001 times
Reputation: 9293
The do gooder - liberal facists teach their kids to hate those that smoke...It was a windy day - and I was on the street smoking - a kid covered his face with his sleeve and ran to bury his poor face in his mothers' coat...paniced over my cigarette smoke - Yet the kid will go home and consume chlorine out of the tap - oh -----also - perfect example of this extremism...regarding the death of WHITNEY HUSTON........a witness at a party reported...."Here hair was a mess and she smelled of booze and CIGARETTES! As if the smoking might have killed her - struck her dead in the tub..
 
Old 02-14-2012, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Atlanta & NYC
6,620 posts, read 11,680,399 times
Reputation: 6603
I'd say the car since people have been known to commit suicide by sitting in a car that's on while pumping the exhaust into it. I don't think anyone's died from smoking too many cigs at once, but then again, anything's possible.
 
Old 02-14-2012, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,639,665 times
Reputation: 3359
For the record, I'm talking about the questionnaires used at the hospital when you show up sick in the emergency room. The questionnaires are a key - the answers to the preceding questions lead you down a series of subsequent questions until you reach the "answer" like a decision-tree. In many instances, these keys work correctly and do uncover the appropriate cause... BUT in other cases, if there is a branching question too early in the chain, you can get lead down the wrong path because while you answered "yes" to that question, the real cause isn't in that pathway, it's further down or is a combination. If the rest of the questions in the "No" pathway aren't asked, then the real culprit may not be discovered.

Since smoking, drinking, substance abuse and "bad" food questions come directly after the symptoms questions, some medical professionals start down the wrong pathway based on assumptions even if the symptoms and recent activities don't quite match up. And most of them do not come back and ask the rest of the questions before making diagnosis and starting treatment. This a case of jumping to conclusions, and putting those questions so high up, and making it a branching question, will skew data sets.

I have my own personal experiences with this occurring and the diagnosis and treatment being WRONG.

I had food poisoning, went to the ER, got asked the canning and milk questions, answered yes and they started treatment... which was wrong. The real culprit was shigella from a green salad I ate at a deli down the street. So, I suffered nearly 3 days longer than I needed to while they ran tests on the food in my house because 1) the questionnaire is biased against raw milk and home canning (despite the low incidence of these being causation), 2) medical professionals trusted the assumptions in the questionnaire, 3) no one tested ME to see what might be the problem or finished the questionnaire (fresh greens was 4 questions down from the milk and home canning branches), they went after the usual suspects first.

Same thing happened with my bronchitis that developed into walking pneumonia. Because I had smoked, the fact that I got bronchitis and that it didn't go away and only got worse despite treatment was blamed on the cigs.... even though I hadn't smoked in over 2 years at that point. It didn't occur to them that I might have been or still being exposed to something else and that the reason my bronchitis didn't respond to treatment was because they were treating me for the wrong thing with the wrong medication.

I'm not knocking the medical establishment, they have a hard job and so many factors to deal with. But it is too easy to make logical errors in decision making when the keys you use are biased. My argument is that, in many cases, the "usual suspects" are greatly exaggerated, or at least given more weight than is appropriate based on the correlating information. Therefore, the keys that are based on them can be inaccurate and leading.

I'm not arguing that smoking doesn't increase your risk for and contribute to a large number of health issues. But so does being exposed to toxic/hazardous chemicals and emissions, both natural and man-made, from a multitude of sources in our modern world. And "increasing risk" and "contributing to" does not mean "causes" or "is the only cause"... it means it MAY.

Supporting Proven Data
1) Lung cancer is one of the top 10 prevalent cancers
2) Lung cancer is the top killer of those cancers
3) A high percentage of patients with lung cancer (or one of the others) are, or have been, smokers (does not include any other history that may be relevant -- stress, exposure, diet, heredity, etc)
4) Modern commercial cigarettes contain several known toxins and carcinogens (there is minimal data on non-commercial natural tobacco that is not highly processed, nor on other sources of these toxins and carcinogens)

FACILE/SPECIOUS ARGUMENT: Smoking causes lung cancer and a multitude of deaths by cancer could have been prevented by not smoking.

FALLACIES/LOGICAL FLAWS: 1) risk does not equal cause -- correlation does not prove causation; 2) not everyone who contracts a "terminal" form of cancer dies from it; and 3) you're still at risk of developing cancer whether you smoke, quit smoking, or have never smoked.

LOGICAL ACCURACY: Smoking may increase the risk of developing lung or other cancers and quitting smoking may reduce your risk of developing these cancers.

If the assumptions and conclusions stated as fact in the specious argument were proven and accurate then:
1) Why do cancer rates continue to rise despite tobacco use continuing to decline?
2) Why do people who don't smoke, or have not even been exposed to second hand smoke, develop lung cancer?
3) Why do people who have smoked, but have quit for a number of years, have the same chances of developing lung cancer as those people who have never smoked?

This is a classic example of a vicious circle. The argument assumes the validity of the assumption it is trying to prove... so any and all data used in support of that argument is biased because it is collected and interpreted with bias. You will find exactly what you are looking for because that is all you are looking for and your procedure precludes or dismisses anything else.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top