Quote:
Originally Posted by TomPhil
OK, I've BOTHERED to do some research. The over 60 age group is the group with the least prevelance of smoking. Indeed, only about 12.5% of over 60s smoke, compared to 25% of the general population. That means that 87.5% don't smoke, and have the right to socialise in a smoke free environment. Point proven. I'll refrain from calling you a prat, though. Thank you.
Reference: Cancer Research UK : Lung Cancer and Smoking statistics |
Perhaps i didn't make myself clear 60 years ago smoking wasn't a bad or evil thing and a high proportion of the general public smoked the ones that are ALIVE today that had the freedom to smoke all of their lives in PRIVATE establishments are now forced to sit in the freezing cold just because by some miracle one of you non-smokers MIGHT come into a PRIVATE establishment and have Half a lager.
How the hell anyone with any intelligence can compare the smoking rates of 60 year olds with the rest of the population is bloody amazing of course they will be lower more people over the age of 60 are dead.
What YOU don't seem to realise is the argument isn't about smoking its about passive smoking which is complete ******** the risk is insignificant as testified by the following groups.
Quote:
If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.
|
Quote:
|
WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980: ‘Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so’
(WHO/IARC, 1980 Science Publication 32, Lyon, page 36)
Sir Richard Doll, 1981: ‘When relative risk lies between 1.0 and 2.0 … problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect’ (The Causes of Cancer, Doll and Peto, OUP, 1981, page 1,219)
National Cancer Institute,1994: ‘In epidemiological research, relative risks of less than 2.0 are considered too small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident’ (NCI, Abortion and Possible Risk for Breast Cancer: Analysis and Inconsistencies, Oct 1994
|
you see you have to have some intelligence to know what a risk is, do you actually know anything about statistics do you know anything about RR, CI or confounding factors i doubt it and that is why you are a prat because you are talking about what you would personally like in life not real life which is full of choices and you choice to restrict perfectly legal pastimes in PRIVATE establishments even if the owner allows it.
Prat and fascist comes to mind.