On 17 Jun 2001 14:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EugeneGall)
wrote:
>On Slate, there is quite a good discussion of the meaning and probabilistic
>basis of the statement that 1 in 3 teen smokers will die of cancer. It is
>written by a math prof and it is one of the most effective lay discussions I've
>seen of the use of probabilities in describing health risks.
>
>http://slate.msn.com/math/01-06-14/math.asp
Maybe, I just notice it more, but it seems to me as I move about that
more and more young people are smoking. Could it be that even with
all of the negatives, smoking is still popular and/or growing among
teeny boppers and young adults? Recent jury awards to long-time
smokers seem to intimate that even with printed warnings, etc., the
tobacco companies are ultimately responsible for respiratory and
circulatory ailments. Smokers it is assumed are "addicts" and
consequently not responsible for their actions. A salient point in
Mr. Ellenberg's treatise is the query that of a sample of 100,000
deaths of male smokers, would 60,000 still be alive had they eschewed
"coffin nails" throughout their lifetimes? My mother was 91 years
old when she died a year ago and chain smoked since her college days.
She defended the tobacco companies for years saying, "it didn't hurt
me." She outlived most of her doctors. Upon quoting statistics and
research on the subject, her view was that I, like other "do gooders
and non-smokers," wanted to deny smokers their rights. Obviously,
there is a health connection. How strong that connection is, is what
makes this a unique statistical conundrum.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
