Journal shepd's Journal: Re-Opening Passive Smoking For Discussion 5
By popular demand...
Let the flames begin! (Pun intended!)
By popular demand...
Let the flames begin! (Pun intended!)
Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic angular momentum.
New Scientist Link from the first journal (Score:2)
In summary, the number of heart attacks fell from 7 to 4. A quick search of google reveals the population of Helena, Montana is 29,081. 1 in 4154 people prior to the ban, and 1 in 7270 after the ban (well interim until it went down).
1998 vintage data shows a total population of 244,416 with number of stroke deaths per 100,000 at 126 and number of heart disease deaths per 100,000 at 427. I can't get a direct link to this data, but
Re:New Scientist Link from the first journal (Score:1)
Yup: Thanks for doing something I should have done myself.
That and a change of 46% sort of correlates with an RR of 1.46, and this is just another good example of why medical journals want an RR of a minimum of 2.0. 3 fewer deaths could be caused by a roller coaster shutting down for the summer, or any other number of unrelated things!
BTW: Did I mention I live in a (now) smoke-free town? It's insane, the disinformation coming from the Anti-Smokers. But what's worse is that most
Re:New Scientist Link from the first journal (Score:2)
Problem is most people see numbers and they don't understand them... oh well, smoking ban almost just got pushed through where I live. The restaurants/bars in the area were what stopped it.
timing (Score:2)
Re:timing (Score:1)
No, however, that is quite interesting.
Here's the article [4ni.co.uk] I think you're referring to, for the lazy.
That being said, despite the fact that that study was tobacco funded, the BMJ hasn't really adjusted it's position due to that. Their "old" findings were (from 1998):
Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health / 1.20
Which are totally, statistically insigni