smokers revenge

Reef Fish wrote:

Howie wrote in message ...

Tom,

Believe it or not, beling intelligent and smoking are not mutually
exclusive.


I am not Tom, but I can relate and subscribe to that remark.

I smoked heavily for 30 years till 1992. I was a certified member
of MENSA (minimum IQ 132) in 1968; certified member of Triple
Nine Society (minimum IQ 150) in 1969. I was STILL members of
those societies prior to quitting smoking in 1992. :-)



I am smart enough not to compartmentalzie my whole world
into black and white, yes and no, healthy and unhealthy, etc.


I would have been able to relate to your statement as one that
appies to you, had you not compartmentalized everyone into racist
and non-racist.

Don't think I did that, Bob. What I said to the OP (RTCref) was:

"Yes, as a matter of fact, I was; and I really didn't read past the "Bo
with BS" line. Now that I have read this, I don't know what to think?
Obviously, I don't endorse any association between race and body odor.
If this is what the OP was doing, then I retract my unequivocal accolade."

The above certainly doesn't characterize your remark or you as a racist.


I enjoy my smoking addiction. Life is short
when you're having fun, and I hell bent on having all the fun I can
grab, buddy.

Howie

I have no problem with any of your choices above, although smoking
was not an "addiction" for me. I quit smoking cold-turkey in 1992.
Never missed it one day thereafter. Never smoked another cigarette
since 1992.

That's cool. I have only quit once in my life, for 6 months. To be
perfectly honest, during that time I did not experience any of the
positive effects of quitting that people talk about. Did you? I did have
one very negative effect, however. On a good day, my blood pressure
hovers at about 100/57. This is actually very healthy, although one has
to be careful about standing up too rapidly without holding onto
something (I actually enjoy the buzz I get from postural hypotension).
When I gave up cigarettes, my blood pressure plummeted to levels like
90/45, which was no fun at all.


I posted that earlier. You were quick to say "that's my man" or
something like that; and then moments later, compartmentalized
me into your "racist" bin for reasons completely unknown to me,
because some pal of yours said I used some no-no word, "race", I
think.

Think I covered this above.

Howie, have sexual intercourse with yourself in the ear! :-)

Now that would be quite a feat, dude, requiring the kind of proportions
(about three feet long and one inch around) that my joint just can't
measure up to.

I hope there are no hard feelings, man. Cause I really don't want to
alienate someone with a sense of humor on rtc.

Howie

Brian wrote:

You have no guilt because you're a filthy pig, which not all smokers
are Im sure. Animals are unashamed of what they do publically, so Im
not surprised to hear this from you. Have you ever been walking down
the sidewalk and some slug in front of you turns and spits on the
sidewalk? You think he's a pig, right? Im sure he doesnt feel guilty
about it. Hes too stupid to know what hes doing.

A lot of people dont feel guilty or responsible when they fling their
car door open and damage your car. Its because they have no concept of
right and wrong, and no understanding of their place in society. If
you dont want people thinking your a filthy pig, then dont act like
one. Otherwise deal with the abuse.

What's with the lack of apostrophes in your post?

Howie

"Howie" wrote in message
...
chip3130 wrote:


I am sure that 99.9% will agree that second hand smoke if very bad for
your
health. Come on people, it is 2004, I think we know the effects of
cigarette smoke by now....

Tell us about the very bad effects of second hand smoke, Chip. I would
like to have the full details of the studies. Your anecdotal
experiences with autopsies are meaningless. I want to see the hard data.

Some studies have shown that living with a smoker (not sitting next to
one occasionally in a bar or casino), increases one's risk of lung
cancer by 14%. The very next question a sophisticated consumer of this
information should ask is "what is the base rate for lung cancer among
non-smokers." Let's say it is 2%, meaning that 2% of the non-smoking
population can expect to contract the disease during their lifetime.
Putting the above "facts" together tells you that a non-smoker who lives
with a smoker has a 2.3% chance of contracting lung cancer in his/her
lifetime.

You didn't major in math did you Howie?

Maybe you're not explaining things clearly, but looking at your figures, the
2% rate for lung cancer in your base case would increase to 16% if the risk
increased by an additional 14%. [You don't take 14% of the 2% figure. Think
more simply... if the base was 0%, and smoking increase the number to 14%,
your number is 14%. The numbers are additive, not multiplicative.)


Thus, among 1000 non-smokers who do not live with a smoker,
20 can be expected to contract lung cancer;

If your assumptions are true about a 2% rate, then that would be correct.

while among 1000 non-smokers
living with a smoker, 23 can expect to conract lung cancer.

Not so. It would be 160 people. Basically 1 out of 6 people condemned by
their "so called" loved one to a painful death.

--Tom

So,
assuming statistical significance, which is not the case in most
studies, we can expect very heavy exposure to 2nd hand smoke (e.g.,
living with a smoker) to increase the chance of lung cancer by 3 in 1000
cases. So what do you suppose the data would look like for folks who
spend three weeks per year cruising on a ship?

Now we could do the same kind of research on the increased risk of lung
cancer that is involved when one moves from a rural to an urban area.
Or the increased risk for lung cancer among those who live in
California, as compared to the rest of the Nation. I bet the statistics
would be a lot more frightening than those for heavy exposure to 2nd
hand smoke (i.e., living with a smoker). So I guess all those folks who
choose to raise their kids in CA, or worse move their kids to CA, are
engaged in serious child abuse.

Howie

Tom & Linda wrote:

"Howie" wrote in message
...

chip3130 wrote:



I am sure that 99.9% will agree that second hand smoke if very bad for

your

health. Come on people, it is 2004, I think we know the effects of
cigarette smoke by now....

Tell us about the very bad effects of second hand smoke, Chip. I would
like to have the full details of the studies. Your anecdotal
experiences with autopsies are meaningless. I want to see the hard data.

Some studies have shown that living with a smoker (not sitting next to
one occasionally in a bar or casino), increases one's risk of lung
cancer by 14%. The very next question a sophisticated consumer of this
information should ask is "what is the base rate for lung cancer among
non-smokers." Let's say it is 2%, meaning that 2% of the non-smoking
population can expect to contract the disease during their lifetime.
Putting the above "facts" together tells you that a non-smoker who lives
with a smoker has a 2.3% chance of contracting lung cancer in his/her
lifetime.


You didn't major in math did you Howie?

As a matter of fact I did as an undergraduate. Double major, math and
psych.

Maybe you're not explaining things clearly, but looking at your figures, the
2% rate for lung cancer in your base case would increase to 16% if the risk
increased by an additional 14%. [You don't take 14% of the 2% figure. Think
more simply... if the base was 0%, and smoking increase the number to 14%,
your number is 14%. The numbers are additive, not multiplicative.)

You are dead wrong. If the base rate were 0, any increase would be
infinite percent. Of course, whether the increase was statistically
significant or not would depend on actual number of people in the
origninal sample/population that was used to obtain the base rate. I'm
surprised at you Tom. Aren't engineers expected to understand basic
mathematics?




Thus, among 1000 non-smokers who do not live with a smoker,
20 can be expected to contract lung cancer;


If your assumptions are true about a 2% rate, then that would be correct.


while among 1000 non-smokers
living with a smoker, 23 can expect to conract lung cancer.


Not so. It would be 160 people. Basically 1 out of 6 people condemned by
their "so called" loved one to a painful death.

--Tom


So,
assuming statistical significance, which is not the case in most
studies, we can expect very heavy exposure to 2nd hand smoke (e.g.,
living with a smoker) to increase the chance of lung cancer by 3 in 1000
cases. So what do you suppose the data would look like for folks who
spend three weeks per year cruising on a ship?

Now we could do the same kind of research on the increased risk of lung
cancer that is involved when one moves from a rural to an urban area.
Or the increased risk for lung cancer among those who live in
California, as compared to the rest of the Nation. I bet the statistics
would be a lot more frightening than those for heavy exposure to 2nd
hand smoke (i.e., living with a smoker). So I guess all those folks who
choose to raise their kids in CA, or worse move their kids to CA, are
engaged in serious child abuse.

Howie

"Howie" wrote in message
...


Tom & Linda wrote:

"Howie" wrote in message
...

chip3130 wrote:



I am sure that 99.9% will agree that second hand smoke if very bad for

your

health. Come on people, it is 2004, I think we know the effects of
cigarette smoke by now....

Tell us about the very bad effects of second hand smoke, Chip. I would
like to have the full details of the studies. Your anecdotal
experiences with autopsies are meaningless. I want to see the hard
data.

Some studies have shown that living with a smoker (not sitting next to
one occasionally in a bar or casino), increases one's risk of lung
cancer by 14%. The very next question a sophisticated consumer of this
information should ask is "what is the base rate for lung cancer among
non-smokers." Let's say it is 2%, meaning that 2% of the non-smoking
population can expect to contract the disease during their lifetime.
Putting the above "facts" together tells you that a non-smoker who lives
with a smoker has a 2.3% chance of contracting lung cancer in his/her
lifetime.


You didn't major in math did you Howie?

As a matter of fact I did as an undergraduate. Double major, math and
psych.

Maybe you're not explaining things clearly, but looking at your figures,
the
2% rate for lung cancer in your base case would increase to 16% if the
risk
increased by an additional 14%. [You don't take 14% of the 2% figure.
Think
more simply... if the base was 0%, and smoking increase the number to
14%,
your number is 14%. The numbers are additive, not multiplicative.)

You are dead wrong. If the base rate were 0, any increase would be
infinite percent. Of course, whether the increase was statistically
significant or not would depend on actual number of people in the
origninal sample/population that was used to obtain the base rate. I'm
surprised at you Tom. Aren't engineers expected to understand basic
mathematics?

If the base on a "particular town in northern Canada away from all
pollution" is 0%, and living with a smoker increases the chances by 14%,
what would the chance of someone living with a smoker coming down with
cancer? Isn't it 14% based on what you said? It has to be 14%, since there
is nothing else contributing to causing cancer. It's 0% plus 14%. It's
your assumption. You can't disagree with it.

If the people instead lived in a place that had some pollution, and that
increased the probability by another 2%... then the new probability is 16%.

You woldn't take 2% of the 14%. Nor would you take 14% of the 2% if you
looked at it the other way. They are cumulative, hence they have to be
additive.

The pollution in the town contributes 2%. And living with a smoker
contributes 14%. That's 16%. It's not 14.1%.

The 14% from smoking and 2% from pollution are added.

Get with the program. This is based on how you phrased your asumptions.

--Tom




Thus, among 1000 non-smokers who do not live with a smoker,
20 can be expected to contract lung cancer;


If your assumptions are true about a 2% rate, then that would be
correct.


while among 1000 non-smokers
living with a smoker, 23 can expect to conract lung cancer.


Not so. It would be 160 people. Basically 1 out of 6 people condemned
by
their "so called" loved one to a painful death.

--Tom


So,
assuming statistical significance, which is not the case in most
studies, we can expect very heavy exposure to 2nd hand smoke (e.g.,
living with a smoker) to increase the chance of lung cancer by 3 in 1000
cases. So what do you suppose the data would look like for folks who
spend three weeks per year cruising on a ship?

Now we could do the same kind of research on the increased risk of lung
cancer that is involved when one moves from a rural to an urban area.
Or the increased risk for lung cancer among those who live in
California, as compared to the rest of the Nation. I bet the statistics
would be a lot more frightening than those for heavy exposure to 2nd
hand smoke (i.e., living with a smoker). So I guess all those folks who
choose to raise their kids in CA, or worse move their kids to CA, are
engaged in serious child abuse.

Howie

Tom, you don't have a good grasp of statistics or mathematics, so I just
can't/won't discuss this with you any more. This is not an issue for
debate. You are wrong, and if you decide to learn the facts about base
rates, percent increases, and statistics from someone you trust (after
all, no reasonable dogmatist could ever trust a university professor who
smokes, stays out all night dancing, and curses like a trucker), then I
will accept your apology.

Howie

Tom & Linda wrote:

"Howie" wrote in message
...


Tom & Linda wrote:


"Howie" wrote in message
...


chip3130 wrote:




I am sure that 99.9% will agree that second hand smoke if very bad for

your


health. Come on people, it is 2004, I think we know the effects of
cigarette smoke by now....

Tell us about the very bad effects of second hand smoke, Chip. I would
like to have the full details of the studies. Your anecdotal
experiences with autopsies are meaningless. I want to see the hard

data.

Some studies have shown that living with a smoker (not sitting next to
one occasionally in a bar or casino), increases one's risk of lung
cancer by 14%. The very next question a sophisticated consumer of this
information should ask is "what is the base rate for lung cancer among
non-smokers." Let's say it is 2%, meaning that 2% of the non-smoking
population can expect to contract the disease during their lifetime.
Putting the above "facts" together tells you that a non-smoker who lives
with a smoker has a 2.3% chance of contracting lung cancer in his/her
lifetime.


You didn't major in math did you Howie?

As a matter of fact I did as an undergraduate. Double major, math and
psych.

Maybe you're not explaining things clearly, but looking at your figures,

the

2% rate for lung cancer in your base case would increase to 16% if the

risk

increased by an additional 14%. [You don't take 14% of the 2% figure.

Think

more simply... if the base was 0%, and smoking increase the number to

14%,

your number is 14%. The numbers are additive, not multiplicative.)

You are dead wrong. If the base rate were 0, any increase would be
infinite percent. Of course, whether the increase was statistically
significant or not would depend on actual number of people in the
origninal sample/population that was used to obtain the base rate. I'm
surprised at you Tom. Aren't engineers expected to understand basic
mathematics?


If the base on a "particular town in northern Canada away from all
pollution" is 0%, and living with a smoker increases the chances by 14%,
what would the chance of someone living with a smoker coming down with
cancer? Isn't it 14% based on what you said? It has to be 14%, since there
is nothing else contributing to causing cancer. It's 0% plus 14%. It's
your assumption. You can't disagree with it.

If the people instead lived in a place that had some pollution, and that
increased the probability by another 2%... then the new probability is 16%.

You woldn't take 2% of the 14%. Nor would you take 14% of the 2% if you
looked at it the other way. They are cumulative, hence they have to be
additive.

The pollution in the town contributes 2%. And living with a smoker
contributes 14%. That's 16%. It's not 14.1%.

The 14% from smoking and 2% from pollution are added.

Get with the program. This is based on how you phrased your asumptions.

--Tom




Thus, among 1000 non-smokers who do not live with a smoker,
20 can be expected to contract lung cancer;


If your assumptions are true about a 2% rate, then that would be

correct.


while among 1000 non-smokers
living with a smoker, 23 can expect to conract lung cancer.


Not so. It would be 160 people. Basically 1 out of 6 people condemned

by

their "so called" loved one to a painful death.

--Tom



So,
assuming statistical significance, which is not the case in most
studies, we can expect very heavy exposure to 2nd hand smoke (e.g.,
living with a smoker) to increase the chance of lung cancer by 3 in 1000
cases. So what do you suppose the data would look like for folks who
spend three weeks per year cruising on a ship?

Now we could do the same kind of research on the increased risk of lung
cancer that is involved when one moves from a rural to an urban area.
Or the increased risk for lung cancer among those who live in
California, as compared to the rest of the Nation. I bet the statistics
would be a lot more frightening than those for heavy exposure to 2nd
hand smoke (i.e., living with a smoker). So I guess all those folks who
choose to raise their kids in CA, or worse move their kids to CA, are
engaged in serious child abuse.

Howie

Tom & Linda wrote:



If the base on a "particular town in northern Canada away from all
pollution" is 0%, and living with a smoker increases the chances by 14%,
what would the chance of someone living with a smoker coming down with
cancer? Isn't it 14% based on what you said? It has to be 14%, since there
is nothing else contributing to causing cancer. It's 0% plus 14%. It's
your assumption. You can't disagree with it.

Hey, I don't understand statistics at all, so I'm not getting into THIS
(and anyway, I would be very much inclined to take Howie's word on
anything related to math or stat). However, I don't see how you can say
"nothing else contributing to cancer." Maybe ICE contributes to cancer.

Oh never mind.

Eileen

Eileen Garland wrote:

Tom & Linda wrote:

If the base on a "particular town in northern Canada away from all
pollution" is 0%, and living with a smoker increases the chances by 14%,
what would the chance of someone living with a smoker coming down with
cancer? Isn't it 14% based on what you said? It has to be 14%, since there
is nothing else contributing to causing cancer. It's 0% plus 14%. It's
your assumption. You can't disagree with it.

Hey, I don't understand statistics at all, so I'm not getting into THIS
(and anyway, I would be very much inclined to take Howie's word on
anything related to math or stat). However, I don't see how you can say
"nothing else contributing to cancer." Maybe ICE contributes to cancer.

Oh never mind.

Eileen

My dad didn't smoke. He died of cancer when he was almost 90.

Ermalee

Howie wrote in message ...
Reef Fish wrote:

Howie wrote in message ...


I am smart enough not to compartmentalzie my whole world
into black and white, yes and no, healthy and unhealthy, etc.


I would have been able to relate to your statement as one that
appies to you, had you not compartmentalized everyone into racist
and non-racist.

Don't think I did that, Bob. What I said to the OP (RTCref) was:

"Yes, as a matter of fact, I was; and I really didn't read past the "Bo
with BS" line. Now that I have read this, I don't know what to think?
Obviously, I don't endorse any association between race and body odor.
If this is what the OP was doing, then I retract my unequivocal accolade."

The above certainly doesn't characterize your remark or you as a racist.

Glad you clarified it. I thought you did, at the time.


I enjoy my smoking addiction. Life is short
when you're having fun, and I hell bent on having all the fun I can
grab, buddy.

Howie

I have no problem with any of your choices above, although smoking
was not an "addiction" for me. I quit smoking cold-turkey in 1992.
Never missed it one day thereafter. Never smoked another cigarette
since 1992.

That's cool. I have only quit once in my life, for 6 months. To be
perfectly honest, during that time I did not experience any of the
positive effects of quitting that people talk about. Did you?

I don't really recall any obvious effect people talked about,
positive or negative. I didn't feel any better. I didn't gain
any weight. I didn't take on anything else (chewing gum or
sucking candy) as a substitute habit for cigarette. In short,
it was just too easy. :-)

I did have ONE negative effect -- the opposite of what people
think! I am a scuba diver. When I was smoking like a chimney,
my air-consumption was so good that I usually outlasts everyone
else on the same-size tank of air. As soon as I stopped
smoking, I did notice that sick more AIR when I dived. :-)


I take it back. I did experience some things that I consider as
POSITIVE -- but not from the angle of health, but from the reasons
I quit in the first place -- that I no longer have any invisible
monkey that urged me to go down 7 floors just to smoke a
cigarette, as I did when my office was at the top floor of the
Harvard science building. :-)

I no longer had the discomfort of being in airports or taking 10
hour flights without a cigarette.

I guess there WERE many positive benefits of "convenience", money
saving, and the riddance of stinky butts (even when I was smoking,
I knew they stink). But then, they don't stink nearly as bad
as some cheeses (to me), or some other kinds of food people like
to eat.

But the one thing that distinguishes me from the vast majority of
the ex-smokers is that I NEVER pontificate, preach, or even advise
anyone about their smoking habits; they are welcome to smoke in
my presence (doesn't bother me), but I sensed that some folks are
VERY considerate, that they tend to smoke much less, or not in
my presence even though I really meant it that their smoking
wouldn't bother me at all.


I did have
one very negative effect, however. On a good day, my blood pressure
hovers at about 100/57. This is actually very healthy, although one has
to be careful about standing up too rapidly without holding onto
something (I actually enjoy the buzz I get from postural hypotension).
When I gave up cigarettes, my blood pressure plummeted to levels like
90/45, which was no fun at all.

Nothing like that!


Howie, have sexual intercourse with yourself in the ear! :-)

I take back that remark, since you said you didn't call or imply that
I was a racist, which I thought you did in one of your posts.


I hope there are no hard feelings, man.

You are not still talking about my sexual remark above, are you?

Cause I really don't want to
alienate someone with a sense of humor on rtc.

Howie

No worry Mon. Life is too short. Live and let live. A sense of
humor will remedy (if not cure) much of the ills of society.

-- Bob.

You don't understand. The mere mention of certain words labels you a
anti-fill in or a bigot or a racist.

On 27 May 2004 14:05:01 -0700, (Reef
Fish) wrote:

I am afraid I do understand how silly and extreme some folks go,
to be "politically correct" that almost EVERYTHING we encounter
today is speech is a form of euphemism.

No one is humor-impaired anymore. Humor challenged.

Nicely said.

Say "Jew."

Now you're an anti-Semite.

See how it works?

On 27 May 2004 14:05:01 -0700, (Reef
Fish) wrote:

But when I am talking to anyone I suspect may be a nincompoop,

...like Howie...go on..

I would be careful to call it a LARGE BLACK GROUPER, because
it is a grouper; a black grouper is the name of a kind of bass;
and of course BLACK is politically very correct.

So there!

Thanks, Chrissy for the hint. :-)

-- Bob.

There you go. You have it figured out. Not much of a hint. So simple
to see.