This discussion is closed.
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#141
Report 14 years ago
#141
(Original post by Howard)
The sooner you get independence or join paddy land the better.
my dream is for a united ireland within the united kingdom.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#142
Report 14 years ago
#142
(Original post by technik)
my dream is for a united ireland within the united kingdom.
I bet your popular in Derry.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#143
Report 14 years ago
#143
(Original post by Howard)
I bet your popular in Derry.
perhaps among the unionists
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#144
Report 14 years ago
#144
(Original post by technik)
perhaps among the unionists
Excuse my ignorance. I thought it was mainly a nationalist area (not that up on N.Ireland politics I'm afraid)
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#145
Report 14 years ago
#145
(Original post by Howard)
Excuse my ignorance. I thought it was mainly a nationalist area (not that up on N.Ireland politics I'm afraid)
its about 75-25 in favour of the catholics
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#146
Report 14 years ago
#146
(Original post by technik)
its about 75-25 in favour of the catholics
Oh, plenty to shoot at then?
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#147
Report 14 years ago
#147
(Original post by Howard)
Oh, plenty to shoot at then?
if thats your cup of tea.

NI, generally, is split south and west-north and east. predominately catholic in the south/west, protestant in the north/east
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#148
Report 14 years ago
#148
(Original post by Howard)
They wouldn't have to if we established and distinguished "smoking bars" from regular bars. (something you seem to find impossible to envisage) That way I can smoke and fart and drink to my hearts content in the Bricklayers Arms and you could fcuk off across the road and enjoy your orange juice in the smoke free environment of the Adam & Eve. Now what's so hard about that?
My local is called the bricklayers arms...
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#149
Report 14 years ago
#149
(Original post by foolfarian)
My local is called the bricklayers arms...
I know.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#150
Report 14 years ago
#150
(Original post by technik)
if thats your cup of tea.

NI, generally, is split south and west-north and east. predominately catholic in the south/west, protestant in the north/east
Not really. Just pi55ing about, that's all.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#151
Report 14 years ago
#151
Imperial College research suggests "Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to contract lung cancer in later life than those in non-smoking homes."

see link;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214369.stm
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#152
Report 14 years ago
#152
(Original post by yawn)
Imperial College research suggests "Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to contract lung cancer in later life than those in non-smoking homes."

see link;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214369.stm
That would be interesting if I knew how likely one would be to get lung cancer if not exposed at all. Humor me for a moment gentle reader while I chuck some numbers at this.

There are something like 39000 new lung cancer patients in the UK each year; agreed? Good. 90% of them are smokers? Agreed? Look it up - I'm about right. That means 3900 are non smokers. With me so far?

The population of the UK is about 60 million. Roughly 1/4 smoke meaning that about 45million are non smokers. So, of 45million non smokers the number who contract cancer is 3900. That's a 1 in 11538 chance.

Apparently, if you were raised in a smoking home this chance may (we don't know for sure) increase to 1 in 3468. Not bad odds really.

However, this in itself is rather meaningless since of these 3900 some would have been smokers themselves at some point in their lives.

I'm also rather bemused by this. "The researchers tracked 123,479 volunteers - [B]some of whom had never smoked, others had stopped smoking,[/B] but all had been exposed to second-hand smoke in their childhoods"

What's this supposed to do? If some had actually been smokers during their lives then surely it'd be difficult to distinguish who got lung cancer purely due to passive smoking. Or am I missing the point again?

In short: passive smoking seems to me to be much ado about nothing and the risk seems so minute it can barely be measured on it's own merits.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#153
Report 14 years ago
#153
to move back towards the topic...only 7% want to keep it status quo...and more than half want a complete ban...
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#154
Report 14 years ago
#154
(Original post by Howard)
That would be interesting if I knew how likely one would be to get lung cancer if not exposed at all. Humor me for a moment gentle reader while I chuck some numbers at this.

There are something like 39000 new lung cancer patients in the UK each year; agreed? Good. 90% of them are smokers? Agreed? Look it up - I'm about right. That means 3900 are non smokers. With me so far?

The population of the UK is about 60 million. Roughly 1/4 smoke meaning that about 45million are non smokers. So, of 45million non smokers the number who contract cancer is 3900. That's a 1 in 11538 chance.

Apparently, if you were raised in a smoking home this chance may (we don't know for sure) increase to 1 in 3468. Not bad odds really.

However, this in itself is rather meaningless since of these 3900 some would have been smokers themselves at some point in their lives.

I'm also rather bemused by this. "The researchers tracked 123,479 volunteers - [B]some of whom had never smoked, others had stopped smoking,[/B] but all had been exposed to second-hand smoke in their childhoods"

What's this supposed to do? If some had actually been smokers during their lives then surely it'd be difficult to distinguish who got lung cancer purely due to passive smoking. Or am I missing the point again?

In short: passive smoking seems to me to be much ado about nothing and the risk seems so minute it can barely be measured on it's own merits.
You're an addict - you can't see beyond the end of your fag tip!
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#155
Report 14 years ago
#155
(Original post by Howard)
That would be interesting if I knew how likely one would be to get lung cancer if not exposed at all. Humor me for a moment gentle reader while I chuck some numbers at this.

There are something like 39000 new lung cancer patients in the UK each year; agreed? Good. 90% of them are smokers? Agreed? Look it up - I'm about right. That means 3900 are non smokers. With me so far?

The population of the UK is about 60 million. Roughly 1/4 smoke meaning that about 45million are non smokers. So, of 45million non smokers the number who contract cancer is 3900. That's a 1 in 11538 chance.

Apparently, if you were raised in a smoking home this chance may (we don't know for sure) increase to 1 in 3468. Not bad odds really.

However, this in itself is rather meaningless since of these 3900 some would have been smokers themselves at some point in their lives.

I'm also rather bemused by this. "The researchers tracked 123,479 volunteers - [B]some of whom had never smoked, others had stopped smoking,[/B] but all had been exposed to second-hand smoke in their childhoods"

What's this supposed to do? If some had actually been smokers during their lives then surely it'd be difficult to distinguish who got lung cancer purely due to passive smoking. Or am I missing the point again?

In short: passive smoking seems to me to be much ado about nothing and the risk seems so minute it can barely be measured on it's own merits.
Your view is way too simplistic. Of those 10% with lung cancers that are non-smokers, there will be a great deal of other risk fzctors not associated with most people. ASbestos exposure for instance, Silicosis (coal dust and glass industry), timber dust, things like immunosuppression...

Your odds of getting primary lung cancer as a non-smoker with non of these rare risk factors is infact much lower than you would have the lay person believe.

Fuyrthermore they types of cancers associated with 'passive smoking' and smoking are different. When yout ake a drag on a ciggie, it tends to go deeper, more peripherally in the lungs (outside edges) (especially with 'light' ciggies where people take deeper drags). Passive smoking tends to be much more central, and be a different type (possibly squamous carcinoma, i cant remember).

In short: They said the risks of asbestos were nil, they were wrong. They said risk from coal dust was nil. they were wrong. They said leaded petrol was fine., they were wrong.
They are just now realising how bad passive smoking is, but those like yourself are dragging your heals and claiming its some kind of health conspiracy. Believe me, there are plenty of patients with lung cancer whose only exposure has been passive. I've seen 4 patients with lung cancer who wer life long non smokers. One of them's wife is a heavy smoker, one was a landlady of a bar, one's hubbie was a heavy smoker, and the other had HIV.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#156
Report 14 years ago
#156
I believe that with time - because the cases studied are somewhat limited due to period sometimes required for smoking related diseases to become apparent - we shall see more and more definitive evidence on the dangers of both smoking/passive smoking.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (1)
11.11%
No (8)
88.89%

Watched Threads

View All