4 ms·

> That is just not how population studies like this work. I agree (that's not how these studies work), and that's kind of my point. If you're going to throw ar

> That is just not how population studies like this work. I agree (that's not how these studies work), and that's kind of my point. If you're going to throw around phrases like "caused by" (or "responsible for", as claimed by the study), then you really should be able to definitively link the two.

Retric 9y ago
Not really, if you look at lung cancer rates among non smokers they are not zero. So, you can't say a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking but by comparing populations you can find changes in rates.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  Are you really comparing the relationship between smoking and lung cancer with a relationship between air pollution (especially outdoor) and heart disease? Seriously, they're not even in the same ballpark in terms of objective statistical significance. Not even close. You may not be able to say with absolute 100% certainty that "a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking", but you can often be >95% certain. Can you (or anyone) say the same for outdoor air pollution and heart disease?
  - Retric 9y ago
    Don't move the goal post. If a very large populationa has 20%X vs 30%X, then only 1/3 of the cases are Caused by _. But, the difference is still very significant.
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
      Again your example isn't even in the same ballpark as what you'd actually see in a rigorous study of the relationship between outdoor air pollution and heart disease, so please stop implying that it's somehow "very significant."
      - Retric 9y ago
        I was simply pointing out the flaws in your logic. The actual studies linking air pollution to heart disease stand on their own just fine. The method of action is well supported and due to the inflammatory response. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784920/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784920/ But, at this point it's clear you don't care about science when it conflicts with your gut feelings, a common failing.
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        As mentioned in another comment, many of those studies are referring to indoor air pollution (or including indoor and outdoor air pollution in the same study), which is disingenuous at best. I'm not calling into question the method of action, but I am saying that there is no evidence of outdoor air pollution having anywhere close to the same effect on premature death (via heart disease or otherwise) as smoking, nor would it even be remotely close to the other fictitious numbers you've mentioned.
        Retric 9y ago
        > (via heart disease or otherwise) Smoking on it's own causes ~6 million deaths per year and air pollution is linked to ~5.5 to 7 million deaths a year so they really are on the same scale. (And larger than my example 20% vs 30%.) Yes, only a subset of the population smoke so the direct impact is higher. However, some areas also have vastly higher levels of air pollution. Now, if you have some actual evidence then sure feel free to share, but I am just not hearing it.
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        Again, you're conflating indoor and outdoor air pollution, and if you look closely, even the WHO's own "facts" for estimates of outdoor/ambient air pollution deaths are full of weasel words and misleading claims. Instead of merely reading the conclusions of these studies, I'd encourage you to look at the underlying data with a healthy dose of skepticism. Only then will you start to see all the holes in the research.

Retric 9y ago

Not really, if you look at lung cancer rates among non smokers they are not zero. So, you can't say a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking but by comparing populations you can find changes in rates.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
curiousgeorgio 9y ago
Are you really comparing the relationship between smoking and lung cancer with a relationship between air pollution (especially outdoor) and heart disease? Seriously, they're not even in the same ballpark in terms of objective statistical significance. Not even close. You may not be able to say with absolute 100% certainty that "a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking", but you can often be >95% certain. Can you (or anyone) say the same for outdoor air pollution and heart disease?
- Retric 9y ago
  Don't move the goal post. If a very large populationa has 20%X vs 30%X, then only 1/3 of the cases are Caused by _. But, the difference is still very significant.
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
    Again your example isn't even in the same ballpark as what you'd actually see in a rigorous study of the relationship between outdoor air pollution and heart disease, so please stop implying that it's somehow "very significant."
    - Retric 9y ago
      I was simply pointing out the flaws in your logic. The actual studies linking air pollution to heart disease stand on their own just fine. The method of action is well supported and due to the inflammatory response. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784920/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784920/ But, at this point it's clear you don't care about science when it conflicts with your gut feelings, a common failing.
      - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        As mentioned in another comment, many of those studies are referring to indoor air pollution (or including indoor and outdoor air pollution in the same study), which is disingenuous at best. I'm not calling into question the method of action, but I am saying that there is no evidence of outdoor air pollution having anywhere close to the same effect on premature death (via heart disease or otherwise) as smoking, nor would it even be remotely close to the other fictitious numbers you've mentioned.
        Retric 9y ago
        > (via heart disease or otherwise) Smoking on it's own causes ~6 million deaths per year and air pollution is linked to ~5.5 to 7 million deaths a year so they really are on the same scale. (And larger than my example 20% vs 30%.) Yes, only a subset of the population smoke so the direct impact is higher. However, some areas also have vastly higher levels of air pollution. Now, if you have some actual evidence then sure feel free to share, but I am just not hearing it.
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        Again, you're conflating indoor and outdoor air pollution, and if you look closely, even the WHO's own "facts" for estimates of outdoor/ambient air pollution deaths are full of weasel words and misleading claims. Instead of merely reading the conclusions of these studies, I'd encourage you to look at the underlying data with a healthy dose of skepticism. Only then will you start to see all the holes in the research.