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.
(April 16) -- Americans living in cities with a public smoking ban can breathe easier today, as a new study out of Canada finds that the measure yields significant health benefits.
Anti-smoking laws were introduced in Canada in 2001. Since then, Toronto has seen hospital admissions for heart and respiratory problems drop by one-third, reports the study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
The study merely looked at the incidental data concerning hospital admissions relating to certain diseases which are assumed to be aggravated or caused by smoking in a few cities and localities with smoking bans and a few of those without.
The authors made no attempt to determine if any other things might account for the drop in admissions (such as cleaner air, changes in population, availability of health care, overall increase in general healthiness, season of the year, etc), nor did they establish a clear, scientifically replicable link between the two things.
In a court of law, their conclusions would be styled as circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.
Just more junk science from the anti-smoking crowd.
The study merely looked at the incidental data concerning hospital admissions relating to certain diseases which are assumed to be aggravated or caused by smoking in a few cities and localities with smoking bans and a few of those without.
The authors made no attempt to determine if any other things might account for the drop in admissions (such as cleaner air, changes in population, availability of health care, overall increase in general healthiness, season of the year, etc), nor did they establish a clear, scientifically replicable link between the two things.
In a court of law, their conclusions would be styled as circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.
Just more junk science from the anti-smoking crowd.
The study merely looked at the incidental data concerning hospital admissions relating to certain diseases which are assumed to be aggravated or caused by smoking in a few cities and localities with smoking bans and a few of those without.
The authors made no attempt to determine if any other things might account for the drop in admissions (such as cleaner air, changes in population, availability of health care, overall increase in general healthiness, season of the year, etc), nor did they establish a clear, scientifically replicable link between the two things.
In a court of law, their conclusions would be styled as circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.
Just more junk science from the anti-smoking crowd.
Did you look at the actual study??
The authors had control groups from the same province, Ontario, where there were no smoking bans....
That means they DID account for changes in population, cleaner air, availability of health care, "general healthiness (whatever that is supposed to mean)
The control groups and study groups were from the same general population, breathing the same air, same access to healthcare, same demographics....
Your analysis of the study is what is truly flawed.....
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.
