Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Asbestos and Smoking Risks  (Read 3532 times)
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2009, 06:08:11 AM »

K5END, so you admit you started this thread to state that tobacco smoking is harmful? Is not that stating the obvious?

Why would you do such a thing?
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2009, 08:04:37 AM »

Here, check out this link on critical thinking. Take a course or read a book and you will never be the same.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2009, 12:09:04 PM »


What weakens your inference is ...

I think you mean "imply" and not "infer."


...you believe that those who did not smoke but where exposed to asbestos did indeed smoke...

...Where is your evidence that those who claimed not to smoke but were exposed to asbestos did indeed smoke?

Not sure where your read that, but I didn't write it.

Philosophy 101: You can put your boots in the oven, but that don't make 'em biscuits.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 12:19:44 PM by K5END » Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2009, 12:11:54 PM »

K5END, so you admit you started this thread to state that tobacco smoking is harmful? Is not that stating the obvious?

Why would you do such a thing?

No.

I started the thread because (as I said) people tend to rationalize and confuse simple, obvious and credible information.

Looks like the demonstration was successful.

Thanks for participating.
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2009, 04:20:54 PM »

K5END, here is your original post:

TG for the misc. forum.

I just came across some interesting data.

Remember all the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over asbestos??

I've always wondered how that compares to tobacco smoking in terms of risk for lung cancer.

Here are the relative risks.

Non-smoker, never exposed to asbestos: risk = 1

Non-smoker, exposed to asbestos: risk = 5

Smoker, never exposed to asbestos: risk = 11

Smoker, exposed to asbestos: risk = 55.

Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by a factor of 11,
Asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer by a factor of 5.
And the two combined increases the risk of lung cancer by 55.

I infer that most of the lung cancer patients whose disease was attributed to asbestos were also smokers, considering how pervasive smoking was among the population at the time.

-----------------
So here is the question

With everyone so up in arms about asbestos, why weren't they even more zealous about tobacco smoking?

-----------------
ME:
You received reasoned answers backed by evidence. Yet you complain. Your thought processes seem to be uncritical. As I said, you might look into studying Critical Thinking.
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2009, 07:50:37 PM »

You received reasoned answers backed by evidence. Yet you complain. Your thought processes seem to be uncritical. As I said, you might look into studying Critical Thinking.

<sigh>

have you been drinking mushroom tea again?

refer to the first rule of holes.  (if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.)

you can paint your butt white, but that doesn't make you an antelope.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 10:34:13 PM by K5END » Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2009, 01:41:28 AM »

K5END, you listed some evidence and then made two inferences. I will put this in the form of an IBE (Inference to the Best Explanation). The inferences are listed from best to worst and your inferences are I2 and I3. E means evidence and I means inference.

EVIDENCE (Here are the relative risks):
E1. Non-smoker, never exposed to asbestos: risk = 1

E2. Non-smoker, exposed to asbestos: risk = 5

E3. Smoker, never exposed to asbestos: risk = 11

E4. Smoker, exposed to asbestos: risk = 55.

INFERENCES:
I1. The lung cancer risks of tobacco smoking and asbestos exposure are muliplicative.

I2. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by a factor of 11, Asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer by a factor of 5. And the two combined increases the risk of lung cancer by 55.

I3. Most of the lung cancer patients whose disease was attributed to asbestos were also smokers, considering how pervasive smoking was among the population at the time.

----------------------------------
Problems with your inferences, I2 and I3:

I2 merely restates the evidence.

I3 does not explain E2, E3 and E4. Here's how: If those exposed to asbestos (but said they were not smokers) were indeed smokers then E2 would be equal to E4. Additionally, E3 and E2 could not both be true unless asbestos has a prophylactic effect against tobacco (thereby making E2 less than E3).

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

This is why in my first post I said your inferences are not supported by the evidence.
----------------------------------
IBE is a great tool for testing the explanatory power of inferences and can be used in almost any job. It can help ensure that decisions are sound. For engineering, medicine and the like it is particularly indispensable for preventing costly (or deadly) mistakes.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3842




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2009, 03:08:03 AM »

WX7G - thanks for the link to critical thinking. Of course the problem is that those who most need to read and understand what it says there, won't.

The original question really boils down to this:

Tobacco is worse for you than asbestos, at least when it comes to lung cancer, yet asbestos is much more controlled, restricted and banned. Why?

The answer has several parts:

1) Tobacco use is seen as a choice
2) Tobacco is addictive
3) Tobacco is a bigger industry, with more people's jobs dependent on it. Also a big export.
4) The tobacco industry has more and better lobbyists and lawyers fighting to keep it legal and available
5) People don't all assess risks logically


Simple, really

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2009, 05:25:33 AM »


WX7G, one more time.

E1 A speaker or writer implies.
E2 A reader or listener infers.


N2EY, you are wise and perceptive.
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2009, 09:50:13 AM »

N3EY, you bring up a good point that tobacco is addictive. The evidence and the question posed by K5END is thought provoking and is enough to write a dissertation on.

Critical thinking is a beginning. That leads to epistomology, the philosophy of science, statistics, and so on and so forth.

This reminds me of Plato's Cave in his book The Republic. Once one's eyes are opened one does not want to go back. I encourage you to read this. The Cave in in chapter 7.

We all see the world through distortion lenses. K5END discribed people as distortion machines, or something to that effect. The world is not really as we see it. But we can obtain a much clearer view by applying some solid thinking and not falling back on adages, ideology, simplistic thinking, or, dare I say, religion.
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2009, 10:23:18 AM »

Try this on for size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnEGu8VF8Y

Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2009, 03:17:22 PM »

K5END, thanks for the link. I watched the video. They take an old idea and update it with the "brain in a vat" idea. They then try to "prove" the existence of the human soul. And they seem ready to attribute the continuous upkeep of this non-material world to God.  Very metaphysical. I give this video two stars for content and four stars for production values.

The makers of this video make some huge logical leaps and come to conclusions that as far I am am aware are out of favor these days in the world of philosophy. I remember covering this same thing in a philosophy class. I ended up "proving" that the human soul does not exist. Still, I wonder about that and will take it up again in a future class or on my own.
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2009, 03:22:30 PM »

K5END we should make a sked on CW some time. 73.
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2009, 06:10:27 PM »

K5END, thanks for the link. I watched the video. They take an old idea and update it with the "brain in a vat" idea. They then try to "prove" the existence of the human soul. And they seem ready to attribute the continuous upkeep of this non-material world to God.  Very metaphysical. I give this video two stars for content and four stars for production values.

The makers of this video make some huge logical leaps and come to conclusions that as far I am am aware are out of favor these days in the world of philosophy. I remember covering this same thing in a philosophy class. I ended up "proving" that the human soul does not exist. Still, I wonder about that and will take it up again in a future class or on my own.

I agree.

I thought it was a little campy and posted that link as a half-jest, assuming you would take it as I meant it in reference to perception vs. reality. It is true though, that ones perception is all one has to connect to reality. Nothing bizarre about that. All we know is what we observe and process in our senses and central nervous system. I thought symbolism in the movie "The Matrix" said the same thing, only more dramatically.

It was produced rather well, but it said 4 minutes worth of content in 20 minutes. They spent most of the time stating the obvious and then made some jumps as you mentioned.

As far as proving the existence of "God," I think there is no proof as well as there is nothing but proof. It is a dilemma. Mankind would not be able to logically prove or disprove a Higher Power.

But, if we assume that my belief (that it is neither provable or disprovable) is incorrect, it is still not possible to prove something to someone who is unwilling to discard what they already believe.

That is what I think but I cannot prove it. Smiley




« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 06:13:22 PM by K5END » Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2009, 06:12:03 PM »

K5END we should make a sked on CW some time. 73.

Sure thing.

email to my qrz info.

73
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!