tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post3369653851598815755..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Talking sense on smokelessChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-70426620016097379972010-05-14T16:43:19.950+01:002010-05-14T16:43:19.950+01:00Looking at this
Annual fatalities per thousand mo...Looking at this <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf" rel="nofollow"><br />Annual fatalities per thousand motor vehicles currently<br />registered, Great Britain 1926 to 1997.</a> one would think that the seat belt laws (Front 1983 and rear 1991) made only a little overall difference.Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-76858200430014299012010-05-14T16:20:16.592+01:002010-05-14T16:20:16.592+01:00I wonder if one effect (a small effect) of seat be...I wonder if one effect (a small effect) of seat belt laws is that higher risk taking drivers survive more crashes and therefore increase the probability of then killing other people. Before the seat belt law a portion would kill themselves and in doing so would reduced the number of miles driven by high risk drivers. So the law is not just causing some risk compensation but also preserving high risk takers.Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-62337611275654918242010-05-13T01:11:41.685+01:002010-05-13T01:11:41.685+01:00So, is there any evidence that the introduction of...So, is there any evidence that the introduction of filters and lower tar brands decreased the incidence of lung cancer? Honestly, it's hard to see through the disinformation from the anti-smokers these days. For example, they are perfectly willing to lump 100-day smokers in with 10-day smokers as far as risk is concerned. What to believe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-1861102431038569692010-05-12T23:20:34.915+01:002010-05-12T23:20:34.915+01:00Isn't it strange how 'science' changes...Isn't it strange how 'science' changes with fashion. I remeber in the 1970's little slips in cigarette packs which offered advice, including 'Try switching to a lower tar brand'timbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06985165416240833253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-36559878563742564742010-05-12T21:54:53.826+01:002010-05-12T21:54:53.826+01:00Anti-smokers are more than happy to use smokers as...Anti-smokers are more than happy to use smokers as guinea pigs for their RIP experiment (fire safer cigarettes. They say they might save a few people from fires but haven't bothered to measure the increased risk from changing smoking technique. Smokers will get much more smoke rather than lose most with sidestream burn off much like roll your own cigs which might be up to 30% more harmful.<br /><br />No studies, risk assessments, nothing yet millions of smokers forced to swap - no choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-79292137572221646912010-05-12T18:31:48.811+01:002010-05-12T18:31:48.811+01:00Fredrik,
Can't find the exact references, but...Fredrik,<br /><br />Can't find the exact references, but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#The_British_law" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a> has some details about 'risk compensation'. In the UK, seat-belts made drivers more reckless, resulting in more pedestrian fatalities:<br /><i><br />A subsequent study of 19,000 cyclist and 72,000 pedestrian casualties at the time suggests that seat belt wearing drivers were 11-13% more likely to injure pedestrians and 7-8% more likely to injure cyclists. In January 1986 an editorial in The Lancet noted the shortfall in predicted life-saving and "the unexplained and worrying increase in deaths of other road users"<br /><br />According to the Durbin-Harvey report, commissioned by the Department of Transport following passage of the law, an analysis of fatality figures before and after the law shows:<br /><br />-a clear increase in pedestrian, cyclist, and rear-passenger fatalities in collisions involving passenger cars <br /><br />-no such increase in casualties in collisions involving buses and goods vehicles, which were exempt from the law</i>Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-11484107466442305852010-05-12T18:21:07.680+01:002010-05-12T18:21:07.680+01:00"Mandatory seat belts do this—lives are saved..."Mandatory seat belts do this—lives are saved, but people also drive faster and more accidents occur." - I would be interested to see the evidence for that!Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33013678348891273522010-05-12T16:51:27.923+01:002010-05-12T16:51:27.923+01:00It is a fact that in Sweden the male smoking preva...It is a fact that in Sweden the male smoking prevalence is 15% (and was before its smoking ban) and 35% of the adult population either smokes or uses snus. Snus is less popular among women and a higher percentage of women smoke than do men. Sweden has the lowest male smoking prevalence and the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the developed world - way lower than the rest of Europe. Pancreatic and oral cancers, which the anti-smoking industry freqently claims are caused by snus use, are no more common than in the rest of Europe. (See CRUK statistics on lung, oral and pancreatic cancers). The inescapable conclusion is, that by supporting a ban on snus availability in the UK, anti-tobacco activists are indirectly increasing the number of premature deaths from tobacco use.Jonathan Bagleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331501151709216753noreply@blogger.com