Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
It would mean that passive smoking accounted for a higher chance of heart attacks than actively smoking.
So smoking 20 a day would increase your risk of heart attack by less than someone passive smoking.
Is it seriously being suggested that if you took 100 smokers and 100 non-smokers, and didn't introduce the smoking ban, 17 of the smokers would have smoking related heart attacks, while 20 of the non-smokers would have smoking related heart attacks???
That would mean that if you live with a smoker who won't go outside for a fag, you're better off smoking too as there'll be less chance of having a heart attack.
The smoke at the tip of the cigarette is inhailed in greater quantities by the smoker than anyone else.
|
What? It doesn't mean anything of the sort, you're reading the statistics backwards.
There has been a 17%
reduction in post-heart attack hospital admissions amongst smokers in the 18 months since the smoking ban in Scotland. There has been a 20%
reduction in post-heart attack hospital admissions amongst non-smokers.
This means that for every 100 smokers who might have been expected to be admitted to hospital after a heart attack before the ban, only 83 are now being admitted. And for every 100 non-smokers, only 80 are now being admitted.
The benefit is greater for non smokers. This is entirely what you would expect to find, considering that non smokers are exposed to less smoke than smokers are.