Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread

Half were encouraged to give up smoking, the others were left alone. After a year smoking in the intervention group (the nagged) was down by 75%. After ten years, 17.2% of this group was dead, as against 17.5% of the control group. This difference of percentage is not statistically significant.

There was no difference in deaths from lung cancer or heart disease, and the only other unexpected result was that the intervention group had 28 deaths from cancer other than lung cancer, compared with the control in which the number of deaths from such cancers was 12. This is statistically significant.
After 20 years,the results were unchanged.

Smokers all;after one year,75% of intervention no longer smoked. After 10 years and after 20 years, smokers were found to "NOT" have higher death rates from lung cancer of heart disease;ie.Smoking does not cause lung cancer or heart disease.

Since by necessity,smokers are exposed to more SHS,mere exposure to SHS could not either.

Smoking does not cause premature death.
Since only about 10% of people over 65 years smoke; the average age of smokers is younger than the average age of non-smokers and it would seem that smokers die younger. However; they are comparing two different age groups of people.


"After the allotted period of 15 years, it was found that the healthy-livers had totted up 67 deaths, and the others only 46. "

Given that Finland has (or at least 'had' a couple of decades ago) a suicide rate at the top of the league tables for such things one wonders if the additional deaths were simply related to the miserable existence the non-smokers may have perceived for themselves compared to their smoking contemporaries.

Despite high taxation on tobacco and alcohol (state controlled booze, displays in glass cabinets, order from a counter, tranpsort in brown paper bags) many of the people I knew in Finland (through work) were quite heavy smokers and most were more than capable of extended persistent drinking.

They also had a tradition of eating a high fat diet - probably quite sensible for that part of the world with its extended winters. So a high incidence of heart disease, apparently. In the 80's they were being persuaded to seek healthier dietary regimes. Salad was becoming popular, presumably flown in from around the world. I wonder what they are doing these days - they must be racking up a lot of 'food miles'.

I have no idea what they do about tobacco now - presumably the same pressure group movements as everyone else and heading for a smoke free country.

Anyone from Finland around here? Or anyone with recent lcal knowledge?