A Major Security Failure

When I fell asleep last night the Paris death toll had risen over a period of 2 hours from 40 dead to over 140 dead. I expected it could well have reached 200 by the time I woke up again. So it was something of a relief to learn that it had actually fallen to 127.

paris-13-novThere seem to have been at least 2 separate groups of attackers, each comprising 4 gunmen. Last night reports were saying that the attacks were almost simultaneous, but today the BBC is giving times and locations (shown in map at right).

One group of terrorists seem to have been suicide bombers who all blew themselves up at 21:30 local time. But it rather looks like a car carrying  the other 4 gunmen first stopped at 21:20 local time outside a couple of restaurants and killed people sitting outside (most likely smokers!). They then drove a short way south, and shot up another restaurant. And then they drove a lot further south, and at 21:50 shot up another restaurant, before doubling back north and entering the Bataclan concert hall at 22:00 and killing 80 – 100 people inside.

That’s 40 minutes after the shooting first started that the main atrocity begins. One might have hoped that the alarm might have been raised by then, telling theatres and stadiums to close and bar their doors. This doesn’t seem to have happened.

So my first thought is that a lot of lives might have been saved if there had been an effective alarm system in place. First reports were probably being made at 21:20 on mobile phones. Police would have known almost immediately. And TV and radio news networks would have known a few minutes later, and could have started telling people to stay indoors. And if people with mobile phones started calling friends and family, the news could have begun to propagate rapidly (maybe swamping the phone network?).

My second thought was that there’s probably no defence against attacks of this sort. The Charlie Hebdo attack earlier this year was a highly targeted attack. This new attack was clearly quite indiscriminate. And in fact, given the sequence of attacks shown in the map above, it doesn’t even look as if the attacks were carefully planned, but were opportunistic. It almost looks like the gunmen shot up two restaurants and then made their getaway, before noticing that clearly no alarm had been raised, and so stopped to shoot up another restaurant before doubling back to head for the big prize of the Bataclan concert hall which they’d probably passed earlier on their way south, and which they guessed (correctly) would not have been secured.

My third thought was that if this was indeed a Syrian IS revenge attack, then if the Russian airliner downed over the Sinai a week or so back was also downed by IS, that makes two revenge attacks inside two weeks, and the next targets are likely to be Britain and the USA over the next few weeks.

My fourth thought was that the two Charlie Hebdo gunmen killed 11 people in a single attack (about 5 each), but now we have 8 gunmen/bombers killing 128 people in multiple attacks (about 16 each). So what happens if 100 gunmen strike some city in 25 separate simultaneous carefully targeted attacks? If the kill rate is even higher, say 25 each, that’s going to be 2,500 dead. That would be an event comparable to 9/11, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed.

And my fifth thought is that there are probably standing armies of gunmen already in place throughout the world, living off social security in Britain, France, and elsewhere. One of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen had been living in France for years, and even had a wife and child. But when the order came, he left all that, and drove 100 km to Paris on a suicide mission.

My final thought is that this has been a major security failure by the Paris authorities. It simply shouldn’t be possible for carloads of armed gunmen to drive around a city like Paris shooting people for 40 minutes or more without a general alarm being raised. There ought to be a means whereby every single bar, restaurant, theatre, stadium, railway station can be alerted within minutes of an attack, and told to close and bar their doors. In fact, every single citizen ought to be informed what they should do in the event of attacks like this. If Paris had an effective alarm system, there’d now be just 20 or 30 people dead, not nearly 130.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

46 Responses to A Major Security Failure

  1. Roobeedoo2 says:

    My first thought was ‘that’s très convenient considering the financial system is about to breakdown’ ;)

    I’m not trumpeting, Click, just sayin’…

  2. waltc says:

    On cnn last nite people who’s escaped from the concert hall massacre were saying it was 40 orminutes before the cops arrived.

  3. Jay says:

    I’d rather forego the ‘effective alarm system’ solution to minimize the numbers and cut to the solution that stops people who hate the West being welcomed into it to kill when the mood takes them.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Well, that would help, obviously. But when those people are already present in sleeper cells, there are going to be more attacks like this.

      It seems to me that when the target is the civilian population, that population can’t leave everything to the police/armed forces, who can’t be expected to protect everybody all the time. The civilian population is going to have to learn to defend itself. What I was suggesting was a form of defence that would minimise casualties. And that’s before civilians start arming themselves (like in Israel): I believe many Israelis carry guns.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Most definitely sleeper cells with weaponry already stored. Just waiting for the word to strike. Now how do you train a population to react and resist,thats the major question and the leftists fear the people when armed,they will take back their government.

  4. smokingscot says:

    Beg to differ. The attack in Beirut on Thursday was a revenge attack on Hezbollah. There they chose a soft target and more were killed.

    Agreed, there’s no way we can defend against future attacks, however that’s exactly what terror is about. Today Paris was pretty well a dead town and there is – inevitably – a reaction by authorities that always results in further controls. That’s what they want.

    It’s known that the two in the concert were home grown who spoke fluent French.

    They’ve also announced the Syrian whose passport they have came into the EU in October this year via a Greek island. (So the Italian police were 100% correct when they said that anywhere upwards of 10% of those coming to Italy have been groomed by Daesh. (ISIL absolutely loathe it when people call them Daesh. Daesh is an Arabic word in its own right (rather than an acronym) meaning ‘a group of bigots who impose their will on others’). Given what we’ve experienced at the hands of tobacco control, I rather like the word, sort of equivalent of you guys calling TC Nazi’s.

    President Rouhani of Iran has cancelled his planned visits to France and Italy. They almost certainly wanted this to happen, however I hope its only been postponed as we really need to be opening lines of communications with Iran.

    Got my doubts the climate change conference will be the great big shindig they’d planned. It’s scheduled to run from 30 Nov to 11 Dec. They expected close to 50,000 participants including 25,000 official delegates from government, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society.

    They’re expecting at least 80 heads of state to bowl up on the 30th Nov. If they do, then Paris’ll be in total lockdown.

  5. Lepercolonist says:

    Marine Le Pen will to be difficult to beat now. She has been warning the French that this may occur.

  6. Frank Davis says:

    Comment I left under ex-SAS Colonel Tim Collins’ Telegraph article:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Problem Frank is the government looks at such things as inciting fear and panic into the public domain. What the government should be fearing is organized vigilante justice western style from we the people. Going out at nite like longriders of old dragging muslims from their beds and making examples out of them to the rest……..Trust me it works better targeting a simple slice of the unwanted population to get the fuck gone than what ISIS is trying to do or al quieda in willy nilly attacks. To keep safe all you have to do is stay away from large gathering areas because terrorists want one thing MASS CASUALTIES…….

      Without mass killings there attacks are deemed failures.

      A few lynchings of muslims in a few places would put the fear of god into them all!

  7. richard says:

    There is a defence. It’s called “concealed carry”. If only 2% of the concert-goers were armed, that would be 40 guns in the hands of the crowd, in other words a 10/1 advantage over the Muslim attackers.
    But not only have Western Governments removed the citizens’ right to self-defence, they have blasted the middle east with warfare and puppet regimes, then opened the borders to the very people that they’ve antagonised.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I agree. But did the terrorists need to have got inside the concert hall in the first place?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      with the advent of multiculturalism the terrorists are free to use the lefts own weaknesses to their own advantage. Its simple your a racist if you wont allow muslims into your place of whatever……….boom the muslim wins and gets to keep on strapping on bomb vests and walking in with the governments backing and blow everyone up.

      Concealed carry will do little to stop a bomber with a well concealed bomb vest. Now a shooter with an open ak-47 ya you got a chance to get his ass. I could and in one shot right thru the eyes. But then Ive practiced for years to be able to do just that.

      My point is always understand your enemies weaknesses and understand your own.

      Its not just a religious political war its a cultural war to and we can thank PC MULTICULTURALISM FORCED DOWN OUR THROATS FOR ALL OF IT.

  8. nisakiman says:

    The problem is, Frank, that an ‘effective alarm system’ is reliant on reducing the liberties of all for ‘the greater good’.

    I’m going to don my triple thickness tinfoil hat with the pointy bit on top here, and go out on a bit of a limb.

    It seems to me that response times, regardless of ‘effective alarm systems’, were very slow. Criminally so.

    It also seems to me that the reportage from the MSM was and is unhelpful, to say the least, and will only serve to inflate the egos of those responsible and confirm to them that their actions were a resounding success. Were I in charge of the headlines, they would have read something along the lines of: “Cowardly Muslim dogs too afraid to take on the military, so slaughter soft targets of innocent women and children who can’t retaliate instead.” (I’d make much of comparisons to ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’). And other similar stuff that deliberately uses comparisons that they will find insulting and degrading. I certainly wouldn’t be referring to them as ‘IS Terrorists’. That is for them a badge of honour, and should be avoided at all costs.

    There are many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, of which I remain sceptical, but this latest atrocity does rather fit in with those theories. France is in ‘lock-down’ and ‘state of emergency’, and people’s movements will be strictly controlled. In addition, the latest travesty of the Russian passenger jet crashing over Egypt will bring another whole raft of stultifying controls on travel, as if they weren’t bad enough already.

    We are moving inexorably towards a fully totalitarian world government, and each new atrocity justifies further controls. While I don’t actually think the Western governments are complicit in the acts themselves, I do think that they deliberately provoke them, and then when they happen, use them to the max as a means to further their agenda.

    Ok, I’ll take off my tinfoil hat now…

    • Frank Davis says:

      The problem is, Frank, that an ‘effective alarm system’ is reliant on reducing the liberties of all for ‘the greater good’.

      No it isn’t. I’m just saying that a city like Paris should be able to react much more quickly to events like last night’s. I’m not calling for anyone’s liberties to be reduced in the least. I’m asking for them to be kept informed. If the Bataclan concert hall had been rapidly notified of what had been happening, I’m sure that they could have done something about it, like locking the doors. In what way does keeping people informed “reduce their liberties”? I doesn’t reduce their liberties at all. In fact, it increases their liberties.

      I don’t see why, in our highly wired society, there can’t be a system whereby restaurants and theatres are immediately informed of a threat condition. What they do about it will be up to them.

      What does seem to me to be reducing liberties is introducing a curfew and putting 1,500 troops on the streets of Paris. This is gesture politics.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank a massive amount of people and cars talking 40,000 or more at a football game. You are talking a panic that would kill hundreds just from them running for exists trying to get away. The police or even military units couldn’t respond if a full flight panic was in operation,the streets would be packed and run amuck people everywhere providing targets galore. Even if they locked the doors and theres several gunmen theyd easily over power a few rent a cops and bust in killing as they went.

        Mass terror in places like that are hell. the worse is the panic that sets in fight or flight and the unarmed civilian is already left with one option RUN! Because he has no weapons to fight back with unless they all just run str8 at the terrorists and take being gunned downed until they overwhelm the enemy……that very rarely happens anywhere exceot on flight 203 over Pennsylvania when the man said lets roll………….they got the terrorists and the plane went down.

      • beobrigitte says:

        That’s 40 minutes after the shooting first started that the main atrocity begins. One might have hoped that the alarm might have been raised by then, telling theatres and stadiums to close and bar their doors. This doesn’t seem to have happened. […]
        […] I don’t see why, in our highly wired society, there can’t be a system whereby restaurants and theatres are immediately informed of a threat condition. What they do about it will be up to them.

        In theory, yes. Perhaps it is a kind of arrogance and complacency not to expect ‘multi-pronged’ attacks?
        Harley did point out the panic that could have ensued when people were trying to run away. These days people are on edge, anyway.
        Also, if the suicide attacks outside the stadium were (as I think was assumed) the only ones, heads would have rolled for false alarm…. These days no-one dares to do anything not in the ‘guide books’ that were cobbled together by some “experts” …

        What does seem to me to be reducing liberties is introducing a curfew and putting 1,500 troops on the streets of Paris. This is gesture politics.
        My guess is that if warnings had been sounded, the people who remember that they are adults would have done the sensible thing: go home/stay at home.
        In my view the 1,500 troops got to the streets of Paris too late.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      that an ‘effective alarm system’ is reliant on reducing the liberties of all for ‘the greater good’

      That’s what happened after 911 the response was the patriot act that basically cut our liberties and rights into nothing. Privacy all of it. Then the controllers loved it,it gave them the opportunity to push laws against everything like smoking bans even. The atmosphere was set for all essential liberties to be revoked unless of course you were a minority.

      What Im telling you is giving up essential liberty for a little security is insanity. It leads to more of the same and theres plenty of politicians ready to use that excuse to take and take and take until the population is ready to assisinate politicians and anyone pushing that crap……….

    • garyk30 says:

      Good ideas

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    • waltc says:

      I agree with every premise above. But what legislators and tax-makers forget is that corporations, like individuals, will act in their own self-interest. Or my own maxim: “Anything the mind of man can create, the mind of man can get around.” Until we ger a tax and regulatory scheme that keeps businesses here, and brings foreign businesses in, there seems to be no way out of this death spiral. And meanwile, the bien pensants are intent on bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Trump: Paris attacks would have been ‘different’ if civilians were armed

    “The toughest gun laws in the world — nobody had guns except for the bad guys.”

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260171-trump-paris-attacks-would-have-been-different-if-civilians-were

  11. wobbler2012 says:

    I can’t help but think that we (the West) help to create this monster by invading and bombing the shit out of their countries. The USA are mainly to blame but the UK has done it’s fair share of US rim licking.

    I’m actually surprised that there are not a lot more of these types of attacks, as you pointed out Frank if there were say 100 of them with a fully coordinated attack it would be absolutely horrific. We are living in an ever increasing fucked up world RIP to all the people who needlessly died last night.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

  13. garyk30 says:

    Not a good time to be a Muslim in Paris.
    There will be a lot of violent retribution.

  14. jaxthefirst says:

    I strongly suspect that the initial shootings at the restaurant were designed to do precisely what they did do – focus the first efforts of the police on those areas and away from the real target, i.e. the concert hall packed with people – it was a bit like the bombing of the nightclub in Bali where a bomb was set off inside, but then one was also set off outside at just the point where the terrorists knew that any survivors would be flooding out. They’d clearly thought out the onward ramifications of any police/emergency services’ response and had planned accordingly to take advantage of it. Cowardly, inhuman pieces of scum these murderers might be, but stupid they (or their controllers) most certainly are not. Sadly, the same can’t be said of our own leaders, who (as the European immigration crisis has shown) don’t seem to be able to think further forward than the next two minutes or to contemplate a Plan B in case things don’t work out precisely as they have intended, when proposing plans for anything.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Switch and bait tactics

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Thing is these terrorists are ready to die on the spot. That’s the problem they have no fear.
      The same as fanatical Banzai attacks of the japs. Or the mass charges of sadamms personal guards in silk robes and swords in hand charging an armored coumn of our tanks along a desert rode. We just mowed them down with machine gun fire. Thing is they are hiding and making their attacks that’s the only sane tactic they’ve come up with and only lose a few versus thousands in mass suicidal attacks.

  15. Cecily Collingridge says:

    It is the media coverage of these rare events that always appalls me and I cannot understand how quickly people seem to delight in the carnage, lose all sense of perspective and go overboard with wild or ill-informed speculations, accusations, or expressions of fake sentimentality. It really puzzles me. I have done a lot of smoking and thinking in the last 24hrs. These are my thoughts.

    What the media and the government have consistently failed to do in the UK is describe accurately who Daesh/ISIS/ISIL are. The analyses have always been far too superficial. Harleyrider was right to say ‘know your enemy’ even if I may not follow his logic on other things (I hope you are feeling better Harley). Capitol cities are very cosmopolitan with a high proportion of transient populations anyway.

    I would not want to see our liberty further curtailed either. Neither do I like to see people lump Muslims altogether – it is not only unhelpful but dangerous as it will only make a bad situation worse. There is diversity under Islam just as there is under Christianity and minority people should not be scapegoated. As an older, sick, atheist, female smoker, I know all too well what it feels like to be dis-empowered and marginalised. There may be more general public recognition of the Shia and Sunni divide now but, from the research I’ve done, the real enemy are Salafists. It gets more nuanced than that… there are separate ‘quiet Salafists’ who pose no threat and shouldn’t be confused with them.

    So whilst I have some sympathy for some of the reactions to the Paris events because people feel powerless, I wish the media did a better job of informing the public. It’s a long read, but I recommend you read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    • beobrigitte says:

      It is the media coverage of these rare events that always appalls me and I cannot understand how quickly people seem to delight in the carnage, lose all sense of perspective and go overboard with wild or ill-informed speculations, accusations, or expressions of fake sentimentality.
      I must admit, after watching the BBC News for a while I was amazed how little they can say in many, many words and pictures and how many times they can repeat themselves in many, many words. I ended up switching the TV off.

      There is diversity under Islam just as there is under Christianity and minority people should not be scapegoated. As an older, sick, atheist, female smoker, I know all too well what it feels like to be dis-empowered and marginalised.
      I’m neither, sick or atheist but I am a female smoker. I do experience social exclusion on a daily basis and therefore stay mostly at home and invite people to my house.
      Perhaps the French smokers are still (?) more resilient; at this time of the year NO-ONE sits outside a restaurant unless there are no ashtrays inside. I do wonder if we will ever be told how many gunned down were smokers so Frank could add them to the smokers’ graveyard.

      There may be more general public recognition of the Shia and Sunni divide now but, from the research I’ve done, the real enemy are Salafists. It gets more nuanced than that… there are separate ‘quiet Salafists’ who pose no threat and shouldn’t be confused with them.
      I agree completely. The last thing we need now is a witch hunt.

      So whilst I have some sympathy for some of the reactions to the Paris events because people feel powerless…
      Helplessness is one of the worst feelings. Nevertheless, I thought the projection of the French flag onto buildings all over Europe was a nice gesture. However, within each of these European Countries the individual communities are deliberately being fragmented by the lobby groups haunting our governments. Perhaps in order to be someone to be reckoned with, our communities within each of the countries need to stand together?

      • Frank Davis says:

        I do wonder if we will ever be told how many gunned down were smokers so Frank could add them to the smokers’ graveyard.

        Some of them were certainly smokers.

        Guardian

        “Two people inside the restaurant are neighbours of ours, they live downstairs and after the attack happened they ran out onto the street.
        They told me that they met a woman whose two friends had gone outside for a smoke during dinner and the gunmen opened fire. They were both killed. My neighbours stayed with us last night as they left their keys in the restaurant when they ran out.”

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    ‘Ban Smoking’ Means ‘Evict Defiant Smokers’

    Smoke-free public housing could make vulnerable people homeless.

    bloombergview|By Megan McArdle

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-12/-ban-smoking-means-evict-defiant-smokers-

    The most obvious question is whether and how this ban will be enforced. Fabulous cost savings are not going to materialize if you just ban smoking and the smokers merrily keep puffing away in their apartments. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of good evidence on the results of these bans, some of which have already been implemented at the local level. The best I could come up with was a short-term study from Portland, which found that five months after the implementation of a ban, almost two-thirds of the residents were simply not complying.

    Another study shows better results for indoor smoking, but fewer than half of the smokers even reported reducing their cigarette consumption, and non-smokers still reported significant weekly exposure to second-hand smoke. (And of course, you have to worry that people under threat of eviction may exaggeration the extent of their compliance with the new rules).

    The footnotes to the CDC study show a heavy reliance on data from multi-unit housing — which is to say, any sort of apartment building, not just public housing. But of course, public housing is a little different from your average apartment tower. The tenants do not have a lot of extra cash to, say, pay a fine. Or to negotiate an eviction, which is ultimately the only penalty that the housing authority can levy for someone who persistently violates the rules.

    And there’s the rub: Are we really going to evict people from public housing for smoking in their apartments? We’re talking about people who definitionally do not have a lot of financial resources: single parents, the elderly, the disabled. Where, exactly, are they going to go on short notice?

    I’m not even making a moral argument about whether we should do this. I have an opinion about that too, but it’s irrelevant. The question is whether we are going to do this. As law-and-order hawks frequently forget, the problem with imposing draconian punishment is that their deterrent effect ends up considerably blunted by the natural reluctance of authorities to impose very harsh punishments on violators who are mostly harming themselves. Housing authorities already show reluctance to evict people who consistently fail to pay their rent. How many are going to be willing to regularly toss families out on the street because Mom smokes in the bathroom?

    And indeed, HUD Secretary Julian Castro, quoted in the Times, is reluctant to endorse evictions for tenants who smoke.

    The prohibition would be included in tenant leases, and violations would be treated like other nuisance violations, which are usually reported by neighbors or employees and are not meant to result in evictions, Mr. Castro said.

    “The purpose is to go smoke-free and to have healthier communities,” he said. “My hope is that housing authorities would work with residents to prepare them for this change so that any kind of punitive measures like evictions are avoided at all costs.”

    This is a lovely sentiment, but surely he doesn’t think that every public housing tenant — about a quarter of whom smoked in one survey by the New York public housing authority — is going to comply with the new rules. If you don’t evict the violators, then over time, the initially compliant smokers will realize there’s no penalty and will return to smoking in their apartments, so that the net effect of this ban will mostly be more paperwork for the managers of the housing projects.

    But if you do evict the defiant smokers, what happens next? I suspect that a lot of the projected cost savings get eaten up when the families end up in the city’s shelter system, or the disabled folks end up in hospitals. Homelessness is also not known for its fabulous health benefits.

    If public housing had a better array of tools to deal with noncompliant tenants, this might be less of a problem. But they ultimately have one crude tool: eviction. And it’s hard to evict people from a facility created specifically to house people who don’t have anywhere else to go.

    1.I won’t bore you with too many details, but to take just one glaring problem, the cost benefits are calculated gross, rather than net. They estimate cost savings from diseases that might be caused by secondhand smoke, but don’t net out whatever else those people might have died from. (Overall, Kip Viscusi has estimated that smoking saves society money. Which is not to say the savings are worth it.) They estimate the benefits from less renovation and fewer fires, but do not include the cost of implementing the ban. They also don’t offer any costs that might be incurred by making non-compliant tenants suddenly homeless. Homelessness is, of course, extremely costly for both the victim and the local government. The report airily dismisses the horrors of eviction with a cheery note that this draconian threat might help reduce disparities in smoking rates between rich and poor. You know, if the poor have to choose between smoking while homeless or not smoking at home. ↵

    This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Take afterwards what Truman states here and you have the whole damned thing in repeat 70 years later only this time its our own government being the NAZIS.

    Once a government is committed to the principle
    of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” Harry S. Truman

    Then Goebells says

    Goebbels:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep
    repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
    maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from
    the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
    becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
    repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
    by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    Anti-smokers claim that there is no safe level of exposure to cigarette smoke and that smoking causes lung cancer.

    Well, it takes about 4 million cigarettes smoked for there to be one lung cancer.

    Average age for taking up smoking is 18.
    Average age of diagnosis with lung cancer is 72.
    Antis say that 1 in 10 smokers will get lung cancer.

    72 minus 18 equal 54 years of smoking, on average, before lung cancer is diagnosed.
    If a smoker smokes a pack a day, that is 7,300 per year.
    10 smokers would be 73,000 per year.
    73,000 times 54 years equals 3,942,000 cigarettes smoked for there to be 1 lung cancer.

    Smokers and never smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer at about the same age!!
    .
    http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5/472
    RESULTS
    Although never smokers were slightly older at lung cancer diagnosis than current smokers in two population-based cohorts (MEC and NHEFS), this difference was not observed in the majority of cohorts evaluated (NHS, HPFS, CTS, and U/OLCR; Table 2).

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