Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Smoking Ban

Smoking Ban at work Health

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 02:14 PM

Lin731, on Nov 1 2005, 06:44 PM, said:

Ummm...do my tax dollars go to The Feds and FEMA when these fairly obvious disasters occur? I'm thinking that's YES.

Since when are we talking about FEMA? We've been talking about insurance, so far. Please let me know when you switch gears like that.

Quote

Don't homeowners policies "pool" resourcea to cover flood areas for those who have flood insurance...Yes they do.

Homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods - haven't you ever seen those commercials? As far as "pool" resources, that's an interesting way to think about insurance companies!

Quote

Do I mind paying them? Not really places like LA are vital port regions. My main point being that we share the risks for each other.

And non-smokers don't share risks with smokers, yet we still have to pay for their actions!

Quote

This notion of singling out this group or that to "nail" IMO is assinine and can be applied in a thousand different ways to the point of distroying the social order for ALL of us

'scuse me while I go get a tissue.

Quote

It was my mothers death that my doctor asked the "was she a smoker" question and NO, he didn't ask anything else about her health history past that single question. He actually seemed semi-disappointed that he couldn't attribute her death in part to smoking.

Disappointed or just surprised? You say that it was your doctor. Was he also her doctor? Did he have access to her medical history? Maybe he didn't need to ask other questions. When each of my parents died, nobody asked if they were smokers, but maybe that was already apparent.

Quote

What is there to prove?

Um, your statements?

Quote

If you die from heart disease and you're a smoker, your death will become part of the stats for "smoking related illness/death".

So far, that's an unsupported assumption on your part. You haven't presented any methodology for the accumulation of statistics.

Quote

My point being that unless you do an autopsy on every smoker, the stats are based on the fact you smoke, not nessesarally on proof that the smoking was a contributing factor.

Rarely needed for a patient who has had lung cancer or long-term emphysema (a contradiction in terms, because real emphysema is seldom long-term).

Quote

If my mom had smoked, he'd have made the SAME unsupported claim based on that one factor.

Unless he actually said that to you, again, it's an unsupported assumption. You need to differentiate fact and opinion.

Quote

please back up your statement. Show me some proof. I'm from Missouri. Until then, it's only your opinion.

I did. Remember the statements I gave about my father's illness?

Quote

Already answered above, thank you.

Quote

Sorry but no you didn't.

*YAWN*. Actually, I did. Did you forget when I wrote:

Broph said:

Actually, it's a very fair comparison. What is health insurance - $3,000 or so a year? What do they charge extra for being a smoker? Let's just say $300 a year - 10%. So in 10 years they pay an extra $3,000. If they're at the job 40 years, that's an extra $12,000 over the course of 40 years.

When my father was hospitalized once for a smoking-related illness, the charge to the insurance company was over $16,000. That was above and beyond the $500 per month for oxygen ($6,000 per year) and $250 per month for medication. And that was just one hospitalization!

So yes, it is a completely fair comparison. Smokers may get charged more for insurance, but what they take out of the system is often far in excess of what they put in.

And when his COBRA insurance was cancelled because he signed up for Medicare B (which was illegal for the insurance company to do, but that's beside the point), guess how his medical payments were covered. You guessed it: Medicare and Medicaid!

Quote

Deaths-Leading Causes

So tell me again why my observations on other illnesses aren't germaine?

Thanks for the stats. I have absolutely no idea what your point of all that was.

http://www.lungcance...c_101_about.htm

Quote

More Americans die each year from lung cancer than from breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers combined.


  Approximately 172,570 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed in 2005, accounting for 13% of all new cancer cases.


  An estimated 163,510 Americans will die in 2005 from lung cancer, accounting for 28% of all cancer deaths.


  Annually, lung cancer kills more men than prostate cancer and more women than breast cancer.


  While overall cancer incidence rates are declining, lung cancer incidence rates among women continue to rise.


  Between 1960 and 1990, deaths from lung cancer among women increased by more than 400%.


  An estimated 79,560 women in the U.S. will die this year from lung cancer.


  An estimated 93,010 men in the U.S. will die this year from lung cancer.


  Lung cancer is the second most common cancer among African American men and women, and kills more African Americans than any other cancer.

85% of lung cancer-diagnosed patients will die within 5 years. 87% of lung cancer cases are smoking-related.

So just because a smoker dies before they're diagnosed with lung cancer, they shouldn't be considered as a smoking-related death?

#42 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 03:43 PM

Quote

Since when are we talking about FEMA? We've been talking about insurance, so far. Please let me know when you switch gears like that.


Point being that whether we pay more in premiums or in tax dollars spent via the Federal government...We are STILL ALL PAYING FOR IT.

Quote

Homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods - haven't you ever seen those commercials? As far as "pool" resources, that's an interesting way to think about insurance companies!


Again see above: WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR IT via the federal governments flood insurance programs, disaster relief, social services to victims of said disasters etc...

Quote

And non-smokers don't share risks with smokers, yet we still have to pay for their actions!


Yes you DO share risks, hundreds of them. I don't care if you smoke or NOT, YOUR personal behavior, lifestyle choices effect MY premiums TOO. As was pointed out earlier, whether it's diet, lack of execise, risky behaviors, salt intake, driving habits, drimking habits, where you live etc...We ALL effect each other on many, many levels. Levels that go above and beyond even "just" health insurance coverage.

Quote

'scuse me while I go get a tissue.


maybe a nap too since someone seems awfully grumpy. ;)


Quote

Disappointed or just surprised? You say that it was your doctor. Was he also her doctor? Did he have access to her medical history? Maybe he didn't need to ask other questions. When each of my parents died, nobody asked if they were smokers, but maybe that was already apparent.


MY doctor, not her doctor so no, he didn't have access to her medical history, just another person looking for an easy culprit to blame her death on (sound familar)?


Quote

Rarely needed for a patient who has had lung cancer or long-term emphysema (a contradiction in terms, because real emphysema is seldom long-term).


Really? That's funny, my dad's mother had emphysema...she wasn't a smoker either. My mom's mom died of cancer, never smoked.

Quote

So far, that's an unsupported assumption on your part. You haven't presented any methodology for the accumulation of statistics.


What do you think they base those stats on, throwing darts? But since you insist here ya go:

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5235a4.htm

Quote

Estimates of the prevalence of smoking-related conditions were obtained from the NHANES III survey for 1988--1994 for current, former, and never smokers for each demographic group to estimate the smoking-attributable fractions of morbid conditions. The smoking-related conditions for which data were collected are those categorized by the U.S. Surgeon General as caused by smoking (2) and addressed in NHANES III. Respondents reported whether a "doctor ever told" them if they had any of the following conditions: stroke, heart attack, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and specific cancer types, including lung, bladder, mouth/pharynx, esophagus, cervix, kidney, larynx, or pancreas. Smoking-attributable morbidity estimates were obtained in two ways. For one estimate, each person was considered as the unit of analysis, and persons with at least one smoking-related condition were counted as having a condition. For the second estimate, the condition was treated as the unit of analysis, so persons with multiple conditions were counted more than once. Estimates were derived separately for each condition, and the total of all conditions was summed.

The number of persons with a smoking-attributable morbid condition was estimated by state and demographic subpopulations from the following five steps: 1) BRFSS smoking status estimates by demographic group were applied to census data to estimate the number of current, former, and never smokers in each demographic group in each state; 2) NHANES III smoking-related disease frequency data were applied to the numbers from the first step to estimate the number of adults with a smoking-related condition; 3) attributable fractions for current and former smokers in each demographic group were multiplied by the number of persons with a smoking-related disease to yield an estimate of the number of persons with a disease that is attributable to smoking (attributable fraction = [disease prevalence rateexposed -- disease prevalence rateunexposed] / disease prevalence rateexposed); 4) the numbers obtained from the third step were summed across all demographic categories in each state to yield an estimate of persons with smoking-attributable conditions in each state; and 5) the numbers of smoking-attributable morbid conditions obtained in each state from step four were summed to yield an overall U.S. estimate. Survey design-adjusted variance estimates were calculated for each smoking and disease prevalence by using SUDAAN. The variance estimate for the attributable fraction was calculated by using standard methodology (3), and a joint 95% confidence interval (CI) was obtained for each attributable fraction by using Bonferroni's adjustment method (4).

In 2000, an estimated 8.6 million (95% CI = 6.9--10.5 million) persons in the United States had an estimated 12.7 million (95% CI = 10.8--15.0 million) smoking-attributable conditions. For current smokers, chronic bronchitis was the most prevalent (49%) condition, followed by emphysema (24%). For former smokers, the three most prevalent conditions were chronic bronchitis (26%), emphysema (24%), and previous heart attack (24%). Lung cancer accounted for 1% of all cigarette smoking-attributable illnesses

So basically they do alot of lumping in as "smoking related" illness. Which is a bit different from caused BY smoking. See the Cato article below.

http://www.forces.or...iles/marim2.htm

Quote

In determining risk ratios for smoking, the government assumes, as we wrote, that "if a smoker who is obese; has a family history of high cholesterol, diabetes, and heart problems; and never exercises dies of a heart attack," his death is associated with smoking alone. To be sure, when the ratios are converted to attributable percentages, the resultant death count includes only the excess above the background rate in the nonsmoking population. Still, the entire excess is presumed to be smoking-related. Yet many of the persons counted would have died from the same disease because of other risk factors, even if they had not smoked.

At the outset, consider what he does not say. Eriksen does not say that "smoking" causes premature deaths. Rather, they are caused by "smoking-related diseases" -- a subtle enlargement that covers not just people who died because they smoked, but also people who died from, say, a heart attack, whether or not they smoked. Was that distinction intended to mislead? We do not know. But we surely know that every tobacco-related pronouncement coming from CDC must be meticulously parsed.

In our Regulation article we demonstrated that CDC ignores National Cancer Institute guidelines when it designates diseases as smoking-related. By improperly including diseases that have no significant relationship with smoking, CDC overstates its death count by 65 percent. Eriksen offers not a single word to rebut that criticism. On that count alone, even if we were to accept each other objection he raises, CDC's estimate of the destructive impact of cigarettes is simply not credible.

Next, Eriksen dissents over what constitutes a "premature" death. Using CDC's own data, we showed -- indeed, it is the central thrust of our article -- that young people do not die of tobacco-related diseases. Cigarettes do not kill anyone below the age of 35. Roughly 255,000 of the so-called smoking-related deaths -- nearly 60 percent of the total -- occurred at age 70 or above. And 72,000 deaths -- almost 17 percent of the total -- occurred at 85 or above. Notably, Eriksen does not dispute those numbers. Nor could he, since they were extracted from a report that his agency provided. Instead, he volunteers these statistics: "Smokers are three times more likely to die between the ages of 45 and 64 and two times more likely to die between the ages of 65 and 84 than those who have never smoked."

[/b]No one denies that smokers have a higher mortality rate than nonsmokers. The question is how much of the difference is due to smoking, and how much to such confounding factors as low income, less exercise, more alcohol consumed, poorer nutrition, and greater exposure to other carcinogens and infections. Eriksen says that "controlling for other risk factors" has a trivial effect on the death count. Regrettably, he does not refer to any peer-reviewed studies that reach that conclusion, nor does he indicate what other risk factors were controlled for.[/b] The Battelle report, prepared for CDC but not peer reviewed, did not control for diet, exercise, income, or occupational exposure. By comparison, the Sterling study, which we cite, was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology; it found that smoking-attributable death counts declined by 55 percent after simultaneous adjustments for alcohol consumption and income.


Quote

*YAWN*. Actually, I did. Did you forget when I wrote:


*larger yawn* and your personal experience is statistically valid HOW? Heck my neck surgery cost more than that. Not to mention everything you cited was simply your own guess-timates. So again, you backed up NOTHING.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#43 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 05:14 PM

Lin731, on Nov 1 2005, 08:43 PM, said:

Point being that whether we pay more in premiums or in tax dollars spent via the Federal government...We are STILL ALL PAYING FOR IT.

Apples and oranges.

Quote

Yes you DO share risks, hundreds of them.

I don't share the risks associated with smoking. I didn't think I had to spell that one out. If you take a specific risk, you pay a higher premium. Race car drivers pay higher life insurance premiums than accountants.

Quote

maybe a nap too since someone seems awfully grumpy. ;)

Refer to the terms and conditions, please. That's an uncalled-for personal attack. You can comment on what I said, but a comment on me personally is uncalled-for.

Quote

MY doctor, not her doctor so no, he didn't have access to her medical history, just another person looking for an easy culprit to blame her death on (sound familar)?

Did he know her? If he was filling out forms and reporting on her death, it sounds like he had access to her medical records.

Quote

Really? That's funny, my dad's mother had emphysema...she wasn't a smoker either. My mom's mom died of cancer, never smoked.

Was your father's father a smoker? What kind of cancer did your mother's mother have?

Quote

What do you think they base those stats on, throwing darts? But since you insist here ya go:

So it was a little more complicated than just your doctor saying "he was a smoker" (i.e. throwing darts)? That's what I thought. The methodology doesn't support your assessment.

Quote

So basically they do alot of lumping in as "smoking related" illness. Which is a bit different from caused BY smoking. See the Cato article below.

Um, it's a little more complicated than that.

Quote

[url=http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/marim2.htm]

OK, hold the boat! forces.org? You actually expect me to take something from that site seriously? It's a pro-smoking lobby site? I wouldn't be surprised if big tobacco funded the site! They ignore anything negative about smoking and try to pretend that smoking is as healthy as eating vegetables (find the page on the site where they tell you how much nicotine is in tomatoes!).

You'll have to try harder for a reputable source. Sorry. I especially love how they say that one study wasn't "peer reviewed". They'll go on and on about the EPA study that was invalidated by a judge based on methodology (the judge was a former tobacco lawyer) but they'll ignore the fact that the study was peer-reviewed and universally accepted. But here they condemn a study for not being peer-reviewed. Talk about picking and choosing what to report. Chuckle!

Quote

*larger yawn* and your personal experience is statistically valid HOW?

Um, it's as valid as your assumptions about how your doctor was going to use the smoker/nonsmoker information for your mother. I can cite dollars and cents for a specific individual to put things into perspective.

Quote

Heck my neck surgery cost more than that. Not to mention everything you cited was simply your own guess-timates. So again, you backed up NOTHING.

Um, no; I saw the bills from the hospital. I was the one who handled the bookkeeping when my father got ill, so once again you have assumed incorrectly. So far, everything that I've stated has been true and backed up. I can't say as much about your assumptions and innuendo.

Edited by Broph, 01 November 2005 - 05:15 PM.


#44 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 06:46 PM

Quote

Apples and oranges.

and the BOTH cost "green" Doesn't matter what entity spends your money, it's gone either way.

Quote

I don't share the risks associated with smoking. I didn't think I had to spell that one out. If you take a specific risk, you pay a higher premium. Race car drivers pay higher life insurance premiums than accountants.

See this is my problem with the associated risks argument...Too many diseases are "associated" risks that are lumped in that may have had ZERO to do with that persons "related" illness...As to specific risks and premiums...Do we have higher premiums for salt intake, lack of exercise, poor diet etc....? Given that 3 of the top killers are associated DIRECTLY to THOSE issues, than under your view there SHOULD be and given that disability claims for those conditions are likewise HUGE...Fair is fair right?

Quote

Refer to the terms and conditions, please. That's an uncalled-for personal attack. You can comment on what I said, but a comment on me personally is uncalled-for.

Refer to them yourself Broph, given that your "yawn"  and "tissue" comments (which led to my response)  falls into the dismissive section of the guidelines. Would you like said proffered tissue back?

Quote

Did he know her? If he was filling out forms and reporting on her death, it sounds like he had access to her medical records.

No it just came up when I was in to see him for a flu shot.

Quote

Was your father's father a smoker? What kind of cancer did your mother's mother have?

Yep grandpa smoked, not that it matters given that he left when my dad was just a boy. Funny that you demonstrated my point by asking the smoking question while not asking anything else about his history. Grandpa just past away this year btw... at 92. As to my grandma, she died from breast cancer that spread.

Quote

So it was a little more complicated than just your doctor saying "he was a smoker" (i.e. throwing darts)? That's what I thought. The methodology doesn't support your assessment.

That makes NO sense at all given the context of my "throwing darts" comments were in regard to your calling for proof of how those "smoking related illness" estimates are arrived at. The methodology that you claim proves your point really doesn't. It actually points to how much of those estimates are presumptious and how much of these "smoking related illnesses" DON'T take into account a myriad of OTHER more pertinent factors involved in the illnesses in question.

Quote

OK, hold the boat! forces.org? You actually expect me to take something from that site seriously? It's a pro-smoking lobby site? I wouldn't be surprised if big tobacco funded the site! They ignore anything negative about smoking and try to pretend that smoking is as healthy as eating vegetables (find the page on the site where they tell you how much nicotine is in tomatoes!).

You'll have to try harder for a reputable source. Sorry. I especially love how they say that one study wasn't "peer reviewed". They'll go on and on about the EPA study that was invalidated by a judge based on methodology (the judge was a former tobacco lawyer) but they'll ignore the fact that the study was peer-reviewed and universally accepted. But here they condemn a study for not being peer-reviewed. Talk about picking and choosing what to report. Chuckle!

I used that one given that the article was from the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies:

Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Personally I don't care what group USES the information, I could see your point if the site also produced it but I don't consider it "tainted" merely because they reference an article that agreed with their position.

Quote

Um, it's as valid as your assumptions about how your doctor was going to use the smoker/nonsmoker information for your mother. I can cite dollars and cents for a specific individual to put things into perspective.

Ummm I'm not MR. Missouri requiring proof from others for their claims while trying to pass off PERSONAL experience as "proof" for your position. I've known my doctor since I was 10 years old, so at 43 I'd say I know him pretty darned well. He's a former smoking himself and a constant nag to any smoker about quiting. So it wasn't exactly a stretch as far as assumptions went. That got me looking at the CDC methodology and the fact that they make MANY assumptions, link many diseases to smoking that they don't verify as actually being serious factors in those diseases, while tending to ignore more obvious PRIMARY causes. I'm not claiming smoking is a good habit, I'm claiming it's become a catch all in many instances where it shouldn't be. You mentioned medicaid and Medicare to me in terms of expenses related to smokers but did you list a link, cite any data? NO, you didn't. THAT was why I pointed out the lack of validity in your reply. Don't ask for facts, links etc...from others while offering none to back your own assertions.

Quote

Um, no; I saw the bills from the hospital. I was the one who handled the bookkeeping when my father got ill, so once again you have assumed incorrectly. So far, everything that I've stated has been true and backed up. I can't say as much about your assumptions and innuendo.

And once again you missed the point...I'm not disputing what your dads expenses were, I'm disputing you using your SINGLE experience as some type of overall proof of what anyone elses illnesses, hospitalizations, premiums etc...cost. I've seen nothing from you comparing costs from lung cancer as opposed to say heart disease, stroke, diabetes etc...I've seen you assert things minus any evidence. I noted that your scorned my source above but at least I bothered to find some source information. As far as "assumptions and innuendo" goes...there wasn't any innuendo or assumption at this end but apparently there was at your end.

Edited by Lin731, 01 November 2005 - 06:56 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#45 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 08:01 PM

Quote

and the BOTH cost "green" Doesn't matter what entity spends your money, it's gone either way.

Nope. Still apples and oranges. Insurance companies can point to statistics and show why they're charging you more. Also, insurance companies are out to make a profit; it's not a question of them "spending" your money; they're trying to keep it!

Quote

See this is my problem with the associated risks argument...Too many diseases are "associated" risks that are lumped in that may have had ZERO to do with that persons "related" illness...

I listened to my parents hack and wheeze for 40 years. I know what was and wasn't related to their smoking. When friends with non-smoking parents would stay over they'd ask if such sounds were normal.

Quote

As to specific risks and premiums...Do we have higher premiums for salt intake, lack of exercise, poor diet etc....? Given that 3 of the top killers are associated DIRECTLY to THOSE issues, than under your view there SHOULD be and given that disability claims for those conditions are likewise HUGE...Fair is fair right?

I notice that you're somewhat vague on what the "top killers" are. You don't even say that they're the top 3 killers; just that they're 3 killers that are "near" the top. What's the leading preventable cause of early death? You've got it - smoking. Sure, salt intake can lead to high blood pressure, but so can other things. Lack of exercise may not be good, but there aren't studies that show exactly how much is "enough". As far as bad diet goes, it's not like you can hook yourself up to a machine to tell you if it's really right. With all the diets out there, who knows what the "best" diet is?

However, we can pretty much all agree that smoking kills.

Quote

Refer to them yourself Broph, given that your "yawn"  and "tissue" comments (which led to my response)  falls into the dismissive section of the guidelines. Would you like said proffered tissue back?

I didn't proffer a tissue. I said "let me get a tissue" as in "I think I'm going to cry"; not that you were crying. I didn't say "let me get YOU a tissue". See, I made a distinction that you failed to notice. I never stepped over a line. You did. Yawn simply means that I'm tired of a response that was uncalled-for. I commented on what you said; not who you are.

Quote

No it just came up when I was in to see him for a flu shot.

OK; then what did you think was going to be the result if the answer was "yes"? Do you think he would instantly be on the phone to the CDC confirming that her death was related to smoking?! When you first mentioned it, you made it sound like he was filling out the death certificate or something.

Quote

Yep grandpa smoked, not that it matters given that he left when my dad was just a boy. Funny that you demonstrated my point by asking the smoking question while not asking anything else about his history.

He left when your dad was a boy, but you don't mention how long they lived together before he left. Living with a smoker can easily lead to emphysema.

Quote

Grandpa just past away this year btw... at 92. As to my grandma, she died from breast cancer that spread.

Just as I thought. By putting in the fact that she never smoked, it sounded like you were suggesting that she had lung cancer, since it was in a direct reply to my statement about lung cancer. Almost as if you were suggesting that people blamed all types of cancer on smoking. Interesting.

Quote

That makes NO sense at all given the context of my "throwing darts" comments were in regard to your calling for proof of how those "smoking related illness" estimates are arrived at. The methodology that you claim proves your point really doesn't.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. You claimed that they were "throwing darts". Your listed methodology clearly proves that they are not. It supports what I said; not what you said.

Quote

It actually points to how much of those estimates are presumptious and how much of these "smoking related illnesses" DON'T take into account a myriad of OTHER more pertinent factors involved in the illnesses in question.

Um, that's because it has been statistically proven that the preponderance of examples of those illnesses occur primarily in smokers! Compare the people who get the diseases who are smokers with those who are non-smokers and wow; it turns out that the diseases are smoking-related! And when the person dies from that disease, then they've died from a smoking-related disease!

Quote

Personally I don't care what group USES the information, I could see your point if the site also produced it but I don't consider it "tainted" merely because they reference an article that agreed with their position.

You should because they give an incredibly slanted view of the situation. They'll tell you any statistic that fails to prove anything bad about smoking, but they'll hide anything that actually supports the truth. They won't tell you that 3/4 of the studies that failed to find problems with smoking were funded by Big Tobacco. Gee; I wonder why they do that.

Your source is always as important as the information you provide.

Quote

Ummm I'm not MR. Missouri requiring proof from others for their claims while trying to pass off PERSONAL experience as "proof" for your position.

You want copies of his hospital bills? I've got 'em in a box about 3 feet away from me. You want copies of my parents' death certificates? I got those already in the PC! I can back up anything I've said.

BTW, I notice that you say you're not Mr. Missouri, yet at the end of the post, you take me to task for not offering links first. Tsk, tsk, tsk!

Quote

I've known my doctor since I was 10 years old, so at 43 I'd say I know him pretty darned well. He's a former smoking himself and a constant nag to any smoker about quiting. So it wasn't exactly a stretch as far as assumptions went. That got me looking at the CDC methodology and the fact that they make MANY assumptions, link many diseases to smoking that they don't verify as actually being serious factors in those diseases, while tending to ignore more obvious PRIMARY causes.

Exactly. You'd rather rely on your anecdotal evidence of the kindly country doctor rather than trust the CDC and their decades of experience in studying diseases. At this point, it's not an assumption that smoking causes those diseases. It's a given. Do you want them to prove that 1 + 1 = 2?

Quote

You mentioned medicaid and Medicare to me in terms of expenses related to smokers but did you list a link, cite any data? NO, you didn't. THAT was why I pointed out the lack of validity in your reply.

It's common sense. Smoking takes years to create diseases. Many people who develop these diseases have retired. They're not on regular insurance programs; they're on Medicare. But if you want some proof, here you go

http://www.google.co...ing&btnG=Search

Quote

Don't ask for facts, links etc...from others while offering none to back your own assertions.

I don't usually link to common sense, but all you had to do was ask. I asked for links from you because what you were saying wasn't really the truth. What you linked to still doesn't support your position, unless you want to include the propaganda page.

Quote

And once again you missed the point...I'm not disputing what your dads expenses were, I'm disputing you using your SINGLE experience as some type of overall proof of what anyone elses illnesses, hospitalizations, premiums etc...cost.

Um, all I did was demonstrate (quite clearly, I thought) that a single hospitalization cost the insurance company far more than any extra that he paid into the system for having been a smoker. Did you miss the point?

BTW, you yourself gave the single example of your father dying as an example of a conspiracy to label all smokers who die as having died of smoking.

Quote

I've seen nothing from you comparing costs from lung cancer as opposed to say heart disease, stroke, diabetes etc...

Those diseases aren't the topic of conversation. Why would I discuss those?

Quote

I've seen you assert things minus any evidence.

It's all out there.

Quote

I noted that your scorned my source above but at least I bothered to find some source information.

And your source should be scorned. It's a ridiculous source for "information". Most of the people who try to pass off information are smokers who are just trying to justify their position. Oh, wait a minute...

#46 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 08:44 PM

Moderator stepping in...

Lin, Broph, both of you are edging very close to guideline violations. I'd suggest that both of you step away and calm down.  You are both getting way too personal and I want that to stop.

If it does not there will be official action taken.

Edited by Shalamar, 01 November 2005 - 08:45 PM.

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#47 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 01:08 AM

Kosh, on Nov 1 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

You would never get to court. You can raise heck if you want, but no laws have been broken. There is no right to smoke and never has been. In most cases, an employer doesn't need much of a reason to fire someone. It's tougher if there is a Union, but if it is company policy, then it's going to be in the contract as well. Some Unions pay the insurance for it's members, so they will be doing the same thing before long. I have Civil Service. They can't fire us easily, but we are paying more for insurance if we smoke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I probably wouldn't. I WOULD see a lawyer though...to see if I could sue for discrimination though. I seriously doubt I'd lie and try and sue. If I couldn't sue...well there is always that nice old thing called "Boycott".

And sorry to hear about your friend...My condolences.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#48 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:36 AM

Quote

Nope. Still apples and oranges. Insurance companies can point to statistics and show why they're charging you more. Also, insurance companies are out to make a profit; it's not a question of them "spending" your money; they're trying to keep it!


And I STILL disagree. If money is coming out of my pocket it doesn't matter to me whether it's insurance or tax dollars to the Feds, it's STILL GONE. I'm sure insurance campanies can justify their expenses in any number of ways and I'm equally certain that any number of watchdog groups NOT affiliated with them can refute a great many of those asserted expenses. I have nothing against insurance companies making a profit, I AM however against the insurance companies making excessive profits. To my mind there's reasonable profit taking and then there's greed. In the medical industry there appears to be alot of the latter going on.

Quote

I listened to my parents hack and wheeze for 40 years. I know what was and wasn't related to their smoking. When friends with non-smoking parents would stay over they'd ask if such sounds were normal.


And here again, that is your personal experience, just as my personal experience is entirely opposite and just as valid. According to CDC criteria my dad's death will go into the "smoking related" illness category when it really had little to no bearing on what actually caused his death. The cause of his death was refusing to properly deal with his diet, lack of exercise, drinking, poor management of his high blood pressure and because of THAT diabetes and eventually a stroke followed by a massive heart attack. Yes he smoked but that isn't what killed him, it isn't even marginally close to the main cause of death but it will become part of the CDC stats for "smoking related illness/mortality".  My doctors question regarding whether my mom smoked or not was a great example of that mentality. He never asked not one other question BUT that one and if she had been a smoker, she'd have gone into the "smoking related illness/mortality" cateogry right along with my dad and it would have been every bit as invalid as a cause of illness or death.


Quote

I notice that you're somewhat vague on what the "top killers" are. You don't even say that they're the top 3 killers; just that they're 3 killers that are "near" the top. What's the leading preventable cause of early death? You've got it - smoking. Sure, salt intake can lead to high blood pressure, but so can other things. Lack of exercise may not be good, but there aren't studies that show exactly how much is "enough". As far as bad diet goes, it's not like you can hook yourself up to a machine to tell you if it's really right. With all the diets out there, who knows what the "best" diet is?


I think you need to go back and reread my posts Broph, better yet:

Quote

Heart Disease: 696,947

Cancer: 557,271

Stroke: 162,672

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742

Diabetes: 73,249

Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681

Alzheimer's disease: 58,866

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974

Septicemia: 33,865


There is nothing the least bit "vague" about the lists or the deaths related to each one, they're listed in order of magnitude and give the number of deaths attributed to each and I was the one providing the stats, so if I were attempting to be "vague" I'd do a much better job than providing you with the numbers. Of the top 3, only cancer really belongs in the "smoking related category" and even in THAT category I honestly beleive only cancers directly attributed to smoking (aka like lung cancer) should be included there. In fact 4 of the diseases on the list are actually far more related to poor diet, lack of exercise than anything else, those being Heart disease, stroke, diabetes and parts of the Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis category (as parts relate to renal failure brought on by diabetes).

I think we can also agree that poor diet, lack of exercise, poor management of high blood pressure etc...also kills.

Quote

I didn't proffer a tissue. I said "let me get a tissue" as in "I think I'm going to cry"; not that you were crying. I didn't say "let me get YOU a tissue". See, I made a distinction that you failed to notice. I never stepped over a line. You did. Yawn simply means that I'm tired of a response that was uncalled-for. I commented on what you said; not who you are.


Explain it away however you like Broph, IMO, it was dismissive, which prompted the response you recieved from me. There was NOTHING "uncalled for" in what I wrote that remotely prompted the "yawn. Go back and read it Broph, all I said was "No you didn't" aka...back up your assertions because you really didn't. There was nothing statistical to your contentions, just your single, personal experience which can't be used to validate a broad brushed picture of the entire situation.

Quote

He left when your dad was a boy, but you don't mention how long they lived together before he left. Living with a smoker can easily lead to emphysema.


He left when my dad was 10 but he'd not been living at home for about a year and a half before that. BTW...my dad didn't have emphysema nor did my grandfather. My grandfather had a huge farm down in Kentucky that he ran (and worked daily until the age of 84). Grandpa simply died of old age.

Quote

Just as I thought. By putting in the fact that she never smoked, it sounded like you were suggesting that she had lung cancer, since it was in a direct reply to my statement about lung cancer. Almost as if you were suggesting that people blamed all types of cancer on smoking. Interesting.


I mentioned that she never smoked, not to mislead but to point out that if she HAD smoked, under CDC criteria, she'd have gone in the "smoking related illness" category too and it would have been totally invalid. You can get cancers of all sorts that have zero to do with smoking but they end up lumped into that cateogry none the less.

Quote

Actually, it makes perfect sense. You claimed that they were "throwing darts". Your listed methodology clearly proves that they are not. It supports what I said; not what you said.


Broph, I guess I should have put in the  :sarcasm:  when I said that. I had said that "smoking related illness" was becoming a scapegoat/catch-all for labeling everything under the sun into the "smoking related illness/mortality" column. You pressed me for methodology, so I basically said "how do you think they come up with those stats, throw darts"? MY way of saying that of course there was methodology to it and part of that methodology was a flawed lumping together of many diseases into the "smoking related illness" category that may have had zero to very little causality involved in including it. You questioned the assertion that lumping in these diseases into "smoking related" with little to truly verify they had any serious role in those diseases was happening (at least that's how it came acrossed to ME), so I posted the CDC methodology so you could see that YES, they DO include ALOT of diseases that's MAIN cause had nothing or very little to do with the fact that the person smoked and yet this was lumped into the smoking related category skewing the numbers and the costs in such a way that was disproportionate to their REAL impact on the illness.

Quote

Um, that's because it has been statistically proven that the preponderance of examples of those illnesses occur primarily in smokers! Compare the people who get the diseases who are smokers with those who are non-smokers and wow; it turns out that the diseases are smoking-related! And when the person dies from that disease, then they've died from a smoking-related disease!


Statistics are only as valid as the criteria used to compile them, hense my point from the start of this...The criteria is flawed, has always been flawed. You can generate statistics to support just about anything when you make up the criteria and assumptions used at the basis for them.

Quote

You should because they give an incredibly slanted view of the situation. They'll tell you any statistic that fails to prove anything bad about smoking, but they'll hide anything that actually supports the truth. They won't tell you that 3/4 of the studies that failed to find problems with smoking were funded by Big Tobacco. Gee; I wonder why they do that.


As I said before, "big Tobacco" didn't create that article nor did the website that displays it, the CATO Institute did. THEY are the source, not the tobacco industry or the website that displayed the article. So as I said, the site that displayed the article is not an issue, it would be had THEY produced it, they didn't, the CATO Institute did.

Quote

I don't usually link to common sense, but all you had to do was ask. I asked for links from you because what you were saying wasn't really the truth. What you linked to still doesn't support your position, unless you want to include the propaganda page.


Again you accuse and insult me and yes, the CDC site does support the contention that they include many diseases as "smoking related" simply based on the fact that the person smoked. Under their criteria you could make the same case for TV...Well X amount of the people with X diseases were TV viewers. X number of people with X diseases were NOT TV viewers. Okay let's take all the X number of diseases for TV viewers and anything over the number of non tv viewers with that disease, we'll claim are all TV related diseases or fatalities.

Quote

And your source should be scorned. It's a ridiculous source for "information". Most of the people who try to pass off information are smokers who are just trying to justify their position. Oh, wait a minute...


Clearly you are very emotional about this issue. I am sorry about your father Broph, I really am but all the ills of the world aren't smoking related. So scorn away at the Cato Institute if you like.

Quote

Lin, Broph, both of you are edging very close to guideline violations. I'd suggest that both of you step away and calm down. You are both getting way too personal and I want that to stop.


Shal, I agree, we're ticking each other off and so this will be my last post on the topic, my apologies for any real or precieved snarkiness on my part.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#49 mjtian

mjtian
  • Islander
  • 897 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:58 AM

Quote

Of the top 3, only cancer really belongs in the "smoking related category" and even in THAT category I honestly beleive only cancers directly attributed to smoking (aka like lung cancer) should be included there.

From a medical perspective, I have to disagree with you Lin.  Heart Disease is related to stroke and both are related to SMOKING.  The reason as I have stated earlier, smoking is related to many health issues.  It causes premature hardening of the blood vessles which is related to heart disease.  It also has hundreds of carcinogens in the ingredients, including asbestos.  Granted the levels are low in each cig, but over time it will cause devastating problems.  Respiatory diseases such as pneumonia, asthma, infections are also related.  So as oral cancer, throat cancer etc etc etc.  


mjtian
"I have missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26 occasions I have been entrusted to take the game winning shot... and missed. And I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why... I succeed" -Michael Jordan

#50 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 12:09 PM

Quote

From a medical perspective, I have to disagree with you Lin. Heart Disease is related to stroke and both are related to SMOKING. The reason as I have stated earlier, smoking is related to many health issues. It causes premature hardening of the blood vessles which is related to heart disease. It also has hundreds of carcinogens in the ingredients, including asbestos. Granted the levels are low in each cig, but over time it will cause devastating problems. Respiatory diseases such as pneumonia, asthma, infections are also related. So as oral cancer, throat cancer etc etc etc.


Related yes but what I'm asking is do we know that if they hadn't smoked, they wouldn't have had those diseases? I have NO problem with the concept that smoking is bad for your health and can contribute to increasing the risks associated with certain illnesses. I simply question the accuracy of the stats being used. If my dad hadn't smoked, would he still have had a fatal heart attack...YES he would. His smoking didn't help matters but it was not the MAIN reason he died. I just question the overall accuracy of the criteria being used here, that's all.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#51 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 01:01 PM

I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I must.

Quote

And I STILL disagree. If money is coming out of my pocket it doesn't matter to me whether it's insurance or tax dollars to the Feds, it's STILL GONE.

I addressed what you said, which was how they spent the money; not how they took it away from you.

Quote

I AM however against the insurance companies making excessive profits.

And when it comes to smokers, they lose money; they don't make a profit.

Quote

To my mind there's reasonable profit taking and then there's greed. In the medical industry there appears to be alot of the latter going on.

The medical industry or the insurance industry?! Have you followed the medical industry lately? Hospitals close left and right these days. A friend broke his wrist and was told that he had to go 20 miles to another hospital for a cast. Do you know how many hospitals he passed on the way?

Quote

And here again, that is your personal experience, just as my personal experience is entirely opposite and just as valid. According to CDC criteria my dad's death will go into the "smoking related" illness category when it really had little to no bearing on what actually caused his death.

Again, you're making assumptions. You don't really know what caused his stroke and heart attack, right? I have no idea how much he smoked, but if he was a regular smoker, chances are the smoking had a great deal to do with it. Smoking would have ruined his lungs so oxygen exchange would have been diminished. The arteries around his heart would have hardened, making the pumping of blood harder.

Quote

My doctors question regarding whether my mom smoked or not was a great example of that mentality. He never asked not one other question BUT that one and if she had been a smoker, she'd have gone into the "smoking related illness/mortality" cateogry right along with my dad and it would have been every bit as invalid as a cause of illness or death.

Again, you're making wild assumptions. Maybe he was doing a paper on smoking. Maybe he was just curious. You again say that he would be putting her in a "category", but he's not the one compiling the statistics.

Quote

I think you need to go back and reread my posts Broph, better yet:

SIGH. OK, from the top. Here is exactly what you wrote: "Do we have higher premiums for salt intake, lack of exercise, poor diet etc....? Given that 3 of the top killers are associated DIRECTLY to THOSE issues, than under your view there SHOULD be and given that disability claims for those conditions are likewise HUGE...Fair is fair right?" You never actually say which of the 3 diseases on your list of 10 you're talking about!

I have no idea if you're talking about heart disease, stroke, respiratory, diabetes, pneumonia, or the others. Why do you specify 3 diseases, but never actually tell us what those 3 diseases are?!

I, on the other hand, can link smoking to several of your top 10: Heart Disease, Cancer (including the #1 cancer killer!), Stroke, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Flu/Pneumonia (tar in the lungs tends to exacerbate the collection of fluids in the lung).

Quote

Of the top 3, only cancer really belongs in the "smoking related category" and even in THAT category I honestly beleive only cancers directly attributed to smoking (aka like lung cancer) should be included there.

LOL! You're completely forgetting the others! My father died of a heart attack, not cancer. He was hooked up to oxygen and he was GASPING for his last breaths. I know. I was there with him when he died. His lungs were probably like styrofoam. His heart was probably pounding, trying to get what little oxygen was going through from his lungs to the bloodstream.

Saying that cancer is the only smoking-related disease is a symptom of the ostrich syndrome.

Quote

I think we can also agree that poor diet, lack of exercise, poor management of high blood pressure etc...also kills.

It all depends on degrees. However, smoking regularly kills for sure.

Quote

Explain it away however you like Broph, IMO, it was dismissive, which prompted the response you recieved from me.

Hey, I've kept things civil. You haven't.

Quote

There was nothing statistical to your contentions, just your single, personal experience which can't be used to validate a broad brushed picture of the entire situation.

I didn't think that I had to back up what I consider to be common knowledge with links. When you present these wild ideas, I will certainly ask you to back them up.

Quote

He left when my dad was 10 but he'd not been living at home for about a year and a half before that.

OK, again, you're evading my question. You still haven't said how long they were living together when he left. Not your father; your grandmother. Did she remarry? Did she remarry a smoker?

Quote

BTW...my dad didn't have emphysema nor did my grandfather. My grandfather had a huge farm down in Kentucky that he ran (and worked daily until the age of 84). Grandpa simply died of old age.

Just because he wasn't diagnosed with emphysema doesn't mean that he didn't have it. Just because he didn't need oxygen on a daily basis doesn't mean that his lungs hadn't lost their elasticity and worked harder for the work they had to do.

Quote

I mentioned that she never smoked, not to mislead but to point out that if she HAD smoked, under CDC criteria, she'd have gone in the "smoking related illness" category too and it would have been totally invalid. You can get cancers of all sorts that have zero to do with smoking but they end up lumped into that cateogry none the less.

When people who smoke get certain cancers at a higher frequency than non-smokers, science can easily infer that the cancer is smoking-related.

Quote

MY way of saying that of course there was methodology to it and part of that methodology was a flawed lumping together of many diseases into the "smoking related illness" category that may have had zero to very little causality involved in including it.

And for every person who didn't die because of smoking, they probably miss 10 who did die of smoking. Since I don't have ovaries, I'm unlikely to ever develop ovarian cancer. Since I don't smoke, I'm unlikely to ever develop lung cancer (unless I start working in a coal mine). I also have 2 uncles who died of stomach-related cancers. You guessed it; they were smokers. The tar went down their throats, destroyed the cilia and collected in the stomach. Personal story? Sure; but look it up. There are more cancers that are due to smoking than you'd like to admit.

Quote

YES, they DO include ALOT of diseases that's MAIN cause had nothing or very little to do with the fact that the person smoked

Asked and answered. The CDC knows more about diseases than you or I. I'd have to defer to them on this judgement over your opinion.

Quote

Statistics are only as valid as the criteria used to compile them, hense my point from the start of this...The criteria is flawed, has always been flawed. You can generate statistics to support just about anything when you make up the criteria and assumptions used at the basis for them.

Nonsense. 87% of lung cancer patients are smokers when only 24% of the population are smokers. How is this flawed? How is this skewed? When 1 fourth of the population is responsible for a majority (over half) of a particular disease), then it's pretty clear that the smoking is directly related to that disease.

Quote

As I said before, "big Tobacco" didn't create that article nor did the website that displays it, the CATO Institute did.

OK, careful how you mix things. Are you trying to tell me that the CATO Institute puts up the forces.org site? Now, you took the CDC - an internationally recognized institution - to task for their methodology, but you take this report at face value? What methodology did they use? Who were the peers who reviewed their article? What other organizations support their statements?

You say that forces.org is not published by big tobacco. Where are the HQd? Oh, surprise, surprise, they're headquartered in Virginia! Better think that one through again.

Have you read any of their stuff? Read their FAQ: "In fact, not even one death can be demonstrated to have been caused uniquely by smoking, nor is it possible to establish the contribution of smoking to the death or disease of one individual." If they can lie about that, what else do they lie about?

I told you earlier; you have to question your sources. If forces.org told me that the sun was shining, I'd still look out my own window.

Quote

they didn't, the CATO Institute did.

Never heard of the CATO institute. "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace".  Sounds like a great bunch of scientific minds!

Quote

Again you accuse and insult me

I did neither. You can now show me a single insult. I disagreed with you and still have no idea of the sources of some of your ideas, but the only thing I accused you of was not backing up your statements.

Quote

yes, the CDC site does support the contention that they include many diseases as "smoking related" simply based on the fact that the person smoked.

Again, no they don't. Look over the list of diseases again.

Quote

Under their criteria you could make the same case for TV...Well X amount of the people with X diseases were TV viewers. X number of people with X diseases were NOT TV viewers. Okay let's take all the X number of diseases for TV viewers and anything over the number of non tv viewers with that disease, we'll claim are all TV related diseases or fatalities.

OK, not really following what you're trying to say there. However, when 24% of the population are responsible for 87% of one disease, then what they have in common that the other 13% don't have in common is likely the source of the disease.

Quote

Clearly you are very emotional about this issue. I am sorry about your father Broph, I really am but all the ills of the world aren't smoking related. So scorn away at the Cato Institute if you like.

OK. You're confusing forces.org with Cato. Never heard of Cato, but like I said in this post, they sound sort of odd. forces.org is a propaganda web site that promotes smoking. Anything they say is suspect. When they present someone else's work, they only present the portions that support their own ideas.

#52 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 01:36 PM

Quote

OK. You're confusing forces.org with Cato. Never heard of Cato, but like I said in this post, they sound sort of odd. forces.org is a propaganda web site that promotes smoking. Anything they say is suspect. When they present someone else's work, they only present the portions that support their own ideas.


The Cato Institute is the organisation that created the article, not forces.org, they merely displayed the article on their website. Here's their website:

http://www.cato.org/

From their site:

Quote

The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.


Basically Cato is a Conservative Think Tank.


As to the rest Broph...chalk it up to misunderstandings of every sort from intent to content. You feel as you do, I feel as I do and we both feel strongly and neither will agree. We can go point for point until we're both collecting Social Security and what it boils down to is a fundemental disagreement about what is and isn't valid and what was or wasn't meant by XYZ in each others posts. I don't know you and you don't know me (outside of this thread I don't think we've ever had an exchange of any sort) let alone one this heated. That was not my intent in becoming involved in this thread nor was seeing it get ugly to any degree. So why don't we simply agree to disagree and call it a day?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#53 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:02 PM

Lin731, on Nov 2 2005, 06:36 PM, said:

The Cato Institute is the organisation that created the article, not forces.org, they merely displayed the article on their website. Here's their website:

http://www.cato.org/

Yes; as I took the quote from their Web site, I have visited their Web site. However, we were talking about where you got the infomation from - forces.org.

Have you read Levy and Marimont's original article?

http://www.cato.org/...gv21n4/lies.pdf

And in the end, it's just an article. It's their opinion. They'll tell you about Osteen and the EPA Study decision. They won't tell you that a peer review has validated that study. They'll tell you that the EPA committed to results before they started the study. They won't explain that the EPA did a metastudy - basically they took 30 or so existing studies and summarized the data into a single study - and if 30 studies tell you that smoking kills, I think you can commit to your conclusions before you compile all the data.

Did you read the CDC's reply to their article? I was shocked that forces.org linked to it!

Did you know that his co-author - Rosalind B. Marimont is affiliated with the National Smokers Alliance?

I'm shocked that Levy claims to be a non-smoker.

#54 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:25 PM

Quote

And in the end, it's just an article. It's their opinion. They'll tell you about Osteen and the EPA Study decision. They won't tell you that a peer review has validated that study. They'll tell you that the EPA committed to results before they started the study. They won't explain that the EPA did a metastudy - basically they took 30 or so existing studies and summarized the data into a single study - and if 30 studies tell you that smoking kills, I think you can commit to your conclusions before you compile all the data.


Are you referring to the government review of the findings? If so, they were reviewing the figures arrived at based on the established criteria. They weren't looking at the criteria used to generate that stats...If it's the same study.

Quote

I'm shocked that Levy claims to be a non-smoker.


Why shocked? One need not be a smoker to question the validity of the criteria set down to gather these statistics. Too many assumptions made, to many other factors not taken into account. I'd have no problem with the results of these stats if they were done in a way that I thought made sense and seemed supported. I just don't beleive they do (hense my TV watcher analogy) which is very similar to the method used to arrive at the "smoking related illness" stats. I feel that the methodology used to create those stats is really a disservice to all of us because I think they are inaccurate and draw attention away from factors that have alot more bearing on these diseases than smoking. Smoking may play a role in these non-cancer related diseases but their contribution to it is uncertain because they really aren't looked at in terms of how great or small a contribution to these diseases they really are. Are they really a major factor or are they nothing more than an additional factor of a greatly lesser degree?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#55 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:39 PM

What about second hand smoke?  

If Lin's dad smoked in the house or in the car when her mom as around,  for as many years as he smoked and they were married, what did that do to her mother health?  

Sorry to open a can of worms but .....

RuReddy

#56 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:47 PM

Quote

If Lin's dad smoked in the house or in the car when her mom as around, for as many years as he smoked and they were married, what did that do to her mother health?

Not a problem RuReddy. According to the Autopsy report which I didn't have at the time the subject was raised with my family doc. Mom had a congenital weakness in one of the valves to her heart. You know the classic heart attack symptons you hear about? She had none of those, they were actually treating her for an upper respitory infection at the time of her death but what was really going on was a leak in the artery causing the precieved respitory infection. The artery eventually imploded or exploded (I forget which) and she was gone before she hit the ground. In fact, just months prior to her death she'd had a stress test and a heart work up that showed nothing wrong with her (go figure)?

Edited by Lin731, 02 November 2005 - 02:49 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#57 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:52 PM

Quote

The artery eventually imploded or exploded

Damn that's rough. It would have to be Ex, since all the pressure is on the inside.
Can't Touch This!!

#58 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 03:09 PM

Quote

Damn that's rough. It would have to be Ex, since all the pressure is on the inside.

Yeah Kosh, it really was. With my dad, it was sadly expected, with my mom it was a complete shock. She lived a very clean life and you surely don't expect that to happen to a 62 year old with zero known factors. If not for that artery, she may have lived to be 90 herself.

Edited by Lin731, 02 November 2005 - 03:10 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#59 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 03:12 PM

Lin731, on Nov 2 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

Are you referring to the government review of the findings? If so, they were reviewing the figures arrived at based on the established criteria. They weren't looking at the criteria used to generate that stats...If it's the same study.

No government review. The litigation; the study was brought to court. Check out Levy's original article - the PDF file. The whole opening is about the EPA study.

Quote

Why shocked? One need not be a smoker to question the validity of the criteria set down to gather these statistics.

Google his name with the word "smoking". Check out how many articles he's written on the subject of the "freedom of smoking". He's a little over-zealous. He's got an agenda. I'm sure he writes many articles on freedom in general, but for him to not be a smoker and support smoker's "rights" while at the same time ignoring anything that suggests that smoking is harmful (OK, he doesn't go that far) is a bit suspect. I would have pegged him for a smoker, but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets support from Big Tobacco one way or another.

Quote

Too many assumptions made, to many other factors not taken into account.

Again, not assumptions and again, read the CDC reply to his article - it's posted on the same forces.org page that you first linked to. Read the part where the CDC asked one state to track mortality and smoking. Their figures matched almost exactly to what was predicted.

Quote

I feel that the methodology used to create those stats is really a disservice to all of us because I think they are inaccurate

But you have to base that opinion on something! Unless someone can come up with a better methodology, we have to start somewhere.

Quote

draw attention away from factors that have alot more bearing on these diseases than smoking. Smoking may play a role in these non-cancer related diseases but their contribution to it is uncertain because they really aren't looked at in terms of how great or small a contribution to these diseases they really are.

But people do study these things. When you find that smokers die from a disease at a younger age than non-smokers, you know that smoking has contributed to an earlier demise. It's regression analysis. You take as many deaths as you can; you put in all the factors that you have and you can find out what factors play what role in the average death.

One professor did that in my college. They took salary information and statistics regarding length of tenure, degrees earned, etc. and were able to actually prove that female professors were paid less than their male counterparts. I don't recall what the number was, but it was several thousand dollars less a year.

#60 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 03:14 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 2 2005, 02:08 AM, said:

Kosh, on Nov 1 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

You would never get to court. You can raise heck if you want, but no laws have been broken. There is no right to smoke and never has been. In most cases, an employer doesn't need much of a reason to fire someone. It's tougher if there is a Union, but if it is company policy, then it's going to be in the contract as well. Some Unions pay the insurance for it's members, so they will be doing the same thing before long. I have Civil Service. They can't fire us easily, but we are paying more for insurance if we smoke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I probably wouldn't. I WOULD see a lawyer though...to see if I could sue for discrimination though. I seriously doubt I'd lie and try and sue. If I couldn't sue...well there is always that nice old thing called "Boycott".

And sorry to hear about your friend...My condolences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>







Thanks Bud!!
Can't Touch This!!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Smoking, Ban at work, Health

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users