Smoking Studies

smokingclub.com ^ | October 2, 2003 | smoking club

[CSM]

Result: Positive Risk, Negative Risk or Insignificant Statistically. Relative Risk and Confidence Interval.*

YR Name Result Rel.Risk Conf.Int Locale Type Sex Link Comments 99 Mitchell / Milerad I Eur SIDS M&F Link at WHO 98 Enstrom / Kabat I USA/ CA SHS M&F Spouses Link at BMJ SHS Harmless. BMJ letters. Editor Comment. Fumento. SHS Frauds. 98 Boffetta (WHO) I 1.16 0.93-1.44 Eur Spouse M&F 98 Boffetta (WHO) I 1.17 0.94-1.45 Eur Work F&M 98 Boffetta (WHO) N 0.78 * 0.64-0.96 Eur Childhd F&M Link at WHO 98 Boffetta (WHO) I 1.03 0.82-1.29 Eur Social M&F Judge Osteen Ruling 97 Cardenas ^ I 1.2 0.80-1.60 US Spouse F Link at NCBI Chapman at BMJ 97 Cardenas ^ I 1.1 0.60-1.80 US Spouse M 97 Jockel-BIPS I 1.58 0.74-3.38 Ger Spouse F 97 Jockel-BIPS I 1.58 0.52-4.81 Ger Spouse M 97 Jockel-GSF N 0.93 * 0.66-1.31 Ger Spouse F 97 Jockel-GSF N 0.93 * 0.52-1.67 Ger Spouse M 97 Ko ^ I 1.3 0.70-2.50 Tai Spouse F 97 Nyberg I 1.2 0.74-1.94 Swed Spouse F 97 Nyberg I 1.2 0.57-2.55 Swed Spouse M 97 Jockel-BIPS P 2.37 1.02-5.48 Ger Work F&M 97 Jockel-GSF I 1.51 0.95-2.40 Ger Work F&M 97 Ko ^ I 1.1 0.40-3.00 Tai Work F 97 Nyberg I 1.6 0.90-2.90 Swed Work F&M 97 Jockel-BIPS I 1.05 0.50-2.22 Ger Childhd F&M 97 Jockel-GSF N 0.95 * 0.64-1.40 Ger Childhd F&M 97 Ko ^ N 0.80 * 0.40-1.60 Tai Childhd F 96 Schwartz ^ I 1.1 0.72-1.68 US Spouse F 96 Schwartz ^ I 1.1 0.60-2.03 US Spouse M 96 Sun I 1.16 0.80-1.69 Chin Spouse F 96 Want S-Y P 2.53 1.26-5.10 Chin Spouse F 96 Wang T-J I 1.11 0.67-1.84 Chin Spouse F 96 Schwartz ^ I 1.5 1.00-2.20 US Work F&M 96 Sun I 1.38 0.94-2.04 Chin Work F 96 Wang T-J N 0.89 * 0.46-1.73 Chin Work F 96 Sun P 2.29 1.56-3.37 Chin Childhd F 96 Wang T-J N 0.91 * 0.56-1.48 Chin Childhd F 95 Kabat 2 ^ I 1.08 0.60-1.94 US Spouse F 95 Kabat 2 ^ I 1.6 0.67-3.82 US Spouse M 95 Kabat 2 ^ I 1.15 0.62-2.13 US Work F 95 Kabat 2 ^ I 1.02 0.50-2.09 US Work M 95 Kabat 2 ^ N 0.90 * 0.43-1.89 US Childhd M 95 Kabat 2 ^ I 1.55 0.95-2.79 US Childhd F 95 Kabat 2 (^) I 1.22 0.69-2.15 US Social F 95 Kabat 2 (^) I 1.39 0.67-2.86 US Social M 94 Fontham ^ I 1.29 1.04-1.60 US Spouse F 94 Layard N 0.58 * 0.30-1.13 US Spouse F 94 Layard I 1.47 0.55-3.94 US Spouse M 94 Zaridze I 1.66 1.12-2.46 Russia Spouse F 94 Fontham ^ I 1.39 1.11-1.74 US Work F 94 Zaridze I 1.23 0.74-2.06 Russia Work F 94 Fontham ^ N 0.89 * 0.72-1.10 US Childhd F 94 Zaridze N 0.98 * 0.66-1.45 Russia Childhd F 94 Fontham I 1.5 1.19-1.89 US Social F 93 Liu Q ^ I 1.66 0.73-3.78 Chin Spouse F 93 Wu I 1.09 0.64-1.85 Chin Spouse F 92 EPA/600/6-90/006F US Link at EPA "An estimate of the unknown, but believed to be true." Frauds 92 Brownson 2 ^ I NS * 0.80-1.20 US Spouse F 92 Stockwell ^ I 1.6 0.80-3.00 US Spouse F 92 Brownson 2 N 0.79 * 0.61-1.03 US Work F 92 Stockwell ^ I NS * NS US Work F 92 Brownson 2 ^ N 0.80 * 0.60-1.10 US Childhd F 92 Stockwell ^ I 1.1 0.50-2.60 US Childhd F 92 Stockwell I NS * NS * US Social F 91 Liu Z N 0.77 * 0.30-1.96 Chin Spouse F 90 Janerick N 0.93 * 0.55-1.57 US Spouse M&F 90 Kalandidi P 2.11 1.09-4.08 Grk Spouse F 90 Sobue I 1.13 0.78-1.63 Jap Spouse F 90 Wu-Williams N 0.70 * 0.60-0.90 Chin Spouse F 90 Janerich ^ N 0.91 * 0.80-1.04 US Work F&M 90 Kalandidi ^! I 1.39 0.80-2.50 Grk Work F 90 Wu-Williams ^ I 1.2 0.90-1.60 Chin Work F 90 Janerich ^ I 1.09 0.68-1.73 US Childhd F&M 90 Sobue (^) I 1.28 0.71-2.31 Jap Childhd F 90 Wu-Will(^)! I NS * NS Chin Childhd F 90 Janerich N 0.59 * 0.43-0.81 US Social F&M 89 Choi I 1.63 0.92-2.87 Kor Spouse F 89 Choi P 2.73 0.49-15.21 Kor Spouse M 89 Hole I 1.89 0.22-16.12 Scot Spouse F 89 Hole I 3.52 0.32-38.65 Scot Spouse M 89 Svensson I 1.26 0.57-2.81 Swed Spouse F 89 Svensson ^ P 3.3 0.50-18.80 Swed Childhd F 88 Butler P 2.2 0.48-8.56 US Spouse F 88 Geng P 2.16 1.08-4.29 Chin Spouse F 88 Inoue P 2.25 0.80-8.80 Jap Spouse F 88 Shimizu I 1.08 0.64-1.82 Jap Spouse F 88 Shimizu ^ I 1.18 0.70-2.01 Jap Work F 87 Bownson 1 I 1.68 0.39-6.90 US Spouse F 87 Gao I 1.19 0.82-1.73 Chin Spouse F 87 Humble P 2.2 0.80-6.60 US Spouse F 87 Humble P 4.82 0.63-36.56 US Spouse M 87 Koo I 1.64 0.87-3.09 HK Spouse F 87 Lam T I 1.65 1.16-2.35 HK Spouse F 87 Pershagen(+) I 1.2 0.70-2.10 Swed Spouse F 87 Koo ^ N 0.91 * 0.15-5.37 HK Work F 87 Gao ^ I 1.1 0.70-1.70 Chin Childhd F 87 Koo ^! I 1.73 0.60-6.40 HK Childhd F 87 Pershagen ^ I NS * 0.40-2.30 Swed Childhd F 86 Akiba(+) I 1.5 0.90-2.80 Jap Spouse F 86 Akiba(+) I 1.8 0.40-7.00 Jap Spouse M 86 Lee(+) I NS * 0.37-2.71 UK Spouse F 86 Lee(+) I 1.3 0.38-4.39 UK Spouse M 86 Lee ^ N 0.63* 0.17-2.33 UK Work F 86 Lee ^ I 1.61 0.39-6.60 UK Work M 86 Akiba + I NS * NS Jap Childhd F&M 86 Lee N 0.61 * 0.29-1.28 UK Social F 86 Lee I 1.55 0.40-6.02 UK Social M 85 Garfinkel 2(+) I 1.23 0.81-1.87 US Spouse F 85 Lam W P 2.01 1.09-3.72 HK Spouse F 85 Wu(+!) I 1.4 0.40-4.20 US Spouse F 85 Garfinkel 2 ^ N 0.93 * 0.70-1.20 US Work F 85 Wu ^ I 1.3 0.50-3.30 US Work F 85 Garfinkel 2 + N 0.91 * 0.74-1.12 US Childhd F 85 Wu (+) N 0.60 * 0.20-1.70 US Childhd F 85 Garfinkel 2 I 1.42 0.75-2.70 US Social F 84 Buffler N 0.80 * .34-1.90 US Spouse F 84 Buffler N 0.51 * .14-1.79 US Spouse M 84 Hirayama (+)! I 1.6 1.00-2.40 Jap Spouse F 84 Hirayama + P 2.24 1.19-4.22 Jap Spouse M 84 Kabat 1(+) N 0.79 * .25-2.45 US Spouse F 84 Kabat 1(+) NS * 0.20-5.07 US Spouse M 84 Kabat 1 ^ N 0.70 * 0.30-1.50 US Work F 84 Kabat 1 ^ P 3.3 1.10-10.40 US Work M 84 Kabat & Wyn ^ N 0.92 * 0.40-2.08 US Childhd F 84 Kabat & Wyn ^ I 1.26 0.33-4.83 US Childhd M 83 Correa(+!) P 2.07 .81-5.25 US Spouse F 83 Correa(+!) I 1.97 .38-10.32 US Spouse M 83 Trichopouls(+!) P 2.08 1.20-3.59 Grk Spouse F 83 Correa + I NS * NS US Childhd F 82 Chan + N 0.80 * .43-1.30 HK Spouse F 81 Garfinkel 1 (+) I 1.18 .90-1.54 US Spouse F Link at UCSF

*Epidemiology studies risk factors, and determines Relative Risk (RR). A Relative risk of 1.0 indicates no effect. A RR of 1.25 means the risk is increased by 25%; a RR of .75 means the risk is decreased by 25%, and indicates a protective effect.

Epidemology deals with probabilities, and is an imprecise science. The Confidence Interval (CI) can be thought of as the margin of error – the real RR could be anywhere within the CI. For example, in the WHO Boffetta study (# 98 on this chart) spouses were assigned an RR of 1.16, with a CI of .93-1.44. That means the real RR could be anywhere between .93 (a 7% decrease in risk) or 1.44, (a 44% increase). It could even be 1.0 – no effect at all. When the CI straddles 1.0, as it does in this case, the RR is not statistically significant. Note that in nearly all SHS studies the RR is not statistically significant.

Studies of behavior are difficult because people's habits and lifestyles vary so greatly. These variations are called confounders, and must be considered when analyzing the numbers. In studies of SHS, confounders include age, gender, allergies, nationality, race, medications, compliance with medications, education, gas heating and cooking, gender, socioeconomic status, exposure to other chemicals, occupation, use of alcohol, use of marijuana, consumption of saturated fat and other dietary considerations, family history of cancer and domestic radon exposure, to name a few.

Because it is easy to overlook an important confounder, the rule of thumb is that an RR of less than 2.0 is suspect, even if it is statistically significant, and an RR of 3.0 or more is preferred. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine says, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” Even further, The National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

For more information on how to interpret these numbers, visit Epidemology 101 and Epidemology 102 at The Facts.

-------------

Smoking Studies list from Forces Nederland.

-------------

Mad Max's Studies List

-------------

Cato Institute: Tobacco Studies

-------------

WHO

-------------

Smokes and Mirrors By Aaron North. Looking at an issue, particularly one as seemingly cut and dry as tobacco, from multiple angles is a must to ensure our outlooks on public policy and the popular voice are not forfeited to the smoke being blown around us. Almost 255,000 of the 440,000 smoking-related deaths reported by the CDC — nearly 60 percent of the total — occurred at age 70 or above. More than 192,000 deaths — nearly 45 percent of the total — occurred at age 75 or higher. And roughly 72,000 deaths — almost 17 percent of the total — occurred at age 85 or above.

[CSM]

Provided is a list of studies assemble on the table at the link. It looks like the majority of the studies finds that the risk associated with smoking is Insignificant (statistically).

[Support Free Republic]

We're On A Mission From God

Help us make our 4th quarter fundraising goal in record time!

[CSM]

OK, it didn't tranfer in the format I saw in the preview. Go to the link to find an easy to use table.

[Tacis]

Truly good news! Many of us worry about collecting and using the taxes on a product that causes death. These studies help remove that concern. Good, solid science is always welcome. Let us, therefore, double the taxes on tobacco products. The smokers are too addicted to do anything about it and will pay. The extra revenue will allow for more of those "No Smoking In Here!!" signs.

[G.Mason]

"Truly good news! Many of us worry about collecting and using the taxes on a product that causes death. These studies help remove that concern. Good, solid science is always welcome. Let us, therefore, double the taxes on tobacco products. The smokers are too addicted to do anything about it and will pay. The extra revenue will allow for more of those "No Smoking In Here!!" signs."

One day down the road, you may find yourself in a foxhole defending your nation from a foreign enemy.

The guy next to you in that foxhole may be a smoker.

You will spout off some anti-smoking garbage to him, and he just may continue his fighting by himself.

You'll be gone.

[Eagle9]

Smoking Studies

Result: Positive Risk, Negative Risk or Insignificant Statistically.
Relative Risk and Confidence Interval.*

YR	Name	Result	Rel.Risk	Conf.Int	Locale	Type	Sex	Link	Comments
99	Mitchell / Milerad	I			Eur	SIDS	M&F	Link at WHO
98	Enstrom / Kabat	I			USA/ CA	SHS	M&F Spouses	Link at BMJ	SHS Harmless. BMJ letters. Editor Comment. Fumento. SHS Frauds.
98	Boffetta (WHO)	I	1.16	0.93-1.44	Eur	Spouse	M&F
98	Boffetta (WHO)	I	1.17	0.94-1.45	Eur	Work	F&M
98	Boffetta (WHO)	N	0.78 *	0.64-0.96	Eur	Childhd	F&M	Link at WHO
98	Boffetta (WHO)	I	1.03	0.82-1.29	Eur	Social	M&F		Judge Osteen Ruling
97	Cardenas ^	I	1.2	0.80-1.60	US	Spouse	F	Link at NCBI	Chapman at BMJ
97	Cardenas ^	I	1.1	0.60-1.80	US	Spouse	M
97	Jockel-BIPS	I	1.58	0.74-3.38	Ger	Spouse	F
97	Jockel-BIPS	I	1.58	0.52-4.81	Ger	Spouse	M
97	Jockel-GSF	N	0.93 *	0.66-1.31	Ger	Spouse	F
97	Jockel-GSF	N	0.93 *	0.52-1.67	Ger	Spouse	M
97	Ko ^	I	1.3	0.70-2.50	Tai	Spouse	F
97	Nyberg	I	1.2	0.74-1.94	Swed	Spouse	F
97	Nyberg	I	1.2	0.57-2.55	Swed	Spouse	M
97	Jockel-BIPS	P	2.37	1.02-5.48	Ger	Work	F&M
97	Jockel-GSF	I	1.51	0.95-2.40	Ger	Work	F&M
97	Ko ^	I	1.1	0.40-3.00	Tai	Work	F
97	Nyberg	I	1.6	0.90-2.90	Swed	Work	F&M
97	Jockel-BIPS	I	1.05	0.50-2.22	Ger	Childhd	F&M
97	Jockel-GSF	N	0.95 *	0.64-1.40	Ger	Childhd	F&M
97	Ko ^	N	0.80 *	0.40-1.60	Tai	Childhd	F
96	Schwartz ^	I	1.1	0.72-1.68	US	Spouse	F
96	Schwartz ^	I	1.1	0.60-2.03	US	Spouse	M
96	Sun	I	1.16	0.80-1.69	Chin	Spouse	F
96	Want S-Y	P	2.53	1.26-5.10	Chin	Spouse	F
96	Wang T-J	I	1.11	0.67-1.84	Chin	Spouse	F
96	Schwartz ^	I	1.5	1.00-2.20	US	Work	F&M
96	Sun	I	1.38	0.94-2.04	Chin	Work	F
96	Wang T-J	N	0.89 *	0.46-1.73	Chin	Work	F
96	Sun	P	2.29	1.56-3.37	Chin	Childhd	F
96	Wang T-J	N	0.91 *	0.56-1.48	Chin	Childhd	F
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.08	0.60-1.94	US	Spouse	F
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.6	0.67-3.82	US	Spouse	M
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.15	0.62-2.13	US	Work	F
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.02	0.50-2.09	US	Work	M
95	Kabat 2 ^	N	0.90 *	0.43-1.89	US	Childhd	M
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.55	0.95-2.79	US	Childhd	F
95	Kabat 2 (^)	I	1.22	0.69-2.15	US	Social	F
95	Kabat 2 (^)	I	1.39	0.67-2.86	US	Social	M
94	Fontham ^	I	1.29	1.04-1.60	US	Spouse	F
94	Layard	N	0.58 *	0.30-1.13	US	Spouse	F
94	Layard	I	1.47	0.55-3.94	US	Spouse	M
94	Zaridze	I	1.66	1.12-2.46	Russia	Spouse	F
94	Fontham ^	I	1.39	1.11-1.74	US	Work	F
94	Zaridze	I	1.23	0.74-2.06	Russia	Work	F
94	Fontham ^	N	0.89 *	0.72-1.10	US	Childhd	F
94	Zaridze	N	0.98 *	0.66-1.45	Russia	Childhd	F
94	Fontham	I	1.5	1.19-1.89	US	Social	F
93	Liu Q ^	I	1.66	0.73-3.78	Chin	Spouse	F
93	Wu	I	1.09	0.64-1.85	Chin	Spouse	F
92	EPA/600/6-90/006F				US			Link at EPA "An estimate of the unknown, but believed to be true."	Frauds
92	Brownson 2 ^	I	NS *	0.80-1.20	US	Spouse	F
92	Stockwell ^	I	1.6	0.80-3.00	US	Spouse	F
92	Brownson 2	N	0.79 *	0.61-1.03	US	Work	F
92	Stockwell ^	I	NS *	NS	US	Work	F
92	Brownson 2 ^	N	0.80 *	0.60-1.10	US	Childhd	F
92	Stockwell ^	I	1.1	0.50-2.60	US	Childhd	F
92	Stockwell	I	NS *	NS *	US	Social	F
91	Liu Z	N	0.77 *	0.30-1.96	Chin	Spouse	F
90	Janerick	N	0.93 *	0.55-1.57	US	Spouse	M&F
90	Kalandidi	P	2.11	1.09-4.08	Grk	Spouse	F
90	Sobue	I	1.13	0.78-1.63	Jap	Spouse	F
90	Wu-Williams	N	0.70 *	0.60-0.90	Chin	Spouse	F
90	Janerich ^	N	0.91 *	0.80-1.04	US	Work	F&M
90	Kalandidi ^!	I	1.39	0.80-2.50	Grk	Work	F
90	Wu-Williams ^	I	1.2	0.90-1.60	Chin	Work	F
90	Janerich ^	I	1.09	0.68-1.73	US	Childhd	F&M
90	Sobue (^)	I	1.28	0.71-2.31	Jap	Childhd	F
90	Wu-Will(^)!	I	NS  *	NS	Chin	Childhd	F
90	Janerich	N	0.59 *	0.43-0.81	US	Social	F&M
89	Choi	I	1.63	0.92-2.87	Kor	Spouse	F
89	Choi	P	2.73	0.49-15.21	Kor	Spouse	M
89	Hole	I	1.89	0.22-16.12	Scot	Spouse	F
89	Hole	I	3.52	0.32-38.65	Scot	Spouse	M
89	Svensson	I	1.26	0.57-2.81	Swed	Spouse	F
89	Svensson ^	P	3.3	0.50-18.80	Swed	Childhd	F
88	Butler	P	2.2	0.48-8.56	US	Spouse	F
88	Geng	P	2.16	1.08-4.29	Chin	Spouse	F
88	Inoue	P	2.25	0.80-8.80	Jap	Spouse	F
88	Shimizu	I	1.08	0.64-1.82	Jap	Spouse	F
88	Shimizu ^	I	1.18	0.70-2.01	Jap	Work	F
87	Bownson 1	I	1.68	0.39-6.90	US	Spouse	F
87	Gao	I	1.19	0.82-1.73	Chin	Spouse	F
87	Humble	P	2.2	0.80-6.60	US	Spouse	F
87	Humble	P	4.82	0.63-36.56	US	Spouse	M
87	Koo	I	1.64	0.87-3.09	HK	Spouse	F
87	Lam T	I	1.65	1.16-2.35	HK	Spouse	F
87	Pershagen(+)	I	1.2	0.70-2.10	Swed	Spouse	F
87	Koo ^	N	0.91 *	0.15-5.37	HK	Work	F
87	Gao ^	I	1.1	0.70-1.70	Chin	Childhd	F
87	Koo ^!	I	1.73	0.60-6.40	HK	Childhd	F
87	Pershagen ^	I	NS *	0.40-2.30	Swed	Childhd	F
86	Akiba(+)	I	1.5	0.90-2.80	Jap	Spouse	F
86	Akiba(+)	I	1.8	0.40-7.00	Jap	Spouse	M
86	Lee(+)	I	NS *	0.37-2.71	UK	Spouse	F
86	Lee(+)	I	1.3	0.38-4.39	UK	Spouse	M
86	Lee ^	N	0.63*	0.17-2.33	UK	Work	F
86	Lee ^	I	1.61	0.39-6.60	UK	Work	M
86	Akiba +	I	NS *	NS	Jap	Childhd	F&M
86	Lee	N	0.61 *	0.29-1.28	UK	Social	F
86	Lee	I	1.55	0.40-6.02	UK	Social	M
85	Garfinkel 2(+)	I	1.23	0.81-1.87	US	Spouse	F
85	Lam W	P	2.01	1.09-3.72	HK	Spouse	F
85	Wu(+!)	I	1.4	0.40-4.20	US	Spouse	F
85	Garfinkel 2 ^	N	0.93 *	0.70-1.20	US	Work	F
85	Wu ^	I	1.3	0.50-3.30	US	Work	F
85	Garfinkel 2 +	N	0.91 *	0.74-1.12	US	Childhd	F
85	Wu (+)	N	0.60 *	0.20-1.70	US	Childhd	F
85	Garfinkel 2	I	1.42	0.75-2.70	US	Social	F
84	Buffler	N	0.80 *	.34-1.90	US	Spouse	F
84	Buffler	N	0.51 *	.14-1.79	US	Spouse	M
84	Hirayama (+)!	I	1.6	1.00-2.40	Jap	Spouse	F
84	Hirayama +	P	2.24	1.19-4.22	Jap	Spouse	M
84	Kabat 1(+)	N	0.79 *	.25-2.45	US	Spouse	F
84	Kabat 1(+)		NS *	0.20-5.07	US	Spouse	M
84	Kabat 1 ^	N	0.70 *	0.30-1.50	US	Work	F
84	Kabat 1 ^	P	3.3	1.10-10.40	US	Work	M
84	Kabat & Wyn ^	N	0.92 *	0.40-2.08	US	Childhd	F
84	Kabat & Wyn ^	I	1.26	0.33-4.83	US	Childhd	M
83	Correa(+!)	P	2.07	.81-5.25	US	Spouse	F
83	Correa(+!)	I	1.97	.38-10.32	US	Spouse	M
83	Trichopouls(+!)	P	2.08	1.20-3.59	Grk	Spouse	F
83	Correa +	I	NS *	NS	US	Childhd	F
82	Chan +	N	0.80 *	.43-1.30	HK	Spouse	F
81	Garfinkel 1 (+)	I	1.18	.90-1.54	US	Spouse	F	Link at UCSF

*Epidemiology studies risk factors, and determines Relative Risk (RR). A Relative risk of 1.0 indicates no effect. A RR of 1.25 means the risk is increased by 25%; a RR of .75 means the risk is decreased by 25%, and indicates a protective effect.

Epidemology deals with probabilities, and is an imprecise science. The Confidence Interval (CI) can be thought of as the margin of error – the real RR could be anywhere within the CI. For example, in the WHO Boffetta study (# 98 on this chart) spouses were assigned an RR of 1.16, with a CI of .93-1.44. That means the real RR could be anywhere between .93 (a 7% decrease in risk) or 1.44, (a 44% increase). It could even be 1.0 – no effect at all. When the CI straddles 1.0, as it does in this case, the RR is not statistically significant. Note that in nearly all SHS studies the RR is not statistically significant.

Studies of behavior are difficult because people's habits and lifestyles vary so greatly. These variations are called confounders, and must be considered when analyzing the numbers. In studies of SHS, confounders include age, gender, allergies, nationality, race, medications, compliance with medications, education, gas heating and cooking, gender, socioeconomic status, exposure to other chemicals, occupation, use of alcohol, use of marijuana, consumption of saturated fat and other dietary considerations, family history of cancer and domestic radon exposure, to name a few.

Because it is easy to overlook an important confounder, the rule of thumb is that an RR of less than 2.0 is suspect, even if it is statistically significant, and an RR of 3.0 or more is preferred. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine says, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” Even further, The National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

For more information on how to interpret these numbers, visit Epidemology 101 and Epidemology 102 at The Facts.
-------------

Smoking Studies list from Forces Nederland.

-------------

Mad Max's Studies List

-------------

Cato Institute: Tobacco Studies

-------------

WHO

-------------

Smokes and Mirrors
By Aaron North. Looking at an issue, particularly one as seemingly cut and dry as tobacco, from multiple angles is a must to ensure our outlooks on public policy and the popular voice are not forfeited to the smoke being blown around us.
Almost 255,000 of the 440,000 smoking-related deaths reported by the CDC — nearly 60 percent of the total — occurred at age 70 or above.
More than 192,000 deaths — nearly 45 percent of the total — occurred at age 75 or higher.
And roughly 72,000 deaths — almost 17 percent of the total — occurred at age 85 or above.

[CSM]

Thanks.

[CSM]

I don't know why smoking bothers you so much. It can't be the smell, you have to be used to a lot worse with your head up your A$$!

[G.Mason]

"I don't know why smoking bothers you so much. It can't be the smell, you have to be used to a lot worse with your head up your A$$!"

You have such a way with words.

I think I love you.

Sigh .........

[MEGoody]

"Let us, therefore, double the taxes on tobacco products."

Absolutely! And while we are at it, lets also double the taxes on :::insert name of favorite vice here:::.

[KS Flyover]

Welcome to FR, smedly.

Be sure to check out the Puff_List for the most recent smoking related threads.

[CSM]

What did Smedly type that got him banned?

[KS Flyover]

Unless he posted something to get banned after I went to bed, he must of been a retread poster or something because all I saw him post was some info refuting shs junk science.