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]
We talked about drugs and marijuana. He was obviously proud of the work Nancy was doing in fighting drug abuse. He spoke about the harm of marijuana and pointed out that we were finding emphysema in young marijuana smokers. He said that the Russians could have wiped out our country if they could have gotten a single generation of young people addicted to drugs and marijuana.
Reagan spoke for a time about the success of the efforts to eliminate marijuana use in the military services. Peer pressure was at work, he said, and our service men and women no longer wanted to entrust their own safety and their own lives to someone who might be stoned. So drug use was becoming unpopular for the young men and women in our armed forces--and, we hoped, to their contemporaries in the civilian world.
It was apparent that President Reagan hated smoking of all kinds. He told about his brother, who had been a two- or a three-pack-a-day smoker. One of his vocal cords had been surgically removed and he had also had triple-bypass heart surgery. The President felt this was a case where lifestyle made the difference between health and illness. Their genes were similar, but their lifestyles were quite different. The President himself never smoked anything but a pipe and he gave that up.
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id391.htm
No, it means that, at a risk factor of 3, you can begin to think there is a link, since a risk factor of 1 means there is no significance at all.
The statistical methods use say that "A Relative risk of 1.0 indicates no effect." "No" in this case means 0. 0x3=0. 
Actually it does...if the RR straddles parity (1.00) it is statistically insignificant
And since you are talking about being correct, please explain your comment that cigarettes emit enough CO to set off CO moniotrs.
GMTA!
Alaska is embedded in smoke. It might be clear or cloudy but we can't tell since the smoke is so thick. The city banned use of woodstoves, funny stuff.
A RR factor of 3 means that the event is found to be three times more likely.
Study A: It is found that when playing russan roulette with one bullet in a 6-shooter produces a 0.167 chance of being shot on the first pull.
Study B shows that with two bullets in a 6-shooter produces a 0.333 chance of being shot on the first pull.
RR Factor = 2.0 - Not statistically relevant.
Conclusion. Don't bother to check and see if your opponent has put an extra bullet in your gun.
The studies are indicated on the graph.
The concentration of CO in cigarette smoke is higher than the CO level set for CO monitor alarms.
If the RR straddles 1.0, then it indicates that the RR is 1.0. That means that there is no increased risk.
For example, a study shows that the RR of using an unloaded gun while playing RR shows a RR of 1.0 compared to the group that plays RR with a toy gun. That is statisically significant indication that there is no increased risk as long as the gun is unloaded.
Proof please.
I've had CO monitors in my homes for years........never once have any of them gone off.
Your gun analogy is mixing apples and oranges here.
If an RR straddles parity it does not mean the RR is 1.0 nor does it mean the is no increased risk, because it can also mean a decreased risk.
No
Please post your definiton, then.
When it comes to residential exposure, the guidelines are not quite as clear cut. Home CO detectors which have been listed by Underwriters Laboratories as Compliant with Standard 2034 for Residential CO Detectors are designed to go into alarm within 15 minutes when CO=400 PPM, within 35 minutes when CO=200 PPM, within 90 minutes when CO=100 PPM, and within 8 hours when CO=15 PPM.
http://www.brandtinst.com/biosystems/biobull/vol3iss4/coalarm.htm
200 - 300 ppm - Range of CO in exhaled (diluted) cigarette smoke (exceeds water heater limit!).
http://www.coheadquarters.com/ZerotoMillion1.htm
Abstract:
CO, NOx and metal content of cigarettes and their smoke were measured. CO concentration in the smoke was found to vary in the 1656–7920 ppm range.
http://www.fjokk.hu/cejoem/files/Volume8/Vol8No2-3/CE02_2-3-23.html
For comparison, undiluted cigarette smoke contains about 30,000 ppm of CO, undiluted warm car exhaust about 7,000 ppm, and the chimney of a home wood fire about 5,000 ppm.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/588.html
Carbon Monoxide
Symptoms of CO poisoning include impaired vision, headache and nausea. A concentration above 400 ppm produces coma and death. The effects depend on concentration, depth and rate of respiration, duration of exposure, and, to some extent, smoking habits. Cigarette smoking may subject the lungs to a CO concentration of about 475 ppm for 6 min per cigarette; heavy smokers may have significant impairment of night vision. Heavy exertion, especially at high air temperatures or high elevations will increase the effects of CO. Information on the combined effects of two or more gases is scarce, although there appears to be general agreement that effects are additive to some degree.
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd207e.html
Why?
If the RR straddels parity, the actually risk could be as high as 100 or greater!
Oh, so if the RRF is 10 then it is 0x10=0. No effect????? Boy, you are really losing it!
A smoker has already paid in advance.
Seriously, take the above to a local college statistics professor and see how loud he laughs.
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.