Why is secondhand smoke not considered a form of assault? (state, 2014)
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.
, but..you are kind of proving your own point by pretending not to have sense.
It's a fact that HS and college kids often smoke because of peer pressure. This is trying to reduce their chances of getting caught up in tobacco at the younger ages and getting past that hump.
, but..you are kind of proving your own point by pretending not to have sense.
It's a fact that HS and college kids often smoke because of peer pressure. This is trying to reduce their chances of getting caught up in tobacco at the younger ages and getting past that hump.
"Peer pressure" is Nancy Reagan propaganda created to divide teenagers against each other. It was the older smokers who were up in arms about the smoking bans. Teenagers today are the most obedient yet.
I usually don't like to attack the messenger, but really, quoting the govt on anything factual really detracts from your argument. When have they ever been right about anything? We don't even fight wars well anymore.
I have read the research papers on a regular basis for almost 50 yrs. You pick one and I'll pick it apart. I defined junk science in my last post. Well known example: Well accepted data: yearly risk of MI in those with no risk factors: 4 in 1000; risk in those with chol >300mg%: 8 in 1000. Twice the risk! ( 4 compared to 8) Statistically significant! BUT: same numbers viewed "in reverse"-- risk of NOT having an MI: 996/1000 vs 992/1000- a difference of only 0.4%--clinicallyinsignificant.
I do agree with you that it's rude behavior to smoke in public, imposing your smoke on others. But is that any different than you opiniating in public and imposing those opinions ion others? Smoke may smell foul to some, but so do some opinions.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
When you reject anything that comes from "the govt" you place yourself in conspiracy theory territory. It's not "the gov't" doing the actual research. That has come from scientists around the world.
Nope, you are the one making the claim of "junk science" so you need to show us an example of what you consider to be "junk science" and tell us exactly why it is junk. I gave you the two reports, each of which has references.
Yes, there is a difference between relative risk and absolute risk. What is your source for those "well accepted data" of 4 in 1000 and 8 in 1000? The doubling part is probably correct; the absolute figures are questionable unless we are talking about teenagers. What are the HDL and LDL? What race? What age? Male or female? Smoker or non-smoker? Obese or not? Diabetic or not? Couch potato or not? All of those are considered in calculating heart attack risk, not total cholesterol in isolation. In addition, risk is usually calculated for a ten year time interval, not annual.
Using this calculator, for a 60 year old white male who is 5 ft 9 inches tall, 170 pounds, no personal or family history of heart disease, not diabetic or hypertensive, physically inactive, who eats a moderate amount of veggies and not much red meat, recalculating after changing his cholesterol numbers from total of 300 and HDL of 30 to total of 130 and HDL of 40 decreases his ten year risk of heart attack or stroke from about 16% to about 6%. I do not know about you, but I suspect most folks would consider that difference to be clinically significant. The data used to derive the calculator algorithm are from observations of the characteristics of many people with cardiovascular disease.
Why is your opinion more valid than mine? You are welcome to disagree with me. That is the purpose of the discussion, but calling me rude for not wanting to be exposed to cigarette smoke, as if I should just grin and bear it, is beyond strange.
Im quite in shock at any response saying passive smoking is an inconvenience, grow up for gods sake its dangerous to us all , selfish to the extreme and kills.. Passive smoking | Cancer Research UK
When you reject anything that comes from "the govt" you place yourself in conspiracy theory territory. It's not "the gov't" doing the actual research. That has come from scientists around the world.
Nope, you are the one making the claim of "junk science" so you need to show us an example of what you consider to be "junk science" and tell us exactly why it is junk. I gave you the two reports, each of which has references.
Yes, there is a difference between relative risk and absolute risk. What is your source for those "well accepted data" of 4 in 1000 and 8 in 1000? The doubling part is probably correct; the absolute figures are questionable unless we are talking about teenagers. What are the HDL and LDL? What race? What age? Male or female? Smoker or non-smoker? Obese or not? Diabetic or not? Couch potato or not? All of those are considered in calculating heart attack risk, not total cholesterol in isolation. In addition, risk is usually calculated for a ten year time interval, not annual.
Using this calculator, for a 60 year old white male who is 5 ft 9 inches tall, 170 pounds, no personal or family history of heart disease, not diabetic or hypertensive, physically inactive, who eats a moderate amount of veggies and not much red meat, recalculating after changing his cholesterol numbers from total of 300 and HDL of 30 to total of 130 and HDL of 40 decreases his ten year risk of heart attack or stroke from about 16% to about 6%. I do not know about you, but I suspect most folks would consider that difference to be clinically significant. The data used to derive the calculator algorithm are from observations of the characteristics of many people with cardiovascular disease.
Why is your opinion more valid than mine? You are welcome to disagree with me. That is the purpose of the discussion, but calling me rude for not wanting to be exposed to cigarette smoke, as if I should just grin and bear it, is beyond strange.
Risk Calculators? My husband had a heart attack at 66 and had none of the those risk factors. To quote his Cardiologist, "I am stumped." "You never should have had a heart attack at your age." His parents died younger, but from cancer. My Mom died of a heart attack at 75. I was told that having a parent dying from a heart attack over the age of 74 is not considered a risk factor. Old age alone is a risk factor for a heart attack.
We have a friend who had a heart attack at 50. He survived and is now 60. His Mom died in her 40's from a heart attack. Family history?
To get back to the OT of smoking. Friend's Dad is 86 and still smokes inside the house. He has lived with his parents his entire life. He himself has never smoked. Did 2nd hand smoke or his Mom's genes give him a heart attack? While I do not know what their cholesterol levels are, both are skinny. He doesn't eat very much at all.
His paternal Aunt and Uncle (smokers) recently died in their 90's. Heart Attacks. They both lived together at home with only caretakers coming in to help with daily chores. Smokers? Heart Attacks in their 90's? What would that Risk Calculator say about them?
Apparently, this man has very bad genes on his Mom's side but very good genes on his Dad's side. My husband's is a big "who knows" as his Cardiologist said. Computerized Risk Calculator? Nothing is written in stone.
Edit: My "unprofessional" medical opinion on my husband? Stress. Stop sweating all the little things in life and letting them bother you. Let them go. Does medicine, or a calculator, take that into consideration, if they can even know it.
Risk Calculators? My husband had a heart attack at 66 and had none of the those risk factors. To quote his Cardiologist, "I am stumped." "You never should have had a heart attack at your age." His parents died younger, but from cancer. My Mom died of a heart attack at 75. I was told that having a parent dying from a heart attack over the age of 74 is not considered a risk factor. Old age alone is a risk factor for a heart attack.
We have a friend who had a heart attack at 50. He survived and is now 60. His Mom died in her 40's from a heart attack. Family history?
To get back to the OT of smoking. Friend's Dad is 86 and still smokes inside the house. He has lived with his parents his entire life. He himself has never smoked. Did 2nd hand smoke or his Mom's genes give him a heart attack? While I do not know what their cholesterol levels are, both are skinny. He doesn't eat very much at all.
His paternal Aunt and Uncle (smokers) recently died in their 90's. Heart Attacks. They both lived together at home with only caretakers coming in to help with daily chores. Smokers? Heart Attacks in their 90's? What would that Risk Calculator say about them?
Apparently, this man has very bad genes on his Mom's side but very good genes on his Dad's side. My husband's is a big "who knows" as his Cardiologist said. Computerized Risk Calculator? Nothing is written in stone.
Edit: My "unprofessional" medical opinion on my husband? Stress. Stop sweating all the little things in life and letting them bother you. Let them go. Does medicine, or a calculator, take that into consideration, if they can even know it.
To the embolden text, the stress of the outside world is hard to measure on health. It does have an effect. It would be ignorant to think otherwise. That Saud, we don't know how much outside world stress causes any alement because there is no true way to measure for it.
...60 year old... ten year risk of heart attack or stroke from about 16% to about 6%.
Why is your opinion more valid than mine? .
Let's examine those numbers and see if they're even plausible:
According to the following site, out of 100K people born, 88,799 will still be alive @ age 60, and 78,048 will make it to 70. That means 10,751 die during their 7th decade, or ~12% From ALL CAUSES. http://life-span.healthgrove.com/l/61/60
How is it then that 16% of all of them are supposed to die of only the MI/CVA dxs?
Start with false assumptions and you're doomed to arrive at false conclusions. The Mayo calculator goes over big at cocktail parties and is used by physicians who are more worried about lawyers than providing good care.
Re: absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs Relative risk reduction (RRR): a way to cheat with the numbers to make your unimpressive research result look impressive so you get more funding next time you apply for it. (No Problem = No Money)
Eg/ effectiveness of statins in secondary prevention of MI: RRR ~25% vs ARR ~2% [corresponds to the Needed to Treat Number of 45, ie you gotta treat 45 MI pts with a statin to prevent one extra second heart attack. BFD. Would a new antibiotic with a NTTN of 45 ever get licensed by the FDA?]
Back to the OT: number of people who develop oral/throat/lung ca and claim second hand smoke exposure-- ~10% of all such ca cases; number of people who develop oral/throat/lung ca and don't have hx/o 2nd hand smoke exposure ~10%
My opinions are based on 50 yrs of professional experience and I'm intimately aware of the sorry, unethical state of research funding competition in this country, so I'm skeptical of everything I read.
Let's examine those numbers and see if they're even plausible:
According to the following site, out of 100K people born, 88,799 will still be alive @ age 60, and 78,048 will make it to 70. That means 10,751 die during their 7th decade, or ~12% From ALL CAUSES. http://life-span.healthgrove.com/l/61/60
How is it then that 16% of all of them are supposed to die of only the MI/CVA dxs?
Start with false assumptions and you're doomed to arrive at false conclusions. The Mayo calculator goes over big at cocktail parties and is used by physicians who are more worried about lawyers than providing good care.
Re: absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs Relative risk reduction (RRR): a way to cheat with the numbers to make your unimpressive research result look impressive so you get more funding next time you apply for it. (No Problem = No Money)
Eg/ effectiveness of statins in secondary prevention of MI: RRR ~25% vs ARR ~2% [corresponds to the Needed to Treat Number of 45, ie you gotta treat 45 MI pts with a statin to prevent one extra second heart attack. BFD. Would a new antibiotic with a NTTN of 45 ever get licensed by the FDA?]
Back to the OT: number of people who develop oral/throat/lung ca and claim second hand smoke exposure-- ~10% of all such ca cases; number of people who develop oral/throat/lung ca and don't have hx/o 2nd hand smoke exposure ~10%
My opinions are based on 50 yrs of professional experience and I'm intimately aware of the sorry, unethical state of research funding competition in this country, so I'm skeptical of everything I read.
I'm also skeptical of things I read. Like your posts. What is this 50 years of professional experience? I don't many people who have been active in any profession for 50 full years. Give us the lowdown -- of course with some evidence (since you like to throw around data) -- on you and your expertise. You may have a great deal of expertise; but I'd like to know what it is since you brought it into the conversation.
Let's examine those numbers and see if they're even plausible:
According to the following site, out of 100K people born, 88,799 will still be alive @ age 60, and 78,048 will make it to 70. That means 10,751 die during their 7th decade, or ~12% From ALL CAUSES. http://life-span.healthgrove.com/l/61/60
How is it then that 16% of all of them are supposed to die of only the MI/CVA dxs?
Start with false assumptions and you're doomed to arrive at false conclusions. The Mayo calculator goes over big at cocktail parties and is used by physicians who are more worried about lawyers than providing good care.
Re: absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs Relative risk reduction (RRR): a way to cheat with the numbers to make your unimpressive research result look impressive so you get more funding next time you apply for it. (No Problem = No Money)
Eg/ effectiveness of statins in secondary prevention of MI: RRR ~25% vs ARR ~2% [corresponds to the Needed to Treat Number of 45, ie you gotta treat 45 MI pts with a statin to prevent one extra second heart attack. BFD. Would a new antibiotic with a NTTN of 45 ever get licensed by the FDA?]
Back to the OT: number of people who develop oral/throat/lung ca and claim second hand smoke exposure-- ~10% of all such ca cases; number of people who develop oral/throat/lung ca and don't have hx/o 2nd hand smoke exposure ~10%
My opinions are based on 50 yrs of professional experience and I'm intimately aware of the sorry, unethical state of research funding competition in this country, so I'm skeptical of everything I read.
You need to reread what the risk calculator predicts: MI or stroke, not just fatal MI or stroke.
I suspect that preventing a second heart attack is a "BFD" to those who have already experienced one.
NNT (not NTTN) would not be applicable to an antibiotic, the efficacy of which depends mostly on the bacteria involved, not the patient. NNT also applies to prevention of an event. You could perhaps use it to determine, for example, how many people need to be treated with an antibiotic to prevent an infection, say one associated with surgery.
We now know that up to 70% of oral and throat cancers are related to HPV infection. Your information is way out of date. HPV plus smoking is worse as far as risk is concerned, though.
I suspect that preventing a second heart attack is a "BFD" to those who have already experienced one.
Not a valid argument: statistics never apply to the individual subject or event--> probability is represented by an area "under the curve" (such as bell-shaped curve). A single event/ single individual is only represented by a single point under the curve and has no area, ie-- zero probability. That's counter-intuitive, but a mathematical fact nonetheless.
NTT numbers can be computed for any tx, antibiotics included. Operational definition of end point merely needs to be defined and results tabulated.
Viral etiology of oral & throat cancer is a confounding factor, but those cancers are usually included in the studies on second hand smoke. Presumably, exposure rates to virus is equal among the smoker, shs exposure & no shs exposure groups are equal.
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.
, but..you are kind of proving your own point by pretending not to have sense.
