1992 E.P.A. Report By the Numbers
Yes, Let's Look at Those Inhalation Anthrax Victims

1992 E.P.A. REPORT BY THE NUMBERS

The relative risk that they use is 1.19

The report was published in 1992. Most of the work was done in 1991, and
the latest figures that they would have had to work from were from 1990.

Checking the figures:

Smoking status rates (from NHSDA, 1990)

                         Male       Female
Current smokers          28.4%        22.8%
Former smokers           30.3%        19.5%
Never smokers            41.3%        57.7%

Population (from U.S. Census, 1990)
94,755,000 102,292,000

Calculate numbers

Current smokers     26,910,420 23,322,576
Former smokers      28,710,765 19,946,940
Never smokers       39,133,815 59,022,484

Lung cancer deaths (Age >= 35, 1990, from CDC)

91,685 52,064

Relative risks for lung cancer (From CDC SAMMEC II)

Current Smokers            22.4       11.9
Former Smokers              9.4        4.7
Never Smokers               1.0        1.0

The fundamental equation for calculating lung cancer deaths from risks is:

NumDeaths = BaseRate * NumNeverSmokers +
BaseRate * RelativeRisk(Former) * NumFormerSmokers +
BaseRate * RelativeRisk(Current) * NumCurrentSmokers

We have everything for the above equation except the base rate.
Manipulating the equation algebraically results in:

BaseRate = NumDeaths /
           (NumNeverSmokers +
            RelativeRisk(Former) * NumFormerSmokers +
            RelativeRisk(Current) * NumCurrentSmokers)

Filling in the figures and calculating results in:

Base Rate 0.000100553 0.000120991

We can now calculate the expected number of lung cancer deaths by gender and
smoking status

                                      Male         Female
Current smokers           60,613        33,580
Former smokers            27,137        11,343
Never smokers              3,935         7,141

In the EPA's claim, does "non-smoker" mean "never-smoker" or "never-smoker
AND former smoker".

First, we can calculate the "new" lung cancer death base rate by the
equation:

EPABaseRate = (Lung Cancer Deaths - 3000) / Total population.

If "non-smoker" means "never-smoker", then that rate becomes:

EPABaseRate = ((3,935+7,141)-3000) / (39,133,815+59,022,484)
= 8,076 / 98,156,299
= 0.00008227694

Since:

Lung Cancer Deaths = EPABaseRate * Unexposed Population +
EPABaseRate * Relative Risk * (Total Population -
Unexposed Population)

we can manipulate the equation to give us the Unexposed Population:

Unexposed population = (Lung Cancer Deaths - EPABaseRate * Relative Risk *
Total Population)/
(EPABaseRate - EPABaseRate * Relative Risk)

for "non-smoker" meaning "never smoker", the unexposed population can be
calculated to be:

Unexposed Population = ((3,935 + 7,141) - 0.000082276794 * 1.19 *
98,156,299)/
                       (0.000082276794 - 0.000082276794 * 1.19)
                     = (11,076 - 9610.44) / -0.000015632
                     = -93,753,838

Unfortunately for the EPA, a negative figure for the unexposed population is
not physically possible. Therefore, "non-smoker" does NOT mean
"never-smoker" alone. It can only mean, therefore, "never-smoker" +
"former-smoker". Doing the same calculations again, using "never-smoker" +
"former-smoker" as "non-smoker" results in:

EPABaseRate = ((27,137 + 11,343 + 3,935 + 7,141) - 3000) /
              (28,710,765 + 19,946,940 + 39,133,815 + 59,022,484)
            = 46,556 / 146,814,004
            = 0.0003171087

Unexposed population = ((27,137 + 11,343 + 3,935 + 7,141) - 0.0003171087*
1.19 * 146,814,004)/
                       (0.0003171087 - 0.0003171087 * 1.19)
                     = (49,556 - 55,401.64)/
                       (-0.000060250)
                     = -5845.64 / -0.000060250
                     = 97,023,071

meaning, of course, that 97,023,071 / 146,814,004 = 66.1% of the non-smoking
population is unexposed, leaving 33.9% of the non-smoking population (or
49,790,933) exposed to ETS sufficiently to produce "measurable" results.

But now that we have the proportion exposed, we can calculate the base rates
for each of those groups (never-smokers and former-smokers) by way of the
formula:

Base Rate = Lung Cancer Deaths /
(Unexposed population +
Relative Risk * Exposed population)

For never-smokers, this works out to be:

Base Rate = (3,935 + 7,141) /
            (66.1% * (39,133,815 + 59,022,484) +
             1.19 * 33.9% * (39,133,815 + 59,022,484))
          = 11,076 /
            0.661 * 98,156,299 * 0.40341 * 98,156,299)
          = 11,076 / 98,156,299 * (0.661 + 0.40341)
          = 11,076 / (98,156,299 * 1.06441)
          = 11,076 / 104,478,546.21859
          = 0.00010601219

The expected number of lung cancer deaths for never-smokers, in an "ideal"
world (assuming that the model used is correct), where no never-smoker was
exposed to ETS, would be:

0.00010601219 * 98,156,299 = 10,406

However, in that group, there were 11,076 lung cancer deaths, so we can
assume (if the model is correct) that

11,076 - 10,406 = 670

lung cancer deaths of never-smokers due to the exposure to ETS annually.

The number of lung cancer deaths of former-smokers due to SHS would
therefore be

3000 - 670 = 2,330.

But hold on just one minute, here. The relative risk ratios used by SAMMEC
II were derived from studies which accounted for ALL the lung cancer deaths
in each of the three groupings - never-smoker, former-smoker and
current-smoker. Therefore, those 2,330 "additional" deaths of former
smokers have already been counted.

So, what the EPA is really saying is that each year, 2,330 ex-smokers die of
lung cancer, then are miraculously resurrected, only to die *again* from
lung cancer.

The numbers have been reduced to the extent that basic
algebra is all that is required to understand them.
We welcome any critique pointing out where, mathematically, this has gone wrong.

But what the EPA is really saying is that each year, 2,330 ex-smokers die of
lung cancer, then are miraculously resurrected, only to die *again* from
lung cancer. Hell, Christianity is based on the resurrection of ONE man,
2000 years ago, yet here we have 2,330 resurrecting each and every year.

YES, LET'S LOOK AT THOSE INHALATION ANTHRAX VICTIMS

Excerpted from the NY Post, Sunday, November 11, 2001:

CDC REPORT TELLS OF HER LAST DAYS

Kathy Nguyen's [NYC victim] final days were marked by fatigue and massive bleeding in her chest as she heaved coughs and gasped through an oxygen mask....

... Nguyen's death and all 10 inhalation cases are described in clinical detail in a report hastily posted on the Internet on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

The study revealed little conclusive evidence that succumbing to inhalation anthrax can be tied to prior health conditions.

Age might play a role -- the median age was 56 for the 10 victims -- while "none of the patients was a current or recent smoker," the report said.

Why on earth would there be any reason to consider smoking as a factor when what is being investigated is a bacteria? The health organizations will stop at no lengths to try to demonize smoking and insinuate it is at the root of all ills any chance they get whether it fits or not.

But since they brought it up, a member of the newsgroup alt.smokers decided to take a look at the ten (10) inhalation anthrax victims who have died and the role smoking might actually play:

Assuming that the sample is from the yuppie class (vector was business
mail), we can hypothesize an 18% proportion of smokers. This can be seen as
a binomial experiment and the odds would be calculated as follows:

# smokers with
Anthrax out of
the 10 victims Probability

0   0.1374480313
1   0.3017151907
2   0.2980357372
3   0.1744599437
4   0.0670181491
5   0.0176535612
6   0.0032293100
7   0.0004050702
8   0.0000333442
9   0.0000016265
     10   0.0000000357

Note that the probability of there being at least one current smoker out of
that group is 1.0 minus the probability of their being no current smokers in
the group, so the probability of there being at least one current smoker in
that group is 0.8625519687.

However that is NOT what the report said. It did not say "no current
smokers" but "none of the patients was a current or recent smoker".
Generally speaking, ex-smokers exceed the number of current smokers, but the
term "ex-smoker" includes even those who have quit for decades, and these
would certainly not be classified as "recent" smokers.

So let's set the proportion of ex-smokers at the 18% to equal the proportion
of current smokers. Then let's classify half of those ex-smokers as
"recent" smokers. That means that instead of 18%, the proportion is 18% +
1/2 * 18% = 27%.

Using that proportion in the binomial formula, we get the following:

# "smokers" with
Anthrax out of
the 10 victims Probability

0   0.0429762583
1   0.1589532841
2   0.2645592331
3   0.2609351341
4   0.1688929464
5   0.0749607050
6   0.0231043269
7   0.0048831063
8   0.0006772801
9   0.0000556669
10   0.0000020589

Please note that the probability of having at least one "current or recent
smoker" in this group of 10 jumps to 0.9570237417.

95.7%!!!! In other words, we are 95.7% confident that the results seen were
NOT brought about by random chance alone. What do you know. The
theory of cigarette tars capturing contagion before it has a chance to work
on the body were correct, at least for anthrax.

In layman's terms, do you suppose there's a protective effect from smoking against inhalation anthrax?

**Analysis courtesy of David MacLean, member of alt.smokers newsgroup**

Home