Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
What I'd like to see is some comparison between the amount of smoking that goes on in the UK and the amount of driving. It seems to me that a bald statistic comparing death from smoking to death from air pollution (important point, the article *did not* put all air pollution down to vehicle emissions) is meaningless.
For example, prior to the Paris crash, Concorde was IIRC the safest commercial airliner in the world. Afterwards, it was one of the most dangerous. This of course was simply because there were not many Concordes and not many flights, so the statistical effect of a single crash was artificially magnified.
Similarly, how do you compare miles driven to fags smoked?
|
Think the similarity is that they are both air pollutants (air pollution/smoke) and cause cancers that are both respiratory diseases and effect both lung and heart similary.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clarie
I am not confused in the slightest thank you Xaccers. Repeat the same points if you like but it won't add weight to what you are saying.
|
You seem to be repeating the same points of view aswell, as do I, and a good many others contributing to the thread discussion.