Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Pregnant Smokers
- Thread starter FBS1996
- Start date
Neither have you. I now have free time.
Such small details, which is why big picture wins. SEMs produce cool pictures, but that doesn't tell me what a PFT, stethascope, O2 dependence, how many RXs they'll need to maintain basic function, how often they'll need antibiotics for chronic bronchitis, etc.
If you would read more thoroughly, I wasn't discussing any health aspects at all. The reference was about the coloration of lungs, I am just using it as an example of how things are greatly exaggerated. You don't need to lie to people to tell them smoking is bad, tell them the real harmfup effects. Discuss COPD, coronary diseases, shortness of breath, lung cancer.
Just do it honestly. Not in such twisted ways as it has been produced in the past 15 years especially. There are many risks, and they are bad, but present them honestly.
Researchers at Yale obtained records on 3,286 adults who had died between 1971 and 1982. 153 of these patients were found, upon autopsy, to have died of lung cancer. The researchers then went back and obtained the death certificates for these 153 patients and attempted to obtain information about their smoking habits. For 13 patients, adequate smoking information was not available, so they were thrown out of the survey. The researchers reported, however, that out of these 13 patients, seven had been correctly diagnosed as having lung cancer during life, but 6 had not.
Working with the remaining 140 cases, it turned out that there were 37 "surprise" cases of lung cancer, i.e., cases which had not been correctly diagnosed during life. 57% of these cases involved non-smokers; 30% involved moderate smokers; but only 16% involved heavy smokers. The researchers concluded that there was a detection bias; that doctors were very ready to diagnose lung cancer in a smoker; very reluctant to make the diagnosis in a non-smoker.
One of my contentions is that it is so heavily focused on that other factors are not looked at nearly enough. The truth is even as a smoker raw data suggests you are very unlikely to contract lung cancer (the cigarettes from what we understand are more likely to cause heart problems or COPD). So many things are overlooked, so many things are overblown.
Doesn't matter to me.
I have quite a lot of experience as I said in mathematics, and quite a few other things, I can take pictures of my books if you would like on bio-chemistry and bio-molecular theory. (I do enjoy these things as hobbies, along with physics because I am a nerd). However I am not trying to say anything on medical grounds, all I have said is that smoking is bad for you. The pharmaceutical companies lobby to make it look worse for you than it is. Some of the solutions they have are actually worse for you than smoking. Many of the dangers are much more exaggerated than they actually are. All of this is obvious from statistical review of the meta-analysis. If you can't understand that, not my problem.
The Black lung thing, its a fact. Doesn't reduce harm at all, I was just trying to showcase a common exaggeration. Doesn't matter to me if you drink the kool-aid.
Not everything is a conspiracy theory, especially when it comes to corporations twisting studies to make more money. I'm not one jumping up and down about Bush being an alien (that is not political just hyperbole).
Just to help you out here, elemental carbon is the chief cause of coloration. There are other presences that are easily detected by the EM's as well. SEM's see elemental carbon rather well
(Ah..now I see)
dbhokie said:
You do realize that the "black lung" diagnosis is different than just coloration, right? It's a disease unto itself.
I do Kwin, however I am referencing the black lungs they show in schools when speaking of lung cancer. The dyed pig lungs they use as they tell (lie) to students that it is the lung of a smoker of (x)(lie) years.
Perhaps I should have called it smokers lung thing, as people tend to not try and actually understand what others are saying. In this case I was not referencing the specific disease but rather the color itself (told to students is tar buildup, even though it isn't)
I am completely aware of BLD, as well as the high associations with coal minors due to elemental carbon buildup (though it has also been seen outside of coal miners (VERY rarely). Lung cancer will also turn a lung completely black (like the one's they show kids). Now if you were to present it and say, smoking increases your chances of lung cancer and this is what your lung will look like after lung cancer. Fine and well. Otherwise it is an exaggeration, which is all I was trying to say. It is an example of common exaggerations.
dbhokie said:
Describe for me, please, what the inside of a lung would look like with emphysema?
Just to help you out here, elemental carbon is the chief cause of coloration. There are other presences that are easily detected by the EM's as well. SEM's see elemental carbon rather well
There's a lot more to them than that.
A whole lot more to them, physics I do enjoy greatly. If you need more information about how they work, I would be happy to help you out.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Here you want to go on and on, I'm not responding to anything covered in this pdf put out by the CDC, (which speaks about autopsied emphysema lungs in smokers and non-smokers), particle differences, weight differences size differences. Differences between non-emphysema non-smokers and smokers.
Sure you could tell us. You seem to carry that expert on everything card.
Despite me repeatedly saying I am not an expert on medical matters, my main field of study as I have said multiple times is mathematics and computer science. A lot of physics. As such I understand statistics. You however seem content to continually misrepresent everything I say.
I am an amateur with bio-molecular, and very amateur at that, I have probably half a dozen or so books, and a few more reference materials on the subject, largely gone into because of my interests in protein-chains. However, that has virtually nothing to do with the discussions as my contentions lie with statistics. I have claimed no medical expertise, don't have any, was asked and responded as such.
I am an amateur at best on bass, and woodworking. I am an expert with electronics and circuitry. I rate at amateur or fail on about everything else. Are those good enough for my claims? I smoke so naturally am interested in data surrounding it especially when it is being outlawed in establishments everywhere (which I find to be a constitutional affront). Sue me for being passionate about that.
Now you are getting the point.
Likely so
Look I was speaking of all these meta-analysis studies. This one measures particles, it is a bit different than the others, more of a report than a meta-analysis on a completely different subject. The study does not take into account many things within the statistics that it does use (there are so many variables, thats why statistics tend to be lies, just for one party or another). However you can see the data in the report and judge for yourself. Which is what I try to do.
The black lung thing has gotten so overblown so quickly. I was just saying how many such things are exaggerated, case and point the black lungs they show in schools, which are completely black (dyed) on the outside. That has turned into an absolute crapstorm. It was just an example for goodness sake. Had nothing to do with me claiming health differences, or smoking is healthier or some study is flawed. Just with the fact that they are pig lungs dyed, and autopsy results do not reveal that except with cancerous lungs and very few other cases. After 20 years of smoking if you cut open my chest and I am not cancerous, my lungs aren't going to be these huge black balls in my chest. They may have some buildups on the inside.
So quick to jump on things, good grief. Estimating deaths and causes can be very subjective. Estimating harm with statistics can be very subjective. Data of PEL's and underlying data isn't subjective. It is the interpretations that are.
I would be happy to help with discussing EM's. What do you need help with? Physics and mathematics are more in my comfort zone. Now if you need help with interpretation of data from an EM, I am not a medical professional (if it is medical in nature), but with helping you understand how they work. Sure.
dbhokie said:Now you are getting the point.
Likely so
Look I was speaking of all these meta-analysis studies. This one measures particles, it is a bit different than the others, more of a report than a meta-analysis on a completely different subject. The study does not take into account many things within the statistics that it does use (there are so many variables, thats why statistics tend to be lies, just for one party or another). However you can see the data in the report and judge for yourself. Which is what I try to do.
The black lung thing has gotten so overblown so quickly. I was just saying how many such things are exaggerated, case and point the black lungs they show in schools, which are completely black (dyed) on the outside. That has turned into an absolute crapstorm. It was just an example for goodness sake. Had nothing to do with me claiming health differences, or smoking is healthier or some study is flawed. Just with the fact that they are pig lungs dyed, and autopsy results do not reveal that except with cancerous lungs and very few other cases. After 20 years of smoking if you cut open my chest and I am not cancerous, my lungs aren't going to be these huge black balls in my chest. They may have some buildups on the inside.
So quick to jump on things, good grief. Estimating deaths and causes can be very subjective. Estimating harm with statistics can be very subjective. Data of PEL's and underlying data isn't subjective. It is the interpretations that are.
You realize, then, that the links you are providing are skewed, too?
Anything, especially that involves statistics is skewed. Almost every link I have provided hasn't been studies, up until this point with the Black lung thing. Most of the links I posted were regarding financials, from the company's own websites. I posted a couple sites where information can be gleaned from a different perspective, but I haven't been posting that many links to any reports or statistical meta-analysis.
I think you always have to be very very careful when it comes to such things, especially when they are funded by a party with interest in the matter such as the pharmaceutical industry or the tobacco industry for that matter.
Which is why the whole **** time I have been trying to focus on the exaggerated statistics used to increase the angst towards smokers and over-regulate things that need not be.
You want to look at SHS, fine look at the PEL's and ETS data. Don't sit here and feed me a load of bull from a pharmaceutical or tobacco company that is based in meta-analysis.
Everything is subjective to the lens of interpretation of the person. Everything. I was focused on Meta-Analysis and their issues, especially within the Anti-smoking crowd, as there are a whole lot of just statistical lies out there in that field especially. Meta-analysis studies tend to be the most flawed or at least the easiest to corrupt and manipulate of all types of "studies" I wouldn't consider any scientific in the least, more just reading on the subject, you always need to look at the underlying data, control populations etc.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Greetings, and help me value my basses, please.- Latest: gustobassman
-
