Finally some good news!

[Sharon]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=smoking-lowers-parkinsons&chanId=sa003

Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk

Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have "normal" Parkinson's disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk.

The results of our study," Thacker said, "can probably be explained by something in cigarettes -- most likely in the tobacco itself -- actually protecting people against getting Parkinson's disease. That would be the simplest explanation that makes the most sense."

 

[cattitude]

 

[vraiblonde]

Good. Parkinson's would severely limit my internet activity.

 

[Sharon]

 

[cattitude]

I'm not a hypochondriac.

 

[PsyOps]

My dad smoked for decades. Although he has not been diagnosed with Parkinson's he suffers from severe tremors. He can't even scoop corn onto his fork and keep it there. He also has heart disease, with a triple bypass, valve repair, and heart reconstruction.

My aunt smoked for decades and she is now dying from lung cancer.

Just thought I'd insert that in there.

 

[vraiblonde]

My aunt smoked for decades and she is now dying from lung cancer.

My great-grandmother died of lung cancer and she never smoked a day in her life, nor was she ever even around smoking because of her allergies.

What's your point?

 

[Tinkerbell]

Good. Parkinson's would severely limit my internet activity.

But your posts would be very entertaining.


Oh, and Pete is off in another thread threatening to call the cops on you for smoking in the workplace. He figures you might since you have your own business, etc.

 

[Nanny Pam]

Smoking kills. This is a fact. It has destroyed so many aspects of my life, I can't list them all. No doubt about it.

Find something else to argue over....like our next President, or something.


Why don't ya'll go shopping to find my Coach knock-off purse that I love so much. Here's a friendly reminder....

 

[PsyOps]

My great-grandmother died of lung cancer and she never smoked a day in her life, nor was she ever even around smoking because of her allergies.

What's your point?

When Dana Reeve died of lung cancer it was all over the news about her not being a smoker. Doctors were coming out all over the place about how rare it is for a non-smoker to contract lung cancer.

Lung cancer rare in nonsmokers

In 1999, smoking was responsible for about 87 percent of cases of lung cancer -- 90 percent in men and 79 percent in women, according to estimates by the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

[Sharon]

Why don't ya'll go shopping

Because...

 

[vraiblonde]

In 1999, smoking was responsible for about 87 percent of cases of lung cancer -- 90 percent in men and 79 percent in women, according to estimates by the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So what? Automobiles are responsible for 100% of automobile accidents, but I don't see anyone trying to ban cars.

 

[PsyOps]

So what? Automobiles are responsible for 100% of automobile accidents, but I don't see anyone trying to ban cars.

I was simply trying to counter you implied claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer as indicated your intensive one-person study.

 

[PsyOps]

So what? Automobiles are responsible for 100% of automobile accidents, but I don't see anyone trying to ban cars.

And this isn't completely true either. A certain percentage can be caused by fallen objects and such... just to be completely honest here.

 

[ylexot]

I was simply trying to counter you implied claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer as indicated your intensive one-person study.

Actually, I think you strengthened her argument. I wouldn't consider 13% to be "rare".

 

[Nanny Pam]

Because...

What...:shrug: no ammo for the Glock?

 

[PsyOps]

Actually, I think you strengthened her argument. I wouldn't consider 13% to be "rare".

If you're trying to make the argument that your risk of getting lung cancer, as a smoker, is no better than if you were a non-smoker based on these percentages then I suggest you go back to math class. The stats are overwhelmingly against smokers.

The word “rare” can be argued just like the word “is” is… was. You know what I mean.

 

[ylexot]

If you're trying to make the argument that your risk of getting lung cancer, as a smoker, is no better than if you were a non-smoker based on these percentages then I suggest you go back to math class. The stats are overwhelmingly against smokers.

Where did I say anything even remotely close to that?

The word “rare” can be argued just like the word “is” is… was. You know what I mean.

My point is that 13% is a hell of a lot more than I would have guessed. Therefore, your actual statistics changed vrai's single data point (insignificant) into something significant. If you can't see that, maybe you should go back to math class.

BTW, if you really wanted to play statistics, you'd say that non-smokers have X% chance of getting lung cancer, ex-smokers have Y% chance (where Y would be larger than X), and smokers have Z% chance (where Z would be much larger than X).

Oh yeah, and I would consider rare to be less than 1%...and that's being generous.

 

[PsyOps]

Where did I say anything even remotely close to that?

My point is that 13% is a hell of a lot more than I would have guessed. Therefore, your actual statistics changed vrai's single data point (insignificant) into something significant. If you can't see that, maybe you should go back to math class.

BTW, if you really wanted to play statistics, you'd say that non-smokers have X% chance of getting lung cancer, ex-smokers have Y% chance (where Y would be larger than X), and smokers have Z% chance (where Z would be much larger than X).

Oh yeah, and I would consider rare to be less than 1%...and that's being generous.

First of all they're not my stats, they're the National Cancer Society's.

Second, I find, in a 1 for 1 match, 13% to be rare compared to 87%. If you were to only win 13% percent of time in whatever sport and you finally won, everyone would be saying ylexot got a rare win today.

Third, I provided the data, I didn't write it. If you don't like how it's worded take it up with them. The article talked about smokers v. non-smokers.

Lastly, you're putting too much thought into a simple statistic.

 

[ylexot]

Lastly, you're putting too much thought into a simple statistic.

I find it better to think about statistics than to blindly follow them.