Comments on: On smoking & cellphones http://www.groundswell.fi/sim/2008/03/31/on-smoking-cellphones/ The bloggish website of Sami Mäkeläinen. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:02:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sim http://www.groundswell.fi/sim/2008/03/31/on-smoking-cellphones/comment-page-1/#comment-146736 sim Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:33:26 +0000 http://www.groundswell.fi/sim/2008/03/31/on-smoking-cellphones/#comment-146736 Excellent points, thanks. Adding to the difficulty is the fact that smoking indeed can cause (and causes) a number of health problems with apparently the ill-effects of cellphones are limited to brain tumors. But you're right, statistics and biases complicates things for sure. Still, I think branding cellphones "worse than smoking" just because they double the brain tumor risk is iffy at best. Excellent points, thanks.

Adding to the difficulty is the fact that smoking indeed can cause (and causes) a number of health problems with apparently the ill-effects of cellphones are limited to brain tumors.

But you’re right, statistics and biases complicates things for sure. Still, I think branding cellphones “worse than smoking” just because they double the brain tumor risk is iffy at best.

]]> By: Megan http://www.groundswell.fi/sim/2008/03/31/on-smoking-cellphones/comment-page-1/#comment-146719 Megan Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:13:44 +0000 http://www.groundswell.fi/sim/2008/03/31/on-smoking-cellphones/#comment-146719 Interesting. I hate statistics! Why? Because anybody can take the statement "more dangerous than smoking" and interpret it on their own terms, coming up with any number of conclusions based on this silly half-sentence. Indeed, one way to interpret this is "kills more people than smoking" which given your other statistics, seems like a misleading statement. But what about the fallibility of the other statistics you quoted? You are comparing "the number of people diagnosed with brain cancer per year" (actually the death count associated with this) to another vague statement by the ACS: "illnesses related to cigarette smoking." Just comparing the sources of information on these two statements reveals a bias; the Oncology Channel does not benefit from "boosting" their brain cancer death count; however, the American Cancer Society is actively working towards cancer prevention, producing statistics that they hope will discourage people from engaging in cancerous activities. The scope of "smoking related illnesses" could include such diseases as artherosclerosis, which can also be caused by poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyle. Interesting. I hate statistics! Why? Because anybody can take the statement “more dangerous than smoking” and interpret it on their own terms, coming up with any number of conclusions based on this silly half-sentence. Indeed, one way to interpret this is “kills more people than smoking” which given your other statistics, seems like a misleading statement.

But what about the fallibility of the other statistics you quoted? You are comparing “the number of people diagnosed with brain cancer per year” (actually the death count associated with this) to another vague statement by the ACS: “illnesses related to cigarette smoking.”

Just comparing the sources of information on these two statements reveals a bias; the Oncology Channel does not benefit from “boosting” their brain cancer death count; however, the American Cancer Society is actively working towards cancer prevention, producing statistics that they hope will discourage people from engaging in cancerous activities. The scope of “smoking related illnesses” could include such diseases as artherosclerosis, which can also be caused by poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyle.

]]>