Skip to comments.
Smoking Kills
CNN.com ^
Posted on 09/15/2003 1:04:29 PM PDT by JesusSaves
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Smoking killed nearly five million people in 2000, accounting for almost equal numbers in the developed and developing nations and painting a bleak picture for the future, scientists have said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 261-278 next last
To: Sunshine Sister
Yeah, but do you have control over the drunk driver coming at you? Being alert and driving defensively helps reduce the risk.
How about the truck driver who loses control of his rig because he fell asleep at the wheel?
Being alert and driving defensively helps reduce th risk.
What about the guy who has a heart attack at the wheel?
Being alert and driving defensively helps reduce the risk.
What about lung cancer?
Not smoking reduces the risk!
161
posted on
07/02/2004 7:56:04 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: cinFLA
Ah key words. "Reduces the risk."
To: William Terrell
(from one of your links)
"As someone who gets short of breath climbing a flight of stairs in my apartment building, I in no way dispute the adverse physical effects associated with consistent tobacco use."
163
posted on
07/02/2004 8:00:19 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: Sunshine Sister
Ah key words. "Reduces the risk." Right. That is what life is all about, Risks. Reduce your risks and you will probably live longer, increaase your risks and you will probably die sooner.
Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer by about 20x. Not my cup of tea.
164
posted on
07/02/2004 8:06:24 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: cinFLA
Those are overall statistics. The set I posted were individual numbers with references.
165
posted on
07/02/2004 8:34:01 AM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: cinFLA
Pro-smoking agenda or not, the studies provide objective numbers, with sources and specifics. They just were willing to publish them, whereas an anti-smoking organization would not.
166
posted on
07/02/2004 8:36:38 AM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: cinFLA
Some, not a lot. The vast majority indicate less than statistically significant.
167
posted on
07/02/2004 8:39:17 AM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: cinFLA
"Reduces the risk" phrase only signifcant in context. Read the context. Risk factors below 3 are not statistically relevant, which means the risk link can't be established.
168
posted on
07/02/2004 8:43:05 AM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: William Terrell
"Reduces the risk" phrase only signifcant in context. Read the context. Risk factors below 3 are not statistically relevant, which means the risk link can't be established. I guess you consider a 30% increase in risk to be insignificant. Give me a 30% advantage in the stock market and I will be a billionaire in a year!
169
posted on
07/02/2004 9:43:09 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: William Terrell
Do your homework. With increasing numbers of studies the uncertainty decreases making it more statistically significant.
170
posted on
07/02/2004 9:44:36 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: Timesink
Smoking Kills? Tell that to George Burns. And President Reagan too, who lived to be 93.
To: MEGoody
Basically, that is where they start.
172
posted on
07/02/2004 9:49:14 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(Interests in common are commonly abused.)
To: SheLion
Is that really you in that pic? Hubba hubba....
To: cinFLA
Cigarette smoke contains enough CO to set off a CO monitor. Bravo sierra.
174
posted on
07/02/2004 9:52:21 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(I'm proud of being among the first of the NUTZ!!!!)
To: ServesURight
President Reagan gave up smoking. Duh ...
175
posted on
07/02/2004 9:53:29 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: William Terrell
"Reduces the risk" phrase only signifcant in context. Read the context. Risk factors below 3 are not statistically relevant, which means the risk link can't be established. You are correct - unfortunately the anti-smoker cartel refuses to acknowledge that FACT of epidemiology and statistics.
176
posted on
07/02/2004 9:55:54 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(I'm proud of being among the first of the NUTZ!!!!)
To: William Terrell
Risk factors below 3 are not statistically relevant, which means the risk link can't be established. A relative risk factor of 3 means that the event is 3 times more likely to occur. The difference between putting one bullet in a gun vs. three bullets. Would you consider it statistically relevant to have three vs. one bullets in a gun when playing russian roulette? I think most reasonable people would say there was.
177
posted on
07/02/2004 9:56:40 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: William Terrell
RR of lung cancer death from smoking
(zero to one pack per day)
178
posted on
07/02/2004 10:02:17 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: Gabz
You are correct - unfortunately the anti-smoker cartel refuses to acknowledge that FACT of epidemiology and statistics. If y'all are going to talk statistics, you should at least be correct. The size of the RR factor has NO impact on its statistical relevance. Please go do your homework.
179
posted on
07/02/2004 10:06:58 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: dirtboy
That's dihydrogen monoxide.
180
posted on
07/02/2004 10:07:19 AM PDT
by
ampat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 261-278 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson