Mince Pies To Die For.

A short story:

As I walked along the trench, I took a quick look over the parapet at the distant lights. Jerry was put on quite a show tonight, with red and green and yellow star shells lighting up the night sky in preparation for another bombardment.

Walking along the boards above the mud, edging around heaps of ammunition plastered with skulls and warnings, I ducked down into the command post buried under several feet of clay and concrete. Captain Stokes was inside, poring over a map on the table.

“Hello, Watkins!” he said cheerily, as soon as he caught sight of me.

“Jerry’s putting on quite a show tonight,” I said, pulling off my trenchcoat, and settling into one of the armchairs by the table. “Preparing for another bombardment, I suppose.”

Stokes sighed and fingered his luxuriant moustache, and sat down at the table, the light from the bare electric lamp above him picking out the stubble on his face, the care-worn wrinkles on his face, and his heavy, tired eyelids.

“War is hell, y’know, Watkins,” he said eventually. “It’s a terrible waste. So much pain and suffering and grief. So many casualties. And it just goes on and on and on.”

“Captain, I’ve been wanting to have a word…,” I began. But Stokes was just getting into his stride.

“I was in the field hospital earlier,” he continued. “To see some of the casualties from Jerry’s last bombardment. Fine young men, they once were, but now they were just lying there moaning and groaning, or calling out, or even manically cackling with insane laughter. The doctors do their best, but most of them are beyond helping, and they have to let them slip away. Tomorrow I’m going to have to write to their parents and sweethearts back home. And it’s the very worst job that I have to do.”

“And their parents and sweethearts back home are working just as hard as we are, keeping us supplied with ammunition and artillery. They work round the clock to keep us supplied. They’re almost as exhausted as we are.”

A look of profound gloom spread over his face, and he began fingering his moustache again.

“Captain, I’ve been wanting to show you something that I found a few days ago.”

“Yes,” Stokes replied, absently. “What is it?”

“It’s this,” I said, pulling out a handkerchief from my pocket and carefully laying it open on the table to reveal a small shiny object.

Stokes peered at it closely. “It’s one of those Jerry bullets, isn’t it?” he said eventually.

“Yes,” I said. “It’s one of theirs all right. But it’s not a bullet.”

“Isn’t it?” Stokes replied, his eyes widening. “Then what the hell is it?”

“It’s a mint humbug.”

Stokes said nothing, but his mouth fell slightly open.

“Try it,” I said. “Pop it in your mouth and suck it.”

“Good grief, Watkins!” Stokes bawled. “Have you lost your marbles? Do you think I’m going to put a German bullet in my mouth and suck it?”

“Well, then I will,” I said. And took the bullet between thumb and forefinger, and popped it into my mouth.

Stokes stared at me aghast as I sucked on the bullet, and then pulled it out and showed it to him again.

“See. It’s got smaller. That’s what happens when you suck mint humbugs,” I said. “And I also found this.”

I took out a cannister from my pocket, and set it on the table.

Stokes backed away from the table. “That’s one of their hand grenades, you fool!” he shouted. “Don’t touch it. It may go off!”

I carefully unscrewed the top, and deposited the contents of the cannister on the table, as Stokes cowered against the wall with his hands over his face.

“Nougat,” I said. “Sticks of nougat, with cherry and walnut. Very nice too.”

Stokes dropped his guard, and hesitantly returned to the table.

“So what if they’re mint humbugs and nougat?” he said.  “They’re obviously poisonous mint humbugs and nougat.”

“No they’re not. And they’re very tasty. I ate all the nougat in one of their grenades last week, and I feel as right as rain.”

Stokes stared at me very hard.

“I’d like to suggest, Captain Stokes, that those Germans in the trenches over there aren’t our enemies, but our friends. And they bombard us daily with gifts. Mint humbugs. Nougat. Black forest gateau. Chocolate. Wine. Schnapps. Beer. And we ought to thank them for it, because it’s really very kind of them.”

Stokes lifted the receiver of the field telephone, and laid it on the desk.

“And what do we fire back at them, eh?” I asked.

“Well,” said Stokes, recovering his composure. “It’s pretty lethal stuff. Let’s see. Last week we fired off about four hundred 16-pound roast turkeys, dripping with gravy, and stuffed with bacon and roast potatoes and carrots and peas. And we followed up with a couple of hundred plum puddings. And several dozen bottles of Greensham Best Bitter. That shut them up all right!” He grinned broadly.

“I’m sure it did,” I replied. “It probably took them days to get through it all.”

“I don’t believe a word of it,” Stokes said. “It’s a preposterous idea, that the Jerries are eating all the poisonous stuff we throw at them. Next you’ll be suggesting that our brave lads are doing the same with their humbugs and nougat and sausages!”

“That’s exactly what I’m suggesting, Captain. Those casualties that you were visiting earlier weren’t dying men. They were merely suffering from acute indigestion. It’s what happens if you stuff yourself with cake and nougat and sausage and humbugs, and wash it all down with schnapps and brandy. Most of them were probably blind drunk as well.”

Stokes tapped his fingers on the table impatiently.

“So I suppose that you also think that my aunt Maud, who has spent the last two years on a night shift in Barnsley, making heavy duty pork pies and Cornish pasties and sausage rolls to ship out to us troops for our guns, has simply been aiding and abetting the enemy, eh?”

“Exactly! Although the pork pies are rather inedible. The Germans do much better when they’re posted opposite the French, and they get croissants and coffee and Gitanes and escargots and pate-de-foie-gras and Creme de Menthe and Benedictine raining down on them. It’s a tough assignment to be posted opposite us Brits with our spam and roast beef and bread-and-butter puddings.”

“And when the Americans join the war?” Stokes grinned and canted his head to one side.

“It’ll be a rain of doughnuts and Pepsi and quarter pound cheeseburgers and ice cream and hershey bars and Kentucky Fried Chicken and Jack Daniels whiskey.”

“And they’ll be dead in minutes!” Stokes exclaimed. “Do you think the Jerries will last long once they get hit by all that, eh? Have you read the health warnings on that stuff?”

Just then the door burst open, and couple of burly military policeman rushed in.

“Arrest him!” shrieked Stokes, pointing at me. And within seconds I was pinned to the wall, with my arms behind my back.

Stokes advanced triumphantly towards me.

“Do you think that I believed a single word you said? Because I didn’t! You can believe all that nonsense about nutritious and tasty German nougat, but I don’t! And I keep a few things in my trouser pockets too. Like this!!”

He drew out a long  brown object from his pocket.

“Do you know what this is? Do you? Well, it’s a two-year-old English pork sausage, fried in batter. And it’s absolutely lethal. And if I’m ever in a tight spot, and there’s no way out, I’m going to eat it. And I’ll be dead in minutes, after suffering awful convulsions.”

“As for you, you’re in a tight spot right now, chummy. Because tomorrow morning you’re going to face a court martial. You’ll be charged with treason, and fraternising with the enemy. And you’ll face the death penalty for it. And don’t expect me to slip you a bit of my sausage to give you a quick way out! Now take him away!!” he bawled.

The policemen bundled me out of the door, and dragged me to the brig, where I lay sleepless until dawn broke.

The trial only lasted 10 minutes. The evidence was laid out on the table. One half-sucked humbug. A cannister of nougat. A small bottle of Pils. A transcript of my conversation with Stokes, overheard on the telephone handset. The death sentence was to be carried out immediately.

I was dragged to a muddy trench, and lashed to a tree stump, and a handkerchief was tied over my eyes as the firing party assembled. And I trembled as I heard the sergeant tell his men to take aim, and then to fire.

And then the rain of mince pies began, splattering over my face and chest. One trickled into the corner of my mouth, and I licked it up. It was sweet, and flavoured with brandy and ginger and perhaps a hint of cinnamon or cloves.

They were mince pies to die for.

Happy New Year.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Mince Pies To Die For.

  1. Reinhold says:

    Happy New Year also to you, Frank, and everybody around here!

    Except the antismokers.

  2. Happy New Year Frank! You are a VERY strange man. That’s why we like ya!

    :>
    Michael

  3. lysistratatheoriginal says:

    Ha! Hahahaha! Loved the story.
    A very happy new year to you.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Strange nothings strange in this world any longer unless your NORMAL and smoke!

  5. hangemall says:

    Frank, are you sure that’s tobacco you’ve been growing?

    Your story reminds me of one my Father told me about when he was in the RAF. They shared a base with Americans and were getting fed up with eating nothing but corned beef every day. The Brits asked the Americans what they would be having to eat.

    “Goddam tinned turkey again.” So they did a swap and everyone was happy.

    Finally, as my bank would say, “Wishing me a Happy Screw Yer.”

  6. Rose says:

    Happy New Year

    Talking of strange things, Harley, try this juxtaposition

    Today’s news

    Mortality: H.I.V.-Positive Smokers Lose More Years to Tobacco Than to the Virus, a Study Says
    “H.I.V. patients who obtain good treatment but who smoke lose more years of life to tobacco than to the virus, a new Danish study has found.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/health/smoking-cuts-hiv-patients-lives-more-than-virus-study-says.html?_r=0

    Previously –

    Tobacco promises hope in HIV Aids research

    “Scientists are hoping to halt the spread of HIV – with tobacco!
    Researchers at East Malling Research are helping to grow genetically-modified tobacco plants which give off a potentially life-saving drug through their roots.”

    “”Tobacco is an ideal non-food crop for this research, thanks to the speed it grows and matures and our deep knowledge of its physiology and transformability, which has been the focus of scientific attention for more than 20 years.”
    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2011/december/12/tobacco_promises_hope.aspx

    Tobacco gets new, healthy image

    “The study was part of the Pharma-Planta project, which was funded under the EU’s Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) to the tune of EUR 12 million.”

    ‘The fact that they can be eaten, which delivers the drug where it is needed, thus avoiding lengthy purification procedures, is another plus compared with traditional drug synthesis,’ explained Professor Pezzotti.”
    http: //cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&RCN=30673

    Pharma-Planta Production of Clinical-grade API in Tobacco

    “Fraunhofer IME did coordinate this project and made significant scientific such as the cell line and process development and the GMP-production of the HIV-neutralizing antibody 2G12 in Nicotiana tabacum.”
    http: //www.ime.fraunhofer.de/en/businessareasMB/integrated_production_platforms/pharma-planta_productionofclinical-gradeapiintobacco.html

    Surreal.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Here we are again self medicating! lol love it Rose

    • margo says:

      Gob-smacking, Rose. The world has indeed gone mad. Whom the gods would destroy they first drive mad (Homer, I think?) The Mayans were right – it’s just going to take a while. Happy New Year to all.

      • Rose says:

        Margo

        The Mayan’s were right, it was the end of one age and the beginning of another, but from what I’ve read, unfortunately the Spanish wiped out their rulers and astronomers, gave the rest smallpox and tried to convert the people that remained, destroying most of their documents as pagan, so presumably there wasn’t any one left to organize the calculation and carving the next calendar.

        On TV, It was wonderful to see a shaman vigorously blowing smoke from the biggest cigar I’ve ever seen as a blessing over the crowds as the moment approached, but I noted that hand rolled cigarette smoke was also acceptable for blowing over statuettes of the gods, which I hadn’t been quite sure about.

        I’ve been waiting for the Winter Solstice 2012 for years so at exactly 11.11 on the 21st I set fire to some of this years homegrown tobacco sending the smoke up into sky and wished this new Age well.

        • Rose says:

          Had I had a working computer at the time, I would have been sure to remind everyone to light up at 11.11

          “The earliest historical record of tobacco use in Central America resides among the artefacts of the Mayans, a sophisticated metropolitan civilization that flourished between about 2000 BC and AD 900. The Mayans farmed tobacco and considered its consumption to be not only a form of pleasure, but also a ritual of immense significance. At least two of their principal gods were habitual smokers.”
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/tobacco.htm

          2012 is not the end of the world, Mayan elder insists

          “The year 2012 will not bring the end of the world, a Mayan elder has insisted, despite claims that a Mayan calendar shows that time will “run out” on December 21 of that year.

          But hysteria surrounding 2012 does have some grains of archaeological basis. One of them is Monument Six.

          Found at an obscure ruin in southern Mexico during highway construction in the 1960s, the stone tablet almost did not survive; the site was largely paved over and parts of the tablet were looted.

          The inscription describes something that is supposed to occur in 2012 involving Bolon Yokte, a mysterious Mayan god associated with both war and creation.

          However, erosion and a crack in the stone make the end of the passage almost illegible.
          Guillermo Bernal, an archaeologist at Mexico’s National Autonomous University, believes the eroded message is: “He will descend from the sky”.
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6300744/2012-is-not-the-end-of-the-world-Mayan-elder-insists.html

          “The Mayans were a complex society, light years ahead of anything else in the Western hemisphere,” says Richard Hansen, professor of Mayan studies at Idaho State University, in a video presentation. “They were an advanced urban civilization.”

          Even so, it has been quite some time since a Mayan corporate chieftain has sacrificed a virgin maiden to God of Business Bolon Yokte Ku, a demanding deity who has the ears of a jaguar and smokes cigars.”

          http: //www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-19/mayans-ponder-cataclysm-sacrifice-virgins-in-paris-show-a-craig-copetas.html

    • GaryK30 says:

      Ahhhh yes, pre-mature death!
      Antis claim that each cigarette smoked causes us to lose a minute of life.

      Wellll, there are about 526,000 minutes in a year.
      Smoking a pack per day, it would take me 72 years to smoke that many cigs.

      If I started at the age of 18, I would be 90 before it happened.

      Most of the 90 year olds that I have known would not be concerned about losing 1 year of their miserable life.

      I am 70; and if the next 20 years go like the last 20(downhill physically), I won’t miss one more year.

      If some morning, at the age of 90; I wake up and find myself dead, I will probably say:
      “Glad that shit is over; now, where did I leave my cigarettes?”

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Proposed, smoke-free bylaw is quashed

    From Canada

    DRUM ROLL………………………Lambton Shores Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis Dagg led the argument against the bylaw, saying there is no scientific basis for it.

    LMMFAO!!!!!!!!

    http://www.petroliatopic.com/2012/12/31/proposed-smoke-free-bylaw-is-quashed

  8. GaryK30 says:

    Time to make those ‘New Year Resolutions’.

    Mine is to smoke at least 5 more cigs per day. I smoke about 20 and I must get that number up to at least 25 per day.

    I wish to improve my chances of not dying from the diseases ’caused by smoking’ by 23%.

    Data from Sir Richard Doll’s doctor mortality study, otherwise known as ‘Sir Dickie’s doctor death data’ tells us that it is better to smoke more.

    Study showed that 85% of the 1-14 cigs/day smokers died from the diseases ‘claimed to be caused’ by smoking.

    87% of the 15-24 cigs/day smokers died from those diseases.

    HOWEVER, ONLY 84% of the 25+ cigs/day smokers died from those ‘smoking caused’ diseases!!!

    Thus, I will be 23% more likely to not die from those diseases.

    16 not dying vs 13 not dying = 3
    3/13 = 23%

    Never-smokers = 84% died from those ‘smoking caused’ diseases.

    Sooooo, never-smoke or be a heavy smoker, you will have the same probability of not dying/dying from the diseases ’caused by smoking’!!!!

  9. GaryK30 says:

    “Sooooo, never-smoke or be a heavy smoker, you will have the same probability of not dying/dying from the diseases ’caused by smoking’!!!!”

    The antis will accuse me of being crazy and stupid; because, when they go to the table on page 3 of the link below, this is what they see.

    http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE

    Never-smokers deaths per 1,000 people from those diseases was 16 and the heavy smokers rate was 38 per 1,000 people.

    They will say that it is obvious that the heavy smokers are about 2.5 times as likely to die from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

    However, they are ignoring some very important numbers. They are ignoring the total number of deaths for each group.

    They are, in effect, saying that : ‘because 3 is much bigger than 1, the number 3/6 is much bigger than the number 1/2′.

    The number of total deaths per 1,000 goes like this:

    never-smokers = 19.38 total deaths, of which about 16.2 deaths are from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.
    16.2/19.38 = 84%

    heavy smokers = 45.34 total deaths, of which 38 deaths are from those same diseases.
    38/45.34 = 84%

    Sooooo, never-smoke or be a heavy smoker, you will have the same 84% probability of dying from the diseases ’caused by smoking’!!!!

    • GaryK30 says:

      Doll and ischaemic heart disease(heart attack) deaths

      In the summary on page 3, there is a table showing the death rate per 1,000 for never-smokers and for heavy(25+per day) smokers.

      never-smokers = 6.19/1,000/year

      heavy smokers = 11.11/1,000/year

      Thus,antis claim, heavy smokers are almost twice as likely to die from heart attacks as are never-smokers.

      We do not have to accept their math as the final statement.

      In fact, never-smokers are 31% more likely to die from a heart attack as are heavy-smokers.

      They don’t mention that an ‘incidence rate’ of deaths is not the same as a ‘percentage of total deaths’.

      The total deaths/1,000/year are:

      never-smokers = 19.38

      heavy smokers = 45.34

      Now we have this for heart attack deaths:

      never-smokers = 6.19/19.38 = 32% of the total deaths.

      heavy smokers = 11.11/45.34 = 24.5% of the total deaths.

      32% is 31% greater than 24.5%

      Never-smokers are 31% more likely to die from a heart attack as are heavy-smokers.

      Now, let’s look at cancers.

      Heavy smokers do more often die from lung,mouth, and throat cancers.

      But, those cancers are only about 1/4th of the cancer deaths.

      incidence rates, for all other cancers, are:

      never-smokers = 3.34/1,000

      heavy smokers = 5.38/1,000

      Looks bad for the heavy smokers; but, here are the total deaths:

      never-smokers = 3.34/19.38 = 17%

      heavy-smokers = 5.38/45.34 = 11.9%

      17% is 43% greater than 11.9%

      Never-smokers are 43% more likely to die from cancers of the brain, stomach, or rectum than are heavy-smokers.

      It is possible to do lung transplants; but, there are no brain transplants and I am not so sure that I would want someone else’s rectum.

      • GaryK30 says:

        Sir R.Doll MD is a world renowned medical researcher.

        Dr. Doll’s research on the mortality of British doctors showed that both never-smokers and heavy smokers have the same probability of having died from the diseases caused by smoking.

        • garyk30 says:

          These people should be wearing hoods and burning crosses on lawns.

          Smoking bans and the hatred of smokers is ‘racism’ presented as ‘healthism’.

          The TC antis are ‘racist’ scum!!!

          Here:
          http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss…

          Smoking rates for various racial groups:

          Whites = 19.6%.

          Blacks = 22.1%.

          Multiracial = 24.7%.

          the TC antis are also class bigots presented as healthism.

          Education.

          Less than high school = 32.4%.

          high school degree = 26.5%.

          college degree = 10.1%.

          Think about this.

          When was the last time you saw an anti-smoking advert featuring a picture of a Black smoker?

          Yet, Blacks have a higher smoking rate.

          The antis are afraid to show their true hatred.

        • garyk30 says:

          Mention has been made of COPD.

          Dr.Doll found after following 30,000+ doctors for 50 years.

          smokers COPD death rate = 1.56/1,000 per year.
          never smokers = 0.11/1,000 per year

          Not dying from COPD were 998.44 vs 999.89
          Continuing smokers had 99.9% of the never-smokers’ chances of NOT dying from COPD.

          Since you can not die from COPD unless you have COPD; one might say, continuing smokers had 99.9% of the never-smokers chances of NOT getting/suffering from COPD.

        • garyk30 says:

          CDC data:

          current smokers’ yearly death rate from lung cancer = 7/10,000

          never-smokers = 2/10,000

          yearly not dying = 9,993/10,000 vs 9,998/10,000

          9,993/9,996 = 99.95%

          A current smoker has 99.95% of a never-smoker’s chancef NOT dying from lung cancer in any given year.

        • garyk30 says:

          Dr.Doll found after following 30,000+ doctors for 50 years.

          smokers lung cancer death rate = 2.5/1,000 per year.

          never smokers = 0.17/1,000 per year

          Not dying from lung cancer were 997.5 vs 999.83

          Continuing smokers had 99.8% of the never-smokers’ chances of NOT dying from lung cancer.

          That is pretty much the same results.

        • garyk30 says:

          Tell the politicians that it makes no difference whether you are a heavy smoker or never-smoke, there is an 84% probability that when you die, it will be from a disease ’caused’ by smoking.

          Sir R. Doll MD was a workd renowned medical reasearcher.
          Dr. Doll’s study of doctors’ deaths found that 84% of the deaths of both never-smokers and heavy smokers(25+/day) were from the diseases said to be ’caused’ by smoking.

          For instance, heavy smokers were more likely to die from lung/mouth-throat cancers and these cancers made up 5.5% of the total deaths.

          But; for the other cancers like brain, testicular, or rectal cancer that made up about 15% of the total deaths, never-smokers were 43% more likely to have died than heavy smokers.

          Most people can get around with part of their lung removed; but, only anti-smokers seem to be able to get by with only part of their brain functioning.

          Never-smokers were about 31% more likely to have died from heart attacks.

        • garyk30 says:

          Just a bit more.

          Heart attack deaths were 30% of the total deaths.

          Never-smokers were 22% more likely, than heavy smokers, to die from a stroke.

          Strokes were 13% of the total deaths.

          People that have had a stroke can, and most likely will, be left in very crappy condition.

        • garyk30 says:

          that link was out of date.
          Here is the newer one.
          http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/race.asp?cat=TU&yr=2011&qkey=8161&state=US

          white = 20.8%

          black = 26.4%

          multiracial = 32.5%

          American Indian = 40%
          (from a different source)

          Education

          less than high school = 34.9%

          high school grad = 26.17%

          college grad = 8.8%

          Smoking bans are a vile,vicious form of discrimination.

          At least, when there was racial dicrimination, blacks had the option of having their own pubs and diners.
          Blacks were not allowed into the ‘white only’ establishments; but, they were allowed to have their own establishments.

          If they chose to do so, whites could frequent the Black places.
          Many whites did, the food was very good and the prices were very reasonable.
          Few whites went into black pubs/bars.

          Antis will say that smokers are not denied access to public places, they just can’t smoke in them.

          I am a smoker and I dislike having to become a non-smoker in order to please the nannies.
          I, for one, am not impressed nor overwhelmed by their sanctimonious generousity.

          Nor were the blacks that could work in a ‘white only’ diner; but, not eat there.

        • garyk30 says:

          Racism and Bigotry for no reason.

          Antis claim that smoking ‘Kills’ and smokers should quit so as to improve their chances of ‘NOT DYING’ from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

          Bull Crap, heavy smokers and never-smokers have almost precisely the same chances of NOT dying from those diseases.

          Doll’s doctor mortality report.
          http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE

          The table on page 3 shows this:
          Lung cancer deaths per year.
          heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.

          never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.

          999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.

          Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likey than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!

          When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.

          Other results:
          mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.

          all other cancers = 1.002 times.

          COPD = 1.002 times.

          other respiratory = 1.002 times.

          heart attack = 1.005 times.

          stroke = 1.002 times.

          other vascular = 1.003 times..

        • garyk30 says:

          The higher smoking rates for racial minorities and the lower income people show that they are more affected by smoking bans and anti-smoker policies.

          That, pure and simple, is racist discrimination and class bigotry.

          That, pure and simple, is what TC is all about!!!

      • garyk30 says:

        Another awkward question for them:

        If quitting smoking is supposed to be good for us, why are ex-smokers more likely to have died from such things as strokes and heart attacks?

        Data from the summary of Doll’s doctor death report.

        Other cancers are 74% of the cancers noted and include such as brain cancer, rectal cancer, and etc.

        11.9% of the heavy smokers(25+/day) total deaths were from these other cancers.

        15.4% of the ex-smokers total deaths were from those other cancers.

        That is a 29% INCREASE in other cancer deaths.

        24.5% of the heavy smokers total deaths were from heart attacks(IHD).

        32% of the ex-smokers total deaths were from heart attacks.

        That is a 31% INCREASE in heart attack deaths.

        11.5% of the heavy smoker total deaths were from stroke.

        13.2% of the ex-smoker total deaths were from stroke.

        That is a 15% INCREASE in stroke deaths.

        One gets the distinct feeling that the TC nannies do not have our best interests in mind!

        • garyk30 says:

          Causing and highlighting fear is the nannies big weapon.

          Presenting the worst possible data is their stock in trade,

          Consider lung cancer and Doll’s doctor study:

          The study shows that smokers in general get lung cancer at the rate of 2.49/1,000 per year and heavy smokers at the rate of 4.17/1,000.

          Since never-smokers’ rate is 0.17/1,000, the antis could say that smokers are either 15 or 25 times as likely to die from lung cancer as never-smokers.

          The 25 times is the claim that the media gets and there are zero qualifiers made.
          The same holds true for COPD at 9 times and 24 times.

          There iis no comparison made of the chances of not dying from either lung cancer or COPD.

          But, a heavy smoker has 99.6% of a never-smokers chance of not dying from lung cancer and 99.7% of their chance of not dying from COPD.

          A never-smoker is only 4/1,000ths more likely to not die from lung cancer and only 2/1,000ths more likely to not die from COPD, than a heavy smoker.

          A person is hundreds of times more likely to not get lung cancer/COPD than they are to get those diseases; but, the data for what happens to the vast majority of people is never presented.

          I doubt that is accidental!!!

        • garyk30 says:

          Imagine the media statement like this:

          The Daily News(either print or tv)
          Thursday the 10th of January, 2013

          ASH has released a statement that claims that smokers are about 25 times as likely as never-smokers to die from lung cancer or COPD.

          In the interests of objectivity, our reporters have researched the matter and found that this claim is true; but, it is also true that smokers and never-smokers are equally likely to not die from lung cancer/COPD in any given year.

          This strange duality is caused by the fact that there are few deaths from these diseases per year and the vast majority of people do not die from them in any given year.

          The 25 times is a measure of the about 1/2th of 1 percent that die and the equality is about the 99.5% that do not die from these diseases.

          It is the editorial opinion of this media outlet that the statement about the 99.5% that do not die has the most importance.

          The Daily News
          10 Jan 2013

        • garyk30 says:

          The 25 times is a measure of the about 1/2th of 1 percent that die and the equality is about the 99.5% that do not die from these diseases.”

          That is reality.
          Doll’s study showed a total lung cancer death rate of about 5/1,000 per year.

          That is 0.5/100; or, 1/2th(.5) of 1%.

          Many of the most fanatical antis are ex-smokers.

          As a heavy smoker, my chances of not dying from lung cancer this year are the same as an ex-smoker.

          This holds true for all of the duseases claimed to be ’caused’ by smoking.

          The antis, of whatever background, have nothing to be pious and elitist about!!

  10. beobrigitte says:

    Golly-Gosh! A lot has happened in the last few days… It’ll take me a while to read everything!!!

    Sorry for being a bit late:

    Happy New Year!!! to everyone here (except the anti-smokers)

    New Years Eve with ASHTRAYS ON the tables…. BLISS!!!!!!!!!!! Needless to say – we stayed and had a wonderful time!!!

  11. Pingback: Healthism’s Hidden Racism | Frank Davis

  12. garyk30 says:

    An inquiring mind might ask, what percentage of smokers deaths are over the average of death, in America that is 78 years?
    50% of non-smokers will live beyond 78 years of age.

    40% of smokers will live beyond 78 years of age.

    American CDC says that smokers lose,on average, 15 years of potential life.
    If you die at the age of 73, you will lose 15 years of potential life.

    So, the average smoker’s death is at the age of 73.

    50% die at that age or below and 50% over that age.

    We will say that everybody, for the most part, dies by the age of 98.

    50% of the smokers’ deaths will occur over the 25 year span from 73 to 98.
    That is a rate of, on average, 2% per year.

    There are 5 years between 73 and 78 years(avg age of death).

    5 years X 2% per year = 10%.

    50% minus 10% = 40%.

  13. garyk30 says:

    Your chances of dying because of surgery are 3 times as high as a smoker’s chances of dying from lung cancer.

    Comparative death statistics are:
    Current smoking and lung cancer death= 7/10,000 per year.
    Surgery related deaths = 22/10,000 per year.

    There are about 46 million smokers and they have about 32,814 lung cancer deaths.
    That is a rate of 7/10,000 per year.

    Every year more than 15 million people in the U.S. have surgery and there are 32,000 surgery related deaths.
    That is a rate of 22/10,000 per year.

  14. garyk30 says:

    Actually, we might be better off if we did away with modern health care and went back to ‘Shamans and Witchdoctors’.

    Which is more deadly, smoking or hospitals/doctors in hospitals/nursing homes?

    The death rate from smoking is 42/10,000 per year.
    (in America, 393,000 deaths per 94 million ever-smokers)

    The death rate caused by hospitals/doctors in hospitals/nursing homes is 160/10,000 per year.
    (in America, 584,000 deaths per 36.5 million hospital/nursing home admissions)

    Hospitals/nursing homes are about 4 times more deadly than smoking.

    It takes decades of smoking to cause death from lung cancer or COPD.

    The average hospital stay is about 4 days; but, that is enough time for death from surgical errors, drug errors, or hospital acquired infections.

    It takes a bit longer for deaths from bedsores and malnutrition; but, there are still about 223,000 of those per year.

    Bedsores and malnutrition = rotting and starving to death!

    Besides, witchdoctors were much less expensive.

  15. garyk30 says:

    Just a thought.
    All of the health care nannies and others that feel that there is no safe level of one thing or another must be God fearing believers.

    The ‘no safe level’ is the ‘Pre-cautionary Principle’ that says “if there is any possibility of harm, action must be taken to prevent that harm”.

    Many religions believe that there is an after-life in some form of a Hell for the non-believers.

    Hell is usually a very nasty place to be for eternity.

    If there is even only the remotest possibility of going to Hell for being an ‘un-believer’, the Pre-cautionary Principle would mandate being a God fearing ‘Believer’!!!

    The nannies, on principle, must be God fearing Believers.
    But, such Believers could not and would not treat others(smokers) as they have done.

    Folks that athiests have a gambling problem.
    Since there is a 50/50 chance of there being God and everyone must die, they face a 50% chance of winding up in Hell when they die for no real gain while they were alive.

  16. garyk30 says:

    You will never see this data either!!!

    NEWS FLASH

    American govt data shows that smoking bans will have no effect on a never-smoker’s chances of not dying from lung cancer.

    Never-smokers exposed to SHS have a lung cancer death rate of 5/20,000 per year.

    Never-smokers not exposed to SHS have a lung cancer death rate of 4/20,000 per year.

    Never-smokers not exposed to SHS are only 1.00005 times as likely to not die from lung cancer.

    19,996 not dying divided by 19,995 not dying = 1.00005

    Also; if an SHS exposed never-smoker dies from lung cancer, there is a 4 out of 5 chance(80%) that cancer was caused by something other than SHS exposure.

  17. garyk30 says:

    How about this.
    NEWSFLASH

    Smoking bans will not cause an immediate huge drop in the lung cancer or heart attack deaths of the non-smoking hospitality workers.

    That will not happen for 40-50 years.

    The average age of lung cancer death is about 73 and the average age of heart attack death is about 78.

    The average hospitality worker is aged 24.

    http://joboutlook.gov.au/Documents/Employment%20Outlook%20for%20Hospitality%20Workers.pdf

    Page 10

    About 76% of hospitality workers are aged between 15 – 34 years of age.

    The average(mean) age of hospitality workers is about 24 years of age.

  18. garyk30 says:

    If there had never been a smoker, 98.4% of the lung cancer deaths would still happen!!!

    If a smoker(current+ex-smoker with similar risk) dies from lung cancer,there is a 93% probability that the cancer was caused by something other than smoking.

    Smokers(current+ex-smoker with similar risk) have a lung cancer death rate of 7.2/10,000.

    Non-smokers(never-smokers+ex-smokers with a similar risk) have a lung cancer death rate of 6.7/10,000.

    Since 6.7 is 93% of 7.2; if smokers had never smoked, they would still have 93% of the lung cancer deaths that occurred.

    Thus;for any and all individual smoker’s lung cancer deaths,there is a 93% probability it/they were caused by something other than smoking.

    The 7% of smokers’ lung cancer deaths that antis will say are caused by smoking is 2,498 lung cancer deaths.

    2,498 is 1.6% of the 157,000 lung cancer deaths.

    If there had never been a smoker, 98.4% of the lung cancer deaths would still happen!!!

  19. garyk30 says:

    garyk30 says:

    January 22, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    One of the reasons for a smoking ban to be needed was for the health of the never-smoker hospitality workers.

    SHS was causing them to die off from lung cancer.

    But, there are only about 14 of those deaths,per year, in the UK and 50% of those deaths are to people over the age of 73.

    Using American govt data, we see:
    1) Adults are 75% of the population.
    (UK population is 60 million = 45 million adults)

    2) About 1 per 100 adults are hospitality workers-servers+ bartenders.
    (UK = 450,000 hospitality workers)

    3) About 40% of those workers are ever-smokers and 60% never-smokers.
    (UK…450,000 x 60% = 270,000 never-smokers)

    4) The lung cancer death rate for SHS exposed never-smokers is 1/20,000 per year.
    (UK…270,000 divided by 20,000 = 13.5 lung cancer deaths caused by SHS exposure)

    5) Average age of lung cancer death is about 73.
    (UK….7 of those 14 lung cancer deaths will be over the age of 73)

    Scotland would have 1.2 such lung cancer deaths per year and only every 1.5 years would one of them be under the age of 73.

  20. garyk30 says:

    Here are American lung cancer stats for you.

    Over the last 60 years, as the adult smoking rates have declined by about 50%, the lung cancer incidence rate has increased by 640%.

    Death rate has increased by about 425%.

    Senior citizen rates have not increased by that same large amounts.
    In 1950, 8% of the population was over the age of 65.
    That is 8,000/100,000

    In 2010, 13% were over the age of 65.
    13,000/100,000

    That is about a 61% increase as compared to the 640% increase in lung cancer incidence!

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022160.htm

    Mortality Trends for Selected Smoking-Related Cancers and Breast Cancer — United States, 1950-1990
    TABLE 1. Age-adjusted death rates * for selected smoking-related cancers, by sex and
    race + — United States, selected years, 1950-1990(per 100,000)
    Total – Lung

    1950 = 13/100,000 (Incidence Rate = 13/100,000)

    1860 = 21

    1970 = 32.

    1980 = 42.

    1990 = 50.3/100,000

    (From another source)
    2010 = 68.4/100,000(Incidence Rate = 96.7/100,000)

  21. garyk30 says:

    Contrary to what the antis say; if asmoker dies from lung cancer, there is a 55% probability that cancer was caused by something other than smoking.

    Ex-smokers, in America, account for 61% of the lung cancers.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm
    Table 2
    Current smokers = 21% of lung cancers
    Ex-smokers = 61% of lung cancers
    Never-smokers = 18% of lung cancers
    There are about 46 million current smokers, 48 million ex-smokers, and 136 milion never-smokers.

    • garyk30 says:

      A little math excercise.
      Suppose you have 100 smokers that die of lung cancer and there is a 90% probability their cancer was caused by smoking.

      What is the chance that all 100 cancers were caused by smoking.

      Actually, the odds are vanishingly small.

      Flipping a coin gives you a 50% chance of getting a ‘Heads”.
      Flipping two coins gives you a 25% probability of both coming up ‘Heads”.
      There are 4 possible combinations; of which, 2 ‘Heads’ is 1.
      Math = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25

      90% probability = 0.9

      2 deaths = 0.9 X 0.9 = 0.81 = only a 81% probability that both were caused by smoking.

      After 7 deaths we are down to a 48% probability that all 7 were caused by smoking.

      After 20 deaths.we are down to an 11% probability that all were caused by smoking.

      After 30 deaths, there is only a 3.8% probability that all were caused by smoking.

      The possibilty that all 100 deaths were caused by smoking is almost non-existent!!!!

      Now consider, antis claim that thousands of lung cancer deaths are totally ’caused’ by smoking.

      The same claims are made about deaths ’caused’ by obesity or drinking.

  22. garyk30 says:

    http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_94.pdf

    “Benefits of Stopping Smoking”

    Within 10-15 years of quitting smoking, an ex-smoker’s risk of developing lung cancer is only slightly greater than that of a never-smoker.

  23. garyk30 says:

    http://www.stqp.org/quitsmokingtimeline.asp

    10 YEARS: Lung cancer death rate is similar to that of a non-smoker.

  24. garyk30 says:

    http://blisstree.com/feel/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-stop-smoking-right-now/
    In 10 years your risk of lung cancer will have returned to that of a non-smoker.

  25. garyk30 says:

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2007/12/v30n4-2.pdf
    Over the age of 35. There are few smoking deaths below the age of 35.

    Ex-smokers by years since quitting:
    Table 1- 2002

    15+ = 23.1 million

    10-14 = 4.95 million

    Total = 28.05 million

    Total ex-smokers = 39.9 million

    10+ years since quitting are 70% of the total.

  26. garyk30 says:

    Lung cancer deaths(lcd) = 160,000

    Current smokers(21%) = 33,600/46 million smokers

    Ex-smokers(61%) = 97,600/48 million ex-smokers

    Never-smokers(18%) = 28,800/136 million never-smokers

    70% of the ex-smokers have a risk of lung cancer that is about the same as never-smokers. That gives these numbers:

    smokers = 62,880 lcd/60.4 million
    LCD Rate = 10.4/10,000

    non-smokers = 97,120 lcd/169.6 million
    LCD Rate = 5.7/10,000

    5.7 is 55% of 10.4
    There is a 55% probability a smoker’s lung cancer was caused by factors other than smoking.

  27. garyk30 says:

    55/45 is pretty close to the 50/50 of a coin flip.

    As mentioned before, there is only a 1/4(25%) that two coins flipped at the same time will come up Heads.

    So if Harley and Frank die from lung cancer, there is only a 25% probability that both cancers were caused by smoking.

    If Rose does also, there is only a 12.5% probability that all 3 cancerse caused by smoking.

    The math looks like this:
    0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.125 = 12.5%

    If 10 smokers die from lung cancer, we get 0.000976(0.001)
    That is a 1/10th of a 1% probability that all were caused by smoking.

    If 15 smokers die from lung cancer, we get 0.00003,.
    That is a 3/1,000th of a 1% chance all were caused by smoking.

    Antis/health nannies claim there are about, in America, 131,000 smokers’ deaths caused by smoking.
    They leave no possibility of other causes.
    The claims are impossible!!!!

  28. garyk30 says:

    Antis/health nannies claim there are about, in America, 131,000 smokers’ lung cancer deaths caused by smoking.
    They leave no possibility of other causes.
    The claims are impossible!!!!

    There is almost no possibility that claim is ‘True’.

    Let’s assume that if a smoker dies from lung cancer there is a 99% probability that cancer was caused by smoking.
    99% is a probability of 0.99 for each and every such death.

    The probability of two such deaths both being caused by smoking is 0.99 x 0.99 = 0.98.
    There is a 98% chance that saying both deaths were ’caused’ by smoking is true.

    But, saying that 70 such deaths were ’caused’ by smoking has ONLY a 49.5% chance of being ‘True’.
    0.99 x 0.99(70 times) = 0.495

    After 100 such deaths, saying that they all were caused by smoking has only a 36.6% chance of being ‘True’.

    Saying that 200 such deaths were all caused by smoking has ONLY a 13.3% chance of being ‘True’.

    It is totally impossible for the statement that there are 131,000 smokers’ lung cancer deaths per year that are all caused by their smoking to be ‘True’!!!!

    To make such a statement is a deliberate lie.

  29. garyk30 says:

    The same maths can be used to show the idiocy of the hospital admissions due to heart attack miracles claimed to be due to smoking bans.

    Let’s say that there are 5 fewer admissions claimed to be due to a smoking ban and that each such non-admission has a 70% chance of being due to the ban.

    70% = 0.70

    The probability of two such events being ’caused’ by a ban :
    0.70 x 0.70 = 0.49, and that is ONLY a 49% chance that BOTH were due to the ban.

    For 5 such non-admissions, there is ONLY a 17% chance they all were ’caused’ by the ban.

    That makes a miracle claim rather unlikely to be ‘True’!!!!

  30. garyk30 says:

    Smokers should be angry.
    Bans are based on the harm to never-smokers caused by SHS exposure.

    Such harm is not plausible.
    The numbers below are for lung cancer; but, the concept is the same for heart attack deaths.

    SHS, Lung Cancer, and Probabilities.

    Anti-smokers claim that SHS exposure ’causes’ lung cancer in never-smokers.
    They claim there are, in America, 3,400 such lung cancer deaths per year.

    Probability tells us that such a statement is almost completely going to be false.

    In America, never-smokers exposed to SHS have 5 lung cancer deaths per 20,000 exposed never-smokers per year.
    Of those 5, one is claimed to be caused by the SHS exposure.

    However, since there is no difference in the lung cancers, there is no way of knowing which one is the one that can be said to be caused by SHS exposure.

    Each of the lung cancers has a 1 in 5 probability of being the one caused by SHS. That is a 1/5 chance.

    Flipping a coin gives you a 1 in 2 chance of getting a ‘Heads”. That is 1/2 chance.

    Flipping two coins gives you a 1 in 4 probability of both coming up ‘Heads”.
    There are 4 possible combinations; of which, two ‘Heads’ is 1.
    Math : 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

    If you have two never-smoker lung cancer deaths that are claimed to be caused by SHS, the probability that both are caused by SHS looks like this:
    1/5 x 1/5 = 1/25.

    There is a 1 in 25 probability of both having been caused by SHS exposure.

    5 x 5 =25
    25 = 5 squared; or, 5 to the second power.

    For all 3,400 lung cancer deaths, you would have 5 to the 3,400th power.

    The probability that all 3,400 are caused by SHS looks like this:
    1/ 5 to the 3,400th power

    That is a seriously large number.

    The total number of elementary particles in the known universe is about 10 to the power of 80.

    That looks like this:
    10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00.

  31. garyk30 says:

    13 such lung cancer deaths gives you a 1/1.22 billion chance that all 13 were caused
    by SHS exposure.
    The odds are 1.22 billion to 1 against all 13 being caused by SHS exposure!!!

  32. garyk30 says:

    In America,Doctors claim that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS and that SHS kills about 50,000 never-smokers per year.

    There are about 68 million never-smokers exposed to SHS on a regular basis and that gives a death rate of 1 per 1,360.

    In America, surgical errors will kill about 32,000 people out of the 15 million operated upon.
    That is a death rate of 1 per 469 people.

    Exposure to doctors with sharp knives is about 3 times as deadly as exposure to SHS.

    Doctors that live in glass houses should not throw stones!!!!

  33. garyk30 says:

    Everyone dies and everyone has about the same probability their death will be from a disease that is ’caused’ by smoking!!!
    Data from Doll’s doctor study shows that 84% of the never-smokers’ deaths were from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking and 85% of the current smokers’ deaths.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm
    table 2-Prevalence

    Cardiovascular Diseases

    Current smokers account for 30%
    Never-smokers account for 43%.

    COPD(Chronic Bronchitus) or smokers’ cough

    Current smokers account for 41%
    Never-smokers account for 39%

    The fact is:

    Hey! You never-smokers! If LUNG CANCER does not do you in, then COPD will! And if COPD doesn’t, then HEART DISEASE will.

    Just like smokers.

  34. garyk30 says:

    Does quitting improve your probability of NOT dying from a smoking ’caused’ disease?

    The answer:
    NO, it does NOT!!!!

    Doll’s doctors study showed that while 85% of current smokers’ deaths were from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking, the same 85% of the ex-smokers’ deaths were from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

    84% of the never-smokers’ deaths were from those same diseases.

    Smoke, quit, or never smoke; it makes no difference, there is an 85% probability that you will die from a disease that is ’caused’ by smoking.

    If all smokers quit today, the percentage of deaths from smoking ’caused’ diseases would be unchanged.

    70 years from now, when all of the ex-smokers were dead, the percentage of deaths from the diseases that used to be said to be ’caused’ by smoking would be unchanged.

    The new villians will be obesity, or booze, or salt, or climate change, or something.

    The hysterical fear-mongering WILL continue without end!!!!!!

    Drug companies will always have drugs to sell, the antis will always need something to hate, and gov’ts will always need something to tax.

  35. garyk30 says:

    Any law or policy that hurts Blacks more than it hurts Whites is Racist.

    There is a greater percentage of Blacks that are smokers than Whites.

    Most anti-smoker policies are meant to de-normalize, de-humanize, or cause smokers to be treated as less than equal.

    Anti-smoker bans and policies have a greater adverse effect on Blacks than on Whites and are ‘Racist’.

    Such things are normally done by Democrats.

    This is not surprising, as Democrats have a long history of Racism.

    1) The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way.

    2) Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party responded to Abraham Lincoln’s election by seceding, which led to the Civil War.

    3) Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK.

    4) 300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): “Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.”

    5) Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): “The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.”

    6) The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972): Contrary to what you may have heard, Democrats in Alabama did not give black Americans syphilis. However, the experimenters did know that subjects of the experiment unknowingly had syphilis and even after it was proven that penicillin could be used to effectively treat the disease in 1947, the experiments continued. As a result, a number of the subjects needlessly infected their loved ones and died, when they could have been cured.

    7) Japanese Internment Camps (1942): Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to more than 100,000 Japanese Americans being put into “bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards.”

    8) Fire Hoses And Attack Dogs Used On Children (1963): Birmingham, Alabama’s notorious Commissioner of Public Safety, Democrat Bull Connor, used attack dogs and fire hoses on children and teenagers marching for civil rights. Ultimately, thousands of them would also be arrested.

    9) Stand In The Schoolhouse Door (1963): Democrat George Wallace gave his notorious speech against integrating schools at the University of Alabama in which he said, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

  36. garyk30 says:

    American CDC claims smoking causes $92 billion per year in lost productivity.

    CDC’s reasoning about ‘lost productivity’ goes like this.

    If a smoker could have worked to the age of 67 and dies at the age of 57, that is 10 years of ‘lost productivity’ to society.

    But; when the smokers dies, the company just hires another worker to do the work and there is NO ‘lost productivity’ cost to society.

    If anything; people should be encouraged to smoke, it will help to lower the un-employment rate.

    Lost Productivity Costs.
    Poor management planning and control cost $880 billion in lost productivity.

    Worker interruptions = $588 billion.

    Employees wasting time on the job = $544 billion.

    Workers who don’t feel “engaged” in their work =$350 billion

  37. garyk30 says:

    A baby licking the floor or furniture will get 39 times as much dead skin as 3rd hand cig smoke!!
    The percentage of the dust in your home that is actually dead skin cells is approximately 75% to 90%.

    According to The Boston Globe, 30,000-40,000 skin cells fall off you per minute, and on average 8.8 pounds of dead skin cells fall off your body per year.

    http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/abcs-of-shs/the-cigarette-is-a-major-source-of-pollution
    the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg.
    14 mg of smoke.

    20 cigs/day = 102,200 mg per year of cig smoke.

    8.8 pounds of dead skin = 3,999,000 mg of dead skin per year.

    A smoking Mommy will produce 39 times as much dead skin per year as she does cigarette smoke.

    When her baby licks the floor or furniture, it is licking up 39 times as much of that Mommy’s dead skin as it does her 3rd hand cig smoke.

    • Nicely done Gary! VERY nicely done!

      I can see a new grant coming on: “Children And ThirdHand Cannibalism”

      I had never tried to actually track down figures on skin cells, but I’d seen something about the percentage of dust somewhere in the past. Here’s a posting I did a couple of years back on “secondhand smoking”:

      ===

      There is no such thing as “secondhand smoking.” The concept that someone who can smell the scent of a cigarette is thus actually “smoking” that cigarette is simple nonsense. It’s hard to come up with a good analogy, but I can think of two weak ones:

      1) It’s a holiday meal and you don’t like to eat turkey. Someone next to you picks up a piece of turkey on their fork and it slips off and lands in their plate. When it lands it is inevitable that microscopic turkey particles are going to be “splashed” into the air. 99% of them will be big enough that they’ll travel no more than a few millimeters, or at most, centimeters, before settling back down with their fellows. HOWEVER… at least a few of the micro/nano sized particles will be small and light enough that air movement will deposit them on your plate. Are you then being “forced to eat turkey”? Clearly it’s as true in a technical sense as being “forced to smoke” simply because you can smell smoke.

      or

      2) You happen to live in a society with one of those fussy moralistic prejudices against cannibalism. Yet you go out to a restaurant for dinner. I believe it has been soundly determined that something like 80% of respirable particulates in such a situation in nonsmoking environments are actually composed of shedded human skin cells — more so if your fellow diners haven’t assiduously used their Head and Shoulders Shampoo right before their evenings out. Those little particles are showering down all over the place and landing in your nice juicy $100 Filet Mignon Dinner Deluxe. Are you “forced to be a cannibal”? Are you “Eating Human Flesh”? Again, technically, yes. But also again, in reality, only someone suffering from psychotic paranoia would worry about such a thing.

      Exposure to “secondhand smoke” is NOT “secondhand smoking.” I am not a cannibal, and a nonsmoker is not a smoker. And people who claim otherwise are nuttier than fruitcakes manufactured in a Planters Peanut factory.

      – MJM

  38. garyk30 says:

    in 2007, a group of researchers showed that the mean time it took for a smoker to stop exhaling residual tobacco smoke particles after finishing a cigarette was 58.6 seconds, corresponding to about nine subsequent breathings.”

    “That’s worth remembering. Just had a cigarette outside, and wondering when it’s safe to come back inside? Take 9 breaths. Or count off 58.6 seconds. Don’t forget the 0.6 on the end. 58.5 seconds and your darling daughter will drop dead the moment you step back inside. 58.7 seconds, though, and she’ll continue to be an unstoppable bundle of toy-smashing energy.”

    — Study: Giovanni Invernizzi et al., Residual Tobacco Smoke Measurement of its Washout Time in the Lung and of its Contribution to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 16 TOBACCO CONTROL 29, 31 (2007)

  39. garyk30 says:

    Smoking bans actually do not prevent exposure to the ‘toxins’ in cig smoke.

    EPA says that urban air contains about 30ng/cubic meter of Arsenic.

    Arsenic is cancer causing, lung cancer especially.

    The average person breathes about 11 cubic meters of air per day and would breathe in about 330 ng of Arsenic per day.

    All of the smoke from the average cig contains 32 ng of Arsenic.

    The average smoker inhales about 20% of the smoke produced by a cigarette.

    That is 6.4 ng of Arsenic per cigarette per day or 128 ng for a pack a day smoker.

    The non-smokers 330 ng inhales is about the same as smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes every day.(330ng divided by 6.4ng = 51.6)

  40. Interesting figures Gary! Hadn’t known that!

    I recently ran across an old file on my puter though about the EPA warning of chloroform being produced by chlorine in showers. I think that if people are sharing a building with others, even if it’s separate apartments, that internal showering should be outlawed. Chloroform is a carcinogen for which there exists no known safe level, and it easily travels from one living unit to another.

    If people feel the need to shower, they can wait until it’s raining and then take their soap and go outside! All natural, pure, chemical free, and FUN!

    :)
    Michael

  41. garyk30 says:

    Remember, there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke and smoking kills.

    Everyone is a ‘smoker’!
    Clean, smoke free air, contains a great deal of the toxic chemicals that are found in cigarette smoke.

    … It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker.
    The average person breathes about 11 cubic meters of air per day.

    Arsenic(poison)
    Urban air = about 30 ng/m3
    cigarette = 32ng of arsenic in all of the smoke,mainstream and side stream.
    A smoker will inhale about 4.8ng of Arsenic per cigarette.
    Average non-smoker will breathe about 330ng of Arsenic per day, that is equal to smoking about 69 cigarettes per day.
    .
    Carbon Monoxide(CO)=Car exhaust fumes
    Urban = about 11.1 mg/m3
    cigarette = 10 mg
    Average non-smoker will breathe enough CO per day to equal smoking about 81 cigarettes per day.
    .
    .
    Formaldehyde = Embalming fluid
    Urban air = average of 13.78 ug/m3
    cigarette = about 856 ug
    Average non-smoker will breathe enough Formaldehyde per day to equal smoking about 1.2 cigarettes per day.

    Toluene = Industrial solvent
    urban air = 10.8 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3),
    cigarette = 50 micrograms
    Average non-smoker will breathe enough Toluene per day to equal smoking about 16 cigarettes per day.

    Now, let’s consider the clean,smoke free air, in a restaurant that measures 40′ x 50′ x 10′.

    We find a ‘fog’ of toxic chemicals.

    The air in that smoke free business will contain:

    1. Arsenic equal to all the smoke from 550 cigarettes.

    2. Carbon Monoxide equal to that produced by 652 cigarettes.

    3. Formaldehyde equal to that produced by 9 cigarettes.

    4. Toluene equal to that produced by 127 cigarettes.·

  42. garyk30 says:

    The FDA, and Public Health in general, are tasked with protecting people from hazards that people can not be aware of, that are hidden.

    There are no ‘hidden’ hazards to smoking cigarettes, drinking booze, eating food dripping with fat, or eating pastry with a ton of sugar toppings.

    FDA regulations will not remove ‘hidden’ hazards; because, there are none!!

    About 80% of the ‘dust’ in restaurants is dead, decaying human skin cells that will settle on the diners’ food and that they will inhale into their lungs.

    It is not healthy to inhale or consume decaying flesh.

    What is Public Health doing about this mostly unknown hazard?

  43. garyk30 says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
    It is estimated that 42.9 million Americans will be enrolled in 2004 at a total cost of $295 billion.

    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf
    Smokers’ Medicaid costs per year = $30.9 billion

    Non-smokers’ Medicaid costs = $264.1 billion

    $30.9 billion is 10.5% of $295 billion.
    $264.1 billion is 89.5% of $295 billion.

    The easiest way to qualify for Medicaid is to earn less than $25,000.

    Since smokers are 51% of the people making $25,000 or less, they only cost society $1 for about every $9 that never-smokers cost society in Medicaid expenses.

    Here:
    http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/income.asp?cat=TU&yr=2006&qkey=4394&state=US
    we find that about 51% of the people earning $25,000 or less are smokers(current+ex).

    Soooo, the 51% of the people earning less than $25,000 that are smokers ONLY are responsible for 10.5% of the Medicaid health care costs.

    The, about, 50% of the people earning less than $25,000 that are never-smokers are responsible for 89.5% of the Medicaid health care costs.

    Never-smokers cost society about $9 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 that smokers cost society in Medicaid expenses.

    • garyk30 says:

      For every $1 smokers cost society in Medicare costs, never-smokers cost society $18 in Medicare costs.

      http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/
      Enrollment in Medicare by 2010 was 47.5 million “and each beneficiary cost $9,828 for a total of $523 billion.

      • garyk30 says:

        http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf
        Smokers’ Medicare costs per year = $27.4 billion.

        Never-smokers Medicare costs per year = $495.6 billion

        • garyk30 says:

          Most Medicare cost is spent on people over the age of 65.

          http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/age.asp?cat=TU&yr=2006&qkey=4394&state=US
          Never-smokers are 49% of the people over the age of 65.

          The about 50% of the people that are over the age of 65 and never-smokers cost society $495.6 billion per year.

          The about 50% of the people that are over the age of 65 and have smoked or are smokers cost society $27.4 billion per year.

          27.4 is 1/18th of 495.6.

          For every $1 smokers cost society in Medicare costs, never-smokers cost society $18 in Medicare costs

        • garyk30 says:

          The 18-1 just doesn’t seem logical.

          Are old smokers more healthy?

          Perhaps, sickly smokers die younger and only the healthier live to be older?

          But, would that not also hold true for the others?

          On the other hand:

          Current smokers are about 9% of the older people and since the Medicare outlay for smokers is about 6% of the total, the ratio is not so lopsided.

          If ex-smokers are included with the never-smokers, the numbers make better sense.

          non-smokers = 91% of the people and cause 94% of the costs.

          smokers = 9% of the old people and cause 6% of the costs.

          There are about, in America, 40 million people over the age of 65 and medicare costs of $523 billion.

          non-smokers per person cost = $13,493.50

          current smokers per person cost = $8,716.70

          Those numbers are not as unbelievable.

  44. garyk30 says:

    ““Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director for the BHF, said: “Every year more than 100,000 smokers die because of their addiction. ”
    ……………………………..

    Wow, that is an impressively large number; but, is that the ONLY valid number that could be stated?

    No, it is not.
    There are 100,000 other, equally valid , numbers that could be stated.

    Not one disease is ‘only caused’ by smoking; so, there are always some deaths that would not be caused by smoking.

    Possibilities are:

    #1. 100,000 deaths caused by smoking and none caused by something else.

    #2. 99,999 deaths caused by smoking and 1 death caused by something else.

    #25,000. 75,000 deaths caused by smoking and 25,000 deaths caused by something else.

    #50,000. 50,000 deaths caused by smoking and 50,000 caused by something else.

    #99,999. 1 death caused by smoking and 99,999 deaths caused by something else.

    #100,000. Zero deaths caused by smoking and 100,000 deaths caused by something else.

    Tho all of these numbers are possible and, thus, all are valid, this is not to say that all of thuse numbers are of equal ‘probability’.

    The two extremes are both very,highly unlikely to occur.

    A little math excercise.
    Suppose you have 100 smokers that die of lung cancer and there is a 90% probability their cancer was caused by smoking.

    What is the chance that all 100 cancers were caused by smoking.

    Actually, the odds are vanishingly small.

    Flipping a coin gives you a 50% chance of getting a ‘Heads”.
    Flipping two coins gives you a 25% probability of both coming up ‘Heads”.
    There are 4 possible combinations; of which, 2 ‘Heads’ is 1.
    Math = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25

    90% probability = 0.9

    2 deaths = 0.9 X 0.9 = 0.81 = only a 81% probability that both were caused by smoking.

    After 7 deaths we are down to a 48% probability that all 7 were caused by smoking.

    After 20 deaths.we are down to an 11% probability that all were caused by smoking.

    After 30 deaths, there is only a 3.8% probability that all were caused by smoking.

    The possibilty that all 100 deaths were caused by smoking is almost non-existent!!!!

    Now consider, antis claim that thousands of smoker’s deaths are ’caused’ by smoking.

  45. garyk30 says:

    http://m.naplesnews.com/news/200…die-important-/

    “A Scripps Howard News Service study of 4.9 million cause-of-death records for the years 2005 and 2006 from the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed a disturbing conclusion:

    medical experts think about 30 percent of the death diagnoses were either incorrect, fraudulent or just somebody’s wild guess.

    That means our knowledge of what’s killing Americans — and more than 2.4 million of us die each year — is not terribly accurate.

    How can they make meaningful measurements of the impact of tobacco consumption, or anything else, on health when 30 percent of the “causes of death” are errors?

    • Excellent Gary! VERY true: they’re basically just using the same SAMMEC style computer modeling they use to make up numbers for smoking and secondhand smoke deaths.

      The sad thing though is that when you read the comments you find that almost EVERYONE has the good sense to dismiss THESE as nonsense, but if the same article had been talking about smoke everyone would be agreeing with it and moaning about how terrible it is.

      :/
      Michael

  46. garyk30 says:

    Heart attack and stroke deaths are about 50% of the deaths from the diseases said to be ’caused’ by smoking.

    When a current smoker dies from a heart attack or a stroke, there is about a 50% probability the death was caused by something other than smoking.

    Using CDC data from here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm

    • garyk30 says:

      and here:
      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm

      we can figure out the current smoker vs never-smoker death rates for heart attacks and strokes.

      Heart attack death rate:

      current smokers = 31/10,000

      never-smokers = 14/10,000

      If a current-smoker dies from a heart attack, there is a 45% chance/probability the death was caused by something other than smoking.(14/31 = 45%)

      Stroke death rate:

      current-smokers = 10.4/10,000

      never-smokers = 5.5/10,000

      If a current smoker dies from a stroke, there is a 53% chance/probability the death was caused by something other than smoking. (5.5/10.4 = 53%)

  47. garyk30 says:

    So, you have had two CT scans and a biopsy and have been diagnosed with lung cancer.

    How worried should you be?

    You can be cautiously optimistic about your not actually having lung cancer as there is about a 2 in 3 chance/probability that your diagnosis is wrong.

    Only 7 out of 23 positive tests for lung cancer will be ‘True Positives’ and the other 16 will be ‘False Positives’.

    Lung cancer death rate for smokers, in America, is 7/10,000.

    If 10,000 smokers are given a battery of tests, those 7 per 10,000 will always have a ‘True Positive’ result.

    After 1 CT scan, the other 9,993 will have a 23% ‘False Positive’ rate, that is 2,298 ‘False Positive’ results.

    That gives a total of 2,305 ‘Positive’ results; of which, 99.7% are ‘False Positives’!!!!

    If those 2,305 are given a second CT scan, there will be 7 ‘True Positives’ and the other 2,298 will have a 23% rate of ‘False Positives’.

    That is 529 ‘False Positives, for a total of 536 ‘Positive’ results of which 98.7% are ‘False’.

    Those 536 people will probabily get a biopsy to positively confirm the cancer.

    There will be 7 ‘True Positive’ results and 3% of the other 529 will be ‘False Positives’, that is about 16 ‘False Positives.

    After all of that testing, there will be 23 smokers that are told they have lung cancer and only 7 actually will have lung cancer!!

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/story/2011/07/Who-should-get-a-CT-scan-to-screen-for-lung-cancer/49019514/1

    Anxiety created by “false-positive” readings is another concern, experts said. Over the course of three years, about 24 percent of the low-dose helical CT screens were positive.

    The vast majority of scans that were initially positive turned out to be “false positives” — 96.4 percent of the CT scans.

    Thus, 23% of CT scans result in a ‘False Positive’ diagnosis of lung cancer.

    You will then get a biopsy and 3% of biopsies produce ‘False Positive’ results.

  48. garyk30 says:

    Here are the USP standards for the maximum allowable daily exposures for each of these metals from inhalation medicines, in micrograms (from the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Revision Bulletin, Elemental Impurities–Limits, February 1, 2013) :

    Lead = 5.0

    Chromium = 25

    Nickel = 1.5

    Arsenic = 1.5

    Mercury = 1.5

    Here are the amounts of these chemicals in the mainstream smoke(inhaled by smoker) of the average cigarette as found in the 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study.

    These are in nanograms which are 1/1,000th of a microgram.

    Lead = 63/cigarette = 1,260 per 20 cigs.
    That is 25% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Chromium = 12/cig.= 240 per 20 cigs.
    That is 1% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Arsenic = 14/cig = 280 per 20 cigs.
    That is 19% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Nickel = 12/cig = 240 per 20 cigs.
    That is 16% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Mercury = 6/cig = 120 per 20 cigs.
    That is 0.5% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.(1/2 of 1%)

    Here are the USP standards for the maximum allowable daily exposures for each of these metals from inhalation medicines, in micrograms (from the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Revision Bulletin, Elemental Impurities–Limits, February 1, 2013) :

    Lead = 5.0

    Chromium = 25

    Nickel = 1.5

    Arsenic = 1.5

    Mercury = 1.5

    Here are the amounts of these chemicals in the mainstream smoke(inhaled by smoker) of the average cigarette as found in the 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study.

    These are in nanograms which are 1/1,000th of a microgram.

    Lead = 63/cigarette = 1,260 per 20 cigs.
    That is 25% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Chromium = 12/cig.= 240 per 20 cigs.
    That is 1% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Arsenic = 14/cig = 280 per 20 cigs.
    That is 19% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Nickel = 12/cig = 240 per 20 cigs.
    That is 16% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Mercury = 6/cig = 120 per 20 cigs.
    That is 0.5% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.(1/2 of 1%)

    • Thanks Gary! Great reference! And to get an average for an hour’s exposure to a moderately ventilated level of secondary smoke, just divide the final figures by a thousand. Thus, to get one day’s max acceptable level of arsenic, you’d have to hang with the smokers for 5,000 hours. You wouldn’t have to start worrying about chromium unless you could squeeze 100,000 hours into your day, or mercury unless you squeezed 200,000 in.

      Better contact Dr. WHO for help with that sorta stuff…

      :>
      MJM

  49. garyk30 says:

    Here is a different set of numbers.

    Here are the USP standards for the maximum allowable daily exposures for each of these metals from inhalation medicines, in micrograms (from the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Revision Bulletin, Elemental Impurities–Limits, February 1, 2013) :

    Lead = 5.0

    Chromium = 25

    Nickel = 1.5

    Arsenic = 1.5

    Mercury = 1.5

    Here are the amounts of these chemicals in the mainstream smoke(inhaled by smoker) of the average cigarette as found in the 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study.

    These are in nanograms which are 1/1,000th of a microgram.

    Lead = 63/cigarette = 79 cigs to equal the allowable amount in your daily inhaled medicine.

    Chromium = 12/cig. = 2,083 cigs to equal the allowable amount in your daily inhaled medicine.

    Arsenic = 14/cig = 107 cigs to equal the allowable amount in your daily inhaled medicine.

    Nickel = 12/cig = 125 cigs to equal the allowable amount in your daily inhaled medicine.

    Mercury = 6/cig = 250 cigs to equal the allowable amount in your daily inhaled medicine.

  50. garyk30 says:

    “which has already been demonstrated to cause more than 400,000 deaths each year in the U.S. ”

    CDC says there are 1,300,000 deaths per year from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

    Over 90% of those deaths occur to people that are over the age of 45.

    Over the age of 45, over 50% of the people are ever-smokers and would be expected to have over 50% of those deaths, or 650,000 deaths ’caused’ by smoking.

    That there are only 400,000 of those deaths shows that ever-smokers have died from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking at a much lower rate than do the never-smokers.

    “HOOOORAY!!!!!!!!!”

  51. garyk30 says:

    Most smokers are drinkers and drinkers tend to live longer that non-drinkers.
    H/T to C.Snowden
    A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers.

    However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.

    Surely it is now time for the ‘evidence-based’ public health lobby to campaign for cheaper alcohol? How many more people are they prepared to see die?
    From the study:
    http://while-science-sleeps.com/pdf/628.pdf

    Descriptive Information on Sample Mortality
    The mortality rate was highest among baseline abstainers
    (239 of 345 or 69%)
    and baseline heavy drinkers (195 of
    324 or 60%)
    and lowest among baseline light drinkers (271
    of 595 or 46%)
    and baseline moderate drinkers (232 of 560 or
    41%).

    They figure that 1(12 oz) beer or 1(5 oz) glass of wine or 1 mixed drink(1 oz alcohol) are the same
    Light drinkers = less than 1 oz of alcohol per day
    Moderate drinkers = 1-3 oz per day
    Heavy drinkers = 3+ per day

    None the less, non-drinkers had a 15% higher mortality rate than heavy drinkers and heavy drinkers are more likely to be heavy smokers.

  52. garyk30 says:

    Brain Researchers: Smoking increases intelligence

    Positive effects of nicotine on the brain’s performance is now confirmed by the Danish nicotine research at the Panum Institute in Copenhagen. We can now add another piece to the puzzle which clearly shows that smoking increases the intelligence. According to an interview with brain scientist, Professor Albert Gjedde in Ekstra Bladet.

    Albert Gjedde, along with two colleagues started with nicotine tests, according to Gjedde clearly shows that if a heavy smoker suddenly stops smoking, then it bears negative consequences on his brain activity.

    “The energy metabolism of oxygen in the brain decreases. This means, that one’s thinking capacity is also decreased. But if you start smoking again, so does the energy sales at the usual level, “he says. Albert Gjedde explains in the interview that a number of now concluded studies that smoking increases intelligence:

    “If you have to explain the concept of intelligence, it is in fact the ability to make sensible choices – to anticipate future challenges. And this is where nicotine can help”

  53. garyk30 says:

    Anti-smoker TC claim that smoking ’causes’ lung cancer; but, rural areas have a lower lung cancer rate and higher smoking rates.

    http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/f/lungcancerairpollution.htm

    Studies of geographical differences in the risk of lung cancer reveal that lung cancer is more common in urban areas and less common in rural areas.

    cont.

  54. garyk30 says:

    “for The Children”

    I would like to see just what harm they can prove comes to ‘children’ from smoking.
    As we see here:
    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1998/10/lies.pdf

    The CDC data shows that there are damn few smoking ’caused’ deaths below the age of 35.
    95% of those deaths occur over the age of 50 and the average age of those deaths is 72.

    A 15 yr old could smoke for 20 years with no chance of dying from a smoking ’caused’ death.
    A 15 yr old could smoke for 35 years with very,very little chance of such a death.

    If a 15 yr old smoker was planning on such a death, they would have to smoke for 57 years before they had a 50% chance of such a death.

    By that time, they have long ceased to be ‘children’.

  55. garyk30 says:

    An expert like Doll?

    The 2004 summary of Doll’s doctor study has another chart on page 3.
    http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE.full.pdf

    If we look at IHD(heart attack) deaths per 1,000 per year, we find:

    never-smokers = 6.19 and current smokers = 10.01.

    That is said to prove that smoking ’causes’ heart attacks because smokers are 1.6 times more likely to die from a heart attack.

    However, let us look at the bottom of that chart.
    We find that, for external causes, the never smoker death rate is 0.71 and the current smoker rate is 1.13.

    That shows that current smokers are 1.6 times as likely to die of external causes.

    Does that prove that smoking ’causes’ death from plane crashes, floods, or falling down a flight of stairs?

    The same can be said for:
    cause unknown = smokers 1.5 times the never-smoker rate of death

    other medical causes = smokers 1.5 times the never-smoker rate of death

    Does that ‘prove’ that smoking ’causes’ unknown deaths or death from medical malfeasance?

    Such claims would be considered totally stupid.

    If we look at the rate per total deaths per year per 1,000.

    We find that heart attack deaths were 31% of the never-smoker total and only 28% of the current smoker total.

    Smokers had a lesser chance of dying from a heart attack than never-smokers!!!

    Smoking lowers the probability that when you die it will be from a heart attack.

  56. garyk30 says:

    “Cigarettes damage your brain… and smokers have double the risk of stroke death”

    However, we find that never-smokers have a 20% higher death rate from strokes.

    The 2004 summary of Doll’s doctor study has a chart on page 3.
    http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE.full.pdf

    We see for the CVD/Stroke Death Rate:

    never-smokers = 2.75 per 1,000

    25+/day smokers = 5.23/1,000

    Thus, they get their ‘double the risk of stroke’ claim.

    But, the whole story is not told.
    Here is the total story:

    never-smokers = 2.75 out of 19.38 total deaths per 1,000 per year.
    2.75/19.38 = 14% of the total deaths.
    death rate of 14/100.

    25+/day smokers = 5.23 out of 45.34 total deaths per 1,000 per year.
    5.23/45.34 = 11.5% of the total deaths.
    death rate of 11.5/100 deaths.

    14 is 22% higher than 11.5.

    WHOOPS, I guess that they forgot(?) to use all of the data.

    • garyk30 says:

      Here is more data showing that a higher death rate per 1,000 people for a disease does not increase your probability of dying from that disease.

      CVD deaths for light(1-14/day), moderate(15-24/day), and heavy(25+/day) smokers.

      Causality is indicated by a direct exposure to effect ratio.

      light smokers = 3.75 cvd deaths per 29.34 deaths per year = 13 cvd deaths per 100 deaths.

      moderate smokers =4.35 per 34.79 = 12.5 cvd deaths per 100 deaths

      heavy smokers = 5.23 per 45.34 = 11.5 cvd deaths per 100 total deaths.

      The higher your smoking rate, the lower your chance of dying from a stroke.

  57. garyk30 says:

    There has never been a Death Certificate that states that the primary cause of death was smoking or tobacco use.

    Such a thing can not happen.

    Smoking might contribute to; but, it can NEVER be the cause of death.

    This is American; but, WHO directions are about the same.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf
    “Instructions for Completing the Cause-of-Death Section of the Death Certificate”

    32. PART I. Enter the chain of events—diseases, injuries, or complications—that directly caused the death.

    DO NOT enter terminal events such as cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, or ventricular fibrillation without showing the etiology. DO NOT ABBREVIATE.
    Enter only one cause on a line. Add additional lines if necessary.

    IMMEDIATE CAUSE:
    a (Final disease or condition resulting in death)

    Due to (or as a consequence of): Sequentially list conditions,
    b. if any, leading to the cause Due to (or as a consequence of): listed on line a.

    Enter the UNDERLYING CAUSE
    c. (disease or injury that Due to (or as a consequence of): initiated the events resulting in death)

    For instance:

    CAUSE OF DEATH =(line a) Rupture of myocardium

    (note: laceration or tearing of the walls of the ventricles or atria of the heart, of the interatrial or interventricular septum, of the papillary muscles or chordae tendineae or of one of the valves of the heart)

    Due to= (line b) Acute myocardial infarction

    (note: heart attack)

    Due to (line c) Coronary artery thrombosis

    (note: restricted blood flow)

    Due to (line d) Atherosclerotic coronary artery disease

    PART II. Enter other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in PART I.
    (Note: this is where smoking would first show up.)

    Then there is:
    35.
    DID TOBACCO USE CONTRIBUTE TO DEATH?
    Yes
    Probably
    No
    Unknown

    • garyk30 says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis
      Risk factors
      Various anatomic and physiological risk factors for atherosclerosis are known.[16] These can be divided into various categories: congenital vs acquired, modifiable or not, classical or non-classical. The points labelled ‘+’ in the following list form the core components of metabolic syndrome.
      Risks multiply, with two factors increasing the risk of atherosclerosis fourfold.[17] Hyperlipidemia, hypertension and cigarette smoking together increases the risk seven times.[17]
      Modifiable
      Diabetes[17] or Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) +
      Dyslipoproteinemia[17] (unhealthy patterns of serum proteins carrying fats & cholesterol): +
      High serum concentration of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, “bad if elevated concentrations and small”), and / or very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles, i.e., “lipoprotein subclass analysis”
      Low serum concentration of functioning high density lipoprotein (HDL “protective if large and high enough” particles), i.e., “lipoprotein subclass analysis”
      An LDL:HDL ratio greater than 3:1
      Tobacco smoking, increases risk by 200% after several pack years[17]
      Elevated serum C-reactive protein concentrations[17][18]
      Vitamin B6 deficiency[19][20][21]
      Dietary iodine deficiency and hypothyroidism, which cause elevated serum cholesterol and of lipid peroxidation[22][23][24][25][26]
      Nonmodifiable
      Advanced age[17]
      Male sex[17]
      Having close relatives who have had some complication of atherosclerosis (e.g. coronary heart disease or stroke)[17]
      Genetic abnormalities,[17] e.g. familial hypercholesterolemia
      Lesser or uncertain[edit]
      The following factors are of relatively lesser importance, are uncertain or unquantified:
      Obesity[17] (in particular central obesity, also referred to as abdominal or male-type obesity) +
      Hypercoagulability[27][28][29]
      Postmenopausal estrogen deficiency[17]
      High intake of saturated fat (may raise total and LDL cholesterol)[30]
      Intake of trans fat (may raise total and LDL cholesterol while lowering HDL cholesterol)[17][31]
      High carbohydrate intake[17]
      Elevated serum levels of triglycerides +
      Elevated serum levels of homocysteine
      Elevated serum levels of uric acid (also responsible for gout)
      Elevated serum fibrinogen concentrations
      Elevated serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations[17]
      Chronic systemic inflammation as reflected by upper normal WBC concentrations, elevated hs-CRP and many other blood chemistry markers, most only research level at present, not clinically done.[32]
      Hyperthyroidism (an over-active thyroid)
      Elevated serum insulin levels +[33]
      Short sleep duration[34]
      Chlamydia pneumoniae infection[17]
      PM2.5 air pollution, fine particulates less than 2.5 µm in diameter, have been associated with thickening of the carotid artery.[35]

      • garyk30 says:

        Note: this says
        “Hyperlipidemia, hypertension and cigarette smoking together increases the risk seven times.[17]”

        However, for instance, hypertension is not listed as a risk factor!

  58. garyk30 says:

    Will you kill your child with your SHS?

    There is at least a 99.995% chance that you will not!!!

    Here: http://seggleston.com/1/wp-content/custom/ds_2002.php

    we see that heart disease/cancer/breathing diseases cause 2,984 deaths to children 14 years and under per year.
    There are about 58 million such children in the USA.

    That is 1 death per 19,437 kids.

    A child has a 0.00005 chance of dying from those diseases due to any cause.

    A child has a 99.995% chance of NOT dying from one of those diseases.

    • garyk30 says:

      There are 2,591 children in that age group that are killed in motor vehicle accidents.

      Politicians should ban children from even being in motor vehicles.

  59. garyk30 says:

    Fizzy drinks/smoking/drinking/lack of exercise/etc are going to kill you!!!!

    Well; surprise to these doom criers, everyone is going to die in the end.

    But, let’s put a little reality into the debate.
    (Figures are for the USA)

    Dying is somewhat of a rare event.
    Only 1/129 people die per year from all causes.
    2.4 million deaths out of 310 million people.

    That means that I have only an 0.8% chance of dying and a 99.2% chance of not dying in any given year.

    Let’s look at a specific disease like lung cancer.
    There are 160,000 deaths per the 310 million people.

    That is a over all rate of 1 per 1,938 people per year.
    Dying from lung cancer is a rather rare event.

    In general, people have only 5/100ths of a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer in any given year.
    You have a 99.95% chance of not dying from lung cancer in any given year.

    That 99.95% chance of not dying is the same for both smokers and never-smokers.

    In a funny co-incidence, smokers have 99.95% of never-smokers chances of not dying from lung cancer.

    never-smokers lung cancer death(LCD) rate is 2/10,000 with 9,998 not dying.

    smokers LCD rate is 7/10,000 with 9,993 not dting.

    9,993 is 99.95% of 9,998.

    A never-smoker’s chance of not dying from lung cancer is only 1.0005 times greater than a smoker’s chance of not dying from lung cancer.

  60. garyk30 says:

    Heavy smokers and never-smokers have almost precisely the same chances of NOT dying from those diseases caused by smoking.
    Doll’s doctor mortality report.
    http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE

    The table on page 3 shows this:
    Lung cancer deaths per year.
    heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.

    never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.

    999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.

    Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likely than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!

    When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.

    Other results:
    mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.

    all other cancers = 1.002 times.

    COPD = 1.002 times.

    other respiratory = 1.002 times.

    heart attack = 1.005 times.

    stroke = 1.002 times.

    other vascular = 1.003 times.

  61. garyk30 says:

    Anti-smokers claim that smoking is addictive and children must be protected from a lifetime of nicotine addiction.

    However,anti-smokers own data shows that only 10% of the kids that try smoking will smoke for the rest of the their lives.

    Only 20% of the kids that try smoking become regular, daily smokers.

    50% of those regular smokers will quit and become ex-smokers.

    50% of 20% =10% lifetime users

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/childandteentobaccouse/child-and-teen-tobacco-use-child-and-teen-tobacco-use
    American Cancer Society says:
    “Each day, more than 4,000 kids under the age of 18 try their first cigarette and another 1,000 become regular, daily smokers.”
    (Note: That is 1 in 5 or 20%)

  62. garyk30 says:

    Antis are telling folks to beware of nicotine residue?

    About 75% of the ‘dust’ in homes and restaurants is cast off dead human skin cells.

    Each 7.5 cm X 10 cm(3″ X 4″) patch of skin, the back of your hand, casts off about 12,000 dead skin cells per minute.

    Those dead, decaying, and rotting skin cells of yours will create a mist of your dead skin around you.

    You breathe them in and they settle on your veggies on your plate. As you lift those veggies to your mouth they will pick up an ever larger coating of your decaying, rotting, airborne ex-skin.

    That creepy, unwashed old man, two tables over, you are also eating some of his dead skin cells.

    The top 25 or so layers of skin cells are dead cells just waiting to be cast off.

    When you lick your fingers, you are ingesting thousands of your dead cells onto your lips and into your mouth.

    • Gary, on the other hand, if you can manage to grab a seat in that posh restaurant where your favorite cute starlet hangs out, you can enjoy eating her at your leisure!

      :)
      MJM, looking on the bright side of life…

  63. garyk30 says:

    Nah, my wife would be upset. :)

    Just a loose estimate:

    Each 7.5 cm X 10 cm(3″ X 4″) patch of skin, the back of your hand, casts off about 12,000 dead skin cells per minute.

    Figure your un-covered skin has 10 such areas exposed, that would be 120,000 dead skin cells released per minute or 172,800,000 per day.

    A 1,900 square foot house would have about 550 cubic yards and the dead skin cells would be about 314,182 per cubic yard per day.

    Some would settle; but, due to air movement, most would just float around.

    After a few days you might have a million or more dead skin cells per cubic yard drifting around in that house.

    Two people living in the house would, of course, double that number.

    I would guess that those numbers are many, many times the Nanograms or Micrograms per cubic meter of the chemicals in SHS.

    A cubic yard is about 80% of a cubic meter.

  64. garyk30 says:

    Plain Packaging (PP) shows what little the antis know about the real world.
    What they find horrible, most people find as nothing special.

    What they find delightful, most people find stupid and annoying and embarrassing.

    Drab colors and gruesome pics are not going to scare modern teens or young adults

    The movies and video games they revel in are full of aliens from space, zombies, and other vicious critters.

    Blood, guts, and gore- the more, the better.

    The youths and young adults would more likely be put-off by cig packs in soft pastel colors with pics of fairy tale characters plastered over them.

    Imagine a macho 17 year old male having to get cigs by saying ;
    “I’ll have that pale lavender pack, the one with Peter Cottontail on it.”

    How about a 30 year old(male or female) truck/lorry driver having to say:

    “I’ll have the fags in the pink pack with the pics of Tinker belle and Winnie-the pooh on it.

    No hiding behind closed doors, put the packs out in the open where folks can see you buying such foo-foo packs.

    Liberated women and most men would be horrified by having those packs in their pockets.
    Except Harley, I hear tell he is fond of lavender and of Tinker belle. :)

  65. garyk30 says:

    Doll’s Doctor Study and smokers vs ex-smokers and total cancer deaths.

    Death rates per 1,000 per year

    Current smokers = 7.78 died(992.22 did not die)

    Ex-smokers = 4.66 died(995.34 did not die)

    By quitting, smokers will improve their chances of not dying by only 3/10ths of 1%.
    That is not statistically significant.

  66. garyk30 says:

    Life Style change zealots claim that quitting smoking will improve a smoker’s chances of not dying from lung cancer.

    There are 46 million smokers in the USA and the CDC says that they account for about 33,000 lung cancer deaths(LCD’s) per year.

    That is 1 lcd per 1,394 smokers, with 1,393 not dying.

    That is 99.93% not dying.

    It would be very difficult to improve on that number.

  67. garyk30 says:

    There is no correlation between smoking rates and cardiovascular disease rates.

    CVD(heart attacks/strokes) is the number one cause of death in the USA.

    From 1970 to 2910 the adult smoking rate declined quite a lot.
    Over the same time period, hospital discharges for cardiovascular diseases(CVD) increased.

    The inverse ratio between smoking rates and CVD rates shows that smoking can NOT be the cause of CVD!!!

    https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449847.pdf

    Hospital discharges for cardiovascular disease (United States: 1970–2010).

    Chart shows:
    1970 = 3.4 million

    2010 = 5.8 million

    Population in 1970 was 205.1 million and population in 2010 was 308.7 million

    3.4 million /205.1 million is a 1970 rate of 165.8/10,000

    5.8 million /308.7 million is a 2010 rate of 187.9/10,000

    There was an increase in discharges of 13.3%.

  68. garyk30 says:

    ” “cigarettes kill” and cause a variety of serious diseases and conditions. ”
    However, their own data shows otherwise.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm

    The chart lists the diseases ’caused’ by smoking, the total deaths, and the deaths ’caused’ by smoking(SAM) for those diseases.
    Note:
    1.There are a total of 1,300,000 deaths and only 393,094 SAM’s.
    Only 30% of the deaths were attributed to smoking.
    70% of the deaths from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking were NOT caused by smoking.

    2. 128,477/852,370, shows that 85% of the heart attack-stroke deaths were NOT attributed to smoking.

    3. 160,848/225,627, shows that 38% of the cancer deaths were NOT attributed to smoking.

    4. 103,338/181,889, shows that 43% of the respiratory deaths were NOT attributed to smoking.

    5. Heart attack-stroke deaths make up 66% of the total deaths and if someone dies from them there is an 85% probability that death was NOT caused by smoking.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.html
    ‘Any smoking-related chronic disease’

    We see that never-smokers make up 37.1% of those people with ‘any smoking-related chronic disease and would be expected to have 37.1% of the deaths from those smoking related diseases.
    That 37.1% of the 1,300,000 total deaths = never-smokers having 482,300 deaths from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

    Smokers only have 393,094 smoking caused deaths.

    Never-smoker deaths are 23% higher than the deaths ’caused’ by smoking(SAM).

    Ever-smokers deaths that are NOT caused by smoking are 33% of the total and equal 428,426 of the deaths from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

    When we compare the SAM of 393,094 with the ever-smokers 428,426 deaths that are NOT caused by smoking, we see that ever-smokers deaths from the smoking ’caused’ diseases are more likely to NOT be caused by their ever having smoked.

  69. garyk30 says:

    Apparently, the CDC experts can not do basic math!

    Govt(CDC) data proves that SHS exposure protects never-smokers from lung cancer.

    Never-smokers exposed to SHS are almost 3 times less likely to die from lung cancer than those not exposed to SHS!

    There are about 136 million never-smoker adults in the USA.

    58 million of them were exposed to SHS and 78 million were not.

    Never-smokers account for about 20% of lung cancer deaths or about 33,000 such deaths.

    Anti-smokers claim that 7,300 of those death are caused by SHS exposure and the other 25,700 are not.

    7,300/58 million = 1 per 8,000

    25,700/78 million = 1 per 3,000

    1/3,000 is 2.67 times a higher rate than 1/8,000.

    Never-smokers exposed to SHS are almost 3 times less likely to die from lung cancer than those not exposed to SHS!

    Govt(CDC) data proves that SHS exposure protects never-smokers from lung cancer.

    Many People in the United States Are Still Exposed to Secondhand Smoke
    During 2011–2012, about 58 million nonsmokers in the United States were exposed to secondhand smoke.8
    Health Effects in Adults
    In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

    Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

  70. garyk30 says:

    “A Smoke Free World”
    What a glorious, noble sounding phrase.
    It is almost ‘cosmic’ in the grandeur of it’s concept.
    But, what does it say and mean?
    Actually, that phrase specifies nothing in particular and offers no means of implementing it’s nebulous goal.
    It is a typical self-anointed elite bit of saying something to bloat their egos and appeal to politicians.
    There is no ‘crisis’ of smoke in the world; unless, you think of candles and campfires as creating enough smoke to be a ‘crisis’.
    We can not outlaw wildfires or volcanoes and the smoke from industry is a sign of our prosperous society.
    It does say: “We the anointed elite know what is best for those not intelligent or moral enough to understand that which we envision as best for mankind.”
    That phrase is a good example of what Thomas Sowell calls ‘The Vision of the Annointed’.

  71. garyk30 says:

    Smoking does not ’cause’ heart disease and heart disease deaths.

    The longer that you smoke,the more you are exposed,the lower is your risk of death!!

    To conclude that smoking causes a particular disease, researchers must assess
    the relationship against five criteria:

    One of these is:
    Presence of a dose-response relationship.

    In a dose-response relationship, risk increases with the degree of exposure.

    (As in, the longer one is exposed!)
    …………………………

    CDC SAMMEC RR’s show that the longer people have smoked the LESS risk that they have for Heart Disease and Heart Disease death.

    Since there is NO risk increase with the degree of exposure, the number of ‘preventable,pre-mature deaths’ due to Heart Disease do NOT exist!!!

    Only about 17% of the Cardiovascular disease(CVD) deaths are under the age of 65.

    83% of the CVD deaths were over the age of 65.

    If you go to the SAMMEC site you can register and login and go to the ADULT RR page.
    https://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/login.asp

    Cardiovascular Diseases

    Male Female
    Disease Category/Male Current Smoker/…Current Female Smoker

    Ischemic Heart Disease

    Persons Aged..35–64= 2.80…….3.08
    Persons Aged 65+= 1.51………..1.60

    The longer that you smoke, the lower is your risk of death!!

    Cerebrovascular Disease
    Persons Aged 35–64= 3.27……4.00
    Persons Aged 65+= 1.63………1.49

    The longer that you smoke,the more you are exposed,the lower is your risk of death!!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s