What's your take on smoking? How do you feel about those who do?

09 May 2012, 04:53

577NitroExpress

Lost my wife to lung cancer. I was 35 and had a five year old at the time. She was a smoker before I met her and always said that I would never change her for me. Wasn't my place to do that.

So I'm against it.

Personally, I have never smoked cigarettes - not once. I do, however, have a few cigars throughout the year, but you can count them on one hand.

09 May 2012, 05:07

JLarsson

quote:
Originally posted by RuarkReader:
In statistics, there is what is called a correlation coefficient. A correlation coefficient value of 1.00 is a 100% correlation. Even then, a 100% correlation only proves there is a relationship, not causation.

If there is a relationship between smoking and lung cancer or heart disease, then the correlation coefficient, to be considered statistically valid, should have a value of at least 0.90. I haven't found one study statistically linking smoking with lung cancer or heart disease with a correlation coefficient of 0.90 or higher.

The adverse effects of smoking has become a social and political issue -- not a scientific one.

You're kidding. 90% of smokers have to end up with lung cancer and/or heart disease before there is considered to be a causal relationship?

If you started flipping a penny and came up with heads 60% or 70% of the time, assuming a sufficient sample size, wouldn't you think you had a problem? Would you wait for 90% heads to say, "Hey - something is going on here."?

09 May 2012, 06:38

ted thorn

100% smell bad

09 May 2012, 07:20

RuarkReader

quote:
No correlation coefficient (even 1.0) proves causality.

I've already stated that.

quote:
If I remember correctly, .2 correlation coefficient is statistically valid at the 95% confidence level

I'm referring to a linear relationship, not a bell curve with confidence levels, which is not applicable. Where did you learn your statistics?

09 May 2012, 07:35

JLarsson

quote:
Originally posted by RuarkReader:
quote:
No correlation coefficient (even 1.0) proves causality.

I've already stated that.

quote:
If I remember correctly, .2 correlation coefficient is statistically valid at the 95% confidence level

I'm referring to a linear relationship, not a bell curve with confidence levels, which is not applicable. Where did you learn your statistics?

Jeez....everything has to be a

Even though STATISTICALLY, a 100% correlation doesn't prove causality, we can use other information and logic processes to CONCLUDE causality. Put a mouse in a sealed container that contains no oxygen. Mouse dies. Repeat. The mouse will die 100% of the time. STATISTICALLY, we could say that there is a 100% correlation between putting a mouse in a sealed container and the mouse's death. While we cannot use that statistic to conclude causality, using LOGIC and other information we glean from biology, we know that the mouse asphyxiated BECAUSE of a lack of oxygen. Causality.

09 May 2012, 08:09

Savage_99

We tried cigarettes in High School back in the 50's. I remember that homes had ash trays in them then. When my uncle would come over for a holiday dinner he would smoke in my parents house.

I got lucky when that same uncle said to me "I understand your smoking now?" (He must have been told by my parents.) I must have been about 16 then.

Of course I lied and said I was not.

I was fortunate as it worked.

09 May 2012, 08:28

RuarkReader

With respect, JLarsson, I was not getting into a

with you, and you are not being

on.

All I'm saying, is that if there is causality, then there should be statistical studies showing linear relationships and correlation coefficients greater than 0.90. I have not seen those studies.

Statistics can't prove causality, but if there is causality, then it should be should be reflected statistically.

09 May 2012, 08:48

JLarsson

quote:
Originally posted by RuarkReader:
With respect, JLarsson, I was not getting into a with you, and you are not being on.

All I'm saying, is that if there is causality, then there should be statistical studies showing linear relationships and correlation coefficients greater than 0.90. I have not seen those studies.

Statistics can't prove causality, but if there is causality, then it should be should be reflected statistically.

Nope - not me, and I understood that. I was referring to the "where did you learn your statistics" comments by you and thirdbite.

Whether causality is reflected statistically is going to be in the eye of the interpreter of the statistics, yes? What is the difference in incident rates of lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease among smokers compared to non-smokers? There IS a difference, right? And it's not in favor of those who smoke, right? And there aren't any other consistent factors present to which we can reasonably attribute the differences, right?

I'm sure you know what you're talking about in regard to statistics. I'm not sure that the statistical degree of certainty that is required to convince you of causality is necessarily the minimum degree to convince EVERYONE of causality.

09 May 2012, 17:41

Geedubya

quote:
Originally posted by JLarsson:
quote:
Originally posted by RuarkReader:
With respect, JLarsson, I was not getting into a with you, and you are not being on.

All I'm saying, is that if there is causality, then there should be statistical studies showing linear relationships and correlation coefficients greater than 0.90. I have not seen those studies.

Statistics can't prove causality, but if there is causality, then it should be should be reflected statistically.

Nope - not me, and I understood that. I was referring to the "where did you learn your statistics" comments by you and thirdbite.

Whether causality is reflected statistically is going to be in the eye of the interpreter of the statistics, yes? What is the difference in incident rates of lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease among smokers compared to non-smokers? There IS a difference, right? And it's not in favor of those who smoke, right? And there aren't any other consistent factors present to which we can reasonably attribute the differences, right?

I'm sure you know what you're talking about in regard to statistics. I'm not sure that the statistical degree of certainty that is required to convince you of causality is necessarily the minimum degree to convince EVERYONE of causality.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is a medically proven fact that 100% of non-smokers die.

Best

GWB

10 May 2012, 00:17

RuarkReader

In an earlier post, you mentioned a sample size of 100. I was taught the Rule of 300: Researchers should use samples of 300 or more whenever possible. Comrey and Lee (1992) urged samples of 500 or greater.

You've stated that you do not need correlation coefficients greater than 0.90. But a correlation coefficient is then squared to obtain a correlation of determination, which determines how certain one can be making a prediction from a certain graph/model. I was taught that any study with a correlation of determination less than 0.85 was doing nothing more than arm waving.

Whatever. The weather is too nice here and I'm going to the range to do some shooting.

10 May 2012, 02:53

Gatogordo

Yeah, all those blaming lung cancer on smoking are statistically ignorant, of course, there are these inconvient facts that don't have to be proven by statisticians.

quote:
Across the developed world, 91% of lung cancer deaths in men during the year 2000 were attributed to smoking (71% for women). In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women). Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women.

xxxxxxxxxx
When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere.

NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR.

I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process.

10 May 2012, 09:43

npd345

talk about off topic. All I have figured out from the last batch of posts; from our stat friends, is two things
1. stats make my head hurt
2. everyone dies

11 May 2012, 00:34

Jools

quote:
Originally posted by ted thorn:
Just to name some things that are not health related that are turn-offs for me with smokers

They (people) smell bad....real bad
They taste bad....never kissed a smoker....if she smokes, it's a deal breaker
The inside of most smokers cars stinks
The inside of most smokers house stink

Ted

You forgot one other thing off your list

They made everyone around them smell bad too.......

11 May 2012, 04:07

wasbeeman

Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

11 May 2012, 04:28

JLarsson

quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

I always heard that quitting was hard.....

11 May 2012, 04:29

ted thorn

Funny......talk about a tattoo and your on the hater boat

Talk about smoking and you get bent out of shape

I'm laffin

.

11 May 2012, 04:30

Jools

Bull shit about 2nd hand smoke...I don't think so. Asbestos doesn't gives you asbestosis either. Are you still using lead based paints around your house? 150 years ago they were still using mercury to try and cure syphillis.

Presumably you like stinking like a rancid ashtray. Hmmmm nice!

As for St Peter you obviously like believing in fairy stories, like smoking doesn't kill you so why not believe in heaven and the pearly gates...

11 May 2012, 05:43

Geedubya

GWB

11 May 2012, 09:57

npd345

quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

You summed it all up perfectly!!

11 May 2012, 10:17

JLarsson

quote:
Originally posted by npd345:
quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

You summed it all up perfectly!!

Only from the point of view of someone who won't accept the truth even if it kills him.

11 May 2012, 13:33

Jools

quote:
Originally posted by JLarsson:
quote:
Originally posted by npd345:
quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

You summed it all up perfectly!!

Only from the point of view of someone who won't accept the truth even if it kills him.

Right on bro!

11 May 2012, 15:37

Lamar

and y'all care whether someone does or doesn't smoke/pierce/tattoo/drink or whatever.
personally i hate people that chew gum,talk incessantly on telephones and have no tact or courtesy.

12 May 2012, 00:27

Be careful on believing the guvment stats on cancer deaths and smoking. They are pure BS. When my Dad died at 89 years old from lung cancer, the undertaker ask me if he smoked. I said "He smoked until he was 62" He said it didn't matter that he quit smoking 27 years ago, if he had ever smoked in his entire life, then died from lung cancer, the guvment blamed the smoking. No matter that he had been around asbestos, DDT, Parathion, Malathion etc, etc his entire adult life. One more number to add to the stats. Pure BS.

12 May 2012, 01:01

ted thorn

quote:
Originally posted by Lamar:
personally i hate people that chew gum,talk incessantly on telephones and have no tact or courtesy.

Sounds like a tatto'd up smoker to me

12 May 2012, 01:26

Geedubya

quote:
Originally posted by ted thorn:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamar:
personally i hate people that chew gum,talk incessantly on telephones and have no tact or courtesy.

Sounds like a tatto'd up smoker to me

Especially if they have a mullet and an overbite

Best

GWB

12 May 2012, 05:14

wasbeeman

quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by JLarsson:
quote:
Originally posted by npd345:
quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

You summed it all up perfectly!!

Only from the point of view of someone who won't accept the truth even if it kills him.

Right on bro!

You're not paying attention. I don't smoke. I just have a problem with holier than thou whiners. Like you and Thorn.

12 May 2012, 05:52

ted thorn

Beeman.....I have a tattoo remember? My opponion doesnt count.

I keep learning around here that's funny

12 May 2012, 11:07

npd345

all these stats are making my tattoos hurt!!

12 May 2012, 17:18

ted thorn

I need a cig.....

12 May 2012, 23:57

NavyVet

Who knew??? Lol!

13 May 2012, 10:24

Lamar

quote:
Originally posted by ted thorn:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamar:
personally i hate people that chew gum,talk incessantly on telephones and have no tact or courtesy.

Sounds like a tatto'd up smoker to me

no tatoos here.
i do got a slight overbite though.
and a weird grown out mullett [sp?]
nomo 35-10 for me.

13 May 2012, 13:28

Jools

quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by JLarsson:
quote:
Originally posted by npd345:
quote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Well, we've had to listen to all the bullshit about secondhand smoke. I guess now we have to listen to the whining about secondhand stench.
Suggestions to you pure ones: Stay out of smoker's homes; stay out of smoker's cars; don't hang with smokers; last but not least, form little support groups so you can stand around and brag on each other and sniff over each other and talk bad about those nasty old smokers.
And hope when you finally die (probably none to soon for some of the folks that have to listen to you), you want to hope that when you meet St Pete, he don't have a non-filtered Camel hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

You summed it all up perfectly!!

Only from the point of view of someone who won't accept the truth even if it kills him.

Right on bro!

You're not paying attention. I don't smoke. I just have a problem with holier than thou whiners. Like you and Thorn.

Bless you my son.

Opinions, opinions, everyones got them. That's why they are like buses....wait around long enough and one will come along that you want to get on.

I'd rather be holier than stink or be covered in ink.

13 May 2012, 13:35

Jools

quote:
Originally posted by NavyVet:

Who knew??? Lol!

Damn girl.......

tats, cigs and cruised past the 40yo mile post. whats next.............. 185lbs?

13 May 2012, 16:25

NavyVet

Lmao!! Jools, you crack me up! But no, I'm not really into the Middleweights. I like my men heavier than that. Machida at 205 lbs, or even better... Mir at 259lbs! Humm-una, Humm-una. They're the ones that get my motor running. Lol!

13 May 2012, 18:55

Geedubya

NV,
then I guess the statement, "warmth in the winter and shade in the summer" don't necessarily apply to females of the opposite sex only.

As someone said earlier, "good comeback

Best

GWB

13 May 2012, 19:48

Jools

quote:
Originally posted by NavyVet:
Lmao!! Jools, you crack me up! But no, I'm not really into the Middleweights. I like my men heavier than that. Machida at 205 lbs, or even better... Mir at 259lbs! Humm-una, Humm-una. They're the ones that get my motor running. Lol!

So what weight are you running at girl, 135 or 215.

I know thats 1 or the 2 questions you should never ask a women. The other being her age, but seeing as we have covered the age one I just thought I'd ask.

Nope lost me .. Michida, Mir ???? Sounds like some kinda Guatemalan gastro infection.

A woman your age should be carefully around men, you might throw a hip of something. Those joints aint as supple as they use to be you know.

ATb

Jools

13 May 2012, 20:24

NavyVet

Well, I ain't Twiggy, that's for sure. I'm the perfect weight for me.

And, its funny you should mention it. I just hip threw someone last week. But, he's ok. Barely limping anymore. Lol!

13 May 2012, 20:33

Jools

quote:
Originally posted by NavyVet:
Well, I ain't Twiggy, that's for sure. I'm the perfect weight for me.
And, its funny you should mention it. I just hip threw someone last week. But, he's ok. Barely limping anymore. Lol!

Wey Hey!!!!!!

Sorry Howdy Ma'am.

By the way have you seen Twiggy lately?