FORCES Tavern: We welcome you to The Tavern, you are welcome to browse and read, but please register to post.

Where is this "Science" anyway?

What are the differences between Epidemiology and Science? Why do politicians accept that Epidemiology is "science"?

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby WinstonSmith » Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:42 am

None the less, I am glad that you were able to find the numbers. I was rather saddened when by saying:
"We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to make up our own facts."

You said that I was lying.


I did?

Gary, there are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that man-made global warming is a grave threat to humanity and the world's ecology. I don't think they're right, but I don't think that they are lying. I just think that they're motivated toward conclusions that fit their pre-existing views.

The aforementioned confusion over your link, however, resulted in the tone of my last reply being inappropriate regarding the point you were actually trying to make. So, I will take some egg on my face and I apologize to you, Gary, for that. Because your original link didn't go the graph you were citing, I thought you were extrapolating numbers from your reference, rather than citing them directly.

Actually, both links go to the same report.


On my computer at least, the original link you provided goes to the report, but the graph you were referencing wasn't shown, though there is a link embedded for it, but you didn't initially state precisely what you were referencing, so I didn't know where to look for it. The link I provided brings me directly to the graph.
User avatar
WinstonSmith
Trusted Activist
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:24 pm

"I apologize to you, Gary, for that."

None needed, I know that you are just trying to maintain the integrity of 'The Tavern'. :)

Now, ever onward.

Antis claim that 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking and only 10% by other factors.

90% of the lung cancer deaths may happen to smokers;but,that is not the same as 90% of the lung cancer deaths being caused by smoking.

Actually,facts show that only 21% of the yearly lung cancer deaths can be associated with smoking. :shock:

If we go here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
and scroll down to the table, we find that the CDC says that there are about 157,000 lung cancer deaths(LCD's) of which 123,522 are smoking related and about 33,478 are not smoking related.

33,478 LCD's is 20% of 157,000 and 100% greater than the 10% the antis claim.

As shown in previous posts,about 32,800(20.9%) of the 157,000 LCD's happen to current smokers and about 90,722(61%) happen to ex/former smokers.

Not all of those LCD's are due to smoking or having smoked.

Since the never-smoker LCD rate is 2/10,000 and the current smoker LCD rate is 7/10,000, we can say that 2/7ths(30%) of the current smokers' LCD's would have occurred had they never smoked.

That gives us about 22,970 current smoker LCD's that could be associated with smoking.

As previously posted, about 90% of the ex/former smokers have quit more than 15 years ago and would have a risk for LCD that is about the same as never-smokers.

If their LCD risk is the same as never-smokers,their LCD's can not be said to be caused by smoking.

10% of the 90,772 LCD's that happen to ex/former smokers is 9,077 ex/former smoker LCD's that might be said to be associated with their having smoked.

Those 9,077 LCD's plus the 22,970 current smoker LCD's that might be associated with smoking give us 32,047 LCD's that might be associated with smoking.

Now, 32,047 LCD's is only about 20.4% of 157,000 LCD''s that occur every year.

We will round-up,very generously, and say that 21% of the yearly LCD's can be associated with smoking.

21% is a lonnnnng ways from the 90% claimed by the anti-smokers!!!!!! :shock:
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:50 pm

"We will round-up,very generously, and say that 21% of the yearly LCD's can be associated with smoking."

Smokers and non-smokers have the same risk for dying from lung cancer!!! :shock: :P

Current smokers are 21% of the adult population.

Ex/former smokers are 22% of the adult population and 10% of them, those with an increased risk over never-smokers, would 2.2% o the adults.
Smokers,21% + 2.2% = 23.2% of the adults, account for 21% of the lung cancer deaths.

Non-smokers(never + ex/former with about the same risk) are 76.8% of the adults and account for 79% of the lung cancer deaths

]Soooo, smokers and non-smokers have the same risk for dyiing from lung cancer!!!!!! :) :lol:
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:23 pm

Most people know that if you have 23 people at a party, there is a 50-50 chance that two of them will have the same birthday and if you have 57 people there is a 99% chance that two will have the same birthday, due to 'Random Co-incidence'.


Are current smokers' lung cancer deaths 'caused' by smoking or just the product of random co-incidence/chance?

How many current cigarette smokers could you expect to die from lung cancer due to just plain random co-incidence of smoking and lung cancer deaths?

About 31,300 lung cancer deaths will happen to current smokers due to that random co-incidence.

The probability of "smoke cigarettes" and " lung cancer death" randomly co-occurring can be derived by multiplying the percentage of the adult population that experiences one by the percentage that experiences the other.

When you multiply that percentage by the total adult population, you get the number of smokers involved.

1. There are about 230 million adults in the USA.

2. Current smokers are about 20%(0.20 percentage)

3. There are about 157,000 Lung Cancer deaths per year and that is a percentage of 0.00068 of 230 million.

4. 0.00068 X 0.2 = 0.000136 X 230 million = about 31,300 lung cancer deaths happening to current smokers due to random co-incidence.

5. Data from the CDC says there are about 32,800 current smokers' deaths from lung cancer due to smoking.

6. Since 31,300 is 95% of 32,800, we can say that 95% of the lung cancer deaths that happen to current smokers are due to 'random co-incidence' and are NOT 'caused' by smoking!!!
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:04 pm

In a realistic- practical world, never-smokers and current smokers have the same chances of NOT dying from lung cancer.


Lung cancer is a very rare disease. The never-smokers lung cancer death rate(LCDR) is 2/10,000 per year.


In any given year about 9,998/10,000 never-smokers will NOT die from lung cancer.


Current smokers LCDR is 7/10,000. In any given year 9,993/10,000 will NOT die from lung cancer.


:roll: Current smokers have 99.95% of the never-smokers chances of NOT dying from lung cancer(9,993 divided by 9,998 = 99.95%).

In simple numbers:

For every 100 never-smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer, there will be 99.95 current smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer!!!! :roll:

In a realistic- practical world, never-smokers and current smokers have the same chances of NOT dying from lung cancer.
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:29 pm

Antis claim that smoking 'causes' 80-90% of the lung cancers/lung cancer deaths.

But; deaths to smokers/ex-smokers is NOT the same as deaths 'caused' by smoking!!

74% of the yearly lung cancer deaths happen to never-smokers or ex-smokers that have the same risk as never-smokers for lung cancer!!!


If a never-smoker gets lung cancer and dies, no one can say that their death was caused by smoking, they never smoked!!

An ex-smoker with the same risk for lung cancer/lung cancer death as a never-smoker can not be said to have had their lung cancer/lung cancer death 'caused' by their smoking either.

Presently, 11 out of 12, or 92%, of the ex-smokers quit more than 15 years ago and would have the same risk of lung cancer/lung cancer death as do the never-smokers.

The CDC says that 61% of the 157,000 lung cancer deaths per year happen to ex-smokers and 18% happen to never-smokers.

92% of 61% is 56% of the yearly lung cancer deaths are happening to ex-smokers with the same risk for lung cancer as the never-smokers.

56% plus 18% = 74% of the yearly lung cancer deaths happening to never-smokers or ex-smokers that have the same risk for lung cancer as never-smokers.

http://www.lungusa.org/finding-cures/ou ... Report.pdf

Table 15: Percent of Adult Former Smokers by Sex, Race, Hispanic Origin, Age and Education, Selected Years, 1965-2008

This is the percent of the ever-smokers.

1990 = 49.1% = 44.4 million ex-smokers

2008 = 51.1% = 48 million ex-smokers

44.4 is 92% of 48.

http://blisstree.com/feel/what-happens- ... right-now/

In 10 years your risk of lung cancer will have returned to that of a non-smoker.

http://www.healthination.com/Videos/Smo ... g-Timeline

Ten years after quitting, the risk of dying from lung cancer is no longer higher than that of a non-smoker.

http://www.smokinglung.org/quit-smoking-timeline.html

After 10 Years
· The death rate for lung cancer will be identical to a non-smoker

http://stopsmoking.uchicago.edu/benefits.html

lung cancer death rate decreases by half in 5 years, and is similar to that of nonsmokers after 10 years

http://www.readytoquit.com/content/read ... g-timeline
After Fifteen Years…
And most importantly, you will have lowered your risk of death—period—nearly to the level of people who have never smoked.

(Note: This would include lung cancer deaths-GK)

http://www.highlighthealth.com/cancer/s ... z1HqGbpAbe

In 15 years, The risk of death returns to nearly the level of a non-smoker.
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby jredheadgirl » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:13 am

jredheadgirl
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:50 pm

All that leads us to this.

Antis claim that smoking 'causes' lung cancer; but, if a smoker dies from lung cancer, there is an 80% probability that lung cancer was 'caused' by some factor other than smoking!!! :shock:

Let's look at the Lung Cancer Death Rates(LCDR) for the two groups, smokers and non-smokers.

74% of the yearly lung cancer deaths happen to never-smokers and ex-smokers that have the same risk as never-smokers for lung cancer!!!

There are about 157,000 lung cancer deaths per year.

Non-smokers,never-smokers plus the ex-smokers that have the same risk for lung cancer/lung cancer death, will have 74% of the yearly lung cancer deaths(LCD's) or 116,180 LCD's.

Smokers, current plus ex-smokers, will have the other 40,820 LCD's.

At the present time there are about 230 million adults in this country.

At the present time there are about 136 million never-smokers, 46 million current smokers, and 48 million ex-smokers.

Non-smokers will be the 136 million never-smokers plus the 44 million ex-smokers with the same risk for LCD or 180 million non-smokers.

Smokers will be the other 50 million adults.

The 180 million non-smokers will have 116,180 LCD's for a LCDR of 6.45/ 10,000 non-smokers.

The 50 million smokers will have 40,620 LCD's for a LCDR of 8.1/ 10,000 smokers.

6.45/10,000 LCD's is the baseline rate for Lung Cancer Death whether a person smokes or not.

6.45/10,000 is 80% of 8.1/10,000.

If a smoker dies from lung cancer, there is an 80% probability that lung cancer was 'caused' by some factor other than smoking!!!
:P
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:22 pm

Anti claim that smoking 'causes' lung cancer; but, for every 100 non-smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer, there will be 99.98 smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer!!! :shock: :D

The 180 million non-smokers will have 116,180 LCD's for a LCDR of 6.45/ 10,000 non-smokers.
(9,993.55 out of 10,000 will NOT die from lung cancer.)

The 50 million smokers will have 40,620 LCD's for a LCDR of 8.1/ 10,000 smokers.
(9,991.9 out of 10,000 will NOT die from lung cancer.)

Since 9991.9 is 99.98% of 9993.55, we can say that a smoker has 99.98% of a non-smoker's chances of NOT dying from lung cancer.

For every 100 non-smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer, there will be 99.98 smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer!!!
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:18 pm

Antis claim that smoking 'causes' lung cancer/lung cancer deaths.

A smoker has 99.98% of a non-smoker's chance of NOT dying from lung cancer.



Or,a smoker is ONLY 2/100ths of 1% more likely to die from lung cancer than a non-smoker!!! :lol: :P
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby GabrielDenn » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Energy Smart Industry (ESI) provides all type of lighting solutions with led lights for Commercial and Residential Applications including Office Lighting, Hotel Lighting, Hospital lighting, Outdoor Lighting, Building Lighting, Retail Lighting and more.After the installation, ESI will manage all maintenance and replacement of our products for the duration of the contract. ESI will help you save money, and reduce Green House Gas emissions, thus helping to reduce global warming.
GabrielDenn
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:01 am

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby gary k » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:12 pm

"For every 100 never-smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer, there will be 99.95 current smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer!!!! "


That is not quite precise.

It should be stated as:

"If you consider them in two groups of 10,000, for every 100 never-smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer, there will be 99.95 current smokers that do NOT die from lung cancer!!!! "

Heart Disease works out to be 100 and 99.7!!!!
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where is this "Science" anyway?

Postby GabrielDenn » Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:55 am

Science is the collaboration of scepticism and evidence. Evidence must be verifiable in order to be scientific, and scientific theory is thus constrained to the explanation of verifiable evidence. Science is by nature, subject to scrutiny and refutation and anyone can call science into question. Science is not found in the colourful pages of glossy magazines that report on scientific publication in much the same way as the tabloids report on celebrities.


university rankings
GabrielDenn
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:01 am

Previous

Return to Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron