11 ms·

The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

57 points by byrneseyeview 17y ago

maxklein 17y ago
That page is on a website offered for free from an ISP. That's the universal home for all conspiracy theories nuts.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  Yeah, but they picked such an honest, respectable-looking font.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- damienkatz 17y ago
  Yes, but are the claims true? Have studies failed to show stopping smoking doesn't help you live longer? And the Japanese _are_ fairly heavy smokers yet have very long lives. That's not to say I don't thinking smoking is really bad for you. It's an addictive drug, reduces lung capacity and I've known people being treated for emphysema in their 30's etc. But the article makes some interesting claims about how politically charged the issue around smoking is, real science is getting squelched, people ask earnest questions and have their sanity questioned. Don't know if any of it's true, but with the Global Warming "science" we've been seeing lately, it wouldn't surprise me if the risk of cigarettes has been way oversold.
  - jawngee 17y ago
    Probably because their diets are vastly superior to everyone else's. So people predisposed to live longer are going to live longer, even if smoking takes a few years off their lives.
  - patrickas 17y ago
    I think the claims are true, but the headline and content is a bit over dramatized. Here are the studies, you can draw your own conclusions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1573365 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1573365 "The subjects were 1445 male smokers, initially aged 40-59 years" ... 20 years later "total mortality was 7% lower" for people who stopped smoking (7% is barely significant given the sample size) And also http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00000487 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00000487 Showing similar results.
    - elai 17y ago
      How about people who start smoking in their teens, and then stop in their early/mid twenties? The effects of quitting smoking then would probably far more beneficial than a smoker who's been smoking for 30 years and then quits.
  - hga 17y ago
    Based on a variety of things including an statement by my favorite professor, I think it's not so much that smoking is deadly by itself, but smoking and most anything else is, e.g.: He said smoking in the context of a city's pollution was very bad, that e.g. Kansas wheat farmers had problems related to the wheat farming but were otherwise OK (he was an M.D. and smoked, BTW, took lots of Vitamin A and so on and he'll turn 90 next year...). It's well established (to my satisfaction, at least) that radon is mostly dangerous in the context of heavy smoking (which after all is where the initial study came from, of uranium miners). The risks of smoking and lots of things like birth control pills are well established. I'd also note that there's going to be genetic variability here that will make smoking much worse for some fraction of the population. (On the other hand, as someone with severe allergies, I'm not entirely unhappy with the results of the US crusade against smoking....)
  - brazzy 17y ago
    > And the Japanese _are_ fairly heavy smokers yet have very long lives. That's funny because I was going to write "I don't know how much truth is in what he writes about all those studies, but that statememt is complete bullshit". I've lived in Japan for a year, and my personal experience is that the Japanese smoke very little.
- wheels 17y ago
  It's apparently by a fairly widely published biologist, an expert on fish eyes, it would seem: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22J.+R.+JOHNSTONE%22+monash http://www.google.com/search?q=%22J.+R.+JOHNSTONE%22+monash
- herdrick 17y ago
  Isn't that a funny correlation? It's not like that's the easiest way to publish something on the web. I wonder what's going on here.
patrickas 17y ago
A couple interesting related posts from Overcoming Bias http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/smoking-followup.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/smoking-followup.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/animal-smoking-studies.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/animal-smoking-studies... Robin's conclusion: "Bottom line: a randomized trial suggests a large smoking harm on bad lungs, which can explain the entire apparently average smoking harm seen elsewhere. My best guess: smokers die ~10-30% more on average, living about 2-6 months less, but there’s much less net harm to strong lung folks."
lkrubner 17y ago
At this point I think it is well known that quitting smoking doesn't have much health benefit. I think it is exaggeration to call this a "scandal". I recall this was talked about on television a lot back when Peter Jennings died - he had quit smoking many decades earlier, but he still died of lung cancer. However, here is the important fact: smokers die of lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers. The above essay makes a big deal about the fact that quitting seems to have no benefit. That does seem to be true. But never, ever smoking does clearly have a health benefit. This should not be forgotten.
- jawngee 17y ago
  Well to be a contrarian, nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder. Consider it a cheap SSRI. It also makes you look cool which can score you dates which can lead to sex, and that's a healthy cardiovascular exercise. sarcasm
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder Citations, please? I have the best regarded textbook on bipolar disorder http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Recurrent-Depression/dp/0195135792/ http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Rec... at hand as I type this, and there is no recommendation of nicotine for any patient there. I'm quite sure that "mood stabilizer" is an incorrect characterization of the drug effect of nicotine. Nicotine has very harmful effects on the personalities of long-term users. I've seen too many examples in the previous generation to recommend it to anyone in my generation. One study on harm of smoking: Socioeconomic Status, Smoking, and Health: A Test of Competing Theories of Cumulative Advantage # Fred C. Pampel and Richard G. Rogers # Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 306-321 One study on personality factors interacting with nicotine use: Nicotine dependence, psychological distress and personality traits as possible predictors of smoking cessation. Results of a double-blind study with nicotine patch http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC9-4TGGCWY-1&_user=145269&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1149394097&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=5c57d5e2d61723d16e754e56a9665982 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Tichy 17y ago
I expect the anti-global-warming crowd to start smoking in droves now.
- astine 17y ago
  Do you mean the folks who are against global warming, or the folks who don't believe in global warming?
  - Tichy 17y ago
    the ones who don't believe
- rms 17y ago
  At this point even Sarah Palin believes in global warming, she just doesn't think it is caused by humans. I will accurately quote her. "SarahPalinUSA Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng 2:57 AM Dec 19th from TwitterBerry"
prat 17y ago
There is no doubt that there is propaganda on both sides. First, the govt taxes a pack of cigarettes at the rate of 85% over the actual cost of production, distribution and advertising with profit margin included. Since it is harmful for you, we will make you pay more for it - but we won't ban it because we want to give you the freedom of choice. On the other hand, the article goes on great length describing studies trying to find correlation between life expectancy and smoking, debunking the govt's claim along the way; However, it steers clear from talking about the high association found between lung cancer and smoking. Even if lung cancer deducts only a few months from your life, it still is a cancer and has effects OTHER than causing early death.
JulianMorrison 17y ago
Personally I don't smoke, never have, and consider it an expensive way to gamble with your life. (They might cure cancer, they might invent cloned lungs, are you feeling lucky, punk?) But truthfully, the reason I wish people would stop smoking is not from altruistic concern for them, and not for any personal fear - I just think it stinks. It's as foul as farting and has much less excuse. Just stop, please.
- Imprecate 17y ago
  Is smoking (outdoors) really that offensive? I agree that stale smoky clothes smell gross, but I'm never bothered by a crowd smoking outside a bar or club, or people doing it while they walk through the city. It's just a neutral city smell to me.
  - axod 17y ago
    Yes. Especially when you have kids. It's horrible.
  - whatusername 17y ago
    Try a city that has tougher anti-smoking laws. All of our bars/clubs (except the casino high-roller room) are non-smoking. It is much nicer for those of us who don't smoke. (Most have some form of al-fresco area / patio / etc where smoking is allowed. While it once felt part of the experience - I've grown to love it's absence. //Melbourne Australia
    - Imprecate 17y ago
      I live in a city with extremely tough anti-smoking laws. I came here from a city where smoking indoors was also illegal, but many bars found ways around it or disobeyed the law. I think it's more fair for the employees, which is why I support it; I don't find cigarettes to smell particularly bad. The only places where I miss it are little dives where cigarettes smell nicer than stale beer. Anyway, to each his own. I do think smokers should be courteous in public even if most people don't find the smell offensive; waving a flaming stick around carelessly in a crowded place is dangerous.
donniefitz2 17y ago
I was smoking a Partagas 1845 while reading the article. I think it made the article more enjoyable.
teeja 17y ago
People who have trouble considering this idea because of all the conditioning can take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke. When I did, they fell into the noise ... within statistical error. What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? I never found that number. Furthermore, what other environmental factors were controlled for? These numbers may even exist somewhere. My point is that they never come up as part of the arguments. Because "everyone knows" ...
- berntb 17y ago
  >>take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke [fell into statistical noise when I investigated] I spent twenty seconds to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health "Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change." (I saw larger claims in a BBC article sometime for the smoking bans in British pubs, but was too lazy to go find it.) Edit: 20 more seconds. >>What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? Here are some values for second hand smokers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scientific_basis_for_bans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scienti... "Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%." Edit 2: I went and found the BBC article (or another with the same content :-). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm "Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report. This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health. [...] The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. [...] But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year." Edit 3: Who votes up the parent comment?! :-) Less than a minute with Google shows his claims to be totally wrong.
blahedo 17y ago
I'm curious about the points about inhaling---not being a smoker, I just always assumed that (nearly) all smokers inhaled the smoke. That's why Bill Clinton's pot claim ("but I never inhaled") was such a joke, right? Or is there something more going on there?
- Imprecate 17y ago
  When smoking a cigar or pipe most smokers don't inhale deeply like one does with a cigarette. There are still health risks for heavy cigar smokers like mouth cancer, IIRC.
tokenadult 17y ago
See Peter Norvig's article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html for Warning Sign I9: Being Too Clever, which relates directly to the point of this thread.
Eliezer 17y ago
If this paper weren't biased, it would mention the chief source of evidence in favor of the idea that smoking damages your lungs: Men who smoke die of lung cancer at 23 times the rate of nonsmokers. Now, that may not be from a randomized trial. But nonetheless, I think that's an important explanandum. See Judea Pearl's Causality if you don't think it's possible to get important data off of mere observational studies. It just seems really unlikely that, you know, future lung cancer would cause people to start smoking now, or that some common cause makes people decide to start inhaling carcinogens and tar and then causes them to get lung cancer later at 23 times the base rate. But if anyone actually believes that, we can get a group of 1000 of them together and have 500 of them start smoking with proper random assignment, and see what happens.
- herdrick 17y ago
  He didn't quite say that smoking doesn't damage your lungs, he said that quitting doesn't improve your lifespan. For example he wrote that other forms of cancer apparently are more common among quitters. Of course there are lots of plausible explanations for that, among them that ceasing use of a stimulant causes increased obesity which from what I understand increases risk of many cancers. Actually I read that really quickly. I hope I'm not completely wrong about what he said.
abecedarius 17y ago
Compulsory smoking in schools? Apparently yes, in the 1666 plague some schools like Eton made students smoke as a preventative. Huh. But the original post seemed to imply a broader requirement everywhere; this is all I found in a hasty googling.

57 points by byrneseyeview 17y ago

maxklein 17y ago

That page is on a website offered for free from an ISP. That's the universal home for all conspiracy theories nuts.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
Yeah, but they picked such an honest, respectable-looking font.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
damienkatz 17y ago
Yes, but are the claims true? Have studies failed to show stopping smoking doesn't help you live longer? And the Japanese _are_ fairly heavy smokers yet have very long lives. That's not to say I don't thinking smoking is really bad for you. It's an addictive drug, reduces lung capacity and I've known people being treated for emphysema in their 30's etc. But the article makes some interesting claims about how politically charged the issue around smoking is, real science is getting squelched, people ask earnest questions and have their sanity questioned. Don't know if any of it's true, but with the Global Warming "science" we've been seeing lately, it wouldn't surprise me if the risk of cigarettes has been way oversold.
- jawngee 17y ago
  Probably because their diets are vastly superior to everyone else's. So people predisposed to live longer are going to live longer, even if smoking takes a few years off their lives.
- patrickas 17y ago
  I think the claims are true, but the headline and content is a bit over dramatized. Here are the studies, you can draw your own conclusions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1573365 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1573365 "The subjects were 1445 male smokers, initially aged 40-59 years" ... 20 years later "total mortality was 7% lower" for people who stopped smoking (7% is barely significant given the sample size) And also http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00000487 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00000487 Showing similar results.
  - elai 17y ago
    How about people who start smoking in their teens, and then stop in their early/mid twenties? The effects of quitting smoking then would probably far more beneficial than a smoker who's been smoking for 30 years and then quits.
- hga 17y ago
  Based on a variety of things including an statement by my favorite professor, I think it's not so much that smoking is deadly by itself, but smoking and most anything else is, e.g.: He said smoking in the context of a city's pollution was very bad, that e.g. Kansas wheat farmers had problems related to the wheat farming but were otherwise OK (he was an M.D. and smoked, BTW, took lots of Vitamin A and so on and he'll turn 90 next year...). It's well established (to my satisfaction, at least) that radon is mostly dangerous in the context of heavy smoking (which after all is where the initial study came from, of uranium miners). The risks of smoking and lots of things like birth control pills are well established. I'd also note that there's going to be genetic variability here that will make smoking much worse for some fraction of the population. (On the other hand, as someone with severe allergies, I'm not entirely unhappy with the results of the US crusade against smoking....)
- brazzy 17y ago
  > And the Japanese _are_ fairly heavy smokers yet have very long lives. That's funny because I was going to write "I don't know how much truth is in what he writes about all those studies, but that statememt is complete bullshit". I've lived in Japan for a year, and my personal experience is that the Japanese smoke very little.
wheels 17y ago
It's apparently by a fairly widely published biologist, an expert on fish eyes, it would seem: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22J.+R.+JOHNSTONE%22+monash http://www.google.com/search?q=%22J.+R.+JOHNSTONE%22+monash
herdrick 17y ago
Isn't that a funny correlation? It's not like that's the easiest way to publish something on the web. I wonder what's going on here.

patrickas 17y ago

A couple interesting related posts from Overcoming Bias http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/smoking-followup.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/smoking-followup.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/animal-smoking-studies.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/animal-smoking-studies... Robin's conclusion: "Bottom line: a randomized trial suggests a large smoking harm on bad lungs, which can explain the entire apparently average smoking harm seen elsewhere. My best guess: smokers die ~10-30% more on average, living about 2-6 months less, but there’s much less net harm to strong lung folks."

lkrubner 17y ago

At this point I think it is well known that quitting smoking doesn't have much health benefit. I think it is exaggeration to call this a "scandal". I recall this was talked about on television a lot back when Peter Jennings died - he had quit smoking many decades earlier, but he still died of lung cancer. However, here is the important fact: smokers die of lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers. The above essay makes a big deal about the fact that quitting seems to have no benefit. That does seem to be true. But never, ever smoking does clearly have a health benefit. This should not be forgotten.

jawngee 17y ago
Well to be a contrarian, nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder. Consider it a cheap SSRI. It also makes you look cool which can score you dates which can lead to sex, and that's a healthy cardiovascular exercise. sarcasm
- tokenadult 17y ago
  nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder Citations, please? I have the best regarded textbook on bipolar disorder http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Recurrent-Depression/dp/0195135792/ http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Rec... at hand as I type this, and there is no recommendation of nicotine for any patient there. I'm quite sure that "mood stabilizer" is an incorrect characterization of the drug effect of nicotine. Nicotine has very harmful effects on the personalities of long-term users. I've seen too many examples in the previous generation to recommend it to anyone in my generation. One study on harm of smoking: Socioeconomic Status, Smoking, and Health: A Test of Competing Theories of Cumulative Advantage # Fred C. Pampel and Richard G. Rogers # Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 306-321 One study on personality factors interacting with nicotine use: Nicotine dependence, psychological distress and personality traits as possible predictors of smoking cessation. Results of a double-blind study with nicotine patch http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC9-4TGGCWY-1&_user=145269&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1149394097&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=5c57d5e2d61723d16e754e56a9665982 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

Tichy 17y ago

I expect the anti-global-warming crowd to start smoking in droves now.

astine 17y ago
Do you mean the folks who are against global warming, or the folks who don't believe in global warming?
- Tichy 17y ago
  the ones who don't believe
rms 17y ago
At this point even Sarah Palin believes in global warming, she just doesn't think it is caused by humans. I will accurately quote her. "SarahPalinUSA Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng 2:57 AM Dec 19th from TwitterBerry"

prat 17y ago

There is no doubt that there is propaganda on both sides. First, the govt taxes a pack of cigarettes at the rate of 85% over the actual cost of production, distribution and advertising with profit margin included. Since it is harmful for you, we will make you pay more for it - but we won't ban it because we want to give you the freedom of choice. On the other hand, the article goes on great length describing studies trying to find correlation between life expectancy and smoking, debunking the govt's claim along the way; However, it steers clear from talking about the high association found between lung cancer and smoking. Even if lung cancer deducts only a few months from your life, it still is a cancer and has effects OTHER than causing early death.

JulianMorrison 17y ago

Personally I don't smoke, never have, and consider it an expensive way to gamble with your life. (They might cure cancer, they might invent cloned lungs, are you feeling lucky, punk?) But truthfully, the reason I wish people would stop smoking is not from altruistic concern for them, and not for any personal fear - I just think it stinks. It's as foul as farting and has much less excuse. Just stop, please.

Imprecate 17y ago
Is smoking (outdoors) really that offensive? I agree that stale smoky clothes smell gross, but I'm never bothered by a crowd smoking outside a bar or club, or people doing it while they walk through the city. It's just a neutral city smell to me.
- axod 17y ago
  Yes. Especially when you have kids. It's horrible.
- whatusername 17y ago
  Try a city that has tougher anti-smoking laws. All of our bars/clubs (except the casino high-roller room) are non-smoking. It is much nicer for those of us who don't smoke. (Most have some form of al-fresco area / patio / etc where smoking is allowed. While it once felt part of the experience - I've grown to love it's absence. //Melbourne Australia
  - Imprecate 17y ago
    I live in a city with extremely tough anti-smoking laws. I came here from a city where smoking indoors was also illegal, but many bars found ways around it or disobeyed the law. I think it's more fair for the employees, which is why I support it; I don't find cigarettes to smell particularly bad. The only places where I miss it are little dives where cigarettes smell nicer than stale beer. Anyway, to each his own. I do think smokers should be courteous in public even if most people don't find the smell offensive; waving a flaming stick around carelessly in a crowded place is dangerous.

donniefitz2 17y ago

I was smoking a Partagas 1845 while reading the article. I think it made the article more enjoyable.

teeja 17y ago

People who have trouble considering this idea because of all the conditioning can take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke. When I did, they fell into the noise ... within statistical error. What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? I never found that number. Furthermore, what other environmental factors were controlled for? These numbers may even exist somewhere. My point is that they never come up as part of the arguments. Because "everyone knows" ...

berntb 17y ago
>>take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke [fell into statistical noise when I investigated] I spent twenty seconds to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health "Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change." (I saw larger claims in a BBC article sometime for the smoking bans in British pubs, but was too lazy to go find it.) Edit: 20 more seconds. >>What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? Here are some values for second hand smokers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scientific_basis_for_bans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scienti... "Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%." Edit 2: I went and found the BBC article (or another with the same content :-). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm "Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report. This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health. [...] The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. [...] But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year." Edit 3: Who votes up the parent comment?! :-) Less than a minute with Google shows his claims to be totally wrong.

blahedo 17y ago

I'm curious about the points about inhaling---not being a smoker, I just always assumed that (nearly) all smokers inhaled the smoke. That's why Bill Clinton's pot claim ("but I never inhaled") was such a joke, right? Or is there something more going on there?

Imprecate 17y ago
When smoking a cigar or pipe most smokers don't inhale deeply like one does with a cigarette. There are still health risks for heavy cigar smokers like mouth cancer, IIRC.

tokenadult 17y ago

See Peter Norvig's article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html for Warning Sign I9: Being Too Clever, which relates directly to the point of this thread.

Eliezer 17y ago

If this paper weren't biased, it would mention the chief source of evidence in favor of the idea that smoking damages your lungs: Men who smoke die of lung cancer at 23 times the rate of nonsmokers. Now, that may not be from a randomized trial. But nonetheless, I think that's an important explanandum. See Judea Pearl's Causality if you don't think it's possible to get important data off of mere observational studies. It just seems really unlikely that, you know, future lung cancer would cause people to start smoking now, or that some common cause makes people decide to start inhaling carcinogens and tar and then causes them to get lung cancer later at 23 times the base rate. But if anyone actually believes that, we can get a group of 1000 of them together and have 500 of them start smoking with proper random assignment, and see what happens.

herdrick 17y ago
He didn't quite say that smoking doesn't damage your lungs, he said that quitting doesn't improve your lifespan. For example he wrote that other forms of cancer apparently are more common among quitters. Of course there are lots of plausible explanations for that, among them that ceasing use of a stimulant causes increased obesity which from what I understand increases risk of many cancers. Actually I read that really quickly. I hope I'm not completely wrong about what he said.

abecedarius 17y ago

Compulsory smoking in schools? Apparently yes, in the 1666 plague some schools like Eton made students smoke as a preventative. Huh. But the original post seemed to imply a broader requirement everywhere; this is all I found in a hasty googling.