Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Re-Opening Passive Smoking For Discussion More

Re-Opening Passive Smoking For Discussion

Comments Filter:
  • This goes back a ways, but an AC posted this [newscientist.com] to the original discussion.

    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
    • >Any thoughts?

      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
      • Well, even if it had been a 100% drop the sample was so small it wouldn't have been relevant anyway. I'd like to see data coming out of California in a few years, that should prove or disprove the arguments.

        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.
  • I would be curious if you reopened this discussion due to the recent BMJ Article that was found out to have been funded by the tobacco industry? [google.com]
    • >I would be curious if you reopened this discussion due to the recent BMJ Article that was found out to have been funded by the tobacco industry?

      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

Slashdot Top Deals

PURGE COMPLETE.

Close