Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Sat May 30, 2020 3:16 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 389 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
[quote author=jimmie d link=board=general;num=1046955851;start=75#78 date=04/09/03 at 06:40:03][center]<br>[/center]<br>Mr. Nez, you've omitted your source,  Lee Nason, a New Bedford resident who wrote an opinion letter over two years ago, which was published in South Coast Today. Whoh! Now those are some credentials, huh? (sarcasm intended)[/quote]<br><br>Sarcasm and character bashing seem to be all your good at. I'm sorry I dont search for little cartoons to prove apoint that I am oterwise oblivious to. I guess cartoonist are considered good credentials to ::). <br>

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
The Who Study <br><br>The World Health Organization's study is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results. <br><br>Fact: The World Health Organization conducted a study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in Europe. <br><br>Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable. <br><br>Fact: This was a case control study using a large sample size. <br><br>Fact: The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer. <br><br>Fact: The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years. <br><br>Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. <br><br>Fact: Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers. <br><br>Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers. <br><br>Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers. <br><br>Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means <br><br>&#8226; Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%. <br>&#8226; Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116. <br><br><br>&#8226; The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.<br><br><br><br>Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant. <br><br>Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.) <br><br>Fact: The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure. See Epidemiology 102 for more information. <br><br>Fact: The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0. <br><br>Fact: The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47. <br><br>Fact: The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI. <br><br>The WHO quickly buried the report. The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks. <br><br>Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect." <br><br>Finally, the WHO issued a press release. Although their study showed no statistically significant risk from ETS, their press release had the misleading headline "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You." (I say "misleading" because it would be impolite to call it an outright lie.) <br><br>Fact: In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.) <br><br>Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer. <br><br>Fact: The WHO tried to blame the results on a small sample size. However, the in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision..." It should also be noted that a larger sample size wouldn't have changed the numbers significantly, just narrowed the CI a bit. <br><br>

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 1848
Location: usa
Regardless of who publishes what data, everyone's gonna believe whatever the fuck they want to believe.<br><br> :-/

_________________
This world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
[quote author=jimmie d link=board=general;num=1046955851;start=75#83 date=04/09/03 at 06:55:25]<br><br><br> one man's opinion, <br> should not be taken too seriously.[/quote]<br><br>Well JD I guess that suggests that I should'nt take your opinions about me to seriously either. <br>

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
Do dat meeen I gets an A in Yo' Class Proffesser :-X

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
Jimmy,<br>      When I asked you the question "when you were a smoker did you step outside of a bar to light up?"<br><br>You still have not answered me. You did reply that this was not about you. It was about my, how did you say, "pompous uncaring attitude toward my fellow man". And since then all I've read are posts dealing with spell checkers, cartoons and unidentified sources that you seem quit capable of finding on your own. So what's up? Are you going to reply or are you going to continue to bash everything I say. If you are then, yes it is about you also!!! You seem awlful reluctant to discuss your smoking years.<br><br>You seem to act like I go around blowing smoke in babies faces, trying to hurt my "fellow man" and "Throw butts out on the street for fun". This is not the case And I have said nothing to implie that I do such things. I said I love to smoke and dont care who likes it. I'm against non-smoking bars. But I'm not the type to walk into a non-smoking place and light up. I respect rules as well as other peoples oppinions and noses. Just because I said I dont care who likes it does not mean that I would smoke around someone who was unable to tolerate it. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble accepting this. I really dont know what else to say to you as long as you keep ignoring my questions and bashing me in every post you type on this thread. I'm so sorry if the spelling in this post is not to your liking. Like you said earlier about the pen that inked the constitution, You can take that spell checker and shove it up your ass.

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
[quote author=jimmie d link=board=general;num=1046955851;start=75#86 date=04/09/03 at 08:11:28][center]<br><br>contradictory sentiments[/center][/quote]<br><br>Only in your head. It makes perfect sense. maybe you should re-read them before you go passing judgement.<br>

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
I'm am now leaving this thread. It seems all your logic is based on finding faults in people. When presented with a direct question you seem to avoid it in anyway possible. usually by blasting the person who asked the question. The simple fact is that this discussion is futile and your analogies are just an attempt to hide your own hypocrysy on the issue.

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 1848
Location: usa
Step right up ladies and gentlemen. Place your bets.<br><br>Jimmie d  versus  eyebnez in the pissing match of the century. Who will outlast the other? <br><br>Place your bets now.

_________________
This world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 6677
Location: Québec country (let me dream...)
I'll go with jimmie d. Sorry, eyebnez...<br>Unless, of course, jimmie has some prostate problems ?  ;D

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed ! For a real diplomacy: abolish Electoral College
Ignore list: DiscoBoy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
[center]L ;DL[/center]

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:05 pm
Posts: 142
Location: UK
I dont and never have smoked but i do find it difficult to understand where this disscussion is going because in the end if you smoke you will believe one thing and if you dont you will take the opposite post. However there was a chap called Roy Castle who was an entertainer (quite famous in the uk) who had worked clubs and pubs for years before he made it big he never smoked in his life but was diagnosed with lung cancer and died from it,<br>when the autopsy was issued he was said to have the lungs of a 40 a day smoker due to 2nd hand smoke inhalation. <br><br>What do you make of that<br><br><br>myxy<br><br>

_________________
from the fifth dimension


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 10245
[center]Image[/center]

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NO SMOKING
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 6677
Location: Québec country (let me dream...)
Why wait ? The guy has found a way to get an instant cancer ! Progress can't be stopped.   ;D

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed ! For a real diplomacy: abolish Electoral College
Ignore list: DiscoBoy


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 389 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group