KittenKoder
Senior Member
Here is how they got the stats for smoking and lung cancer:
Someone gets lung cancer ....
... they smoked then smoking caused it.
... if they didn't and were around a smoker then second hand caused it.
... if they were no where near smoke then they are ignored.
... tally up the smoker and second hand smoker, find the percentage of each compared only to each other, since lung cancer can only be caused by smoking right. Then all those who were ignored must be part of that same category. Add in a very small chance for error, don't want people knowing we really didn't use math for this in the first place ... and there you have it.
That's how they got the stats they use against smoking. The reality is that most people with lung cancer have never been near smoking. Answer this, if smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer then how is it that areas with higher automobile concentration but a lower percentage of smokers also has a higher percentage of lung cancer?
Someone gets lung cancer ....
... they smoked then smoking caused it.
... if they didn't and were around a smoker then second hand caused it.
... if they were no where near smoke then they are ignored.
... tally up the smoker and second hand smoker, find the percentage of each compared only to each other, since lung cancer can only be caused by smoking right. Then all those who were ignored must be part of that same category. Add in a very small chance for error, don't want people knowing we really didn't use math for this in the first place ... and there you have it.
That's how they got the stats they use against smoking. The reality is that most people with lung cancer have never been near smoking. Answer this, if smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer then how is it that areas with higher automobile concentration but a lower percentage of smokers also has a higher percentage of lung cancer?