Re: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 15:13:38 EST

At 04:26 PM 2/17/2006, gordon brown wrote:
>Janice,
>
>Lung cancer is not the only issue concerning smoking vs. health. All
>one has to do is look at the difference in death rates between
>smokers and nonsmokers independent of specific causes to see the
>connection. ~ Gordon Brown

### Yeah. That's what was stated in my post. You may have missed it:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Janice Matchett wrote:

> "...In addition, smoking causes other types of cancer and
cardiovascular diseases, whose relation to OGG1 activity is still unknown. ..."

Excerpted from:
> New blood test uncovers individual risk for lung cancer
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/wi-nbt090203.php

~ Janice

                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:24:58 -0500 Freeman, Louise Margaret wrote:

I doubt this will do any good, but I'll try. Your 90%-10% split is
referring to two different probabilities and is therefore meaningless.

Say I have a hundred 4-barrel revolvers. I put one bullet in each,
hand them to 100 eager volunteers, have them spin the barrel, place
the gun to their temple and fire. One in four
people (25%) among my volunteers lose this game of Russian Roulette
and die. 100% of the dead people had bullets in their brains, but
"only" 25% of the people playing
Russian Roulette died. By your logic, I shoud therefore concude that
75% of these deaths were attributable to something else other than
their foolish behavior of volunteering to be
in my experiment. A personal genetic susceptability to bullets,
perhaps? ~ Louise M. Freeman, PhD

[2] On: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:38:39 -0500 Freeman, Louise Margaret wrote:

Janice wrote:
> The only ones playing a serious game of Russian roulette are the
ones who get the blood test that detects they are at especially high
risk of developing lung cancer, and go ahead
> and smoke anyhow (or don't immediately quit). [*Risky BEHAVIOR]

Janice, this statement is contradicted by the very article you quote:

> "..Of course, even smokers with normal OGG1 activity are at a
greater risk of getting lung cancer than the general population and
the blood test will not ensure that they don't get the disease. In
addition, smoking causes other types of cancer and cardiovascular
diseases, whose relation to OGG1 activity is still unknown."

No one is saying there is not a genetic susceptbility to lung
cancer. I don't doubt that there is, just as I don't doubt that my
genes play a role in my liklihood of developing diabetes, heart
disease, breast cancer or skin cancer. But that in no way negates
the mountains of research showing the importance of other risk
factors I can choose to expose myself to (high fat diet, estrogen
replacement therapy, sun exposure.) I play Russian Roulette with any
of those. My genes may add a bullet or two to the gun but my
*behavior is the main determinant of how often it is spun and
fired. Given what you've told us, your 90% figure is meaningless."

### I doubt this will do any good, but I'll try.

Pssst!! NOTE the items I highlighted in red above. I'm sorry that I
didn't use the actual words, "risky behavior", when referring to
those who "go ahead
and smoke anyhow (or don't immediately quit), I just assumed that
people would get it after I posted this: "90% of the link between
smoking and lung cancer has to do with personal genetic
susceptibility. Smokers carrying a newly found genetic marker are
5-10 times more likely to fall victim to the disease than other
smokers; 120 times more than nonsmokers who don't carry the
marker." New blood test uncovers individual risk for lung
cancer http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/wi-nbt090203.php

You may want to do further reading on the subject here:
Relax...You Might Not Be Doomed http://www.junkscience.com/news/prma.html
PRIMARY SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm
PASSIVE SMOKE http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Then again you may not want to "go there" for whatever reason. :)

~ Janice ... who knows that about 10% of men and 20% of women with
lung cancer never smoked.
Received on Sat Feb 18 15:14:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 15:14:11 EST